DOES ZECHARIAH
10:12
TEACH US THAT JESUS
IS YEHWEH?
Does Zechariah 10:12 where Yehweh the Almighty God is
the one speaking and says that, “they will look upon ME whom they
have PIERCED” prove that Almighty God is JESUS who was crucified
and then PIERCED with the sword on the cross by the Roman soldier to
see if he was DEAD?
In other words, does the FACT that Almighty God
himself said these words, “They will look upon ME whom they have
PIERCED” prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Almighty God the
Father HIMSELF was the ONE who suffered and died on the cross and was
PIERCED being God INCARNATE in the FLESH being FULLY ALMIGHTY God and
fully MAN at the SAME time?
Let us begin this study in God's word by reading this
verse in question being left in the CONTEXT of where it is found and
then we will COMPARE this verse with other SIMILAR verses like Romans
9:5, Acts 20:28, and Titus 4:3 where these verse SEEM to be saying
that Jesus is THE ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God.
Here is Zechariah 12:8-11.
“In
that day shall the LORD defend the
inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at
that day shall be as David; and
the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before
them.
9. And it shall come to pass
in that day,
that I will
seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10. And
I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and
of supplications: and they shall look upon ME
whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him,
as one mourns for his only son,
and shall be in bitterness for him,
as one that is in bitterness for his
firstborn.
11. In
that day shall there be a great
mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley
of Megiddon.”
First of all I want you to notice that this passage
of scripture is a PROPHECY or the SECOND coming of Jesus when the
Jews will recognize Jesus as their MESSIAH and then they will KNOW
that they have sinned against Almighty God Yehweh because their
fathers had PIERCED the SON OF Almighty God. They will look TO
Almighty God and GRIEVE for his SON Jesus knowing HOW that in the
SAME WAY Almighty God also grieved for HIS SON Jesus just as IF the
Father HIMSELF had been crucified on that cross and was PIERCED.
Let us read this same verse in question Zechariah
12:10 from some other translation of the Bible and this truth will
become clear to you.
Here is Zechariah 12:10 from the Bible in Basic
English (BBE).
“And I will send down on
the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem the spirit of
grace and of prayer; and their eyes will be TURNED
TO the one who was wounded by their hands:
and they will be weeping for him
AS for an only son,
and their grief for him
will be bitter, LIKE the grief of one
sorrowing for his oldest son.”
In this translation we do NOT see that Almighty God
the Father HIMSELF as being the ONE who was pierced of wounded. But
because of what many of us have been TAUGHT we can see and understand
HOW Almighty God was indeed wounded emotionally by the crucifixion of
his only begotten Son who was then PIERCED by the soldiers sword
after his Son willingly and obediently laid down his like at the
request of his God and Father for the sins of the world. In other
words, we can see how BOTH were PIERCE where Jesus the SON OF
Almighty God the Father was LITERALLY pierced and his God and Father
was wounded spiritually or emotionally loving his SON Jesus.
Here is Zechariah 12:10 from the Common English Bible
(CEB).
“but
I will pour out a spirit of grace and mercy on David's house and on
the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They
will look TO
me CONCERNNG
the one whom they pierced; they
will mourn over him like the mourning for an only child. They will
mourn bitterly over him like the bitter mourning over the death of an
oldest child.”
In this translation we can CLEARLY see that Jesus is
the ONE who was actually pierce, but they also realized HOW Almighty
God the Father must have felt as well so they will mourn in
repentance for the HURT they have caused Almighty God the Father by
their REJECTING God's SON and having Jesus crucified and pierced.
They mourn for Jesus whom they have pierced, but they ALSO turn to or
look TO Almighty God the Father for forgiveness for what they have
done realizing how much this hurt or wounded God by rejecting his
Messiah.
Here is Zechariah 12:10 from the New Revised Standard
Bible.
“And I
will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of
David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so
that, when they look on the ONE whom they have pierced,
they shall mourn for him,
as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him,
as one weeps over a firstborn.”
Now if you were reading this translation for the
first time ever reading this verse and you never heard the King James
Version ever before, then in all honesty I myself do NOT see Almighty
God HIMSELF as being the ONE who is PIERCED. But rather I see Jesus
the SON OF Almighty God as being the ONE who has been PIERCED. But
now that we have seen that BOTH were wounded where Jesus the SON OF
Almighty God was the ONE who was actually and literally PIERCED with
the spear of the Roman soldier and Almighty God was wounded as a
FATHER who just lost his only begotten Son. But more precisely God
was wounded because his chosen people REJECTED he Son as their
MESSIAH. This is WHY the LITERAL text has this sense or conveyed
meaning that Almighty God himself was wounded or HURT by his SON
Jesus being REJECTED.
Here is Zechariah 12:10 from the Message Bible.
“"Next I'll deal
with the family of David and those who live in Jerusalem. I'll pour a
spirit of grace and prayer over them. They'll
then be able to RECOGNIZE ME the One they
so GRIEVOUSLY wounded
- that piercing spear-thrust! And
they'll weep - oh, how they'll weep! Deep mourning as of a parent
grieving the loss of the firstborn child.”
Now I myself do not like paraphrased versions of the
Bible, because too many time ones OWN personal interpretation
interferes with the TRUE meaning of a verse. But in this case I
believe that translators got it right by clearly showing us that the
actual WOUND which Almighty God the Father received was that of GRIEF
and sorrow over his SON Jesus being crucified and PIERCED, which is
another way of saying that his Son Jesus was REJECTED as being the
Messiah.
Here is Zechariah 12:10 from the Wycliffe Bible.
“And I shall pour out on
the house of David, and on the dwellers of Jerusalem, the spirit of
grace, and of prayers; and they shall behold TO me, whom they
PRICKED. And they shall bewail him
with wailing, as on the one begotten son; and they shall make sorrow
on him,
as sorrow is wont to be made in the death of the first begotten son.
(And I shall pour out upon the house of David, and upon the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and the spirit of
prayer; and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced. And they
shall bewail me with wailing, as if over their only child; and they
shall make sorrow upon him, as sorrow is wont to be made upon the
death of the first-born son.)”
Now here in the Wycliffe translation we are given a
more LITERAL translation first follow by the accepted King James
version translation in parentheses to let us know that the latter is
not exactly what the literal Hebrew is truly saying.
There is Hebrew word which is not translated in any
Bible translation that I have come across, but this Hebrew word
means, and, with, together, and you as a sign of the accusative. In
other words, Almighty God the Father was wounded TOGETHER WITH his
SON Jesus when his Son was rejected as the Messiah and was crucified
and PIERCED. It was IF Almighty God the Father himself was the one
who was being pierce seeing his SON being pierced.
This is what this verse in Zechariah 12:10 actually
means and NOT that Almighty God the FATHER was the one who was
actually and literally PIERCED. Also this Hebrew word carries the
meaning of being the CAUSE OF something. This definition brought to
my remembrance when Almighty God destroyed the entire world with the
FLOOD saving only eight souls and then it GRIEVED God that he even
made mankind to begin with. So in the same way it was God's PLAN to
provide HIMSELF with and innocent pure LAMB to be slain, but then
when it all came to pass this GIVING of his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON really
WOUNDED, PRICKED, hurt and PIERCE him perhaps even more that it hurt
his SON Jesus.
Let us now continue this study in God's word by
looking at some other MISTAKEN IDENTITY verses that SEEM to be sating
that Almighty God the Father IS his SON Jesus.
Another verse used to teach the doctrine of the
trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Jesus is Romans 9:5.
“Whose are the fathers, and
of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God
blessed for ever. Amen.”
Now this verse can be INTERPRETED in four ways as I
myself see.
INTERPRETATION #1.
Jesus, the CHRIST, the Son of Almighty God the Father
can be INTERPRETED to be ALMIGHTY God HIMSELF, which is the way those
who teach the doctrine of the trinity and the doctrine of the deity
of Jesus INTERPRET this verse to mean.
INTERPRETATION
#2.
Jesus, the CHRIST, the Son of Almighty God can be
interpreted as being GOD who is over all, whom HIS God and Father
HGHLY EXALTED to become “A” god who is under and subject to his
God and Father the ALMIGHTY, and the one being blessed is Jesus who
will rule and reign in his Father's kingdom.
INTERPRETATION #3.
CHRIST can be interpreted
to mean the ANOINTING or the the ETERNAL SPIRIT that DWELT in the
HUMAN BODY of Jesus, and it is Almighty God the Father IN this body
of flesh that is over all who is the one being blessed forever. In
other words, CHRIST is NOT referring directly to the human Jesus, but
rather CHRIST is speaking of the ANOINTING OF Jesus where Almighty
God the Father himself actually DWELT IN his SON Jesus and it is
Almighty God who is the “THEOS” that is blessed forever.
INTERPRETATION #4.
Jesus the
CHRIST, the SON OF Almighty God the Father who has been HIGHLY
EXALTED and GIVEN authority and power over all BY HIS God and Father
THE ALMIGHTY God who is the one who receives all the glory to be
blessed forever.
Now I myself prefer interpretation #4, as being the
best interpretation, but I can also see interpretations #2, and #3
also being viable valid interpretations that do NOT CONTRADICT any
other part of God's word. Here is Romans 9:5 from the Good News
Translation that punctuates this verse to clearly show that all the
glory goes to Almighty God the Father, which AGREES with the rest of
God's word.
“they are
descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human
being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised
forever! Amen.”
Here in this translation, which supports
interpretation #4 it
is made clear that Jesus is NOT the ONE being called GOD, but rather
Almighty God the FATHER is being praised for sending his SON Jesus
the ANOINTED ONE.
But when interpretation # 1 is dogmatically taught as
being the ONLY way that this verse can be interpreted and therefore
means without fail that Jesus IS THE
ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God, then I myself see this interpretation
meaning that Jesus IS THE FATHER and I know that the whole word of
God does NOT teach us that Jesus is the FATHER.
Yes it is true that some translations like the God's
Word Translation make it so that this verse can ONLY be interpreted
that the MESSIAH is GOD over all. But please keep in mind that in the
original Greek text the ARTICLE that indicates the “THEOS” being
spoken of is “THE THEOS” of THE
God as in THE one and ONLY AMIGHTY God.
Romans 9:5 from the God's Word Translation.
“The Messiah is descended
from their ancestors according to his human nature. The Messiah is
God over everything, forever blessed. Amen.”
Please keep in mind that this is a paraphrase
translation, which does NOT translation word for word from the
original text. The reader must also understand that we are reading
TRANSLATIONS and it is up to the translator to place punctuation
where he or she feels explains the text the best. This is WHY there
are so many translations that seem to contradict each other.
Therefore when we come to verses that are in QUESTION we must go the
the original language and then compare scripture with scripture to
make sure that our conclusion that we draw does NOT contradict and
other part of God's word. And again I myself see interpretation #1
CONTRADICTING other parts of God's word.
Please read the study “IS JESUS ALMIGHTY GOD?”
for a deeper understand that YES Jesus IS GOD, but Jesus is NOT THE
ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God who ALONE is the FATHER. Also please
read the study “OUR GOD IS ONE!” which will give you a deeper
understanding that YEHWEH is THE God over all other gods including
his SON Jesus. But for now let us continue this study in God's word
by reading yet another verse that is used to try and support the
doctrine of the trinity.
Here is another verse of mistaken identity.
Please read Acts 20:28.
“Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has
made you overseers, to feed the church of God,
which HE has purchased with his OWN
blood.”
Now as I have said many times that ANY verse when
taken OUT of CONTEXT may SEEM to be saying something that it is NOT
TRULY saying. So then, in order to understand the TRUE meaning of
this verse we need to KEEP it in the CONTEXT of where it is found.
Please read Acts 20:17-30 where our Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel
is the main subject under discussion.
“And from Miletus he sent
to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (so
Paul is basically addressing the elders, the pastors, the shepherds
of the CHURCH that believes that Jesus was CRUCIFIED, DIED and then
raised again from the dead after three days.)
18. And when they were come
to him, he said unto them, You KNOW, from the first day that I came
into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
19. Serving the Lord with
all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which
befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: (here
we see that Paul was NOT preaching Judaism but rather he was
preaching the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ being the SON OF Almighty God
who DIED for our sins and was raised from the dead by the Spirit of
Almighty God the Father, because the Jews lied in wait to kill Paul
for what he preached.)
20. And how I kept back
nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have
taught you publicly, and from house to house,
21. Testifying both to the
Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance
toward God, AND
faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Here in
this verse Paul makes it blatantly CLEAR that Almighty God the Father
AND his SON Jesus are TWO SEPARATE persons.)
22. And now, behold, I go
bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall
befall me there:
23.
Save that the Holy Ghost witnesses in every city, saying that bonds
and afflictions abide me.
24. But none of these things
move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might
finish my course with joy, and the
MINISTRY, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the
gospel of the grace of God. (Here
again we clearly see TWO who are the Lord Jesus AND God who by his
grace GAVE us his SON Jesus that shed HIS blood for the remission of
sins. Also in the verse we again see the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ being
preached.)
25. And now, behold, I know
that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God,
shall see my face no more.
26. Wherefore I take you to
record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27. For I have not shunned
to declare unto you all the counsel of God. (Jesus
came NOT to speak of HIMSELF, but rather to show us the Father. Jesus
taught what his Father gave him to teach. All things BELONG to
Almighty God the Father who created ALL things FOR the SAKE of his
SON Jesus. Jesus came to redeem mankind back to HIS God and Father
the ALMIGHTY. Therefore the church BELONGS to Almighty God the Father
who will then GIVE the faithful to his SON Jesus in the world to
come. But now at this present time the CHURCH is OWNED by Almighty
God the Father.)
28. Take heed therefore
unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost
has made you overseers, to feed the CHURCH
OF God, which
HE has purchased with his OWN blood.
(Now I
myself believe that the HE here refers back to the main subject that
is being spoken of in this entire CONTEXT, which in Jesus Christ, who
according to the REST of God's word is the ONE who actually shed HIS
OWN blood to redeem us back to Almighty God the Father. I will
expound on this further after you finish reading the context of these
next few verses.)
29. For I know this, that
after my departing shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30. Also of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, (right
after the last apostle died there did indeed enter into the church
many PERVERSE PAGAN teachings that were MIXED with true Christianity)
to draw away disciples after them. (and
certain leaders of the church did indeed seek the POWER of ruling
over the flock as opposed to feeding the flock. And the Roman
Catholic church mixed many PAGAN teachings with Christianity. One
such PAGAN teaching was the pagan belief in a TRIUNE god)”
The first rule of interpretation is to keep the verse
in question in the CONTEXT of where it is found. We just did this and
it has helped SOME readers to see the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God.
But others may not be seeing the truth as yet. So then we must go to
the second rule of interpretation, which is the COMPARE scripture
with scripture to make sure that whatever interpretation one
concludes does NOT CONTRADICT any other part of God's word.
In other words, IF Almighty God literally shed his
OWN BLOOD, then that would mean that Almighty God HIMSELF must have a
flesh and BLOOD body or that Almighty God the Father must be a HUMAN
being himself. But we know from another part of God's word that God
is NOT a MAN.
Please read Numbers 23:19 where we are clearly and
plainly taught that Almighty God is NOT a MAN and NEITHER is God the
Son of MAN.
“God is NOT
a MAN, that he should lie; NEITHER
the son of MAN,
that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? Or has he
spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
Jesus is clearly called the MAN Jesus Christ and the
Son of MAN many times in the word of TRUTH the Holy Bible so
therefore since God is NOT a MAN nor the Son of MAN, then it should
be clear that Almighty God is NOT his SON Jesus.
Yes it is true that Jesus the Son of MAN came OUR
FROM Almighty God, but this does NOT dogmatically mean without fail
that Jesus HIMSELF IS FULLY THE ALMIGHTY God in the flesh and fully a
human being at the SAME time like the doctrine of the deity of Jesus
and the doctrine of the trinity dogmatically demand Christians to
believe if the want to be part of the church.
But yet nowhere in the entire word of TRUTH, the Holy
Bible do I myself find where we as Christians are commanded to
believe in a TRIUNE or TRINITY God. Now where are we taught clearly
and plainly to believe in THREE.
However, we are clearly and plainly taught that we
must believe is BOTH the Father AND in his SON Jesus, and if we do
NOT have the SON, then we do NOT have the Father.
Now let us read Acts 20:28 from a few other
translations to see the true meaning of this verse in question.
Here is Acts 20:28 from the Common English Bible
(CEB).
“Watch
yourselves and the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed
you as supervisors, to shepherd God's church (showing
that the church is OWNED by Almighty God the Father),
which he obtained with the death of his
OWN Son.”
Now this translation makes it blatantly CLEAR that
Jesus the SON OF Almighty God that Father is the Father's OWN BLOOD
meaning that Jesus is the TRUE SON OF Almighty God and that he was
NOT ADPOTED. Most of us do not consider that we OWN our children even
though we say that is MY child, but we do understand the term in
which our own BIOLOGICAL children are our OWN BLOOD. In other words,
if someone loose a child by a tragic death, then we can understand
when someone says that their OWN BLOOD was kill.
Here is Acts 20:28 from the Complete Jerusalem Bible
(CJB).
“Watch out for yourselves, and for all the flock
in which the Ruach HaKodesh has placed you as leaders, to shepherd
God's Messianic community (again
showing the church as God's possession or ownership),
which he won for himself at the cost
of his OWN Son's blood.”
In this translation we again see that it was NOT
Almighty God HIMSELF that shed his blood, but rather we clearly see
that it was God's OWN BLOOD, as in, being his OWN Son's blood.
Here is Acts 20:28 from the Lexham English Bible.
“Be on
guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy
Spirit has appointed you [as] overseers, to shepherd the church of
God which he obtained through the blood of HIS OWN [Son].”
Now the word “SON” is not actually in the
original Greek text but was added by the translators for clearer
understanding. But even if the word “SON” was left out we can
still clearly see that Almighty God the Father purchased or redeemed
the church with the blood OF his OWN meaning God's OWN RELATIVE that
was BEGOTTEN OF him.
Here is Acts 20:28 from the New Century Bible.
“Be careful for
yourselves and for all the people the Holy Spirit has given to you to
care for. You must be like shepherds to the church of God, which he
bought with the DEATH of his OWN son.”
Again in this translation we can clearly see that the
Father suffered the DEATH of his OWN in order to gain all of mankind
of WHOSOEVER BELIEVES that Jesus the SON OF Almighty God the Father
DIED for their sins.
Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to believe that
ALMIGHTY God the FATHER HIMSELF DIED for our sins by the shedding of
his OWN BLOOD.
But rather the OWN BLOOD here definitely is speaking
of the shed blood of Jesus the SON OF Almighty God who suffer the
temporary death of his OWN meaning his own SON, which is God's seed
or blood relative so to speak.
Here is Acts 20:28 from the Darby translation.
“Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the
flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd
the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of HIS
OWN.”
In this translation the translator does not add the
word “SON”, but it is certainly UNDERSTOOD by the CONTEXT and the
REST of God's word.
The TRUTH of the matter is that the doctrine of the
trinity has to be read INTO this verse and the meaning of Jesus being
Almighty God the father HIMSELF must be FORCED upon this verse, when
the WHOLE word of God is kept in view.
In Proverbs 8:22-35 we learn that Jesus, the SON OF
Almighty God the Father is OWNED by Almighty God. ALL creation
belongs to or is OWNED BY Almighty God the creator of all things.
Jesus speaking in the first person being a personification of wisdom
says that the Lord POSSESSED him in the beginning.
Here is Proverbs 8:22-31.
“The
Lord
(YHWH
Almighty God the owner and possessor of all, who we now know as the
Father)
possessed
(acquired,
owned, brought forth formed, created)
me
(Jesus
or more precisely the WORD)
in
the beginning of his way, before HIS
works
of old (speaking
of Almighty God's works).
I
(Jesus,
the SON in the form of his WORD) was
set
up
from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When
there were no depths, I (Jesus,
the SON in the form of his WORD) was
brought
forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before
the mountains
were settled, before the hills
was I (Jesus,
the SON, in the form of his WORD) brought
forth:
While as yet HE
(Almighty
God who we now know as the Father) had
not made the earth,
nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
When
HE
(Almighty
God who we know know as the Father) prepared
the heavens,
I (Jesus,
the SON, in the form of the WORD) was
there: when HE
(Almighty
God the Father) set
a compass upon the face of the depth:
When HE
(Almighty
God the Father) established
the clouds
above: when HE
(Almighty
God the Father) strengthened
the fountains of the deep.
When
HE
(Almighty
God the Father) gave
to the sea HIS
(God
the Father’s) decree,
that the waters should not pass HIS
(God
the Father’s) commandment:
when HE
(God
the Father) appointed
the foundations
of the earth:
Then I
(Jesus,
the SON in the form of the WORD) was
BY him,
(or with his Father, the Word was WITH God in the THOUGHTS of God or
came to be in existence as as result of God giving BIRTH to his FIRST
SPOKEN WORD to bring forth a SPIRIT being as his SON that God called
his WORD) as
one brought
up
with him: and I (Jesus,
the SON being in the form of the WORD whether that be the IMAGE of
God's THOUGHTS or and actual separate SPIRIT being) was
daily HIS
delight, rejoicing always before HIM;
Rejoicing in the habitable part of HIS
earth;
and my delights were with the sons of men.”
One
can readily see from this passage of scripture that Jesus himself is
saying that Almighty God the Father was behind all that was created
and that he, God's Son was there with his Father BEFORE
the FOUNDATIONS of the EARTH as God's delight rejoicing before
Almighty God IN
the inhabitable part of the EARTH that had NOT YET been CREATED.
So clearly to ME, Jesus as God's SON was with God at this time ONLY
in God's THOUGHTS, because HOW did Jesus rejoice before his God and
Father IN the inhabitable part of the EARTH when the earth had NOT
yet been created as yet EXCEPT in the MIND and the PLAN of ALMIGHTY
God.
You
know when Jesus said glorify me with the glory I had with you before
the world began Jesus could have been saying, I am getting ready to
go through a time very shortly Father that when I take on the sins of
the world and you are going to turn your back on me, so I pray that
you return me to the glorious delight that you had for me before the
world began and before I was ever BORN. You see, Jesus knew the
scriptures spoke of him. Jesus knew that he was the chosen one sent
by Almighty God to become that sacrifice for mankind because the
Spirit of God taught him morning by morning from the scriptures.
Jesus saw the END from the Scriptures, but he still had to BELIEVE.
And because of the joy that was set before Jesus he endured the cross
for us knowing that his God and Father is FAITHFUL to perform his
spoken word. So then, because Jesus became obedient even unto death
on the cross Almighty God HIGHLY EXALTED his Son and GAVE him a name
that is above every name.
Now
this passage of scripture in Proverbs chapter 8 does not shed any
light as to whether it was Jesus, the Son, or the Word, which has the
role of being the INSTRUMENT that GOD used in creation, but this
passage makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR that Almighty God the everlasting
Father was the designer, planner and the architect behind all that
was created and God’s Son was BY him, as in, brought into existence
BY Almighty God either as a separate Spirit being, or Jesus WITH God
when his
Father
created all things in the FORM of the WORD of Almighty God.
In
other words. to ME, Jesus, as the MAN a HUMAN being did NOT create
all things. Nor do I myself see that the SON of God created all
things by himself or in and of himself.
But
rather I myself see that Almighty God created all things by and
through his very own SPOKEN WORD with his Son Jesus in mind as one
COMING INTO BEING in the future. That is to say, Almighty God created
all things FOR the SAKE OF his Son Jesus who would be the FATHER of
ETERNAL LIFE producing many more sons and daughters into the kingdom
of hid Father's.
You
see, the Greek word “DIA” (#1223) that is translated as BY, also
means through, FOR,
BECAUSE OF, and FOR
the SAKE OF.
The
root meaning is the CHANNEL of an act. The reason for why the act was
made. The means of, The ground or reason by which something is done
or not done, By reason of, on account of, because of for this reason.
The
base meaning of the word "CHANNEL" is to direct something
towards something. The whole idea of to channel is direct everything
that one is channeling to a specific point or place. To channel is to
direct, to guide along some desired course. So then the ACT of
creation is DIRECTED towards the ETERNAL PURPOSE of Almighty God of
having a SON who would become the everlasting Father or more
precisely God's SON would become the Father or the beginning of
ETERNAL LIFE being the FIRST born from the dead among many brethren.
Almighty God the Father is the POSSESSOR of ALL
including his very own begotten SON Jesus.
This brings us to the last scripture in this study
where Jesus is MISTAKENLY interpreted to be ALMIGHTY God the Father
himself. Please read Titus 4:3.
“But
after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man
appeared,”
Now when one skims over this verse it SEEMS to be
saying that ALMIGHTY God the Father our savior HIMSELF appeared to
mankind.
But when carefully read this verse you can clearly
see that it is the LOVE OF God our Savior which Almighty God has
TOWARD mankind that has APPEARED. Please read this verse again with
some emphasis added to make it clearer.
“But after that the
kindness and LOVE OF
God our Savior TOWARD
man appeared,”
Now let us read this same verse from some other
translations.
Here is Titus 3:4 from the American Standard Version.
“But when the kindness of
God our Savior, and his LOVE TOWARD
man, appeared,”
Here is Titus 3:4 from the Basic English Bible.
“But when the mercy of God
our Saviour, and his love to man was seen,”
Here is Titus 3:4 from the Complete Jerusalem Bible.
“But when the
kindness and love FOR mankind OF
God our Deliverer was revealed,”
There are other verses where Almighty God is Savior
and Jesus the SON OF Almighty God is Savior, which are used by those
who teach the doctrine of the trinity and the deity of Jesus to try
and prove that Jesus is THE ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God HIMSELF.
Please read the study “Ephesians 3:9-11 – DID JESUS CREATE ALL
THINGS?” for a deeper understanding that Almighty God is the
designer and creator of all things which he created FOR the SAKE of
his SON Jesus.
Thanks for reading. May God bless you richly as you
continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mark.
RETURN TO
HOMEPAGE
AT
AmatterOfTruth.com
Verses used to try and support the doctrine of
the trinity.
Genesis
1:26--- Let us make man in our image.
Genesis
19:24--- YHWH rained down fire... from YHWH.
Isaiah
6:3--- Holy, Holy, Holy.
Isaiah
7:14--- Call his name Immanuel (meaning God with us)
Isaiah
9:6--- Mighty God, Everlasting Father.
Isaiah
48:16--- The Lord and his Spirit has sent me (trinity)
Micah
5:2--- From everlasting.
Zechariah
12:10--- Look upon me whom they have pierced.
Matthew
1:23--- Emmanuel, being interpreted God with us.
Matthew
28:19---In the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
John
1:1--- And the Word was God.
John
2:19-22--- Jesus raised himself from the dead.
John
5:18--- Making himself equal with God.
John
8:24--- If you do not believe I am [he], you shall die...
John
8:58--- Before Abraham was, I am.
John
10:30--- I and my Father are one.
John
14:19--- He who has seen me has seen the Father.
John
20:28--- My Lord and my God.
Acts
20:28--- He has purchased with his own blood.
Romans
9:5--- Christ came...God blessed forever.
2
Corinthians 13:14---Trinity
Ephesians
3:9-11---DID JESUS CREATE ALL THINGS?
Colossians
2:9--- Godhead.
Philippians
2:6---Thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
1
Timothy 3:16--- God was manifest in the flesh.
Titus
2:13--- Looking for... our great God and Savior Jesus...
Hebrews
1:8--- Your throne O' God.
1
John 5:7--- And these three are one.
1
John 5:20--- Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God...
2
Peter 2:1--- God and our Savior Jesus Christ.
2
Peter 3:18--- Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Isaiah 43:11)
Revelation
1:8--- I am Alpha and Omega...the Almighty.
Revelation
1:17--- First and the Last (Isaiah 44:6)
Revelation
17:14--- WHO IS THE KING OF KINGS
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/isa-4816.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1461121/posts
=====================================================================================================================
WHO IS MELCHIZEDEK?
Assurety
Some Christians teach that Melchizedek is the pre-incarnate Jesus
Christ. In other words, some interpret the verses concerning the high
priest Melchizedek as being the Son of Almighty God BEFORE he became
God incarnate when Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. That is to say,
some interpret Melchizedek to be a MANIFESTATION of either Almighty
God the Father or his Son Jesus to APPEAR as a MAN who was NOT
actually BORN, but rather he was a manifestation much like an angel
can appear as a man to LOOK LIKE a man, but is not actually a human
being.
Other
Christians teach that Melchizedek being a manifestation of Jesus is
not possible because the Bible clearly says that Jesus is a high
priest AFTER the ORDER of Melchizedek showing us that they are TWO
distinct separate persons. They also say that Melchizedek cannot be a
manifestation of Almighty God the Father either, because he was the
high priest OF the most high God.
Now
those who agree and teach this second point of view mostly teach that
Melchizedek was a MAN just like the Bible says that he is, but there
are some who just cannot accept that Melchizedek is a MAN, because of
Hebrews 7:3 which they INTERPRET that Melchizedek was NOT BORN.
“ Without father, without mother, without
descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;
but made LIKE
unto the Son of God; abides a priest continually.”
We
will get back to this verse further on in this study, but for now
those who do NOT believe that Melchizedek is the preincarnate Jesus,
or that Melchizedek is a manifestation of Almighty God the Father, or
that Melchizedek is a MAN say that Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit
seeing that Jesus is NOT Melchizedek and Almighty God the Father the
MOST HIGH is NOT Melchizedek, nor is Melchizedek a MAN. Therefore
they REASON or conclude that Melchizedek MUST BE the Holy Spirit is
based upon where the scripture says that Melchizedek is without
descent, without beginning and without end, because only God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are COETERNAL persons or
beings.
Let
us read the verses where Melchizedek in mentioned in the Bible to
learn if Melchizedek is:
#1.
Almighty God the Father himself.
#2.
Jesus, the Son of the most high God.
#3.
The Holy Spirit.
#4.
Or a man, a human being, who was made to be a high priest of the mist
high God by Almighty God himself.
My
understanding is that most Christians AGREE that Melchizedek is NOT
the MOST HIGH God, Almighty God the Father HIMSELF, because
Melchizedek is a HIGH PRIEST OF
the most high God. Therefore the only other three remaining options
are the ones that I listed above, with the exception of Melchizedek
being an ANGEL who APPEARED as a MAN. With that being said let us now
read all the passages of scripture where Melchizedek is mentioned.
Genesis
14:18 says,
“And
Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was
the
priest OF the most high God.”
(So here we see that Melchizedek cannot be Almighty God himself,
because Melchizedek is the high priest OF
the most high God.)
Psalm
110: Says,
“The LORD (Yehweh)
said unto my Lord (Jesus
being made to be a Lord), Sit you at my
right hand, until I (Almighty
God your God and Father) make your
enemies your footstool. (This
is a PROPHECY of Jesus, the yet still coming SON OF Almighty God when
this prophecy was first written, whom Yehweh or Jehovah prophesied to
bring forth by his spoken word to the virgin Mary. But more precisely
this is a prophecy of Jesus during his yet future 1000 year reign in
his Father kingdom where his God and Father, the Almighty himself,
will subdue all his enemies to the feet of his Son Jesus his anointed
one, who will sit at the right hand of
Almighty God the Father.)
2.
The LORD (Yehweh)
shall send the rod of your strength out of Zion: rule
you in the midst of your enemies.
(again
speaking of Jesus ruling with a rod of iron over the nations of the
world who are left after the initial wrath of Almighty God executed
by his Son Jesus)
3.
Your people
(speaking of the Jews that Almighty God will give to his Son Jesus
saying YOUR people) shall be willing in
the day of your power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of
the morning: you have the dew of your youth.
4.
The LORD (Yehweh)
has sworn, and will not repent, You (referring
to Jesus the Son of Almighty God the Father)
are a priest for ever AFTER the
ORDER OF Melchizedek.
(this shows
us that the ORDER of the PRIESTHOOD of Melchizedek, which is being a
priest of the MOST HIGH God was already established. In other words,
this passage of scripture means that the priesthood or the ORDER OF
the priesthood, which Melchizedek was a priest already existed before
Jesus was made to be a HIGH PRIEST AFTER
or in the same fashion or in the same ORDER as the priest
Melchizedek. Now to ME personally this fact alone clearly teaches us
that Jesus is NOT Melchizedek.)
5.
The Lord at your right hand shall strike through kings in the day of
his wrath. (this
is a prophecy of Jesus being the one who will execute the wrath of
Almighty God the Father, which the Father committed into the hands of
his Son to do.)
6. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill
the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many
countries.
7.
He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up
the head.”
Then
we read in Hebrews chapter 5 that Jesus was made to be a high priest
between man and Almighty God the Father after he became obedient unto
death on the cross. In other words, Jesus did NOT exalt HIMSELF to be
a high priest, but rather this honor was GIVEN unto Jesus by his God
and Father the most high God.
“For
EVERY
high priest taken from
among MEN is ordained for
men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and
sacrifices for sins:
2. Who can have
compassion on the ignorant, and on
them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed
with infirmity. (The
Bible to ME clearly teaches us that Jesus was a MAN who was tempted
in ALL points just like we are tempted so that he can KNOW the
feelings of our weakness and have compassion to be a good and
faithful high priest between Almighty God and mankind. And in verse
one we clearly see that EVERY high priest is taken or chosen to be a
high priest NOT from the rank of ANGELS, but rather EVERY high priest
is select FROM AMONG the HUMAN race and more specifically the MALE.
Now to ME, the word of TRUTH makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was
indeed a HIGH PRIEST and seeing that the word of TRUTH also clearly
states that EVERY high priest is taken from AMONG MEN, then to ME
this means that Melchizedek AND Jesus were BOTH MEN born as HUMAN
BEINGS.)
3.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for
himself, to offer for sins.
4.
And no MAN
takes this honor unto himself, but he
that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5.
So ALSO Christ glorified NOT himself to be MADE an high priest; but
he (speaking
of Almighty God himself) that said unto
him (his SON
Jesus speaking forth a PROPHECY of his yet coming Son calling things
that are not yet come into being as though they already are),
You are my Son, TODAY
have I begotten you.(The
phrase “TODAY have I BEGOTTEN you” clearly teaches us that the
SON OF Almighty God did indeed have a BEGINNING on a certain
DAY
in which he was BEGOTTEN or brought forth into existence where he had
never been BEGOTTEN of brought forth before. Please see the study
“DID JESUS HAVE A BEGINNING” for a deeper understanding that the
HUMAN Jesus did indeed have a BEGINNING and that Jesus the SON OF
Almighty God the Father was MADE to be both Lord and Christ BY his
God and Father the MOST HIGH and ONLY ALMIGHTY God.)
6.
As he said also in another place, You are a priest for ever AFTER
the ORDER OF Melchizedek.
(This verse
clearly teaches us that the ORDER OF this PRIESTHOOD in which
Melchizedek was a priest had already existed BEFORE Jesus was even
PROPHESIED to be a priest AFTER that same ORDER. So it is MORE about
this particular ORDER OF PRIESTHOOD than it is about the MAN
Melchizedek who was a priest is the ORDER OF PRIESTHOOD.)
7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered
up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him
that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he
feared;
8.
Though he were a Son,
yet LEARNED he OBEDIENCE by the
things which he suffered;
9.
And being made
perfect, he became
the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10.
Called of
God an high priest AFTER
the ORDER OF
Melchizedek.
11.
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing
you are dull of hearing.
12.
For when for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that
one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of
God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong
meat.
13.
For every one that uses milk is unskilful in the word of
righteousness: for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongs to them that are of full
age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to
discern both good and evil.”
Then
in Hebrew 6:20 we read were Jesus has gone before us being our high
priest AFTER the ORDER OF Melchizedek.
“Whither
the forerunner
is for us entered, even Jesus, made
an high priest for ever AFTER the
ORDER OF Melchizedek.”
So
from these verses we clearly see that Jesus was CALLED to be a high
priest BY his God and Father the most high God. And we see that Jesus
even though he was the SON OF Almighty God the Father still needed to
learn to become OBEDIENT in all that his God and father sent his Son
to do in order to be found worthy to be MADE a high priest FOREVER
AFTER this particular ORDER OF PRIESTHOOD, which the MAN Melchizedek
was ALSO a priest in this same ORDER OF PRIESTHOOD.
And
finally in Hebrews chapter 7 we read that the MAN Jesus was made
AFTER the SIMILITUDE a high priest of the MAN Melchizedek.
“For
this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest
OF the most high God, who
met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed
him;
2.
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by
interpretation King of righteousness (Which
ALSO means my king who is righteous. You see, Melchizedek
or Malki Tzedek in the original Hebrew can also be translated as my
king (is) righteous(ness) or my righteous king.),
and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; (some
Christians reason that since Jesus is called the PRINCE of PEACE,
then this proves without a doubt that Jesus and Melchizedek were ONE
and the SAME person. But I have to disagree, because of all the
plain, clear and simple evidence of these TWO being COMPARED to each
other. Jesus was made to be a high priest AFTER the ORDER OF
Melchizedek who the Bible says was a MAN in verse 4. Your see, the
Greek word “TAXIS” that is translated as “ORDER” suggests a
similar
“arrangement.”
For example, just
as
Melchizedek was BOTH a king AND a priest simultaneously, so ALSO was
Jesus Christ as well. Please see Zechariah 6:12-13 and Hebrews 1:3.
Also the preposition “KATA” is used with the accusative case
which suggests the sense of “in accordance with, corresponding to”
that clearly shows us that two things are being COMPARED with each
other. So to ME all this sound Biblical evidence or COMPARISON
clearly shows me that Jesus and Melchizedek are NOT one and the same
person. Many other Christians can see this truth as well, but some
Christians stumble of the next verse and therefore conclude that
Melchizedek MUST without fail be either Almighty God the Father
himself, his Son Jesus, the Holy Spirit or an ANGEL.)
3. Without father,
without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days,
nor end of life; but made
LIKE unto the Son of God;
abides a priest continually.
4.
Now consider how great this MAN
was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the
spoils.
5.
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office
of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people
according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though
THEY come out of the loins of Abraham:
6.
But he whose DESCENT is not counted from
THEM received tithes of Abraham,
and blessed him that had the promises.
7.
And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8.
And here men that die receive tithes;
but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.
(to ME this
is an analogy between Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18 and Jesus is Psalm
110 where Jesus is the one who is witnessed to LIVE forever as a high
priest AFTER the ORDER OF the PRIESTHOOD in which Melchizedek was a
priest but DIED as ALL men are appointed to do at least once. The
reason I say this is because I myself can find nowhere in the OLD
Testament where these words are actually spoken so it is quite sure
that the author is not quoting the Old testament. And even if some
lost book of the Bible is found where a verse speaking these words
were found I am quite confident that the would be a PROPHECY or a
type and shadow of the coming Son of Almighty God and NOT the MAN
Melchizedek himself who was an IMMORTAL being. The phase “it is
witnessed that he LIVES” to ME is speaking of Jesus and NOT the man
Melchizedek.)
9.
And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, payed tithes in
Abraham.
10.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.
11.
If therefore perfection were BY the
Levitical PRIESTHOOD, (for under it
the people received the law,) what further need was there that
another priest should rise AFTER the
ORDER OF Melchizedek, and NOT
be called after
the order of Aaron?
12.
For the PRIESTHOOD being CHANGED,
there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
(so then,
from these verses we clearly see that it is MORE about the DIFFERENT
PRIESTHOODS that are being compared more so that the MAN Melchizedek
and the MAN Jesus Christ. Although they too are also being compared
as well.)
13.
For he of whom these things are spoken pertains to another tribe, of
which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang
out of Juda; of which tribe Moses
spoke nothing concerning priesthood.
(this means
that the PRIESTHOOD of Melchizedek has NO
DESCENT.
That is to say this ORDER of PRIESTHOOD which BOTH the MAN
Melchizedek and the MAN Jesus Christ were made to be a priest did NOT
obtain this PRIESTHOOD by DESCENT. In other words they BOTH
Melchizedek AND Jesus were without mother or father or genealogy that
QUALIFIED OTHER ORDERS of priesthood such as the Levitical order
where DESCENT was mandatory. That is to say this order of priesthood
in which Melchizedek AND Jesus were a priest was NOT handed down
through genealogy or descent. To say this another way BOTH Jesus and
Melchizedek did indeed have a mother and a father, but the PRIESTHOOD
ITSELF is obtained WITHOUT the qualification of DESCENT or the
genealogy of having a mother or father in the LINE or this ORDER of
PRIESTHOOD.)
15.
And it is yet far more evident: for
that AFTER
the SIMILITUDE of
Melchizedek here arises ANOTHER
priest, (this
verse clearly teaches us that Jesus is NOT ONE and the SELFSAME MAN
as Melchizedek, but rather Jesus in some ways is very SIMILAR to
Melchizedek. Or more precisely the PRIESTHOOD itself should be what
is being COMPARED and not so much the two priests, Jesus and
Melchizedek. In other words, it is the SAME PRIESTHOOD to which BOTH
Melchizedek AND Jesus BOTH belonged. And also there are SIMILARITIES
as well between the two in that BOTH were kings and priests. So then
Jesus arose AFTER Melchizedek to be ANOTHER priest in this SAME ORDER
of priesthood.)
16.
Who is made,
not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an
endless life. (again
Jesus is the ONLY MAN who has ever been given ETERNAL LIFE up to this
present day for you see no other man or human being will be given
their reward of eternal life UNTIL the second coming of Jesus)
17.
For (or
because) he testifies, You (speaking
of Jesus the Son of Almighty God the Father)
are a priest for ever
AFTER
the ORDER OF Melchizedek.
(again
quoting Psalm 110 meaning that Jesus is NOT one and the same person
as the man Melchizedek but rather Jesus has risen to be ANOTHER
priest after the SIMILITUDE of Melchizdek.)
18.
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before
for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19.
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better
hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20.
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made
priest: (then
the writer quotes the prophecy written in Psalm 110 in the next
verse)
21. (For those priests [speaking
of ALL the Old Testament priest including Melchizedek]
were made without an oath;
but this [clearly
speaking of Jesus and NOT Melchizedek]
WITH an oath
by him that said unto him, The Lord swore and will not repent, You
are a priest for ever
AFTER the ORDER OF Melchizedek:)
22.
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. (in
other words, because of this fact that Jesus was made to be a high
priest FOREVER by an OATH made by Almighty God HIMSELF give us an
ASSURITY of a BETTER TESTAMENT.)
23.
And they (including
Melchizedek) truly were many priests,
because they were not suffered to
continue by reason of DEATH: (In
other words, there is a DIFFERENCE between Jesus and Melchizedek in
that Almighty God the Father made an OATH confirming that his SON
Jesus would be the LAST priest FOREVER between God and mankind. This
again teaches us that Jesus is NOT one and the same man as
Melchizedek because were are clearly told in verse 23 that
Melchizedek died along with all the other priests in the past. Jesus
is the ONLY man who has ever been GIVEN IMMORTALITY up to this point
in time. Please see John 5:26,27 and 1 Timothy 6:14-16. Therefore
Melchizedek being a MAN had to have DIED even though the writer of
Hebrews SEEMS to be saying in Hebrews 7:8 that he LIVES. To me this
is a PROPHECY of the COMING high priest who will be given this
priesthood FOREVER and not Melchizedek himself. Also I myself can not
find these words anywhere in the OLD Testament. So the writer of
Hebrews to ME is NOT actually quoting the Old Testament, but rather
is drawing his own analogy between Genesis chapter 14 and verse 8
being compared to Psalms 110.)
24.
But this MAN
(speaking of
Jesus), because
he continues ever, has an
unchangeable priesthood.
25.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come
unto God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them.
26.
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27. Who needs not
daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his
own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he
offered up himself.
28.
For the law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but
the word of the OATH, which was since the law, makes the Son, who is
consecrated for evermore.”
So
then, the question at hand is: “Is Melchizedek a theophany of Jesus
Christ, or a manifestation of Jesus himself in the Old Testament
being seen as a MAN?” What is a theophany? Simply put a theophony
is God appearing in human form. You see, since God is an INVISIBLE
SPIRIT who cannot ever be see with human eyes, then the only way for
God to be actually SEEN is for God to APPEAR or MANIFEST himself in a
VISIBLE human form. This is what the term theophany means. The atual
word “theophany” comes from Greek “theos” meaning God plus
the Greek word “phainein” or “phan”, which means to show ro
reveal. Thus combined they from the word “theophany”, which again
simply means that God appeared in human
form.
So
then the question at hand is Melchizedek a “theophany” or God
appearing in a human form? In other words, do these verses prove
beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus is COETERNAL with Almighty
God the Father who is ALSO a divine eternal being who is without
BEGINNING, WITHOUT end of LIFE and therefore PREEXISTED in the Old
Testament as Melchizedek the high priest to the most high God?
Now
the main verses in question are found in Hebrews 7:2,3 and verse 8,
which says that Melchizedek was WITHOUT father, without mother,
without descent having neither BEGINNING of DAYS, nor END of LIFE or
who LIVES.
2. To whom also
Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King
of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King
of peace;
3. Without
father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of
days, nor end of life;
but made LIKE unto the Son of God; abides a priest continually....
8. And here men that die receive tithes;
but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he LIVES.”
Now
as we have already discussed within the comments of these verses that
being without mother or father simply means that the ORDER OF
PRIESTHOOD in which the MAN Melchizedek was a priest did NOT have as
a qualifying mandate a GENEALOGY. In other words, Melchizedek did Not
have to have a mother of father who were is the LINE of LINAGE of
this ORDER of PREIESTHOOD like the Levitical priesthood.
And
having neither beginning of days nor end of life simply means that in
this particular ORDER OF PRIESTHOOD there was no certain AGE in which
one needed to be before he became a priest nor was there a maximum
age in which their priesthood ended. They were made a priest until
they died in this particular ORDER of PRIESTHOOD.
Now
for those of you who may not agree with these interpretations of the
priesthood itself as having no DESCENT or ending there still remains
all the clear plain and simple evidence of the COMPARISON between the
TWO separate individual human beings of Melchizedek and Jesus.
Keep
in mind that ONLY Jesus was made a high priest FOREVER by the OATH of
his God and Father the one true and ONLY ALMIGHTY MOST HIGH God.
The
sound Biblical EVIDENCE clearly teaches us that Melchizedek was a
MAN. So therefore he was NOT and ANGEL.
Hebrews
5:1 clearly teaches us that EVERY priest is chosen from among MEN and
NOT ANGELS.
“For
EVERY
high priest taken from
among MEN
is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer
both gifts and sacrifices for sins:”
This would also include Jesus as well being a MAN since
Jesus the SON OF Almighty God was made to be a high priest OF
Almighty God. Now there is no doubt that Melchizedek was a TYPE or a
SHADOW or a FIGURE OF Jesus PROPHESYING the coming of Jesus, but I
myself find no sound Biblical evidence to support the dogmatic
teaching that Jesus PREEXISTED as the MAN Melchizedek in the Old
Testament. Therefore I conclude that Melchizedek is NOT a theophany
or a MANIFESTATION of God APPEARING in human form in the Old
Testament.
I personally believe that Melchizedek was a MAN just
like the word of TRUTH says that he was in Hebrews 5:1-5.
“For
EVERY
high priest taken from
among MEN is ordained for
men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and
sacrifices for sins:
2. Who can have
compassion on the ignorant, and on
them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed
with infirmity. (The
Bible to ME clearly teaches us that Jesus was a MAN who was tempted
in ALL points just like we are tempted so that he can KNOW the
feelings of our weakness and have compassion to be a good and
faithful high priest between Almighty God and mankind. And in verse
one we clearly see that EVERY high priest is taken or chosen to be a
high priest NOT from the rank of ANGELS, but rather EVERY high priest
is select FROM AMONG the HUMAN race and more specifically the MALE.
Now to ME, the word of TRUTH makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was
indeed a HIGH PRIEST and seeing that the word of TRUTH also clearly
states that EVERY high priest is taken from AMONG MEN, then to ME
this means that Melchizedek AND Jesus were BOTH MEN born as HUMAN
BEINGS.)
3.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for
himself, to offer for sins.
4.
And no MAN
takes this honor unto himself, but he
that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5.
So ALSO Christ glorified NOT himself to be MADE an high priest; but
he (speaking
of Almighty God himself)
that said unto him (his
SON Jesus speaking forth a PROPHECY of his yet coming Son calling
things that are not yet come into being as though they already are),
You are my Son, TODAY
have I begotten you.(The
phrase “TODAY have I BEGOTTEN you” clearly teaches us that the
SON OF Almighty God did indeed have a BEGINNING on a certain
DAY
in which he was BEGOTTEN or brought forth into existence where he had
never been BEGOTTEN of brought forth before. Please see the study
“DID JESUS HAVE A BEGINNING” for a deeper understanding that the
HUMAN Jesus did indeed have a BEGINNING and that Jesus the SON OF
Almighty God the Father was MADE to be both Lord and Christ BY his
God and Father the MOST HIGH and ONLY ALMIGHTY God.)”
Again
I encourage you to read the study “DID JESUS HAVE A BEGINNING?”
along with the study called “WAS JESUS one of the THREE who visited
Abraham?”
Thanks
for reading. May God bless you richly as you continue to seek the
truth of the whole word of Almighty God. Below are some other verses
that are used to try and support the doctrine of the trinity. If one
or more of these verses seem to be a stronghold that you can only see
as meaning that Almighty God is a trinity, then I encourage your to
read those studies as well, because ANY verse when taken OUT of
CONTEXT and viewed ALONE and APART for the REST of God's word may
SEEM to be saying something that it is NOT truly saying.
Your
brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mark.
RETURN
TO HOMEPAGE
AT
AmatterOfTruth.com
…..............................................
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/356-was-melchizedek-the-preincarnate-christ
“Some allege that the mysterious ‘Melchizedek,’ whom
Abraham met when returning from the rescue of Lot, was a physical
manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ. Would you comment on
this?”
It certainly is true that there were numerous pre-incarnate (i.e.,
“before the flesh”) appearances of the Lord Jesus during Old
Testament times (see: "A Brief Study of “The Angel of
Jehovah”".) However, “Melchizedek” was not one of
them, even though some, e.g., Ambrose of Milan (A.D. 340-397), and a
few modern commentators, have so contended. But the distinction
between these individuals is evident from the various biblical
expressions comparing them.
Christ was a priest of God after the “order of Melchizedek”
(Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,17). The word “order”
(taxis) signifies an “arrangement.” In this connection,
it means “of similar arrangement,” i.e., the nature of, or “just
like Melchizedek” (Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p.
989). The meaning is this: in some sense the kingly-priesthood of
Jesus would be similar in nature to that of Melchizedek. Note
the reference to Psalm 110:4 above, and observe that Christ made the
application of this Psalm to himself in Matthew 22:43-45.
Similarly, when the writer of Hebrews notes that Melchizedek
was made “like unto the Son of God” (7:3), he makes a clear
distinction between the two. Also observe the term “likeness” in
7:15. Melchizedek’s regal priesthood was providentially prepared
to pre-figure that of Christ — a marvelous example of Heaven’s
preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Again, though, this
comparison between Melchizedek and Christ negates the identification
of them as being the same individual.
Twice the inspired writer uses the word “another”
(heteros) to demonstrate a comparison between the illustrious
Old Testament priest, and the Son of God (Hebrews 7:11,15). The term
“another” indicates they were not the same in identity.
Melchizedek was a “type” of Christ, that is, certain features
of his divine service (his reign as king and his function as a
priest) were an Old Testament visual aid; a prophetic preview of
various aspects of Jesus’ role, but these two men were not the same
person.
“What does the writer of Hebrews mean
when he said that Melchizedek was ‘without father, without mother,
without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,
but made like unto the Son of God, abides a priest continually’”
(Hebrews 7:3)?
It is this rather enigmatic description that has led some to adopt
unusual views with reference to the Old Testament priest-king. None
of the expressions in Hebrews 7:3 is to be assigned a literal
meaning. Rather, they are terms that depict the nature of
Melchizedek’s priesthood, in contrast to the Aaronic priesthood, as
such prevailed under the Mosaic regime. A careful consideration of
the context is essential in the interpretation of these expressions.
It was not that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother”
literally, or that he had no genealogical background. No, the truth
being conveyed was this. Whereas the Aaronic priesthood resulted from
being a part of a family line, i.e., the descendants of Aaron,
Moses’ brother, the priesthood of Melchizedek was bestowed directly
by God. And it was precisely in this manner that the Lord Jesus was
appointed as our High Priest; he did not inherit it by means of a
physical lineage (cf. Hebrews 7:14).
There is an interesting text from one of the Amarna letters (more
than 350 clay tablets from the Royal Egyptian archives, cir.
1400-1360 B.C.) that illustrates this matter. These letters were
produced by scribes in Canaan, Phoenicia, and southern Syria. In one
of these letters (No. 286) there is the claim of Abdu-Heba, king of
Urusalim [Jerusalem], which says: “Behold, as for me, it was not my
father and not my mother who set me in this place; the arm of the
mighty king brought me into the house of my father!” (James B.
Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East, Princeton: University
Press, 1958, Vol. I, pp. 269-270). This is not to suggest that
Abdu-Heba was Melchizedek, only that the circumstance of
bestowal in the former’s case is strikingly similar to the language
regarding Melchizedek.
Melchizedek was not without physical parents; the reality was, he
did not owe his position to them. The same was true with reference to
Christ. It was not his Hebrew lineage that brought him to the
priesthood; it was by means of a direct appointment of Jehovah.
Nor is the phrase, “having neither beginning of days nor end of
life,” to be pressed literally. Surely no one contends that
Melchizedek is still alive somewhere upon the earth! Here is the
reality of the situation.
According to the biblical record, the Levitical priests served in
the tabernacle from the time they were 25 years of age, until they
were 50 (Numbers 8:24-25), but no such limit is suggested in the
scripture record regarding Melchizedek. As far as the Genesis
narrative reveals, there was neither beginning nor end to his
administration. And, as F.F. Bruce observed, in this respect “the
silences of the Scripture were as much due to divine inspiration as
were its statements” (The Epistle to the Hebrews — Revised,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, p. 160).
In the case of Christ, our “High
Priest” (this designation being used 17 times in the epistle to the
Hebrews), the Lord will serve in this capacity throughout the span of
his entire reign, until such fades into that eternal administration
(cf. Revelation 5:13b). And the effect of Jesus’ heavenly
priesthood will be unending! All of earth’s redeemed will praise
him eternally.
“Was Melchizedek the preincarnate Christ?”
No, Melchizedek was not the same person as Jesus, contrary to a
rather popular notion that stems from a misunderstanding of certain
passages in Hebrews 7.
Melchizedek is first mentioned in Genesis 14. Abram (later called
Abraham), returning from the rescue of his nephew (Lot), encountered
this ancient dignitary who was king of Salem (early Jerusalem; cf.
Psa. 76:2).
In addition to being king, he was described as “priest of God
Most High” (Gen. 14:18).
His stature is revealed in that he “blessed” Abraham (the
greater always blesses the lesser), and to Melchizedek the patriarch
paid tithes, i.e., gave to the king-priest a tenth of his spoils (the
lesser tithes to the greater).
The writer of Hebrews uses this incident (together with a prophecy
from Psalm 110), to demonstrate the superiority of the priesthood of
Christ to that of the Levitical system (Heb. 7:4-10). Beyond that,
there were some similarities between Melchizedek and Christ, so that
it may be said that the former was a “type” (a picture or
symbolic preview) of Jesus. That does not mean, however, that they
were the same person. In fact, the sacred text
indicates otherwise.
Christ was said to be a priest “after kata
the order taxis
of” Melchizedek (Heb.
5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11).
The Greek term taxis
(order) suggests
a similar “arrangement.” For example, just as Melchizedek was
both a king and priest simultaneously, so Christ is as well (cf.
Zech. 6:12-13; Heb. 1:3).
The preposition kata
used with the
accusative case suggests the sense of “in accordance with,
corresponding to” (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, p. 377). Hence a
comparison is being drawn.
Melchizedek was “without father, without
mother” (Heb. 7:3a).
The meaning is this: his divine role was not genealogically
derived, not handed down from his parents. So, neither was
Jesus’ priesthood determined by a physical lineage, as in the case
of the Aaronic priests (Ex. 28:1; Num. 3:10).
Among the Tel el Armarna tablets (discovered in Egypt in 1887),
there are several letters written to a Pharaoh from one Ebed-tob, who
is called “king of Uru-Salim.” The Canaanite king tells the
Egyptian ruler that he did not receive his reign from his father and
mother, but it had been conferred upon him by “the Mighty King.”
This helps to illustrate the phraseology in the book of Hebrews (see
A.H. Sayce, “Melchizedek,” Dictionary of the Bible,
James Hastings, Ed., Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1908, III, p. 335).
Melchizedek’s administration was without
“beginning of days” and “end of life” (Heb. 7:3b).
Again, the meaning is that his priesthood was not for a fixed
term (as in the case of the Levitical priests). Under the
Old Testament regime, priests began their service at the age of 30,
and the Levites served from age 30 to 50 (cf. Num. 4:3ff; 8:24-25).
Apparently, however, there was no chronological limitation with
reference to this “priest of Most High God” who reigned in Salem.
Again, in this regard he foreshadowed Christ, who serves continually
as our priest throughout the Christian age.
That Melchizedek was not the same person
as Jesus is evident in that he is said to be “like unto” the Son
of God (Heb. 7:3c).
The participle aphomoioo
denotes a
comparison (e.g., a “copy” or “facsimile” – J.H. Thayer,
Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, pp.
89-90). The term becomes irrelevant if the two persons were the same
in identity.
The point is made again in verse 15. Jesus is a priest after the
“likeness” of Melchizedek. D.W. Burdick observes:
“The verb aphomoioo
always
assumes two distinct and separate identities, one of which is a copy
of the other. Thus Melchizedek and the Son of God are represented as
two separate persons, the first of which resembled the second”
(“Melchizedek,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
– Revised, G.W. Bromiley, Ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986,
Vol. 3, p. 313).
A distinction between Christ and Melchizedek is
vividly seen in Psalm 110.
In this text, Jehovah addresses David’s “Lord” (Jesus) in
the second person, while the reference to Melchizedek is in the third
person (v. 4). [Note: See Matthew 22:42-44 for Jesus’ application
of this psalm to himself.]
Accordingly, one should not
make the mistake of identifying the ancient king-priest of Salem as
Jesus Christ.
….................................................................
Melchizedek or Malki Tzedek
; Hebrew:
) translated as my king (is) righteous(ness)) was a king and priest
mentioned during the Abram
narrative in the 14th chapter of the Book
of Genesis. He is introduced as the king of
Salem,
and priest of El
Elyon
(God most high). He brings out bread and wine and blesses Abram and
El Elyon
…..........................................................................................
What is a theophanies? God appeared
in human form!
The word Theophanies, comes from Greek theo- God + Greek
phainein, phan-, to show, meaning: God appeared in human form.
"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father;
and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the
Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the
Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:27
Examples of theophanies:
A. Adam and Eve:
"They heard the sound of the Lord
God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man
and his wife hid themselves from the presence
of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord
God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"
He said, "I heard the sound of You in the
garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid
myself." " Genesis 3:8-10
B. Abraham:
Abraham: "The Lord appeared to Abram and said, "To
your descendants I will give this land." So he built an altar
there to the Lord who had appeared to him. " Genesis 12:7
Abraham: "And he said, "Hear me, brethren and
fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was
in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, " Acts 7:2
Abraham: Click
for outline A simple reading of this two
chapter text (Gen 18-19) proves that the three men who appeared to
Abraham, were actually God plus two angels. "Now the Lord
appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the
tent door in the heat of the day. When Abraham lifted up his eyes
and looked, behold, three men were
standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the
tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth" (Genesis
18:1-2). The conclusion of this text shows that there are two
Yahweh's: One on earth and One in heaven: "Then Yahweh [on
earth in human form] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire
from Yahweh [in spirit form in heaven] out of heaven. (Genesis
19:24)
Abraham: "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the
Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty;
Walk before Me, and be blameless. " Genesis 17:1
Abraham: "and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself
known to them. " Exodus 6:3
C. Isaac:
Isaac: "The Lord appeared to him and said, "Do not
go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you."
... "The Lord appeared to him the same night and said, "I
am the God of your father Abraham; Do not fear, for I am with you. I
will bless you, and multiply your descendants, For the sake of My
servant Abraham." Genesis 26:2,24
D. Jacob: Seven different
appearances
Jacob: (The Ladder at Bethel) "And behold, the Lord
stood above it and said, "I am the Lord, the God of your father
Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give
it to you and to your descendants. " Genesis 28:13
Jacob: (guidance) "Then the Lord said to Jacob, "Return
to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be
with you." " Genesis 31:3
Jacob: (leave Laban for Canaan) "Then the
angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob,' and I said,
'Here I am.' "He said, 'Lift up now your eyes and see that
all the male goats which are mating are striped, speckled, and
mottled; for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. 'I
am the God of Bethel,
where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me; now arise,
leave this land, and return to the land of your birth.'"
Genesis 31:11-13
Jacob: (En route to Canaan at Mahanaim) "Now as Jacob
went on his way, the angels of God met
him. Jacob said when he saw them, "This
is God's camp." So he named that place Mahanaim. "
Genesis 32:1-2
Jacob: (wrestled with God at Peniel, the night before he
meets Esau) "Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with
him until daybreak. " Genesis 32:24. "He said, "Your
name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with
God and with men and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him and
said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why
is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there.""
Genesis 32:28-29. "Yes, he wrestled with
the angel and prevailed; He wept and sought His favor. He
found Him at Bethel And there He spoke with us, Even the Lord, the
God of hosts, The Lord is His name. Therefore, return to your God,
Observe kindness and justice, And wait for your God continually."
Hosea 12:4-6
Jacob: (guidance) "Then God said to Jacob, "Arise,
go up to Bethel and live there, and make an altar there to God, who
appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau." Genesis
35:1
Jacob: (guidance)"Then God appeared to Jacob again when
he came from Paddan-aram, and He blessed him." Genesis 35:9
Jacob: (move to Egypt) "God spoke to Israel in visions
of the night and said, "Jacob, Jacob." And he said, "Here
I am." He said, "I am God, the God of your father; do not
be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you a great nation
there. "I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also
surely bring you up again; and Joseph will close your eyes." "
Genesis 46:2-4
Jacob: "Then Jacob said to Joseph, "God
Almighty appeared to me at Luz (Bethel) in the land of Canaan
and blessed me," Genesis 48:3
E. Moses:
Moses: "The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a
blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold,
the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. "
Exodus 3:2
Moses: "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among
you, I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream. "Not
so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With
him I speak mouth to mouth, Even
openly, and not in dark sayings, And he
beholds the form of the Lord." Numbers 12:6-8
Moses: "Go and gather the elders of Israel together and
say to them, 'The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, "I am indeed
concerned about you and what has been done to you in Egypt. "
Exodus 3:16
Moses: ""that they may believe that the Lord, the
God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob, has appeared to you." " Exodus 4:5
Moses: "Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to
face, just as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses returned to the
camp, his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, would not
depart from the tent." Exodus 33:11
"Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!"
And He said, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before
you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will
be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on
whom I will show compassion." But He said, "You cannot see
My face, for no man can see Me and live!" Then the Lord said,
"Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there
on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing
by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with
My hand until I have passed by. "Then I will take My hand away
and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.""
Exodus 33:18-23
Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, 70 elders: "Then Moses went
up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,
and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to
be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did
not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel;
and they saw God, and they ate and drank. " Exodus 24:9-11
Moses, Joshua: "The Lord appeared in the tent in a
pillar of cloud, and the pillar of cloud stood at the doorway of the
tent." Deuteronomy 31:15
F. Aaron:
Aaron: "and an ox and a ram for peace offerings, to
sacrifice before the Lord, and a grain offering mixed with oil; for
today the Lord will appear to you." Leviticus 9:4
Aaron: "The Lord said to Moses: "Tell your
brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy
place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or
he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. "
Leviticus 16:2
G. Samuel:
Samuel: "And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh, because
the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the
Lord." 1 Samuel 3:21
H. Manoah:
Manoah: "Then Manoah said to the angel of the Lord,
"Please let us detain you so that we may prepare a young goat
for you." The angel of the Lord said to Manoah, "Though
you detain me, I will not eat your food, but if you prepare a burnt
offering, then offer it to the Lord." For Manoah did not
know that he was the angel of the Lord. Manoah said to the angel of
the Lord, "What is your name, so that when your words come to
pass, we may honor you?" But the angel of the Lord said to
him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" So
Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on
the rock to the Lord, and He performed wonders while Manoah and his
wife looked on. For it came about when the flame went up from the
altar toward heaven, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the
flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they
fell on their faces to the ground. Now the angel of the Lord did not
appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the
angel of the Lord. So Manoah said to his wife, "We
will surely die, for we have seen God." But his wife
said to him, "If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not
have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands,
nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have let
us hear things like this at this time." " Judges
13:15-23
I. Solomon:
Solomon: "In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a
dream at night; and God said, "Ask what you wish me to
give you."" 1 Kings 3:5
Solomon: "that the Lord appeared to Solomon a second
time, as He had appeared to him at Gibeon. " 1 Kings 9:2
Solomon: "Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because
his heart was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had
appeared to him twice, " 1 Kings 11:9
Solomon: "Then the Lord appeared to Solomon at night and
said to him, "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this
place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. " 2 Chronicles 7:12
J. David:
David: "Then Solomon began to build the house of the
Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had
appeared to his father David, at the place that David had prepared
on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. " 2 Chronicles
3:1
L. Jesus Christ on earth:
"And I will pour out on the
house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of
grace and of supplication, so that they will
look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for
Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over
Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. (Zech 12:10)
WAS JESUS ONE OF
THE THREE MEN WHO APPEARED TO ABRAHAM?
Does
Genesis teach us that Jesus IS YEHWEH or Almighty God HIMSELF who
appeared to Abraham? In other words, was one of the three MEN or
ANGELS who appeared in the form of men Jesus? To say this another
way, since NO man has EVER SEEN the INVISIBLE Almighty God himself at
any time, then is the YEHWEH, one of the THREE men or angels, who
appeared to Abraham in Genesis being SEEN as a MAN.
The
reasoning goes something like this. Clearly knowing that Almighty God
the Father has NEVER been SEEN by any man, then the YEHWEH who was
seen by Abraham must have been the PREEXISTING Jesus, because Yehweh
was SEEN by the MAN Abraham.
But
does the word of TRUTH clearly teach us that Yehweh HIMSELF was
indeed SEEM by Abraham? You see, the word that is translated as
“APPEARED” does not always mean to be SEEN with the physical eye,
but rather also means to PERCEIVE or to UNDERSTAND.
You
can read Genesis chapter 18 first to refresh your memory if you would
like and then we will go to some other verses where God APPEARED to
others but Yehweh himself was NOT ACTUALLY SEEN with the physical
eyes of those to whom he APPEARED.
In
Genesis chapter 18 we read that the Lord, speaking of Almighty God,
APPEARED to Abraham. So immediately many Christians ASSUME that
Abraham SAW Almighty God face to face in a human form as being ONE of
the three men. Before we actually read this entire context and go
over it verse by verse I want to begin this study in God's word by
reading some other passages of scripture where God has APPEARED to
different people WITHOUT actually being SEEN.
In
other words, the word “APPEARED” does not dogmatically demand
that a person actually SEE God or SEE of form of God. This word
translated as appeared literally means to PERCEIVE or to UNDERSTAND.
So when God appeared to Abraham and he HEARD God speaking, the
Abraham PERCEIVED that it was Almighty God who was SPEAKING to him.
Again we will go verse by verse over Genesis chapter 18 further on in
this study, but first please closer consider these other APPEARANCES
of God where Almighty God appears in a vision, a dream or in VOICE
ONLY.
Please begin with Genesis 35:1. There are many verse
like these, but I will only use a few.
“And
God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and
make there an altar unto God, that appeared
unto you
WHEN you fled from the face
of Esau your brother.”
But
the question is HOW did the Yehweh APPEAR to Jacob WHEN Jacob FLED
from the face of Esau his brother.
The
following passages of scripture are the WAYS is which Almighty God
APPEARED to Jacob. In Genesis 28:31 God APPEARS to Jacob in a DREAM.
In Genesis 31:3 Yehweh SPOKE to Jacob. In Genesis 31:11-13 an ANGEL
of the Lord spoke t Jacob in a DREAM. In Genesis 32:1-3 the ANGELS of
God met Jacob. In Genesis 32:24-29 Jacob wrestles with a man, which
is obviously an ANGEL, but Jacob believes that he has actually SEEN
God face to face and lived.
Others
have seen angels and claimed that they have seen God, but Jesus said
NO MAN has ever SEEN God. And then we read in
1
Timothy 6:14-16, which clearly teaches us that man CANNOT SEE God.
The Bible also teaches us that God is NOT a MAN nor is God the Son of
MAN. So these occurrences in the Bible where it SEEMS like people has
SEEN Almighty God are just that. It only SEEMS like people have seen
God, when in truth the have just seen a vision of God or had a dream
or the just HEARD God's voice. Or God sent an ANGEL to speak in his
behalf.
Please
read Judges 13:20-25, where a husband and his wife see an ANGEL of
the Lord, but yet they still SAY or claim that they have actually
SEEN GOD. The TRUTH of the matter is that they did NOT actually SEE
Almighty God HIMSELF, but rather they saw an ANGEL OF the Lord God
Almighty.
“For
it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the
altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar.
And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the
ground.
21.
But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his
wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.
22.
And Manoah said unto his wife, We
shall surely die, because we have SEEN God.
(now if one
were to take this verse OUT of context and the person reading this
one verse alone and apart from the rest of God's word, then certainly
one might be convinced that people have actually SEEN God. But when
this verse is LEFT in the context of where it is found, then it
becomes very clear that Manoah nor his wife actually SAW God at all,
but rather what they saw was a ANGEL of God. Go back and read this
verses right before verse 22 if you missed what they actually saw
right before they claimed that they had SEEN God and you will see
that they saw an ANGEL of God. So the ANGEL which they SAW was NOT
actually Almighty God himself APPEARING in the FORM of an ANGEL like
some dogmatically demand that happened with Abraham when he HEARD
God's VOICE and then after hearing God's VOICE Abraham lifted up his
eyes and LOOKED, which is when he SAW these three men. Again we will
get to that passage of scripture shortly, but first let us continue
with these other appearances of God where people HEARD God, but they
did not actually SEE God.)
23.
But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he
would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our
hands, neither would he have showed us all these things, nor would as
at this time have told us such things as these.
24.
And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson: and the child
grew, and the LORD blessed him.
25. And the Spirit of the LORD began to move him at
times in the camp of Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.”
Then in Genesis 48:1-4 it starts out that Joseph and
Jacob HEARD a voice telling them something. This could have been an
audible voice or an inner voice. Or it could have been a angel. All
we read is that ONE TOLD Joseph and ONE TOLD Jacob, but the word of
God does not expound HOW this occurred.
However,
in verse 3 Jacob comes straight out and CLAIMS ot tells Joseph that
Almighty God himself APPEARED to him.
“And
it came to pass after these things, that one
told
Joseph, Behold, your father is sick: and he took with him his two
sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.
2.
And one
told
Jacob, and said, Behold, your son Joseph comes unto you: and Israel
(or
Jacob renamed Israel) strengthened
himself, and sat upon the bed.
3.
And Jacob
(or
Israel) said unto
Joseph, God Almighty APPEARED unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan,
and blessed me,
4.
And said unto me, Behold, I will make you fruitful, and multiply you,
and I will make of you a multitude of people; and will give this land
to your seed after you for an everlasting possession.”
Again
HOW did the Lord God Almighty Yehweh APPEAR to Jacob? This is
important, because IF Jacob actually SAW Almighty God himself, then
we have a CONTRADTION in the Bible. But if this APPEAARING was not
actually a face to face SEEING of Almighty God himself, then Jesus
spoke the TRUTH when he said NO MAN has EVER SEEN God.
Let
us now go to Genesis 28:10-22, which teaches us that Almighty God
APPEARED
to Jacob NOT face to face as one would ASSUME by reading just Genesis
48:3 alone and apart from the rest of God's word, but rather when the
whole word of God is consider then it becomes quite clear that
Almighty God APPEARED
to Jacob in a DREAM or a night
VISION.
In
other words, the phrase “and the LORD APPEARED to...” does NOT
dogmatically mean without fail that the invisible God LITERALLY
APPEARED is a physical form such as an angel or a man, but rather
this word “appeared” simple means that God can APPEAR to us in a
DREAM, in a VISION, by sending an ANGEL, by an AUDIBLE VOICE, or by
his small still INNER VOICE of his Holy Spirit.
Please
read genesis 28:10-22.
“And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward
Haran.
11.
And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night,
because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and
put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.
12.
And he DREAMED,
and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to
heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
13.
And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of
Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon you lay,
to you will I give it, and to your seed;
14.
And your seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and you shall spread
abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the
south: and in you and in your seed shall all the families of the
earth be BLESSED.
15.
And, behold, I am with you, and will keep you in all places whither
you go, and will bring you again into this land; for I will not leave
you, until I have done that which I have spoken to you of.
16.
And Jacob AWOKE out of his sleep,
and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.
17.
And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! This is none
other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.
18.
And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he
had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil
upon the top of it.
19. And he called the
name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz
at the first.
20.
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying , If God will be with me, and will keep
me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment
to put on,
21.
So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the
LORD be my God:
And this
stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of
all that you shall give me I will surely give the tenth unto you.”
So
then, in Genesis 48:1-4 Jacob tells his son Joseph that the Lord God
Almighty APPEARED to him WHEN he was in LUZ. And then we read in
Genesis 28:10-22 of this APPEARANCE of the Lord God Almighty to Jacob
where we find that Almighty God APPEARED to Jacob is a DREAM
or a night VISION.
In
other words, the phrase “and the LORD APPEARED to...” does NOT
dogmatically mean without fail that the invisible God LITERALLY
APPEARED is a physical form. God can APPEAR to us in a DREAM, in a
VISION, by sending an ANGEL, by an AUDIBLE VOICE, or by his small
still INNER VOICE of his Holy Spirit.
The
Hebrew word that is TRANSLATED as “APPEARED” is “RAAH” which
has a variety of meanings. The root meaning f this Hebrew word is to
SEE either literally or figuratively. This SEEING can be directly, by
implication, or by causation. The seeing can be by perceiving,
observing, discerning, get acquainted with and to understand. Seeing
can also be by feeling. Seeing can be by ascertaining such as people
saw that the Lord was WITH the prophet by the works that were done by
his hand. They SAW the Lord, but actually what they SAW was the WORKS
of the Lord working through the hands of the prophet of God.
Therefore
when the Lord APPEARED to Abraham and THEN AFTER Abraham lifted UP
his eyes and LOOKED, then Abraham SAW THREE MEN does NOT DOGMATICALLY
mean without fail that one one these three MEN or ANGELS was Almighty
God HIMSELF APPEARING as a human being.
I
myself believe that the Lord appeared to Abraham as an audible VOICE
and THEN Abraham SAW these THREE MEN
approaching his tent.
Please
read again Genesis chapter 18:1-33 with God APPEARING to Abraham in
VOICE ONLY and perhaps even seemly like this VOICE of Almighty God
came from or near one of the ANGELS.
“And
the LORD appeared
unto him in the plains of
Mamre: (please
notice the translators colon, which indicates that there is a time
lapse before the next event takes place) and
he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2.
And he lift up his eyes and LOOKED,
and, lo (or
being perceiving), three men stood by
him: and WHEN he SAW them, he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground, (So
then, to ME, when I read these two verses together it sounds like
Abraham first HEARD the Lord speak to him and recognized that Yehweh
was APPEARING to him or the almighty was revealing himself to
Abraham. So Abraham then lifted UP his EYES to SEE the Lord and it
was WHEN Abraham began to LOOK that he perceived three MEN standing
before his tent so Abraham got up and ran to greet these three men
PERCEIVING that this is what Almighty God wanted him to do, but not
knowing for certain that this is what Yehweh wanted Abraham to do. In
other words, verse 3-5 are kind of like a FLEECE that Abraham puts
before the Lord saying that IF you have sent these three men to me
Lord let me show my hospitality and if they receive it, then THERFORE
I will know that you Lord have sent them and you have come to your
servant Abraham.)
3.
And said, My Lord, IF now I have found favor in your sight, pass not
away, I pray you, from your servant:
4.
Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and
rest yourselves under the tree:
5.
And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort you your hearts;
after that you shall pass on: for therefore are you come to your
servant. And they said, So do, as you have said. (here
we see Abraham getting confirmation from God that he did indeed sent
these three men to him and that it was indeed the Almighty God
SPEAKING to him)
6.
And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready
quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon
the hearth.
7.
And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetch a calf tender and good, and
gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
8.
And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and
set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did
eat.
9.
And they said unto him, Where is Sarah your wife? (Now
did all three of these angels who appeared as men ask this question
at the same time or did just one of these angels speak in behalf of
all three? And if so be that it was just one angel speaking and this
one angel was indeed the Almighty God himself, then the question
arises why word and all knowing God need to ask where Sarah was,
because he would already know if so be that one of the angels was
indeed the Almighty God and if so be Almighty God is truly all
knowing.) And he said, Behold, in the
tent.
10.
And he said, I will certainly RETURN
unto you according to the time of life;
and, lo, Sarah your wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the
tent door, which was behind him. (In
Genesis chapter 21 we see that God does indeed RETURN as he had
promised but we do not see any evidence of Almighty God being SEEN by
Abraham nor his wife Sarah on his RETURN visit. Now to ME, the term
RETURN carries the idea that God will APPEAR to Abraham and his wife
Sarah again in the SAME WAY that he APPEARED to them when he said
that he would RETURN. So to ME I see both of these appearances of god
as being in VOICE ONLY and that Almighty God himself was NOT actually
SEEN in the form of a man at either appearance.)
11.
Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it
ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12.
Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old
shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13.
And the LORD (Yehweh)
said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a
surety bear a child, which am old ?
14.
Is any thing too hard for the LORD (Yehweh)?
At the time appointed I will return
unto you, according to the time of
life, and Sarah shall have a son.
15.
Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he
said, Nay; but you didst laugh.
16.
And the MEN
rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with
them to bring them on the way. (Please
notice that this verse says that the MEN rose up and looked toward
Sodom and we all AGREE that this means ALL THREE MEN rose up and NOT
just TWO of the three men rose up. Now compare this SAME wording of
the MEN rising up and looking toward Sodom as clearly meaning ALL
THREE MEN to verse 22 below where we see this SAME wording of the MEN
leaving Abraham and going toward Sodom to see what the actual degree
of wickedness truly is in Sodom, but in that verse some INTERPRET
this to mean that ONLY TWO men left and ONE man remained behind whom
they further INTERPRET as being ALMIGHTY God HIMSELF speaking in the
FORM of a man face to face with Abraham. Now I myself interpret BOTH
of the verses the SAME way where ALL THREE men are clearly seen
rising up and leaving Abraham ALONE communing with the INVISIBLE God
by VOICE ONLY.)
17.
And the LORD (Yehweh)
said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
18.
Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,
and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19.
For I know him, that he will command his children and his household
after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD (Yehweh),
to do justice and judgment; that the LORD (Yehweh)
may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him.
20.
And the LORD (Yehweh)
said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because
their sin is very grievous;
21.
I will go down now, and see whether
they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come
unto me; and if not, I will know
(Now to ME,
the MOST HIGH ALMIGHTY God who sits upon throne being MAJESTY and
KING over all does not leave his throne and PERSONALLY go down to the
earth, but rather he SENDS his host, his creation his SON or his very
own self same Holy Spirit to do whatever he needs to be done. Also as
a side note the question arises as to WHY an ALL KNOWING God needs to
send his angels to find OUT IF it is true that Sodom has become so
wicked?).
22.
And the MEN
(who we know
were ANGELS by the next chapter, which we will get to shortly)
turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham
stood yet before the LORD. (Please
notice that the word of TRUTH does NOT say that just TWO or these men
left and ONE stayed behind. But rather the clear word of God says
that the MEN turned and went toward Sodom. Now the reason that they
came down was to see IF it was true that Sodom had become so wicked
and needed to be destroyed. In other words, it is only ASSUMED that
only TWO angels left and the ONE angel who SUPPOSEDLY remained behind
was AMIGHTY God HIMSELF. But the way that I myself interpret these
verses in the light of the whole word of God is that ALL THREE men or
angels left Abraham ALONE who was COMMUNING with the Lord God the
Almighty by VOICE ONLY, which means that Abraham did NOT actually SEE
the Lord YEHWEH, but only HEARD the Almighty.)
23.
And Abraham drew near, and said, Will you also destroy the righteous
with the wicked?
24.
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt you also
destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are
therein?
25.
That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous
with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that
be far from you: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26.
And the LORD said , If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the
city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27.
And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to
speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
28.
Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: will you
destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there
forty and five, I will not destroy it.
29.
And he spoke unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall
be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
30.
And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak:
Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will
not do it, if I find thirty there.
31.
And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord:
Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will
not destroy it for twenty's sake.
32.
And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but
this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will
not destroy it for ten's sake.
33.
And the LORD(Yehweh)
went his way, as soon as he had left COMMUNING with Abraham (again
the Lord often COMMUNES with his people WITHOUT being SEEN. In other
words, Almighty God appeared to Abraham in a VOICE ONLY):
and Abraham returned unto his place.”
Now some of you may be
thinking something like, “Mark, you always talk about CONTEXT, so
READ the next chapter and you will clearly see that it plainly says
that TWO angels came to Sodom and NOT all THREE angels, and this is
why ONE angel, appearing in the form of a man stayed behind, who
spoke with Abraham while the other TWO angels went to Sodom. Read the
CONTEXT Mark.”
Well is did read the
context and I argued with the Lord about it myself, but something on
the inside kept saying to me read it AGAIN. But each time I read it I
kept getting the same TWO angels like I have always been TAUGHT. I
mean it does plainly say TWO angel came ot Sodom. But then the Holy
Spirit led me to look up the meaning of the word “TWO”. I mean
really Lord, you want me to look up the meaning of the word “TWO”?
I thought to myself two could the word “TWO” mean anything other
than “TWO”, but I obeyed this small still voice within me and I
looked up the meaning of the word “TWO”, but before I share what
I found let us read Genesis 19:1-3 to refresh to memory of some who
may not have read this passage of scripture for awhile.
“And
there came TWO
angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot
seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face
toward the ground;
2
And he said, Behold now, my lords (here
we see Lot giving these angels the same hospitality that Abraham gave
these these three men or angles. Now if you read this entire chapter
there is NO indication as to how MANY lords or men or angels
appearing as men that Lot invited into his house. In other words,
verse number one is the only verse where there SEEMS to be only TWO
angels appearing as men, but I a moment you will see as I have seen
that there were actually THREE men who came to Sodom that evening as
you continue this study in God's word),
turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night,
and wash your feet, and you shall rise up early, and go on your ways.
And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3.
And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and
entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake
unleavened bread, and they did eat.”
As
I said a moment ago the Holy Spirit impressed upon me to look up the
meaning of the word “TWO” so after arguing awhile with myself I
eventually obeyed the leading of the Holy Spirit and looked up the
meaning of the Hebrew word that is TRANSLATED as “TWO”in Genesis
19:1 and here is what I found.
The
Hebrew word is “senayim” Strongs #8147 and does indeed mean two,
but the root word “seni” Strong's #8145 means second or AGAIN. I
was impressed to take the Strong's numbers and look them up in a more
expanded dictionary of Hebrew words so I looked upon these Strong's
numbers in the Strong's Expanded exhaustive concordance of the Bible
and I found that the root meaning of this word was double, dual,
second, again, another, time, a second time, twofold, both, and yes
this Hebrew word “senayim”also means two.
But
in the light of all these other meanings this word could just as
easily be translated as “AGAIN” or “SECOND TIME”, because the
literally meaning of this Hebrew word actually means SECOND or
ANOTHER. In other words, the FIRST time that the angels went to Sodom
was to SEE if it were TRUE that the wickedness had become so wicked
that it need to be destroyed. But is Genesis chapter 19 we can
clearly see that this was the SECOND TIME that the angels visited
Sodom, because THIS TIME they did NOT come to SEE if these cities
were are wicked as the cries that came up to heaven, but rather on
the SECOND visit to Sodom the angels came at evening time to rescue
Lot and his family and then DESTROY Sodom and Gomorrah.
Let
us substitute the literal meaning of this Hebrew word which means
AGAIN or a SECOND TIME for the translated English word “TWO” so
you can better see what I am saying.
Here
is my own translation using the literal meaning of this Hebrew word
that is normally translated as two in many Bibles.
Genesis
19:1
“And
there came AGAIN
a SECOND TIME angels to
Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them
rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the
ground;”
Now
when we read the entire CONTEXT we no longer see just TWO angels
leaving Abraham and going to Sodom the SEE if the cries coming up to
heaven were TRUE, but rather is becomes clearer that ALL THREE MEN or
angels in Genesis 18:16 rose up and ALL THREE MEN or angels looked
toward Sodom.
“16.
And the MEN
rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with
THEM
to bring them on the way. (Please
notice that this verse says that the MEN rose up and looked toward
Sodom and we all AGREE that this means ALL THREE MEN rose up and NOT
just TWO of the three men rose up. Now compare this SAME wording of
the MEN rising up and looking toward Sodom as clearly meaning ALL
THREE MEN to verse 22 below where we see this SAME wording of the MEN
leaving Abraham and going toward Sodom to see what the actual degree
of wickedness truly is in Sodom, but in that verse some INTERPRET
this to mean that ONLY TWO men left and ONE man remained behind whom
they further INTERPRET as being ALMIGHTY God HIMSELF speaking in the
FORM of a man face to face with Abraham. Now I myself interpret BOTH
of the verses the SAME way where ALL THREE men are clearly seen
rising up and leaving Abraham ALONE communing with the INVISIBLE God
by VOICE ONLY.)”
So
then when we COMPARE scripture with scripture and read verse 22 where
these same words are spoken about the MEN leaving towards Sodom on
the FIRST visit to SEE if is was TRUE about the wickedness of Sodom,
then is should be clearly understood that ALL THREE MEN or angels
left Abraham ALONE to commune with the Lord speaking to him from
heaven by VOICE ONLY.
Here
is Genesis 18:22.
“22.
And the MEN
(who
we know were ANGELS by the next chapter, which we will get to
shortly)
turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham
stood yet before the LORD. (Please
notice that the word of TRUTH does NOT say that just TWO or these men
left and ONE stayed behind. But rather the clear word of God says
that the MEN turned and went toward Sodom. Now the reason that they
came down was to see IF it was true that Sodom had become so wicked
and needed to be destroyed. In other words, it is only ASSUMED that
only TWO angels left and the ONE angel who SUPPOSEDLY remained behind
was AMIGHTY God HIMSELF. But the way that I myself interpret these
verses in the light of the whole word of God is that ALL THREE men or
angels left Abraham ALONE who was COMMUNING with the Lord God the
Almighty by VOICE ONLY, which means that Abraham did NOT actually SEE
the Lord YEHWEH, but only HEARD the Almighty.)”
Please keep in mind that verse 22 is speaking of the
FIRST visit of these THREE angels to Sodom to SEE if it were TRUE
about the cries of wickedness. Then is chapter 19 we see that this is
the SECOND visit of the THREE angel to DESTROY Sodom after the
deliver the RIGTHEOUS out of the city.
In other words, in chapter 19 these THREE angels are NOT
on their FIRST visit to SEE if these cities were are wicked and the
cries said there were, but rather this was the SECOND TIME that these
THREE angels came to Sodom and this time it was to DESTROY these
cities for their wickedness of SODOMY and HOMOSEXUALITY.
Now some of you may want to argue and say that I am just
changing the word of God to meet my own personal interpretation of
God's word, but in TRUTH I am just giving you the facts that I have
found in the course of my own studying and as always I leave it to
you the reader to make you own decisions on what you want to believe
or not believe.
As always the studies that I write I do so for those who
are struggling with the same questions that I myself have had in my
life and I am just sharing with my readers and the seekers of the
TRUTH what I myself have found to be the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of
Almighty God.
So in conclusion I myself believe that this word “TWO”
should have been more accurately translated as AGAIN or as SECOND
TIME, which to ME better fits the WHOLE meaning of the text, because
clearly the angels went to Sodom TWO different times. The FIRST time
was to SEE if it were TRUE about the cries that came up to heaven.
And the SECOND TIME the angel came AGAIN to Sodom only this SECOND
TIME they came to DESTROY these cities that were found to be TRUE
according to the cries that came up to heaven about their wickedness.
Therefore I also conclude that neither Almighty God
himself, NOR his Son Jesus appeared if a human form to Abraham as ONE
of these three angels who appeared in the form of three MEN. To say
this another way, I myself do NOT believe that Genesis chapters 18
and 19 prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus PREEXISTED as a
Spirit being who could transform into a human being and appear to
people in the Old testament. In other words, I myself believe that
Jesus did indeed have a BEGINNING and therefore Jesus did NOT
preexist BEFORE his being born of the virgin Mary.
Now what the WORD that was with God in the beginning was
BEFORE the WORD was MADE or BECAME a human being is NOT what I am
speaking about in these studies that I write. I agree that Almighty
God is perfectly capable of MANIFESTING himself in any form he may
choose. But I also believe that the entire EVIDENCE of God's word far
better supports the truth that Almighty God APPEARED to people in the
Old Testament NOT as a so called “THEOPHANY”, but rather the
VOICE OF Almighty God was HEARD or his voice, as in, his MESSAGE was
spoken in his behalf by and angel or a prophet of God. I myself
choose to believe the word's of Jesus who clearly said that NO MAN
has EVER SEEN God. So I take this to mean that NO MAN has EVER SEEN
God.
Jesus said if you have SEEN me then you have SEEN the
FATHER. But this does NOT mean that the disciples who actually SAW
Jesus face to face were actually seeing Almighty God face to face.
Jesus is the EXPRESS IMAGE of his God and Father who came to SHOW us
the Father to be the one true and only Almighty God. In the same way,
IF SO BE that ONE of these angels did remain behind while only two
angels went to destroy Sodom, then this angel was speaking in behalf
of Almighty God or Almighty God was speaking through this angel.
Either way I myself do Not believe that Almighty God manifested
himself to appear in the form of a man. The WHOLE word of God just
does NOT soundly support such an INTERPRETATION.
As always I leave the evidence for you to decide. Thanks
for reading.May God bless you richly as you continue to seek the
truth of the whole word of Almighty God. Below are some other verses
that are used to try and support the doctrine of the trinity. If one
or more of these verses seem to be a stronghold that you can only see
as meaning that Almighty God is a trinity, then I encourage your to
read those studies as well, because ANY verse when taken OUT of
CONTEXT and viewed ALONE and APART for the REST of God's word may
SEEM to be saying something that it is NOT truly saying.
Your
brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mark.
RETURN
TO HOMEPAGE
AT
AmatterOfTruth.com
================================================================================================================================
THE UNBROKEN LINE
OF POPES
The
Roman Catholic church makes the claim that she can trace her
Apostolic authority through an unbroken line of Popes all the way
back to the apostle Peter, who the Catholic church also claims was
the first Pope.
But
are these CLAIMS true? Well according to the historical evidence that
the Catholic church herself puts forth certainly APPEARS that her
claims are true.
However,
when I was do some research and some study on another subject I came
across some early church writings that to ME, definitely cast some
very serious DOUBT that this CLAIM of an UNBROKEN succession of Popes
goes ALL the way back to Peter.
Terms
apostolic succession:
The
term apostolic succession has several possible meanings. But for the
purpose of this article, the following definition from a Roman
Catholic priest and scholar will be used:
Apostolic
Succession...In its strict
sense, apostolic succession refers to the doctrine by which the
validity and authority of the Christian ministry is derived from the
Apostles...In its broader sense, apostolic succession refers to the
relationship between the Christian church today and the apostolic
church of New Testament times. Thus, apostolic succession refers to
the whole church insofar as it is faithful to the word, the witness,
and the service of the apostolic communities. Understood in this way,
the church is not simply a collectivity of individual churches;
instead, it is a communion of churches whose validity is derived from
the apostolic message that it professes and from the apostolic
witness that it lives
From
Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.
18 And when they had come to him, he said to them: "You know,
from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived
among you...Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock,
among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the
church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this,
that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not
sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up,
speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after
themselves..." (Acts 20:17-18,28-30).
the
New Testament, the Holy Spirit was given through the laying
on of the hands of Christ’s apostles or elders
(Acts 8:17; 9:17; 19:6; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6).
it
makes no sense that the Apostle
John
would be somehow subordinate to Linus,
Anacletus,
Clement,
and Evaristus,
all of whom have been claimed to have been "bishop of Rome"
and supposedly had primacy over all Christianity after Peter died and
while John was still alive.
Note that Paul wrote:
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles
(1 Corinthians 12:28).
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets,
some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11).
And since the Bible teaches that the true church is first led by
apostles and other positions are lower ranked, there is no way that
the Apostle
John would have been below any bishop
(essentially a pastor) in rank--Note that although the Bible uses the
Greek term for pastor more than the one for bishop, it seems to show
that the terms are interchangeable (see I Peter 2:25).
Hence, after Peter died (as well as the other apostles), it is
clear that the was one true successor--who had been appointed by
Christi Himself--would be the Apostle John (the last of the original
apostles to die) and that true apostolic successors would probably
have had contact with him.
it
makes no sense that the Apostle
John
would be somehow subordinate to Linus,
Anacletus,
Clement,
and Evaristus,
all of whom have been claimed to have been "bishop of Rome"
and supposedly had primacy over all Christianity after Peter died and
while John was still alive.
Note that Paul wrote:
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles
(1 Corinthians 12:28).
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets,
some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11).
And since the Bible teaches that the true church is first led by
apostles and other positions are lower ranked, there is no way that
the Apostle
John would have been below any bishop
(essentially a pastor) in rank--Note that although the Bible uses the
Greek term for pastor more than the one for bishop, it seems to show
that the terms are interchangeable (see I Peter 2:25).
Hence, after Peter died (as well as the other apostles), it is
clear that the was one true successor--who had been appointed by
Christi Himself--would be the Apostle John (the last of the original
apostles to die) and that true apostolic successors would probably
have had contact with him.
Origen
calls Ignatius "the second bishop of Antioch after the blessed
Peter". Chrysostom and Theodoret also
Eusebius
places Ignatius as the second bishop after Peter.
John
Chrysostom specifically claimed:
[Ignatius] presided over the Church...But since I mentioned Peter,
this is the man [who] succeeded to the office after him
The
next problem is that it is not probable that Peter could have been
the Bishop of Antioch until 67 A.D., as the Syriacs claim, for at
least three reasons.
First, blatant and unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary,
there is no indication that Peter was in Antioch for any length of
time (though he did have a meeting there once, see Galatians 2:11,
probably in the mid 40s A.D. according to The Catholic
Encyclopedia).
Second, if Peter became bishop simply because he once visited that
town, then Euodius would have had to become bishop that far back.
And thirdly, if as the Syriac Orthodox claim, Peter was the bishop
of Antioch from 37 A.D. until 67 A.D., then he could not have been
Bishop of Rome then (not that I am saying that Peter was a bishop of
Rome).
The reality is that there is major doubt that Peter spent any
significant amount of time in Antioch or Rome (it is not even certain
that he ever was in Rome). Neither city has any contemporaneous proof
that Peter did anything than visit
Furthermore,
inaccurate tradition-based claims to the contrary, Ignatius' writings
actually support the concept that he observed and endorsed the
seventh-day Sabbath, which is no longer the practice of any of the
so-called "orthodox" churches (please see the article The
Didache, Ignatius, and the Sabbath).
Perhaps even more important, Ignatius apparently also held views on
the Godhead that differ from mainstream "Christianity", as
he never referred to the Holy
Spirit
as God and acknowledged the Son as submissive to the Father (please
see the article Binitarian
View).
Furthermore,
according to Jesus, no city, including Antioch (Rome, etc.) could
remain the successor to the apostles throughout history. Note what
Jesus said:
And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he
who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this
city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have
gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes
(Matthew 10:22-23).
The
above passage from Jesus would suggest that the true leadership of
the church would have to move reasonably often (not just once or
twice). Notice that the Apostle Paul also taught that it was
impossible that any city in this age would be permanent for
Christians:
For we have not here a permanent city: but we seek that which is
to come (Hebrews 13:14).
of
celibacy,
allegorized
scripture,
and had a bishop--and Eusebius seems to claim that they are part of
the Catholic Church (see vs. 17 above)--even though the Roman Church
did not have celibacy rules at that time (please see the article Was
Celibacy Required for Early Bishops or Presbyters?).
This seems to have been where a major departure from the true faith
occurred.
Papias,
who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of
the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts
that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly
he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their
traditions. Our notice of these circumstances may not be without its
use. It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias
already given, other passages of his in which he relates some
miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from
tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in
Hierapolis has been mentioned (Fragments of Papias, VI. Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Volume I,
via ccel).
Three
of Interest Are Mentioned in the Second Century: Polycarp and
Linus/Clement
Several others are listed as possible apostolic successors by
second century writers, and this section will concentrate on three of
them that are endorsed in writings highly recognized by the Roman
Catholic Church. Specifically the Catholic Church teaches:
Among the writings of the Fathers, the following
are the principal works which bear on the doctrine of the Church: ST.
IRENÆUS, Adv. Hereses in P.G., VII; TERTULLIAN, De Prescriptionibus
in P. L... (Joyce G.H. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. The
Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by
Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K.
Knight. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
So who did these two writers list as apostolic successors?
Since Irenaeus
wrote first (circa 180), he will be quoted first:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a
volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we
do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an
evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse
opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by
indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very
great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and
organized at Rome...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and
built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of
the episcopate...
But Polycarp also was not only
instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ,
but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop
of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he
tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man,
gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life,
having always taught the things which he had learned from the
apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are
true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also
those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time
(Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verses 2,3,4.
Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander
Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition
Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).
So we see from Irenaeus that there were many churches founded by
the apostles, but that he only decided to mention two successors by
name: Linus
of Rome and Polycarp
of Smyrna. Notice that Irenaeus is claiming
that Polycarp was appointed bishop (pastor/overseer) of the Church in
Smyrna by the apostles in Asia (which would most likely have been
John and Philip and perhaps some others). Notice that Irenaeus is
claiming that there was a list of men who have succeeded Polycarp
until the late 2nd century and that they held to the teaching of the
apostles. Thus the only universally accepted apostle to “bishop”
transfer of leadership for the 1st and 2nd centuries that continued
until at least the end of the 2nd century was through Polycarp of
Smyrna.
But what of Tertullian?
By Tertullian's time (circa 195), he concluded that there were
only two apostolic churches (presumably because the church was split
into three groups. the Romans (presumably also including those in
Alexandria), the Smyrnaeans (presumably also including those in
Antioch and Byzantium), and the heretics:
Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no
continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may
claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of
their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now
from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as
the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from
Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this
(Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200
A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert
Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight.
Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
It is probable that Tertullian was aware of elders in Rome prior
to Clement
(as Irenaeus wrote prior to him), as well as
bishops of Smyrna prior to Polycarp,
but that Tertullian felt that apostolic succession could only
have gone through Polycarp (who he listed first) or Clement.
Now this poses a problem for the Roman Catholic Church as its two
primary sources of succession information disagree with one another.
Normally, when there are two possibly reliable sources, historians
tend to accept what they agree on, but place lower credence on those
that they disagree on. Hence, from the position of a historian,
Polycarp would seem to have been universally understood to have been
the immediate physical successor to the apostles, but that Linus and
Clement would not universally understood to be.
It needs to be further understood that there is basically nothing
known about Linus
nor Clement--pretty
much everything truly known about them came many decades after their
death (1 Clement will be discussed later).
In
addition, into the third century, notice that two are listed by
Anatolius of Laodicea (circa 270 A.D.) as successors to the apostles,
with one through John and one claiming being through Peter and Paul:
Following their example up to the present time all the bishops of
Asia—as themselves also receiving the rule from an unimpeachable
authority, to wit, the evangelist John, who leant on the Lord’s
breast, and drank in instructions spiritual without doubt—were in
the way of celebrating the Paschal feast, without question, every
year, whenever the fourteenth day of the moon had come, and the lamb
was sacrificed by the Jews after the equinox was past; not
acquiescing, so far as regards this matter, with the authority of
some, namely, the successors of Peter and Paul, who have taught all
the churches in which they sowed the spiritual seeds of the Gospel,
that the solemn festival of the resurrection of the Lord can be
celebrated only on the Lord’s day. Whence, also, a certain
contention broke out between the successors of these, namely, Victor,
at that time bishop of the city of Rome, and Polycrates, who then
appeared to hold the primacy among the bishops of Asia...
The one party, indeed, kept the Paschal day on the fourteenth day
of the first month, according to the Gospel, as they thought, adding
nothing of an extraneous kind, but keeping through all things the
rule of faith. And the other party, passing the day of the Lord’s
Passion as one replete with sadness and grief, hold that it should
not be lawful to celebrate the Lord’s mystery of the Passover at
any other time but on the Lord’s day (ANF06, The Paschal Canon of
Anatolius of Alexandria. X. THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS translations of
The Writings of the Fathers down to a.d. 325. Alexander Roberts,
D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D., EDITORS. AMERICAN REPRINT OF THE
EDINBURGH EDITION. Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief
prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D. T&T
CLARK, Edinburgh. Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing company, Grand Rapids,
Michigan. VOLUME VI--Schaff P. Nineteenth Century).
Notice that the two potential successors of the apostles looked at
things differently, one relied the Bible and the other relied on
tradition.
Roman Claims
The Roman Catholic Church bases its legitimacy over all of
Christendom on this subject of apostolic succession. Notice the
following from The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Apostolicity as a note of the true Church being dealt
with elsewhere, the object of the present article is to show:
That Apostolic succession is found in the Catholic
Church.
That none of the separate Churches have any valid
claim to it.
That the Anglican Church, in particular, has broken
away from Apostolic unity.
ROMAN CLAIM
The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in
the idea of succession. "To succeed" is to be the successor
of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position
just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs
come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the
functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. We must
prove
that St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his
pontificate;
that the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his
official position in the Church (Wilhelm J. Transcribed by Donald J.
Boon. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by
Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K.
Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Notice that the Roman Catholics claim that only their church has
any valid claims to apostolic succession, that the Roman Pontiffs
must have come immediately after Peter, and that they needed to be
bishops.
Also notice this claim from a Roman Catholic writer regarding
Matthias taking Judas's place in Acts 1:20-26:
Here we see the office of apostle being referred to by Peter as
the office of overseer or bishop. Also important, we see that the
office is one of succession--another man succeeds to the office on
the death of Judas...This was a dynastic position, an office of
authority, and the office that continued though succession after the
current occupant ceased to hold that position (Ray, Stephen K. Upon
This Rock. St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the
Early Church. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, pp. 13,14).
Of course, he does not explain then why there are not currently
twelve groups (one for each apostle) that are traced to each of the
original apostles.
For example, what church claims a succession from Matthias? None
that I know of. And if there actually is one, do the Roman Catholics
accept it as legitimate? Not to the best of my knowledge. Nor does he
explain how John replaced Timothy as the head of the church in
Ephesus, as that was not the result of a dynastic transfer. Thus, the
above Roman argument is inaccurate as it contradicts history as well
as the actual Roman teachings on the successors of the apostles.
Where there in fact bishops in Rome who immediately succeeded
Peter? Is it true that no other church that possibly had a
bishop/pastor put in place by an apostle? Or are these basic Roman
claims in error?
When Were There Bishops in Rome?
It is important to note that even Catholic scholars recognize that
there is no proof that anyone was actually considered to be a bishop
in Rome until sometime in the second century. Hence even Roman
Catholic scholars understand that it is not certain that either Linus
or Cletus
or Clement
were even bishops (actually there are enough contradictions
concerning Cletus/Anencletus
that even the existence of some of the early claimed bishops is
questionable--please see the article What
Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church
History?).
One such Catholic scholar, A. Van Hove, wrote this about early
bishops:
This local superior authority, which was of Apostolic origin,
was conferred by the Apostles upon a monarchic bishop, such as is
understood by the term today. This is proved first by the example of
Jerusalem, where James, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles, held
the first place, and afterwards by those communities in Asia Minor
of which Ignatius speaks, and where, at the beginning of the second
century the monarchical episcopate existed, for Ignatius does not
write as though the institution were a new one.
In other communities, it is true, no mention is made of a
monarchic episcopate until the middle of the second century (Van
Hove A. Transcribed by Matthew Dean. Bishop. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume II. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton
Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Imprimatur.
+John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
In other words, although there were bishops in Jerusalem and Asia
Minor in the first and second centuries, there is no mention of a
monarchic episcopate (a bishopric or pastorate) in other places, like
Rome, until the middle of the second century.
Furthermore, even some more recent Catholic scholars understand
that the New Testament provides no support for the idea that one of
the apostles appointed someone to be "bishop of Rome":
"Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First
Century?"...I have expressed agreement with the consensus of
scholars that the available evidence indicates that the church in
Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single
bishop, for at least several decades of the second century
(Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the
development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press,
Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 80,221-222).
The consensus of scholars is that there was NOT an apostolic
succession of bishops starting from Peter in Rome. And notice that
according to Roman Catholic scholars, the first clear bishop of Rome
was not until the middle or latter half of the second century:
ALTHOUGH CATHOLIC TRADITION, BEGINNING IN the late second and
early third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome
and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter
was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community
in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the
opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop. Not
until the pontificate of St. Pius I in the middle of the second
century (ca. 142-ca. 155) did the Roman Church have a monoepiscopal
structure of government (one bishop as pastoral leader of a diocese).
Those who Catholic tradition lists as Peter's immediate successors
(Linus, Anacletus, Clement, et al.) did not function as the one
bishop of Rome (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs
from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated
ed., p.25).
To begin with, indeed, there was no 'pope', no bishop as such, for
the church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter
or bishop...Clement made no claim to write as bishop...There is no
sure way to settle on a date by which the office of ruling bishop had
emerged in Rome...but the process was certainly complete by the time
of Anicetus in the mid-150s (Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A
History of the Popes, 2nd ed. Yale University Press, London, 2001,
pp. 9, 10,13)
...we have good reason to conclude that by the time of Anicetus
(155-66), the church of Rome was being led by a bishop whose role
resembled Ignatius or Polycarp (Sullivan F.A.
From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the
early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 143).
That is an astounding admission. These Roman
Catholic scholars are essentially admitting that there was no
possible succession of bishops beginning with Peter in Rome, but that
the succession of a bishop from the Apostle
John to Polycarp
did occur (and it occurred probably 60 years earlier). It appears
that in the areas of Alexandria and Rome, those there decided that
since Polycarp was a bishop, that they needed to have a bishop
themselves, and near the time of Polycarp's martyrdom,
they had leaders that were then called bishops.
There simply is no contemporaneous evidence
that either Rome clearly had bishops before the second half of the
second century--hence Rome should not be considered to have true,
immediate, physical succession (and of course, neither have the more
important spiritual succession).
Various Catholic writings state that
Hegesippus came to Rome in the mid-2nd century and asked about its
early leaders. F.A. Sullivan suggests that those Romans apparently
mentioned names of leaders they had heard of (as most would have had
no possible direct contact with any from the first century) as there
were no early records with names. Because there was, at the time of
Hegesippus' visit, a bishop of Rome and there had long been bishops
in Jerusalem and Asia Minor, F.A. Sullivan also suggests that
Hegesippus and later writers presumed that the early Roman leaders
were also monarchical bishops, even though that is not considered to
have been likely.
This may explain why there are differences in order in the early
Roman bishop lists: there were probably a lot of elders in its first
80 or so years of existence and since no one was necessarily a bishop
that early, it seems that the early lists are simply an attempt to
put an order of some possible elders that served in the church in
Rome.
Furthermore, notice this admission:
Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors
of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to
establish...The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ
ordained apostles as bishops...The apostles were missionaries and
founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely,
that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular
church as its bishop...The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians,
known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good
evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul the church
of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication
of a bishop with authority over the whole local church...Most
scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most
probably have also been led at that time by a group of
presbyters...There exists a broad consensus among scholars,
including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria,
Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some
time by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second
century did the threefold structure of become generally the rule,
with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local
church (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops:
the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press,
Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 13,14,15).
It is true that beginning sometime in the second century that
there were truly individuals that could be properly described as
Roman bishops. But history is clear that there were no early popes in
Rome (that title was not taken formally until towards the end of the
fourth century according to Roman Catholic sources) and the idea of
an unbroken list of pontiffs beginning with Peter simply does not
have any historical justification prior to sometime in the second
century--over a century after Christ died. (More information can be
found in the article What
Does Rome Actually Teach About Early Church History?).
Furthermore, some who held that title in the early days (as well
as later times) were corrupt.
Perhaps it should be noted that Callistus
(bishop of Rome from 217-222) was considered to have been so corrupt
and that he was condemned by Hippolytus both for his corruption,
allowing abortion, and for instituting a Saturday fast:
Callistus...a man cunning in wickedness, and subtle where deceit
was concerned, (and) who was impelled by restless ambition to mount
the episcopal throne. Now this man moulded to his purpose Zephyrinus,
an ignorant and illiterate individual, and one unskilled in
ecclesiastical definitions. And inasmuch as Zephyrinus was accessible
to bribes, and covetous, Callistus, by luring him through presents,
and by illicit demands, was enabled to seduce him into whatever
course of action he pleased. And so it was that Callistus succeeded
in inducing Zephyrinus to create continually disturbances among the
brethren, while he himself took care subsequently, by knavish words,
to attach both factions in good-will to himself (Hippolytus.
Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX, Chapter VI. Excerpted from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts &
James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright ©
2005 by K. Knight).
The impostor Callistus … even also he permitted females, if they
were unwedded, and burned with passion at an age at all events
unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own
dignity through a legal marriage, that they might have whomsoever
they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free, and that a
woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as
a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs
for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel
what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a
child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of
their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety
that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at
the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to
all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church! And some,
under the supposition that they will attain prosperity, concur with
them (Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX, Chapter VII).
Even today some allow themselves the same audacities : they order
fasting on the Sabbath of which Christ has not spoken, dishonoring
even the Gospel of Christ (Hippolytus. In Danielem commentarius,
4, 20, 3 as Cited in Bacchiocchi Anti-Judaism and the Origin of
Sunday, p. 65).
Note that even The Catholic Encyclopedia admitted this
about Callistus
and Zephyrinus:
Callistus…He obtained great influence over the ignorant,
illiterate, and grasping Zephyrinus by bribes. We are not told how it
came about that the runaway slave (now free by Roman law
from his master, who had lost his rights when Callistus was condemned
to penal servitude to the State) became archdeacon and then
pope... Again Callistus allowed the lower clergy to marry,
and permitted noble ladies to marry low persons and slaves, which by
the Roman law was forbidden; he had thus given occasion for
infanticide (Chapman J. Transcribed by Benjamin F. Hull. Pope
Callistus I. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Published 1908.
New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908.
Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley,
Archbishop of New York).
Obviously the corrupt Callistus attempted to buy the office--and
since he was trying to, he violated the warning from the Apostle
Peter against Simon
Magus first who tried to buy the gift of God
for money. Notice what Peter said to Simon Magus:
"Your money perish with you, because you thought that the
gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor
portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of
God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if
perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that
you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity"(Acts
8:20-23).
Yet Callistus is part of the claimed “apostolic successors” of
this same Peter according to the Roman Catholic Church.
Should one who allowed abortion
and bribed his way into his office be considered a true Christian or
should it be those faithful in Asia Minor be considered as true
apostolic successors?
Even though Hippolytus is considered to be a saint by the Catholic
Church and even "was the most important theologian and the most
prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the
pre-Constantinian era" (Kirsch JP. St. Hippolytus of Rome. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Published 1910), because
Hippolytus held to more of a binitarian
view of the Godhead (Callistus considered him
to be a Ditheist according to Chapman J. Fathers of the Church. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI. Copyright © 1909 by Robert
Appleton Company), the Roman Catholic Church claims apostolic
succession through Callistus instead of Hippolytus. Hippolytus was
the first to be labeled as an antipope because he and his followers
refused to accept that Callistus could have apostolic succession.
Hippolytus was actually elected Bishop of Rome the right after
Zephyrinus’ death, but many chose to follow Zephyrinus’
archdeacon Callistus instead. There is no way that the corrupt
Zephyrinus
and Callistus
can be in any legitimate list of successors to the Apostle Peter.
Yet, they both are in the Catholic list.
Did the Bishops of Rome Always Have Their Current Powers and
Prerogatives?
Many will dismiss the truth about the early details of Roman
Catholic history and state that the Roman Bishops (originally called
presbyters, then called bishops in the mid-second century, and then
called popes since the late 4th century) always ran the Christian
Church. However this is simply not true.
The Eastern Orthodox, for example, do not accept this and claim
that certain aspects were developed late:
The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal
authority set forth in the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today
in the Roman Catholic Church (Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin
Books, London, 1997, p.27).
Notice these admissions from
a Roman Catholic priest and scholar:
It is not until the
middle of the third century that special importance began to be
accorded the faith of the church of Rome (McBrien, Richard P. Lives
of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper,
San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., p.21).
Before the
beginning of the second millennium and the pontificate of Gregory VII
in particular (1073-85), popes functioned largely in the role of
mediator. They did not claim for themselves the title of "Vicar
of Christ". They did not appoint bishops. They did not govern
the universal Church through the Roman Curia. They did not impose of
enforce clerical celibacy. They did not write encyclicals or
authorize catechisms for the whole Church. They did not retain for
themselves alone the power of canonization. They did not even convene
ecumenical councils as a rule--and certainly not the major doctrinal
councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and
Chalcedon (451) (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs
from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated
ed., p.19).
It should be noted that the Orthodox schism with the Roman Church
occurred in the 11th century as the Roman Pontiff demanded rights
that the Eastern churches never believed that he had.
Some, however, decided to
make up evidence that Rome always had the authority. It is of
interest to note that for about 600 years during the Middle Ages,
certain Roman bishops pointed to the "Donation of Constantine"
as evidence of their right to preside over all the other bishops, but
the document according to Roman Catholic sources (i.e. The
Catholic Encyclopedia.
Donation of Constantine) was later proven to be a fraud.
Perhaps it should be mentioned, that any who actually succeeded
Peter, Paul, and John would have been expected to act like them.
Notice what the Rheims' New Testament (a Catholic-accepted
translation into English) states:
25. And it came to pass, When Peter was come in,
Cornelius came to meet him, and falling at
his feet adored.
26.
But Peter lifted him up saying, Arise, myself also am a man. (Acts
10:25-26, RNT)
11. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury,
because he was the chief speaker.
12. The Priest also of cJupiter
that was before the city, bringing oxen and garlands before
the
gates, would with the people sacrifice.
13. Which thing
when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul heard, renting their coats, they
leaped
forth into the multitudes crying and saying, Ye men, why do
you these things?
14. We also are mortal, men like unto you,
preaching to you for to convert from these vain
things, to the
living God that made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all
things that
are in them
15. Who in the generations suffered all
the Gentiles to go their own ways.
16. Howbeit he left not himself
vwithout testimony, being beneficial from heaven, giving
rains,
and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
17.
And speaking these things, they scarce appeased the multitudes from
sacrificing to them. (Acts 14:11-17, RNT)
Hence, neither Peter nor Paul allowed people to bow before them.
This differs from the Roman leaders who claim to have succeeded the
Apostle
Peter.
Current Roman Claims
In spite of the truth, even in the 21st Century, the false claims
of apostolic succession are still being made by the Roman Church.
Notice what the current pontiff recently declared:
Pope Benedict called "the succession of the episcopal
function is ... a guarantee of the endurance of apostolic tradition”
saying that “The link between the college of bishops and the
original community of the Apostles may be seen, above all, as a form
of historical continuity.”
He added however, that
“continuity may also be considered in a spiritual sense, because
apostolic succession in the ministry is a privileged place for the
action and transmission of the Holy Spirit."
The
Pope then quoted St. Irenaeus, who wrote that the Church was "founded
and constituted in Rome by the most glorious Apostles Peter and
Paul," and highlights "the tradition of faith that ...
comes down to us from the Apostles through the succession of
bishops."
"Episcopal succession”, Benedict
said, “verified on the basis of communion with the succession of
the Church of Rome - is therefore the criterion of adherence of
individual Churches to the tradition of apostolic faith, ... which
has come down to us from the origins."
He went on to explain that according to the ancient
Church, "the apostolicity of ecclesial communion consists in
faithfulness to the faith and practice of the Apostles themselves,
through whom the historical and spiritual link of the Church with
Christ is guaranteed.”
“What the Apostles represent in the
relationship between the Lord Jesus and the early Church,” he
explained, “is similarly represented by the ministerial succession
in the relationship between the early Church and the modern
Church.”
He stressed in conclusion that "This is
not a merely material link…rather it is a historical instrument
that the Spirit uses to make the Lord Jesus present as the leader of
His people" (Pope Benedict: Faithful episcopal succession is
guarantee that authentic teaching of apostles carries through
history. Catholic News Agency. May 10, 2006.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6691).
Certainly he MUST know that Paul DID NOT found the Church of Rome.
He MUST know that his church has many teachings that differ from
those held by the original apostles. He MUST also know that there is
NO PROOF that the Roman Church even had a bishop prior to Anicetus
in the latter half of the second century. He MUST KNOW that many
current and past scholars in the Roman Catholic Church certainly
teach and understand this.
If the current pontiff is truly a scholar, why has he chosen to
overlook the truth about apostolic succession? (related information
is found in the article What
Does Rome Actually Understand About Church History?).
Yet, one of the Vatican's top officials, Cardinal Walter Kasper
has publicly taught that the Roman Catholic understanding of
apostolic succession simply isn't historically true. Here is
something from a review of his book titled, Leadership in the
Church: How Traditional Roles Can Help Serve the Christian Community
Today:
The claim is made that the ancient formulation of
apostolic succession—wherein Christ ordained his immediate
successors who in turn ordained their successors with a laying-on of
hands from one bishop to a new priest—no longer holds. Kasper is
clear: That understanding "has been thoroughly shattered by
modern exegesis, but no new historical reconstruction has found
universal agreement among scholars." Evidence of this
late-in-history realization is a new perspective on the ministry of
Paul, whose authority was not horizontal but came from "above."
Thus apostolic ministry cannot be seen as a "mere institutional
matter"; rather, it is better grasped as a "following of
the apostles teaching and life." (Anderson, Mary Jo. Review: A
Reformed Protestant Model of Leadership.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407revw.asp 01/27/07).
Cardinal Kasper was appointed president of the Pontifical Council
for Promoting Christian Unity in Rome by Pope John-Paul II, and still
holds that position.
Asia Minor
While there were certainly a lot of early religious leaders in
Rome, since the actual Christian Church (according the Catholics and
nearly all those who profess Christ) began in Jerusalem on the first
Pentecost after Christ's crucifixion, it is important to realize that
both the Bible and Roman Catholic approved writings support the idea
that there were true churches in the region the Bible refers to as
Asia Minor (nearly all of which is now part of the country of
Turkey).
In the 19th century, Francis Patrick Kenrick wrote:
Ephesus was an autocephalous see…which it derived from the
apostles Paul and John, its founders (Kenrick FP. The primacy of the
Apostolic see vindicated. Murphy, 1875. Original from Harvard
University, Digitized Aug 26, 2008, p. 179).
The Apostle John reportedly was taken to Rome from Ephesus in Asia
Minor, then suddenly exiled to Patmos, by Emperor Domitian, and,
“after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to
Ephesus” (Eusebius. Church History. Book III, Chapter 23).
It has been suggested that Timothy (who Paul had once placed in
charge of the church at Ephesus was martyred sometime prior to John's
return from Patmos (Aherne, Cornelius. Epistles to Timothy and Titus.
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. Nihil Obstat. July 1,
1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John
Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1912. 18 Jan. 2010
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm>).
When the Apostle John, for example, wrote the Book of Revelation,
he was the last of the original 12 apostles to remain alive (and as
an Apostle he ALSO would have been was part of the foundation of the
church as Ephesians 2:19-22 teaches).
And he specifically addressed Revelation "to the seven
churches which are in Asia" (Revelation 1:4), and later listed
those seven (vs. 1:11) all of which were in Asia Minor (here is an
article on The
Seven Churches of Revelation). He also never
positively addressed the church in Rome in that or any other or his
known writings (nor, except in his gospel account, did he ever
mention Peter).
Furthermore, The Catholic Encyclopedia records this about
John,
John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body...the
Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades
of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that
province (Fonck L. Transcribed by Michael Little. St. John
the Evangelist. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII Copyright ©
1910 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by
K. Knight Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
But there is no scriptural reason to think that John only
considered that the churches in Asia Minor were under his leadership.
Actually, in one of his other letters, John also wrote "To the
elect lady and her children" (2 John 1)--which appears to be a
reference to the entire Church (see also Revelation 12:17). Hence, he
obviously felt he had a leadership position related to the entire
Church, not just those in Asia Minor.
This also appears to be confirmed from this quotation that
Eusebius records:
Take and read the account which rims as follows: "Listen to a
tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative concerning John the
apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For
when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos
to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring
territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in
other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to
the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the
Spirit..." (Eusebius. Church History, Book III, Chapter 23.
Translated by the Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition
Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).
Hence it is clear that John, the last of the original apostles,
was the true physical and spiritual successor to Peter, James, and
Paul, while he remained alive. Roman Catholic scholars know that John
was important and that the Bible teaches that Peter was fallible:
The conferral of the power of the keys of the kingdom surely
suggests an imposing measure of authority, given the symbolism of the
keys, but there is no explicit indication that the authority
conferred was meant to be exercised over others, much less that it be
absolutely monarchical in kind...In Acts, in fact, Peter is shown
consulting with other apostles and even being sent by them (8:14). He
and John are portrayed as acting as a team (3:1-11; 4:1-22; 8:14).
And Paul confronts Peter for his inconsistency and hypocrisy...Paul
"opposed him to his face because he was clearly wrong"
(Galatians 2:11; see also 12-14) (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the
Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San
Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 30-31).
Unlike Rome, Asia Minor had a bishop directly traced from an
apostle. And Asia Minor, even according to Roman Catholic scholars,
clearly had bishops BEFORE Rome did (Sullivan
F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in
the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p.217 and Van Hove
A. Transcribed by Matthew Dean. Bishop. The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume II. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online
Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley,
Archbishop of New York).
Furthermore, notice what the theologian and historian John M.
Neale explained in 1850:
The See of Ephesus has always been esteemed one of the first in
the Church… This dignity arose, not so much from the fact that
Ephesus was the residence of the Proconsul of Asia, as because the
Church there was planted by S. Paul, and regarded S. John as its
second founder. That S. Timothy was its first Bishop, ecclesiastical
tradition is constant in asserting: on his suffering Martyrdom, S.
John is related to have consecrated a namesake of his own as second
Prelate. From that time the See of Ephesus possessed Patriarchal
authority over the whole Dicecese of Asia: till, as we have related,
it became subject to Constantinople, not without many struggles…
(Neale JM. A history of the Holy Eastern Church. Masters,
1850. Original from the Bavarian State Library, Digitized Oct
8, 2008, p. 36)
Notice that Ephesus (which included the Smyrnaeans) was the real
true church with “apostolic succession” and that it took
struggles for Constantinople to claim to be above it (even
though what was recognized as that see at the time of
Constantine had compromised).
Notice what the Orthodox correctly teach:
The Eastern Orthodox perspective is that the other Churches had no
idea that they were supposed to obey the Bishop of Rome. In the case
of Polycarp, a man ordained by the Apostle John as Bishop of Smyrna,
we find that Anicet (Bishop of Rome) was unable to convince him to
adopt the mainline custom. Only a few years later, we see Victor
(Bishop of Rome) unable to force a change on the Asiatic Churches.
Why? Because no one there recognized Rome’s authority to do so.
This, in the Orthodox mind, is important because these Churches were
essential witnesses of the Apostles’ teachings. It is likely that
John, Philip and Andrew had ministered in the area. The memory of St.
John was exceptionally strong among these bishops. Had they heard
anything about a Petrine succession of plenary authority in Rome? No.
And yet, the Beloved Apostle was alive for at least twenty years
after Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. Was John under the authority of
Peter’s successor in Rome? This conclusion, which is unavoidable
according to Rome’s ecclesiology, is one that the East cannot
accept (Cleenewerck L. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the
Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (An
Orthodox Perspective). Euclid University Consortium Press, Washington
(DC), 2007, p. 259).
And that is true. Those in Asia Minor in the second century had no
concept that they were to obey any "Bishop of Rome". To the
contrary, all available historical evidence shows that they refused
to accept the authority of any Roman bishop over scripture or what
they learned from the Apostles John and Philip and their successors.
In the late 2nd century, Tertullian claimed that apostolic
succession from in the cities mentioned in Revelation came through
the Apostle John:
We have also St. John's foster churches. For although Marcion
rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when
traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author
(Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 5. Online version.
Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Knight).
Notice the following:
The letters of Ignatius of Antioch,
generally dated to about 115, are the first Christian documents that
witness to the presence of a bishop who is clearly distinct from the
presbyterate and is pastor of the whole church. However this
testimony is certain only for the church of Antioch and for several
churches of western Asia Minor in the vicinity of Ephesus (Sullivan
F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in
the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p.15).
In other words, the only possible area where the Roman
Catholic definition of apostolic succession, from an apostle to a
bishop, could have occurred was in Antioch or Asia Minor. (Ignatius,
bishop of Antioich, specifically mentions Onesimus as bishop of
Ephesus and Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna in his letters, but lists no
"Bishop of Rome".)
The last apostle to die, John, died in Ephesus (around 100 A.D.).
Hence it would make sense that if a bishop was to be the successor to
the apostles, this would probably occur in western Asia Minor (Smyrna
is only a relatively few miles north of Ephesus). "Apostolic
succession", of a type, certainly did occur in Ephesus/Smyrna.
More on Polycarp
Perhaps the most famous successor appointed by the Apostle John
was Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp is unique among any claimed to be a
direct successor to any of the apostles:
Polycarp is the only possible direct apostolic successor
considered by any church I am aware of that there was a letter
written to him while he was alive (yes, there were letters written
in the New Testament to leaders, but none of them are in any of the
'accepted' succession lists I have seen).
He is the only possible direct apostolic successor considered
by any church I am aware that to have written any document that we
still possess to this day (there is a letter claimed to have been
written by Clement of Rome, however, it does not say that he wrote
it, nor is Clement considered to be the direct successor of any
apostle--the Roman Catholic Church currently claims that Linus was
Peter's direct successor; there are also letters written by Ignatius
of Antioch, but the two Antiochian Churches I am aware of claim that
Evodius, not Ignatius, was Peter's direct successor).
Polycarp is the only possible direct apostolic successor
considered by any church I am aware that to have any significant
document written about him within a few weeks of his death.
Polycarp is the only possible successor to the apostles that
was clearly called "bishop" while he was alive.
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Church of God historians all
teach that Polycarp was a spiritually faithful Christian leader.
Yet, Polycarp refused to accept the authority of the Roman Bishop
Anicetus.
Polycarp is also the only possible successor to have a
writing perhaps directed to him in the Bible. Some scholars believe
that when John wrote to the "angel of the church Smyrna"
that this actually was addressed to the leader of the church (the
Greek term translated as "angel" can mean human
representatives, e.g. Luke 7:24) who they feel was Polycarp.
Unlike the early Roman leaders, a letter to Polycarp circa 108-115
A.D. states that he was a bishop. Ignatius notes:
...to Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrnaeans…So approving am I of
your godly mind, which is as it were, grounded upon an unmovable
rock, that my praise exceeds all bounds… (Ignatius. Letter to
Polycarp. In Holmes M.W. The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and
English Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI), 2004, p.
194-201).
Polycarp's Epistle
to the Philippians contains a lot of information about what
he believed and taught. That letter shows that he held positions
still held by the Church of God. It is very important to note that
Polycarp held positions that clearly differ from those now held by
the Roman Catholic or Eastern
Orthodox churches (much of Polycarp's teachings
are discussed in the article Polycarp
of Smyrna). Polycarp was clearly the spiritual
successor to the original apostles. And it is the spiritual
succession that counts.
There was also a letter written about his martyrdom
by the Smyrnaeans which gives additional
insight into him. As previously mentioned, he is also discussed in
writing by such early writers as Ignatius who write an entire letter
to him (circa 110 A.D.), Irenaeus who claimed Polycarp was faithful
(circa 180 A.D.), Polycrates
who claimed that Polycarp was faithful (circa 190 A.D.), Tertullian
who claimed that the true Christian church could be traced through
him (circa 195 A.D.), and Eusebius who wrote that Polycarp was
faithful to the apostolic traditions (circa 330 A.D.).
Eusebius records the following as written by Irenaeus about
Polycarp:
For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp,
moving in splendor in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his
approbation. I remember the events of that time more clearly than
those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind,
becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place
in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings
out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical
appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which
he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen
the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from
them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his
teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word of
life,' Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures
(Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapter 20. Translated by the
Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry
Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K.
Knight).
Note that Irenaeus stated that he personally met Polycarp and that
Polycarp personally knew the Apostles John and that Polycarp's
teachings were in accordance with scriptures and what he learned from
the followers of the Lord.
Around 180 A.D. Irenaeus recorded this about Polycarp:
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and
conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in
Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…always taught the
things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church
has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the
Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded
Polycarp down to the present time (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book
III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4).
This is also later (maybe 20 years later) essentially confirmed by
Tertullian:
Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity
with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim
Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their
churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the
Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the
Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement
and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian.
Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited
in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton
Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat,
July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal
Farley, Archbishop of New York).
The Catholics themselves must recognize the importance of these
statements by Tertullian (as well as Irenaeus)--there were two
churches with proper apostolic claims as far as he was concerned. And
not just Rome--but one in Asia Minor that had been led by the Apostle
John through Polycarp and his descendants.
Actually, note that Polycarp was called, "the father of the
Christians" by anti-Christians, hence it was he that they
apparently would have considered to have been an apostolic successor:
12:1 Saying these things and more besides,
he was inspired with courage and joy, and his countenance was filled
with grace, so that not only did it not drop in dismay at the things
which were said to him, but on the contrary the proconsul was
astounded and sent his own herald to proclaim three times in the
midst of the stadium, 'Polycarp hath confessed himself to be a
Christian.'
12:2 When this was proclaimed by the herald,
the whole multitude both of Gentiles and of Jews who dwelt in Smyrna
cried out with ungovernable wrath and with a loud shout, 'This is the
teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the puller down of our
gods, who teaches numbers not to sacrifice nor worship.' Saying these
things, they shouted aloud and asked the Asiarch Philip to let a lion
loose upon Polycarp (Lightfoot J. Martyrdom of Polycarp).
In the fourth century, Eusebius understood that Polycarp was a
bishop and apostolic successor:
At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of
eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the
church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord (Eusebius.
Church History, Book III, Chapter 36 . Translated by the Arthur
Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.
American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K.
Knight).
Even in the 21st century, the Orthodox
Church claims that Polycarp was a successor to
the Apostles:
As a sharer of the ways and a successor to the throne of the
Apostles, O inspired of God, thou foundest discipline to be a means
of ascent to divine vision. Wherefore, having rightly divided the
word of truth, thou didst also contest for the Faith even unto blood,
O Hieromartyr Polycarp...This apostolic and prophetic man, and model
of faith and truth, was a disciple of John the Evangelist (Polycarp
the Holy Martyr & Bishop of Smyrna. Greek Archdiocese of America.
http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=439 8/27/05).
Even in the 21st century, the Roman Catholic Church claims
Polycarp as a successor to the Apostles:
Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, today the city of Izmir, on the
west coast of Turkey. He was part of the generation of church leaders
who succeeded the apostles. According to one tradition, he was taught
by the apostle John and was appointed to his office by the apostles
himself...This indeed was one of God's chosen ones--the amazing
martyr, Polycarp, an apostolic and prophetic teacher...(Zanchettin L,
ed. The Martyrdom of Polycarp: Who would have thought the old man had
so much courage? the WORD among us--The #1 Monthly Devotional for
Catholics. 2006; Volume 25, Number 4, pp. 69,74).
Since the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics admit that Polycarp WAS
a faithful successor to the apostles, why do they not teach what he
taught? And since they do not, how can any of them claim to be true
to the teachings of the true successors of the apostles?
How Else Did Polycarp and His True Successors Differ?
Irenaeus also reported,
And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time
of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as
to certain other points…For neither could Anicetus persuade
Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these
things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and
by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other
hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the
observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere
to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of
affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded
to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of
showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other,
maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe
[this custom] and those who did not Irenaeus. (FRAGMENTS FROM THE
LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers
(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors); American Edition
copyright © 1885. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New
Advent, Inc.).
Apparently Anicetus conceded enough (such as about Polycarp’s
position on that and probably about Marcion—who
Anicetus agreed was a heretic) that no recorded major ‘blowup’
between the two survived. It appears that Anicetus, tried to satisfy
Polycarp to some degree, and tried to appear not to be a complete
heretic.
But were the churches in Asia Minor and Rome truly in peace after
that?
The Catholic monk Epiphanius wrote,
For long ago, even from the earliest days, the Passover was
celebrated at different times in the church…In the time of Polycarp
and Victor, the east was at odds with the west and they would not
accept letters of commendation from each other (Epiphanius. The
Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De
Fide). Section VI, Verse 9,7. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill,
New York, 1994, p.411).
It appears likely that Polycarp, when he returned to Asia Minor,
would have told the Christians there that he was successful in
turning some away from heretics such as Marcion and Valentinus. He
probably was so disgusted by his Roman experience that he let those
in Asia Minor know that they should not receive doctrine or other
instruction from any in Rome--he also specifically would not change
Passover observance to Sunday. This seems to be confirmed by
Polycrates' writings a few decades later.
Unlike many claimed apostolic successors, not only was Polycarp
faithful to the teachings received from the apostles and the Bible,
so were many of the leaders who were traced from him.
The Catholic writer Eusebius recorded that Polycrates of Ephesus,
around 195 A.D. wrote the following to the Roman Bishop Victor who
wanted all who professed Christ to change Passover
from the 14th of Nisan to Sunday:
We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in
Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on
the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from
heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip,
one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his
two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the
Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was
both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the
Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep
at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and
Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.
Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in
Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived
altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the
episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these
observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel,
deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also,
Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my
relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my
relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always
observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore,
brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met
with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every
Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those
greater than I have said ' We ought to obey God rather than man'
(Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapter 24. Translated by Arthur
Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.
American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K.
Knight).
Thus it is clear that throughout the second century, that Polycarp
and the churches in Asia Minor continued to observe the Passover on
the 14th of Nisan, unlike the Romans, and that they did it based upon
what the Bible, those in Ephesus (a church were Paul had once placed
Timothy in charge), and the Apostles (John and Philip) taught. Also,
notice that the "list of apostolic succession" that
Polycrates seems to provide has individuals who did not all live in
the same city--Polycrates is demonstrating a spiritual succession
based upon adherence to both scripture and apostolic teachings.
Hence, only the church that continues this practice can seriously
be considered as a successor to the apostles (the early church had
many doctrines that are not held now by most who claim
Christianity--a list of some of them can be found at the History
of Early Christianity Page).
In spite of this, a relatively recent book stated:
Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary
disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus),
yet they never denied Rome's primacy. They may have debated what
primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but
they never denied the primacy (Ray, Stephen K. Upon This
Rock St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early
Church. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p. 13).
Well, since Polycarp denied Rome's primacy, and as through their
words and/or action did Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito, and
Polycrates (and others), the above statements (and the related
statements) in that book are in error--including its basic
conclusions--Rome never had primacy over true, apostolic
Christianity. And this is clear from the teachings and practices of
many that the Romans considered to be "Fathers" of the
church.
List of Early Leaders
The Church of God traces its history from Pentecost, the year
Jesus was crucified, through the Apostles and through those leaders
that were faithful to the faith that was once for all delivered
for the saints (Jude 3). We teach that throughout history, there
were those who were always faithful to the basic apostolic teachings,
and that that is still true today.
We in the Churches of God do not view the following list the same
way that those in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches
view theirs. We believe that we are the true spiritual descendants of
the apostles and this is not dependent upon a bishop to bishop
transfer, but a true holding of teachings in a little flock--Luke
12:32. In a sense the "Smyrnaean" leaders could also be
considered as the "apostolic succession list of the see of
Ephesus" as it was accepted from centuries that there was
apostolic succession in Ephesus/Asia Minor, with the succession after
the early-mid third century considered to be "lost".
Lest this cause misunderstanding, it needs to be understood that
we believe that the true COG never completely died out and thus that
the true COG existed from the beginning to now, and will so until the
end--we did not just appear or "pop-up" as the descendants
of the Apostolic Church--we are a continuation (but we did not always
call our leaders by the expression "bishops"). The
following list (which mainly has dates based upon Roman Catholic
accepted sources) gives a listing of apparently faithful leaders of
the church from the first through third centuries. It is based upon
scripture and the testimony of Polycrates (which was apparently also
accepted by Tertullian) The dates listed are when they died, not the
entire time they were leaders:
Peter/Paul/James
through death circa 64-68 (mainly oversaw churches from Asia
Minor and Jerusalem, though Paul was imprisoned in Rome)
John
through death circa 95-100 (oversaw churches from Ephesus of
Asia Minor)
Polycarp
through death circa 155-156 (oversaw churches from Smyrna of
Asia Minor)
Thraseas
through death circa 160 (oversaw the churches from Eumenia,
but died in Smyrna)
Sagaris
through death circa 166-167 (died in Laodicea of Asia
Minor)
Papirius
through death circa 170 (oversaw churches from Smyrna of
Asia Minor)
Melito
through death circa 170-180 (oversaw churches from Sardis of
Asia Minor)
*
Polycrates through death circa 200 (oversaw churches
from Ephesus of Asia Minor)
*Apollonius
of Ephesus through death circa 210 (oversaw
churches from Ephesus of Asia Minor).
*Camerius of Smyrna
through death circa 220 (possibly oversaw churches from
Smyrna of Asia Minor).
* Note: History concerning Apollonius is not totally clear, but
strong indications are that he was most likely in the true church
(the 210 date came from The Catholic Encyclopedia). There is
basically no information about Camerius of Smyrna, other than he is
listed as bishop of Smyrna prior to the third century in sources like
The Catholic Encyclopedia and the questionable book The
Life of Polycarp. After Polycrates and Apollonius, the official
history (with Eusebius the main writer) says almost nothing about the
true church in Ephesus, though a compromised church from there
develops importance in the fourth century. It may also be of interest
to note that the succession that Polycrates provided was NOT limited
to a single city, but to the predominant leader/bishop at the time.
Although historian F. Arundell has listed 70 so-called "bishops
of Ephesus" (Arundell Francis V. Discoveries in Asia
minor: including a description of the ruins of several ancient cities
and especially Antioch of Pisidia : in two volumes, Volume 2.
Bentley, 1834. Original from the Bavarian State Library.
Digitized Feb 9, 2010, pp. 272-273), he failed to name most of the
early ones (though he did list Timothy, the Apostle John, Polycrates,
and Apollonius) and has a gap of over 100 years after Apollonius (and
it need to be understood that during this gap, there was so much
apostacy, that those he listed after Apollonius were not faithful
Christians). Many have listed Timothy in lists of Ephesus succession
along with Polycrates and Apollonius, yet although Timothy was in
Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:1-3), he would not have been above the Apostle
John (though historians like F. Arundell place the Apostle John after
Timothy in a list of "the bishops of Ephesus"). Also, if
Timothy is included in the list, and Polycrates was referring to
people like him as John as "his relatives", in that sense
then Polycrates was the "eighth" in the above succession
list. F. Arundell lists Timothy as 1, John as 2, Polycrates as 8,
Apollonius as 9 in his list (while erroneously listing Onesimus as 3
and no one as numbers 4-7).
There clearly then is an 'alternate' listing of leaders in a
spiritual succession from the apostles that most people are
unfamiliar with (many of the beliefs, as well as more information on
the true second/third/fourth century church can be found in the
article The
Smyrna Church Era). Many of those on the list
were considered to have been Smyrnaean as well as part of the later
termed "Apostolic see of Ephesus".
It should be noted that the idea that what became known as
Roman/Orthodox/Traditional Christianity gaining prominence by the
third century is not simply a view held by those in Church of God,
but is held by a variety of theologians and historians.
Here is some of what Bart Ehrman has written:
...traditional Christianity...is the form of Christianity
that began to thrive at the end of the third and beginning of the
fourth centuries (Ehrman B. From Jesus to Constantine: A History of
Early Christianity. The Teaching Company, Chantilly (VA), 2004, p.
28).
Thus, what is considered to be traditional Christianity developed
in the third and fourth centuries, NOT the second century. NOT the
century when the last of any true direct apostolic successors could
have lived into.
Binitarianism was the belief of the main form of Christianity
until the early third century (Polycarp,
Melito,
Ignatius, and others had writings consistent with its principles).
Binitarianism mainly declined in overall popularity as the separation
between true Christians (often referred to by scholars as Nazarenes
and Jewish Christians) widened. Because in the first two centuries,
both true Christians and those that were more Roman Catholic and/or
Eastern Orthodox in their views were binitarian.
People in those three groups are often referred to as
"proto-orthodox".
..."Nazarene" Christianity, had a view of Jesus fully
compatible with the beliefs favored by the proto-orthodox (indeed,
they could be considered part of the circles that made up
proto-orthodox Christianity of the time). Pritz contended that this
Nazarene Christianity was the dominant form of Christianity in the
first and second centuries...the devotional stance toward Jesus that
characterized most of the Jewish Christians of the first and second
centuries seems to have been congruent with proto-orthodox devotion
to Jesus...the proto-orthodox "binitarian" pattern of
devotion. (Hurtado LW. Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in
Earliest Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids,
2003, pp. 560-561,618).
However, as the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox became less like
original Christianity, they also adopted a different (a trinitarian)
view of the Godhead. "Nazarene" Christianity completely
separated from Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox "Christianity"
by the end of the third century, with most of the separation
occurring in the second century.
After the third century, many dispersed all over. Some apparently
ended up in the British Isles. Interestingly, the Celtic/Keltic
churches, around 600 A.D. claimed to have been descended from the
church of the Ephesians:
The Keltic Churches of Ireland, of Galloway, and of Iona were at
one with the British Church. These claimed, like Southern Gaul and
Spain, to have drawn their faith from the Apostolic See of Ephesus.
Their liturgies, or such fragments as have come down to us, bear
marks of belonging to the Oriental family of liturgies. (Dawson W.
The Keltic Church and English Christianity. Transactions of the Royal
Historical Society (New Series), 1884, p. 377 doi:10.2307/3677978 )
These people had practices like the seventh-day Sabbath and
Passover on the 14th of Nisan (see The
Pergamos Church Era and The
Smyrna Church Era).
The Bible teaches that there will be a succession of seven
churches throughout history, until the end of the age (Revelation
2-3). The genuine
Church of God traces itself through those seven
churches, and holds the basic beliefs of them down to this day (more
information can be found in the article The
Churches of Revelation 2 & 3).
One, apparent, early 20th century Church of God "successor"
(until about 1933) was A.N. Dugger. Notice some of what he wrote:
Apostolic Succession…
“The view
that a wise and perfect form of church government and organization
was set in order by the New Testament founders of the church, which
has right to continue, and that that order has been handed down by
the apostolic succession, was maintained by many.”… -- Britannica
Encyclopaedia, volume 5, page 759, article, “Church.”…
That succession of the apostolic power has come down
unbroken… Gladstone attacks this in a friendly criticism, by
expressing doubt as to why a church would remain silent for some
thirteen centuries and then be able to speak. This mystery, however,
is made clear with a correct understanding of the prophecy of
Revelation, where it was clearly shown beforehand that it would be
so. The church was to go into the wilderness and be nourished there
for 1260 years, from the face of her persecutor, the beast. Then as
the earth helped the woman, she was to come forth again. This
actually took place, and while remaining in silence, as far as the
world was concerned, yet she is not only able to speak, but divinely
empowered with the right to do so.
Britannica Encyclopaedia, volume 2, page 194
says, “Very early, however, the notion that the apostleship is
essentially an hierarchical office, found entrance into the church…”
The Scriptures teach us most
emphatically that the apostolic virtue and power was handed down from
apostle to apostle by the divine ordinance of laying on of hands and
prayer. -- Numbers 8:10, 27:28; Acts 6:6; 13:3; I Timothy 4:14; II
Timothy 1:5.
That the Sabbath-keeping "Church
of God," has a most definite link of connection back through
holy men to the days of the apostles is certain. The very same faith,
and practice in divine worship, have been definitely handed down to
the present time by strong men of God, filled with His blessed Holy
Spirit, zealous for the precious commandments of God, and the faith
of Jesus, fervent in zeal, and faithful unto death. (Dugger AN, Dodd
CO. A History of True Religion, 3rd ed. Jerusalem, 1972
(Church of God, 7th Day). 1990 reprint, p. 308)
A spiritual “leadership succession list” from the mid-1800s to
present would be from Gilbert Cranmer to possibly Jacob Brinkerhoff
then to A.N. Dugger to, in about 1933, Herbert Armstrong until his
death, and held by Roderick Meredith (from no later than 1992) to
present.
Some will claim that these are simply assertions, yet only those
who kept the original apostolic practices could have "apostolic
succession," and these seem to be among the leaders in the past
160 years. (The clergy itself does not give God's Spirit at baptism
nor ordination. The clergy beseeches the Father to give the person
His Holy Spirit via prayer and the laying on of hands. The Spirit is
given by the Father, if the Father answers the clergy’s prayer
(which is mainly dependent upon the sincerity/repentance of the
person). Therefore, even if the specific clergy member who performed
the ceremony has issues or falls away from the truth, the procedure
is still valid.)
How can one know if the leaders of the genuine
Church of God have apostolic succession or if
instead the leaders of the "sees" in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem do? Is it by claiming a specific
list of leaders for nearly 20 centuries or something else?
Notice what Jesus taught:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them
by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from
thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree
bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad
tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut
down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will
know them.
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in
Your name?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you;
depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Matthew 7:15-23).
So it is the fruits that are important. The fruits would certainly
seem to include holding the teachings and practices of the early
church as recorded in the Bible and also (to a lessor degree) the
early leaders who professed Christ. And the fact is that the largest
existing group that holds to all the doctrines and practices of the
early church (as mentioned early and shown later in Appendix A in
this paper) is the genuine
Church of God.
Remember, the Apostle Paul taught:
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be
carried about with various and strange doctrines (Hebrews 13:8-9).
Also remember that Jesus, the apostles, and their true successor
kept Passover on the 14th, observed the seventh-day Sabbath, did not
tolerate idols, had a "binitarian view", etc. Just like the
genuine
Church of God today.
Would the Successors of the Apostles Change Basic Doctrine?
Without going into all the detail (some of which is alluded to in
Appendix A below), a question that needs to be asked is could it be
possible that a true successor to the apostles would deny or change
basic doctrine?
Well, history clearly shows that the Ecumenical Patriarche of
Constantinople (Macedonius,) and the Bishop of Rome (often referred
to as Pope Liberius) taught that denying the divinity of the Holy
Spirit as the third person of some trinity was sound doctrine (on
that point those two leaders actually were biblically and
historically correct). (For details, please see the article Did
Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a
Trinity?)
However, that is considered to be such a basic doctrine of the
Catholics and Orthodox that now they have a problem. If the Holy
Spirit is the third divine person of a trinity, then their
"successors" in the 4th century denied the faith. And since
both were successors for over a decade each, then the Catholics and
Orthodox must admit that they do not have an unbroken line of
successors to their faith like they claim that they do.
And of course, that is the problem. None of those groups had the
type of initial apostolic succession that they now claim, many of
those that are in their succession lists held doctrines contrary to
what the original apostles taught, and none of those churches are
therefore truly apostolic as they claim that they are
a
Catholic view of the history of the Eucharist:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt
Pagan
origin of the mystery of the Eucharist:
http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
the
following website has many very good links to the true history of the
church and many other studies.
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/month-of-holy-eucharist/
http://www.cogwriter.com/marcus.htm
progression
of the mass:
http://theeucharist.wordpress.com/index/chapter-1/
true
apostolic succession
http://www.cogwriter.com/apostolicsuccession.htm
what
Catholcis teach as the history of the church
http://www.cogwriter.com/roman.htm
Nazerene
church may be able to trace it's root.
http://www.cogwriter.com/Nazarene.htm
church
did not always have a pope
Notice
also the following (from http://vintage.aomin.org/Sermo131.html
viewed 07/22/12):
Cyprian (and the North African church as a whole for
the span of centuries) believed the "chair of Peter"
referred to all bishops
in all churches
across the world. Cyprian, for example, claimed to sit upon the
"cathedra Petri" as did all
bishops. For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to
observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His
Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee,
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the
changes of times and successions, the
ordering of bishops and the plan of the
Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon
the bishops, and every act of the Church
is controlled by these same rulers
(emphasis added).
This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians.
Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology,
vol. 2, p. 375), "Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole
episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by
the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a
single body." And a little later Quasten cites the words of an
African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of
bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory
obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and
power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged
by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the
judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power
both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our
acts therein (CSEL 3, 1, 436).
Thus, the original view Greco-Roman did not have the
Church of Rome above all other bishops.
Devout
Catholic historian von Dollinger reminds us of the following facts:
Of all the
Fathers who interpret these passages (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not
a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors.
How many Fathers have busied themselves with these three texts, yet
not one of them who commentaries we possess--Origen, Chrysostom,
Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations
are collected in catenas--has dropped the faintest hint that the
primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to
Peter!
Not one of them
has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His
Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his
successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or
Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together (Cited in
Hunt D. A Women Rides the Beast. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene
(OR) p. 146).
The
Catholic saint Augustine seemed to be confused on the subject of the
whether Peter or Jesus was the Rock:
In a passage in
this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the
Church was built.’.. But I know that very frequently at a later
time, I so explained that it be understood as built upon Him whom
Peter confessed… And so Peter, called after this rock, represented
the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has
received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven...’ But let the
reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable
(Augustine, Retractations,
1:21 as cited in Cleenewerck L. His Broken Body: Understanding and
Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
Churches (An Orthodox Perspective). Euclid University Consortium
Press, Washington (DC), 2007, p. 302).
Since Augustine was confused, it seems safe to
conclude that the idea that Peter must be the Rock was not the
universal position at least in the early fifth century.
This
seems to have been the position of Catholic "saint and doctor of
the Church" Jerome:
Jerome…"The
Church of the Roman city is not to be deemed one thing, and the
church of the whole world another. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia,
India, and all the barbarous nations adore one Christ: and observe
one rule of faith. If you look for authority, the world is greater
than a city, (Rome.) Wheresoever a bishop is, whether at Rome, or
Constantinople, or Alexandria, or Tanais, he is of the same worth,
(or authority) and the same priesthood." … To Evagr. Tom. ii.
p. 512, Paris edit, of 1602.
St. Jerome…:—
"Bishops should remember that they are greater than elders,
(presbyters,) rather by custom, than by truth of the Lord's
appointment: and that they ought to rule the church in common."
On Titus Lib. i. cap 1. (As cited in Brownlee WC. Letters in the
Roman Catholic controversy, 2nd edition. LETTER VIII. TO DRS. POWER
AND VARELA, AND MR. LEVINS. Published by the author, 1834. Original
from Harvard University, Digitized, Aug 26, 2008, p. 94)
Thus, apparently Jerome did not believe that Jesus
made any particular promise to Peter that was to transfer to the
Bishop of Rome and give supremacy.
In his letter
to the Ephesians the Apostle Paul makes clear that the Church was not
just built on Peter but is built on the foundation of the apostles
(plural) AND the prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone, and
including all the members in the church as well:
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and
foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the
household of God, Having been built on the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, In
whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy
temple in the Lord, In whom you also are being built together for a
dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).
In
addition, look at what the third century bishop of Carthage and
martyr Cyprian wrote:
The Lord speaks to
Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon
this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of {haydes} shall not
prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound
also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His
resurrection, "Feed my sheep." And although to all the
apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says,
"As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto
him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;"
yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the
origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of
the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like
partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from
unity (Cyprian of Carthage. Treatise 1, Chapter 4. Excerpted from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts &
James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright ©
2005 by K. Knight).
Cyprian clearly did not
understand that all authority went to Peter and not the other
apostles. And it is true that Peter was originally the predominant
one--but upon his death, it would seem that one of the surviving
apostles, like the Apostle
John,
and not a local elder such as Linus, would have held the highest
amount of authority on earth
Even
in the late second/early third century Origen wrote:
But if you think the whole church to be built by God upon
that one Peter only, what would you say of John the son of thunder or
each of the Apostles? Are we to venture to say that the gates of
Hades do not prevail against Peter by a special privilege, but
prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? What is said
surely belongs to each and all of them, since all are ‘Peter’ and
the ‘Rock,’ and the church of God has been built upon them all,
and against none who are such do the gates of Hades prevail. Is it to
Peter alone that the Lord gives the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,
and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this privilege,
‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ is
common to the others, so also are all the preceding words addressed
as it were to Peter (Origen on Matthew XII, 10 as cited in eyendorff
J. The Primacy of Peter: essays in ecclesiology and the early church
St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992, p. 61).
Hence, the idea that the keys were not unique to Peter were known
to others and is not a new concept.
Perhaps I should quote some of what the current Roman pontiff
stated about Origen:
In our meditations on the great figures of the ancient
Church, today we will get to know one of the most outstanding. Origen
of Alexandria is one of the key people for the development of
Christian thought...He was a true teacher (Pope Benedict XVI. MEETING
WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE WORLD OF CULTURE: ADDRESS OF HIS
HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI. Collège des Bernardins, Paris. Friday, 12
September 2008. © Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana)
So,
if Origen is such a true teacher, those associated with Rome should
recognize that the Bible is correct and that the "keys"
were not given to Peter alone.
When
Was the Roman Bishop Ever Considered the Head of the Church?
As previously alluded to,
the Orthodox Churches of Alexander, Antioch, Constantinople, and
Jerusalem were also recognized by the Roman Church as legitimate.
However, they never accepted the position that they were to be
subservient to the Bishop of Rome.
The Petrine theory, that
most Roman Catholics accept, holds that Peter’s successors are to
decide doctrinal matters for the Church. Yet, at the Council of Nicea
in 325 A.D., records show that the Roman bishop, Sylvester I, did not
attend.
This was a significant
doctrinal conference. And this shows that the Roman bishop exercised
no primacy over when the date of Easter was set as a replacement for
the biblical Passover, and when Sunday worship officially replaced
the biblical seventh-day Sabbath. The Council of Nicaea was called
and presided over not by a Roman bishop, but by the Emperor
Constantine. As emperor, Constantine held the title of Pontifex
Maximus in the pagan Roman religion. A title that later Roman bishops
would later adopt.
Furthermore, notice this
admission from a Roman Catholic priest and scholar:
Before the
beginning of the second millennium and the pontificate of Gregory VII
in particular (1073-85), popes functioned largely in the role of
mediator. They did not claim for themselves the title of "Vicar
of Christ". They did not appoint bishops. They did not govern
the universal Church through the Roman Curia. They did not impose of
enforce clerical celibacy. They did not write encyclicals or
authorize catechisms for the whole Church. They did not retain for
themselves alone the power of canonization. They did not even convene
ecumenical councils as a rule--and certainly not the major doctrinal
councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and
Chalcedon (451) (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs
from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated
ed., p.19).
However later, some decided
to make up evidence that Rome always had the authority. It is of
interest to note that for about 600 years during the Middle Ages,
certain Roman bishops pointed to the "Donation of Constantine"
as evidence of their right to preside over all the other bishops, but
the document according to Roman Catholic sources (i.e. (The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Donation of Constantine) was later proven to be a
fraud.
Very
early, indeed, did the bishops of Rome show a proud and ambitious
spirit; but, for the first three centuries, their claim for superior
honour was founded simply on the dignity of their see, as being that
of the imperial city, the capital of the Roman world.
When, however, the
seat of empire was removed to the East, and Constantinople threatened
to eclipse Rome, some new ground for maintaining the dignity of the
Bishop of Rome must be sought. That new ground was found when, about
378, the Pope fell heir to the keys that were the symbols of two
well-known Pagan divinities at Rome. Janus bore a key, and Cybele
bore a key; and these are the two keys that the Pope emblazons on his
arms as the ensigna of his spiritual authority... Now, when he had
come, in the estimation of the Pagans, to occupy the place of the
representatives of Janus and Cybele, and therefore to be entitled to
bear their keys, the Pope saw that if he could only get it believed
among the Christians that Peter alone had the power of the keys, and
that he was Peter's successor, then the sight of these keys would
keep up the delusion, and thus, though the temporal dignity of Rome
as a city should decay, his own dignity as the Bishop of Rome would
be more firmly established than ever...
The keys that the
Pope bore were the
keys of a "Peter" well known to the Pagans initiated in the
Chaldean Mysteries...The priest who explained the Mysteries...was
"Peter"--i.e.,
"the interpreter"...Thus we may see how the keys of Janus
and Cybele would come to be known as the keys of Peter the
"interpreter" of the Mysteries...
The term Cardinal
is derived from Cardo,
a hinge. Janus, whose key the Pope bears, was the god of doors and
hinges...
* It
was only in the second century before the Christian era that the
worship of Cybele under
that name,
was introduced to Rome; but the same goddess, under the name of
Cardea, with the "power
of the key,"
was worshipped in Rome, along with Janus, ages before.
(Hislop A. The Two
Babylons. Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune (NJ) 1959; first published 1853;
pp. 206-207,208,210).
Now while I do not claim to
know the motivation of the bishops of Rome in 378, it is a fact that
the pagan gods Janus "holds a key" (Lindemans M. Janus.
Encyclopedia Mythica. created 1997;
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/janus.html 11/20/05) and Cybele's
"symbol is a key" (Cybele (Rhea) Polychrome's Pantheon.
http://hunter.apana.org.au/~gallae/pantheon/myth/cybele.htm
11/20/05). I have also found independent citations that Janus was a
god of doors and hinges and Cardea (who became Cybele) was called the
hinges of the door
(http://www.controverscial.com/Gods%20and%20Deities.htm 11/22/05).
Furthermore, The
Catholic Encyclopedia
confirms that the term Cardinal
is derived from the Latin word for hinge as does a book sponsored by
the Pontifical Administration:
It became the usual
designation of every priest belonging to a central or episcopal
church, an ecclesiastical cardo
(Lat. for hinge)...(SÄGMÜLLER. J.B. Transcribed by WG Kofron. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert
Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight.
Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
later called
cardinals (hinges of the organization) (Lopes A. The Popes: The lives
of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma,
1997, pp. 1,2).
Thus there certainly seem to
be pre-Christian origins for many practices associated with the Roman
Church.
It
should be noted that Christ told Peter that the gates of Haydes (the
grave) would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18).
Obviously Peter died so that gates of the grave prevailed against
him. Also, even a cursory listing of the Roman Bishops of Rome (the
first 37 of which they call pope after the fact--none
of the first 37 bishops of Rome referred to themselves with the terms
pope or pontiff)
shows that there are many gaps between the death of one and the
selection of another (e.g. Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the
pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997).
Hence what the true Catholic position appears to be is that the
church itself will not die out (which is what Jesus taught) even if
there is not always one universally recognized human leader of it on
earth. And that is true.
Around
200 A.D., in his paper Liber
de praescriptione haereticorum
Tertullian (an acknowledged Catholic "early church father")
addressed the idea of continuity of the Church when he wrote
The real question
is, 'To whom does the Faith belong? Whose are the Scriptures? By
whom, through whom, when and to whom has been handed down the
discipline by which we are Christians? The answer is plain: Christ
sent His apostles, who founded churches in each city, from which the
others have borrowed the tradition of the Faith and the seed of
doctrine and daily borrow in order to become churches; so that they
also are Apostolic in that they are the offspring of the Apostolic
churches. All are that one Church which the Apostles founded, so long
as peace and intercommunion are observed [dum est illis communicatio
pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis].
Therefore the testimony to the truth is this: We communicate with the
apostolic Churches'. The heretics will reply that the Apostles did
not know all the truth. Could anything be unknown to Peter, who was
called the rock on which the Church was to be built? or to John, who
lay on the Lord's breast?...Anyhow the heresies are at best
novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ.
Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let
them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue
of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop
appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and
John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent
something to match this.
Nearly everything that
Tertullian wrote above is absolutely correct (the point about Peter
being the rock was addressed earlier). And what he seems to be saying
is that the true Christian Church must be able to trace itself from
the beliefs held by original Apostles, should have a successor chosen
by one of those Apostles, and the only two groups that could possibly
meet these criteria are the Smyrnaeans and the Romans. Since
Smyrnaeans
and the Romans had different doctrines at that time (the Smyrnaeans
kept the Passover while the Romans kept Easter Sunday as one major
historical example), then if Tertullian is correct here, it follows
that only one of them could have been the true Christian Church
during his time. (Please also see the article Apostolic
Succession.)
And thus only one of them
could be the correct church now (for further information on the
history of the Church, please read the article Do
the Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Matter?).
The
Bible shows that in the early church, Jerusalem was where its
leadership was conferred on topics of importance (see Acts 15;
Galatians 1:18; 2:1-9). Actually, three of the four times that the
Bible shows that Paul conferred with Peter, it was in Jerusalem
(ibid). And the fourth time was not in Rome, it was in Antioch
(Galatians 2:11). It should be noted that even the Church of Rome
teaches that Peter was the bishop (or overseer) of Antioch.
Interestingly, when personally addressing the leadership for the
Christians who lived in Rome, Paul never mentioned Peter, even though
he listed at least 27 others (Romans 16). This is not proof that
Peter was never possibly in Rome, but it does show that he was
probably never there long enough to truly be the 'bishop of Rome'.
Perhaps, it should be
pointed out that even the Church of Rome acknowledges:
...that Peter
founded the Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he laboured a
long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the
end of his life...It is also probable that Peter pursued his
Apostolic labours in various districts of Asia Minor for it can
scarcely be supposed that the entire period between his liberation
from prison and the Council of the Apostles was spent uninterruptedly
in one city, whether Antioch, Rome, or elsewhere...Peter
returned occasionally to the original Christian Church of
Jerusalem...The recognition of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles
(Gal., ii, 1-9) was entirely sincere" (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed
by Gerard Haffner. St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI
Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright
© 2003 by Kevin Knight. Nihil
Obstat, February 1, 1911.
Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
This shows that the Church
of Rome acknowledges that Peter labored in Asia minor and tended to
return to Jerusalem. The Bible clearly shows that Peter came to
Antioch as Paul wrote, "Peter had come to Antioch"
(Galatians 2:11). Hence, the Catholics do not teach that Peter even
spent much time in Rome.
It should be mentioned here
that there is no early church writing that suggests that the
Christians in Asia Minor accepted any authority from the early
bishops of Rome. The Catholic Church does officially acknowledge this
as well when it said this about the Roman Church:
Only in a
few places, especially in the Orient, did she overstep its boundaries
(Kirsch J. P. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. Ecclesiastical
History. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by
Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K.
Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
By the Orient, the above
means Asia Minor.
Furthermore, the leaders in
Asia Minor, specifically Polycarp (around 150 A.D.) and those
affiliated with Polycrates (around 197 A.D.) specifically refused to
accept Roman ecclesiastical authority. This is well documented in
Catholic approved sources (and many quotes are found in the articles
What
Does Rome Actually Teach About Early Church History?
and The
Location of the Early Church).
==========================================================================================================================
THE
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
If
you are like me and you were raised in a Christian church, then you
have do doubt heard of the doctrine of the trinity. And if you are
like most Christians, then you have probably been taught that the
doctrine of the trinity is the very core central belief of
Christianity. And some of you may have been taught that if you do NOT
believe all that this doctrine of the trinity teaches, then you are
NOT saved. In other words, some churches dogmatically teach that the
doctrine of the trinity is ESSENTIAL for salvation and if you do not
believe all that it teaches then you are still yet dead in your sins
and you will not be saved.
If
this is you and you have been taught the doctrine of the trinity,
then I would like to ask you some questions like have you ever
wondered why the word “TRINITY” is NOT found anywhere in the
Bible? Have you ever wondered why none of the terms within the
doctrine of the trinity are not found in the Bible? For example have
you ever wondered why the phrase “three in one” or one in three”,
as in, “three persons in one God and yet not three Gods, but rather
one God in three persons” is NOT fund any where in the Bible? Or
have you ever wondered why you have never found even one verse in the
entire Bible that clearly and plainly says that Jesus is FULLY God
and FULLY man at the same time? Have you ever wondered why you have
never found any verse in the Bible saying, God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Holy Spirit?
In
other words, if you have ever wondered why such a core central must
believe doctrine that is being taught as an ESSENTIAL doctrine that
must be believed for salvation is NOT clearly and plainly stated and
taught in God's word of truth, the Holy Bible, then it may surprise
you from where this doctrine of the trinity did indeed come. That is
to say, since this doctrine of the trinity is NOT clearly and plainly
taught in the Bible, then from WHERE did it come and WHEN did it
become such a core central teaching in the church that must without
fail be believed in order to be saved?
You
see the truth of the matter is that this doctrine of the trinity is
NOT clearly taught in the scriptures, but rather this man made
doctrine of the trinity developed GRADUALLY over many centuries over
much debate, controversy, and OPPOSITION.
As
a quick summary of what we will cover in this study of God's word is
as follows:
#1. Few Christians seldom ever QUESTION what they
are taught and therefore just blindly accept whatever they are taught
is church as being the truth. The Bible therefore WARNS us to be NOT
deceived by false teachers that creep in among believers in the
church.
#2. After the last original apostle died the first
and second century Christians had many different ideas about the
divinity of Jesus, which led to many debates as to just how divine
was Jesus. Most every Christ understood the apostle John's writing
that if you denied that Jesus came in the flesh then you were and
anti-Christ, but they also understood that the Word was God and the
Word was made flesh. So therefore the big debate this first two to
three hundred years was over the questions; Was Jesus a divine being?
And if so, then how much divine was Jesus? Was Jesus fully divine and
fully man at the same time? Was Jesus half God and half man? Or was
Jesus fully man?
#3. Debate grew to such intensity that the
Roman Emperor Constantine called the Bishops of the church all
together to settle this controversy at the Council of Nicaea in 325
AD.
#4. But the Council of Nicaea did NOT end the
debate! And this heated controversy on the divinity of Jesus continue
for the next 54 plus years.
#5. Then during this next 54 plus years the nature
of the Holy Spirit was ADDED to the debate causing even more
controversy.
#6. These ongoing heated disputes eventually lead
to another gathering together of the Bishops of the church to take
another vote. This was called the Council of Constantinople.
#7. The Trinity becomes official doctrine at the
Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. And ALL other believes about the
deity of Jesus were banned and all writings that opposed this newly
established doctrine of the trinity were ordered to be burned. And
this newly formed man made doctrine of the trinity became an
ESSENTIAL teaching of the Roman Catholic church in order to be saved.
#8. In other words, the trinity doctrine was
decided by trial and error
being a HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL DEBATE for over a THREE HUNDRED year
period of time that did NOT BEGIN to be decided UNTIL over TWO
HUNDRED years after the death of the last original apostle, who was
John that most agree died around the year 100AD.
#9. This doctrine of the trinity CONTINUED to be
debated and OPPOSED throughout the history of the church!
#10. This doctrine of the trinity is still yet
being debated and OPPOSED by many Christians in the church today.
#11. The TRUE ORIGIN of the doctrine of the
trinity!
#12. The BIBLICAL trinity!
So then, that is the
basic summary of what this study will cover. This study will be
divided under the headings listed above for easier reference later.
#1. Some Christians seldom ever QUESTION what
they are taught and therefore just blindly accept whatever they are
taught in church as being the truth. The Bible therefore WARNS us to
be NOT deceived by false teachers that creep in among believers in
the church.
I wrote a study not too long ago called Every
Catholic should know the TRUTH! And in the opening of this study I
taught that God wants us as Christians to QUESTION what we are being
taught in order to see if we are being taught the TRUTH of the whole
word of God. You see, Acts 18:11 teaches us that the men in Berea
were called more noble that the Christians at Thessalonica, because
the Christians at Berea search the scriptures daily in order to find
out if they were being taught the TRUTH.
Jesus and the New Testament writers foretold, various heretical
ideas and teachers rose up from within the early Church and
infiltrated it from without. Christ Himself warned His followers:
"Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My
name ... and will deceive many" Matthew 24:4,5.
Matthew 24:11/ Acts 20:29,30/ 2 Corinthians 11:13-15/ 2 Timothy
4:2-4/ 2 Peter 2:1,2/ 1 John 2:18,19,26/ 1 John 4:1-3 BEWARE of false
teachers slipped in unaware among the brethren.
Different gospel Galatians 1:6
2 Corinthians 11:13,26
Divisions
in the New Testament/ followers of men/ led to pride/ 3 John 1:9,10
The start of leaders wanting to be in control to the point that they
only had the truth and they kicked Christians out of the church if
they did not believe exactly as they taught.
#2. After the last original apostle died the first
and second century Christians had many different ideas about the
divinity of Jesus, which led to many debates as to just how divine
was Jesus. Most every Christ understood the apostle John's writing
that if you denied that Jesus came in the flesh then you were and
anti-Christ, but they also understood that the Word was God and the
Word was made flesh. So therefore the big debate this first two to
three hundred years was over the questions; Was Jesus a divine being?
And if so, then how much divine was Jesus? Was Jesus fully divine and
fully man at the same time? Was Jesus half God and half man? Or was
Jesus fully man?
It wasn't long
before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered
minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different
religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in
ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as
syncretism,
common
in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith
founded by Jesus Christ.
Historian Jesse Hurlbut says of this time of transformation: "We
name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D.,
'The Age of Shadows,' partly because the gloom of persecution was
over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in
the [church's] history, it is the one about which we know the least.
We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us;
and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history . . .
"For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over
the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last
it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church
fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from
that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul" ( The Story
of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33).
This "very different" church would grow in power and
influence, and within a few short centuries would come to dominate
even the mighty Roman Empire!
By
the second century, faithful members of the Church, where scattered
into small groups of believers, while at the same time other
Christians where being heavily influence by the Gentile pagan beliefs
from among the brethren that came out of paganism.
#3. Debate grew to such intensity that the
Roman Emperor Constantine called the Bishops of the church all
together to settle this controversy at the Council of Nicaea in 325
AD.
When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia
Britannica states: "Constantine himself presided, actively
guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the
crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed
issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the
bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them
much against their inclination" (1971 edition, Vol. 6,
"Constantine," p. 386).
With the emperor's approval, the Council rejected the minority
view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace
it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The
church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from
that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief
held by only a minority of those attending.
The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now
laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ's
death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge!
"The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no
understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no
unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching
as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty
years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain
imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It
was very difficult to make his creed stick" (pp. 110-111).
The ongoing
disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of
the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes,
"Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in
these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians
by pagans in the history of Rome" (
The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith,
1950, p. 8). Atrociously, while claiming to be Christian many
believers fought and slaughtered one another over their differing
views of God!
#4. But the Council of Nicaea did NOT end the
debate! And this heated controversy on the divinity of Jesus continue
for the next 54 plus years.
These men—Basil, bishop of Caesarea, his brother Gregory, bishop
of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus—were all "trained in Greek
philosophy" (Armstrong, p. 113), which no doubt affected their
outlook and beliefs (see "Greek Philosophy's Influence on the
Trinity Doctrine," beginning on page 14)
In the year 381, 44 years
after Constantine's death, Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the
Council of Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) to resolve these
disputes. Gregory of Nazianzus, recently appointed as archbishop of
Constantinople, presided over the council and urged the adoption of
his view of the Holy Spirit.
#5. Then during this next 54 plus years the nature
of the Holy Spirit was ADDED to the debate causing even more
controversy.
#6. These ongoing heated disputes eventually lead
to another gathering together of the Bishops of the church to take
another vote. This was called the Council of Constantinople.
#7. The Trinity becomes official doctrine at the
Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. And ALL other believes about the
deity of Jesus were banned and all writings that opposed this newly
established doctrine of the trinity were ordered to be burned. And
ALL other believes about the deity of Jesus were banned and all
writings that opposed this newly established doctrine of the trinity
were ordered to be burned.
The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians "made it
possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the
divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere
been clearly stated, not even in Scripture" ( The
HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "God,"
p. 568).
The council adopted a statement that translates into English as,
in part: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the
Father before all ages . . . And we believe in the Holy
Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who
with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who
spoke by the prophets . . ." The statement also
affirmed belief "in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context
universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church . . ."
With this declaration in 381, which would become known as the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Trinity as generally understood
today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature
of God.
Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no
dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: "We now
order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who
profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same
glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious
separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing
the Persons and uniting the Godhead" (quoted by Richard
Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).
Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence
to the new teaching: "Let us believe the one deity of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy
Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title
of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our
judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they
shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and
shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of
churches.
"They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the
divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our
authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to
inflict" (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church,
Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22).
Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ,
never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical
writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who
disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and
church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly.
YET many teach that one must believe
the doctrine of the trinity in order to be saved!
The book Catholicism makes
it clear that the Roman church's position is that belief in the
Trinity is a necessity for salvation: "Whoever will be saved:
before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Unless he keep this Faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he
shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this:
we worship one God in Trinity" (George Brantl, editor,
1961, p. 69).
The doctrine of the Trinity is considered so sacred and
fundamental that many churches and religious organizations view it as
a litmus test for defining who is and isn't a true Christian.
For example, author and theology
professor James White writes: "We hang a person's very
salvation upon the acceptance of the doctrine . . . No
one dares question the Trinity for fear of being branded a 'heretic'
. . . We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to
be fully and completely Christian" ( The Forgotten
Trinity, 1998,pp. 14-15, emphasis added throughout unless
otherwise noted).
Another source explains: "The doctrine of the Trinity is
the basis of our Christian faith. Because the doctrine of the
Trinity cannot be fully understood, it requires the Holy Spirit to
direct our minds to believe" (Randy Smith, Theological
"ism"s, A Layman's Reference Guide to Selected Theological
Terms, 1999, p. 90, quoted by Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or
Human Tradition? 2007, p. 21).
The same source quotes yet another as stating, "You
cannot be saved if you don't believe in the Trinity."
This is serious business. Tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds
of thousands—of Christians have been excommunicated, persecuted and
even killed over the doctrine.
Yet even as some demand that we
believe in the Trinity, they admit that it's a mystery beyond
understanding. Notice this startling statement from A Handbook of
Christian Truth: "The mind of man cannot fully understand
the mystery of the Trinity. He who has tried to understand the
mystery fully will lose his mind; but he who would deny the Trinity
will lose his soul" (Harold Lindsell and Charles
Woodbridge, 1953, pp. 51-52).
These are surprising
admissions about the Trinity—"an absolute mystery,"
"mysterious in its origin and its content," "impossible
for Christians actually to understand," "unintelligible,"
"misunderstood," "presents strange paradoxes" and
"widely disputed." Does this really sound like a doctrine
on which to base our faith and salvation—especially when Paul
clearly tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that "God is not the
author of confusion"?
If scholars,
theologians and religious authorities admit that we cannot understand
such a major doctrine, shouldn't that tell us something may be
seriously wrong when it comes to that particular belief?
#8. In other words, the trinity doctrine was
decided by trial and error
being a HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL DEBATE for over a THREE HUNDRED year
period of time that did NOT BEGIN to be decided UNTIL over TWO
HUNDRED years after the death of the last original apostle, who was
John that most agree died around the year 100AD.
What mean by trail and error is that certain
THOUGHTS were presented and then these INTERPRETATIONS would be voted
upon, REFINED, REWRITTEN, changed and then changed back but in
slightly different wording until the final wording was voted on and
accepted.
Now it should be noted that Roman Emperors resided
over both of these councils who were pagans that already believed in
a three in one god.
This ALONE should raise a RED FLAG too those seeking
the truth of the whole word of God to the ACTUAL ORIGIN of the MAN
MADE doctrine of the trinity, which we will take a closer look at as
we continue this study in God's word.
#9. This doctrine of the trinity CONTINUED to be
debated and OPPOSED throughout the history of the church!
Martin Luther, the
German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, "It
is indeed true that the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the
Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man"
(reproduced in The
Sermons of Martin Luther,
John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).
#10. This doctrine of the trinity is still yet
being debated and OPPOSED by many Christians in the church today.
#11. The TRUE ORIGIN of the doctrine of the
trinity!
Many of the church leaders
who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity were steeped in Greek and
Platonic philosophy, and this influenced their religious views and
teaching. The language they used in describing and defining the
Trinity is, in fact, taken directly from Platonic and Greek
philosophy. The word trinity itself is neither biblical nor
Christian. Rather, the Platonic term trias, from the word for three,
was Latinized as trinitas— the latter giving us the English word
trinity.
Now it may come as a
surprise to some Christians that the belief in a trinity or a triad
god was a pagan belief long before Christianity ever came into being.
Marie Sinclair, Countess of Caithness, in her 1876 book Old
Truths in a New Light, states: "It is generally, although
erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of
Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a
similar doctrine. [The early Catholic theologian] St. Jerome
testifies unequivocally, 'All the ancient nations believed in the
Trinity'" (p. 382).
Sumeria
"The universe was divided into three regions each of which
became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was
given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they
constituted the triad of the Great Gods" ( The Larousse
Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)
Babylonia
"The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a
trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a
composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and
the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such
trinity in unity" (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman
and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).
India
"The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000
years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know
that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is
the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.'
The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming
manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real
distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the
semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the
acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'
"Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as
a symbol of the Deity . . . Three was considered among all
the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as
Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle,
and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of
almost all the pagan gods" (Sinclair, pp. 382-383).
Greece
"In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are
three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship
of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things
are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have
this number in everything, and these compose the number of the
Trinity'" (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity,
1928, pp. 197-198).
Egypt
"The Hymn to Amun decreed that 'No god came into
being before him (Amun)' and that 'All gods are three: Amun,
Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as
Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.' . . . This
is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed
into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity
within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation.
Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the
later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism"
(Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004,
pp. 83-84).
Other areas
Many other areas had their own divine trinities. In Greece they
were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis. The Phoenicians worshipped Ulomus,
Ulosuros and Eliun. Rome worshipped Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. In
Germanic nations they were called Wodan, Thor and Fricco. Regarding
the Celts, one source states, "The ancient heathen deities of
the pagan Irish[,] Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva, or Sheeva, are
doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the
all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos"
(Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p.
171).
"The origin of the conception is entirely pagan"
Egyptologist Arthur Weigall, while himself a Trinitarian, summed
up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the Trinity
doctrine by the Catholic Church in the following excerpt from his
previously cited book:
"It must not be forgotten that Jesus Christ never mentioned
such a phenomenon [the Trinity], and nowhere in the New Testament
does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the
Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the
origin of the conception is entirely pagan . . .
"The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early
religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or
goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis,
and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of
Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth . . .
"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of
applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions
to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they
recognized the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit;
but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity,
co-equal and united in One . . .
"The application of this old pagan conception of a Trinity to
Christian theology was made possible by the recognition of the
Holy Spirit as the required third 'Person,' co-equal with the other
'Persons' . . .
"The idea of the Spirit being co-equal with God was not
generally recognised until the second half of the Fourth Century A.D.
. . . In the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the
earlier Nicene Creed a description of the Holy Spirit as 'the Lord,
and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the
Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.' . . .
"Thus, the Athanasian creed, which is a later composition but
reflects the general conceptions of Athanasius [the 4th-century
Trinitarian whose view eventually became official doctrine] and his
school, formulated the conception of a co-equal Trinity wherein the
Holy Spirit was the third 'Person'; and so it was made a dogma of
the faith, and belief in the Three in One and One in Three became a
paramount doctrine of Christianity, though not without terrible
riots and bloodshed . . .
"Today a Christian thinker . . . has no wish to be
precise about it, more especially since the definition is
obviously pagan in origin and was not adopted by the Church until
nearly three hundred years after Christ" (pp. 197-203).
James Bonwick summarized the story well on page 396 of his 1878
work Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought: "It is an
undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities
are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western
hemispheres, to north and south.
"Further, it is observed
that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. The
first is as the second or third, the second as first or third, the
third as first or second; in fact, they are each other, one and the
same individual being. The definition of Athanasius,
who lived in Egypt, applies to the trinities of all
heathen religions."
#12. The BIBLICAL trinity!
1 John 5:7 was ADDED to the original text in order to the language
of the trinity in the Bible.
You see, some Bible translators of past centuries were so
zealous to find support for their belief in the Trinity in the
Scriptures that they literally added text to the original text. A
case in point is 1 John 5:7,8.
It reads in the King James Version, also known as the Authorized
Version: "For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit,
and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The
words in italics are simply not a part of the generally accepted New
Testament manuscripts. Regrettably, in this particular passage some
other versions read essentially the same.
Most Bible commentaries that mention this addition tell us that it
is a spurious comment added to the biblical text. Consider the words
of The New Bible Commentary: Revised: "Notice that AV
[the Authorized Version] includes additional material at this point.
But the words are clearly a gloss [an added note] and are rightly
excluded by RSV [the Revised Standard Version] even from its margins"
(1970, p. 1269).
In the New Revised Standard Version, 1 John 5:7,8 correctly and
more concisely reads, "There are three that testify: the Spirit
and the water and the blood, and these three agree." John
personifies the three elements here as providing testimony, just as
Solomon personified wisdom in the book of Proverbs.
Many other more recent Bible versions likewise recognize the
spurious added text and omit it, including the New International
Version, American Standard Version and New American Standard Bible,
English Standard Version, New English Bible and Revised English
Bible, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible,
Good News Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard
Bible, Bible in Basic English and the Twentieth Century New
Testament.
"The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7,8 explains Dr.
Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. "Of all the Greek
manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very
late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the
other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this
verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this
verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin
Vulgate" ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).
Peake's Commentary on the Bible is very incisive in its
comments as well: "The famous interpolation after 'three
witnesses' is not printed in RSV and rightly [so] . . .
No respectable Greek [manuscript] contains it. Appearing first in a
late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate [the 5th-century
Latin version, which became the common medieval translation] and
finally NT [New Testament] of Erasmus [who produced newly collated
Greek texts and a new Latin version in the 16th century]" (p.
1038).
The Big Book of Bible Difficulties tells us: "This
verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts
. . . Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on
the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to
include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two
earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek
manuscripts which contained it" (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe,
2008, pp. 540-541).
Even though this verse was ADDED to the original text
to TRY and prove the man made doctrine of the trinity it still does
NOT lend any undeniable support to this false doctrine.
You see, the Greek word that is translate as “and
these three ARE ONE” in verse 7 is the SAME Greek word that is
translated in verse 8 as “and these three AGREE IN ONE”. This
SAME Greek word is also used in where the husband and wife “ARE
ONE”, which we KNOW that the two being separate beings do not
literally become ONE BEING when they are married. So therefore, this
Greek word should rightly be translated as “AGREE AS ONE”. Also
this is the SAME Greek word that Jesus used when he said, I and my
Father “ARE ONE”, which again should have rightly been translated
as, I and my Father “AGREE AS ONE”.
So then, now that you know HOW and from WHERE this
man made doctrine of the trinity came into being over many centuries
after much oppositions from Christian, who would NOT bow their knee
to this Roman Catholic church man made pagan doctrine and many of
which who were martyred for their unwavering faith in the TRUTH of
the WHOLE word of Almighty God, we will now take a closer look at
what the Bible actually teaches us, and what the first and second
century church actually believed BEFORE the church was CORRUPTED by
the rituals and beliefs of PAGANISM.
The question now
becomes Why believe a teaching that
isn't biblical?
Colossians 2:1-10
“For I
would that you knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them
at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;
2 That their hearts might be
comforted , being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the
full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the
mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
3 In whom are
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4 And this I say , lest any
man should beguile you with enticing words.
5 For though I be absent in
the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your
order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
6 As ye have therefore
received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him,
and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught , abounding
therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest
any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ.
9. For IN
him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
In other words, the
FULNESS of Almighty God the AFTHER dwelt IN
his Son Jesus through the Holy Spirit of Almighty God the Father. And
it was BY the eternal Holy Spirit of Almighty God, the Father,
dwelling IN his Son Jesus that did the mighty works of healing and
over coming sin. Jesus said, of MYSELF I can do NOTHING, it is the
Father IN
me that does the works that you see me do. In other words, Almighty
God the Father, who is SPIRIT and his own Holy SPIRIT are ONE and the
SAME BEING.
Website for information above:
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/why-holy-spirit-sometimes-incorrectly-referred-he-and-him/
the rock?
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/jesus-christ-rock-old-testament/
false teaching of the Holy Spirit being just a force or a power of
God.
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/holy-spirit-person/
Division followers of men pride 3 John 1:9,10 The
start of leaders wanting to be in control.
Here
is 1 Timothy 6:13-16 which agrees with many of the early church
writings.
“I give you charge in the sight of God,
who quickens all things, and
before Christ Jesus,
who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14.
That you keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15.
Which in his times
he shall show (speaking
of the first and the second comings of Jesus, in his times being
plural Jesus shall SHOW us the one true and only Almighty God the
Father), who is the blessed and ONLY
Potentate (or
who is the ONLY ALMIGHTY and Sovereign Lord God over all including
his Son Jesus), the King of kings , and
Lord of lords;
16. Who ONLY HAS
IMMORTALITY, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;
whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power
everlasting. Amen. (verse
16 is clearly describing the one true and ONLY ALMIGHTY God who alone
is the FATHER, who ONLY has always had immortality and therefore had
NO beginning. But we clearly see in John 5:26,27 that Jesus was GIVEN
this IMMORTALITY even as the Father has this life in himself from all
eternity.)”
So
then, both the Sophia of Jesus Christ and the New testament writing
of 1 Timothy 6:13-16 both AGREE that Jesus had a BEGINNING and that
ONLY Almighty God the Father has IMMORTALITY.
You
see the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, clearly teahces us that Jesus,
the Son O MAN, was GIVEN eternal life to have within himself BY his
God and Father the one true and ONLY Almighty God. Please read John
5:26,27, which clearly teaches us that Jesus was GIVEN all authority
and power BY his God and Father, BECAUSE Jesus was the Son of MAN.
“For
AS
the Father has life in himself; so has he GIVEN
to the Son to have life in himself;
And has GIVEN
him authority to execute judgment also,
BECAUSE
he is the Son of MAN.”
Not
because Jesus was FULLY God in the flesh as some falsely teach.
Not
because Jesus was the SON of almighty God.
But
rather because Jesus was the Son of MAN, a HUMAN being, the divine
LOGOS that was MADE FLESH and dwelt among us.
Please
notice that John 1:1 does NOT say, In the beginning was JESUS, and
JESUS was with God and JESUS was God. Now does it say in the
beginning was the SON, and the SON was with God and the SON was God.
But
rather John 1:1 clearly and plainly say that In a beginning was the
LOGOS or the WORD, and the LOGOS or the WORD was with God and the
LOGOS of the WORD was God.
Then
Almighty God sent forth his WORD by his angel Gabriel to the virgin
Mary who BELIEVED and RECEIVED the WORD of God that then the WORD
BECAME or was MADE flesh in the womb of Mary who brought forth a
HUMAN child and CALLED his name JESUS who shall be called the SON of
the Highest.
The
early first century church believed in ONE God even the Father just
like the Apostle's creed clearly and plainly states.
Apostle's creed:
I
believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and
earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our
Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended
to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he
ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of
the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the
dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy
catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the
forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
----------
In
the immediate post apostolic age right after the death of the apostle
John the last of the original 12 Apostles to die there are preserved
several writings from different believers such as Clement, Polycarp,
Ignatius, Hermas and a few others whose writing can be found at the
following link so that you can read them for yourself and see that
none of these first and second century writers taught the doctrine of
the trinity. But one of the main subjects that was being developed
was the divinity of Jesus.
At
the first the church was comprised solely of Jewish converts, who
firmly believed that God is ONE. And then after God turn to the
Gentiles or the heathens and pagans the church was comprised of both
Jews and Gentiles. Now the Gentiles believed in many gods just as
long as the Jews believed in one God so the battle of words and
REASONINGS as to what Jesus and the apostles meant by the teachings
that they passed down mostly by oral accounts, but there were also
the writings of the New Testament, which we have today, along with
some other early church writings believed to be dated around the same
time. However these writing were NOT accepted as trusted writings and
therefore they were Not mad part of the canon of the Holy Bible.
Then
came Tertullian who is quoted by the Catholic church as the FIRST to
use the Latin word “TRINITAS”, which is translated as “TRINITY”.
Now Tertullian lived from 150 to 225 AD. But at the first Tertullian
believed in just TWO persons of the Godhead or “Binitarian” and
it was not until 200AD. that Tertullian joined a Christian group
called the Montanist, who taught Tertullian to believe in the
Paraclete or the Holy Spirit as a personal being of Almighty God
himself that can be offended. Thus for the FIRST time Tertullian saw
a “TRINITY” in the Bible.
However,
Tertullian did NOT teach the trinity as it is taught today as The
father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all being EQUAL in every way
where none is greater than nor less that the over and that all are
FULLY Almighty God.
In his book Against
Hermogenes, Tertullian believed God was
originally alone and not yet a Father. The Son was created at a
certain point, making God into a Father. Also Tertullian did not
teach the three persons of the trinity were eternal, as do the
Trinitarians today. The point that I want you to see is that even the
IDEA of the trinity did NOT come into the Christian church until 200
AD, and even then it was NOTHING like the DOCTRINE of the trinity is
today.
The TRUTH of the matter is the the BIBLE teaches that
Almighty God the Father and the Holy Spirit are ETERNAL and the Jesus
his Son was brought forth into existence. You can read the many
studies in God's word on the subject of the trinity that I have
written here at AmatterOfTruth.com, which I have listed in the studt
called “WHO IS JESUS” for all the scriptural evidence of Jesus
not being Almighty God, but rather a God or god who is under his God
and Father the one true and only Almighty God. But for now let us get
back to the pagan ORIGIN of the doctrine of the trinity. Please keep
in mind that paganism was world wide and in great influence in the
church when they were converted to be Christians. Old habit die hard
as they saying goes.
History teaches us that the first recorded record of
a trinity or a triad god being three gods in one, but yet one god
began in Sumeria around 4000 years ago in Mesopotamia, which is where
Abraham lived when God called him out from among his people.
The following is a JW
website, but it has some very good historical information.
http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2011/06/history-of-development-of-trinity.html
Sumeria
"The universe was divided into three regions each of which
became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was
given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they
constituted the triad of the Great Gods" ( The Larousse
Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)
Babylonia
"The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a
trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a
composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and
the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such
trinity in unity" (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman
and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).
India
"The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000
years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know
that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is
the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.'
The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming
manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real
distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the
semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the
acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'
"Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as
a symbol of the Deity . . . Three was considered among all
the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as
Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle,
and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of
almost all the pagan gods" (Sinclair, pp. 382-383).
Greece
"In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are
three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship
of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things
are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have
this number in everything, and these compose the number of the
Trinity'" (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity,
1928, pp. 197-198).
Egypt
"The Hymn to Amun decreed that 'No god came into
being before him (Amun)' and that 'All gods are three: Amun,
Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as
Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.' . . . This
is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed
into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity
within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation.
Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the
later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism"
(Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004,
pp. 83-84).
Other areas
Many other areas had their own divine trinities. In Greece they
were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis. The Phoenicians worshipped Ulomus,
Ulosuros and Eliun. Rome worshipped Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. In
Germanic nations they were called Wodan, Thor and Fricco. Regarding
the Celts, one source states, "The ancient heathen deities of
the pagan Irish[,] Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva, or Sheeva, are
doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the
all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos"
(Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p.
171).
"The origin of the conception is entirely pagan"
Egyptologist Arthur Weigall, while himself a Trinitarian, summed
up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the Trinity
doctrine by the Catholic Church in the following excerpt from his
previously cited book:
"It must not be forgotten that Jesus Christ never mentioned
such a phenomenon [the Trinity], and nowhere in the New Testament
does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the
Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the
origin of the conception is entirely pagan . . .
"The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early
religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or
goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis,
and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of
Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth . . .
"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of
applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions
to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they
recognized the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit;
but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity,
co-equal and united in One . . .
"The application of this old pagan conception of a Trinity to
Christian theology was made possible by the recognition of the
Holy Spirit as the required third 'Person,' co-equal with the other
'Persons' . . .
"The idea of the Spirit being co-equal with God was not
generally recognised until the second half of the Fourth Century A.D.
. . . In the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the
earlier Nicene Creed a description of the Holy Spirit as 'the Lord,
and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the
Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.' . . .
"Thus, the Athanasian creed,
which is a later composition but reflects the general conceptions of
Athanasius [the 4th-century Trinitarian whose view eventually became
official doctrine] and his school, formulated the conception of a
co-equal Trinity wherein the Holy Spirit was the third 'Person'; and
so it was made a dogma of the faith, and belief in the Three in One
and One in Three became a paramount doctrine of Christianity
“PHIPIPPIANS
2:6 A TRINITARIAN DILEMMA!”
Philippians
2:6 ...who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be
equal with God...
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/phil-26_8991.html
An excellent
illustration of the trinitarian's dilemma concerning an honest
translation of Phil. 2:6 can be shown by the 1971 "Palm Sunday
Controversy" in France (see June 15, 1971 WT):
At every Palm
Sunday Mass, Phil. 2:5-11 is read. The 1959 lectionary for France's
Catholic Church read: "Being of divine
status, Christ did not greedily hold
on to [harpagmos]
the rank that made him equal to God."
In 1969 the
Roman Catholic bishops of France authorized a new lectionary for
their country. The Holy See in Rome approved it on September 16,
1969. In this new lectionary Phil. 2:6 was translated: "Christ
Jesus is God's image
[morphe,
`form']; but he did not choose to seize
by
force
[harpagmos]
equality with God."
This new
translation, needless to say, started a great controversy and
demonstrations by many Catholics throughout France. As one French
Catholic magazine explained: "If he [Jesus] refused to seize
it [equality with God], it must be
that he did not already possess it."
So much
pressure was brought to bear upon the Church in France that the
trinitarian Catholic bishops who had insisted upon the new honest
translation were forced to change it. So, in an attempt to
compromise, they rendered it: "He [Jesus] did not choose to
claim to be the same as God."
This newest
version was also thoroughly condemned by the same trinity-defending
French Catholic magazine. It noted that if Christ "did not
choose to claim to be the same as God," this implied that he was
not
"the same as God," and "the practical effect of this
substitution amounts to heresy and blasphemy."
But, in spite
of threats and demonstrations, the French episcopate refused to
compromise any further. Le
Monde
reported,
"this
translation ... was accepted by the entire
body of French-speaking bishops. The Permanent Council of the French
Episcopate, that has just met in Paris, has ratified it; so it will
stand."
Why did these
trinitarian Catholic scholars and Church officials insist on a
translation of Phil. 2:6 that so obviously denies
the "central doctrine" of the Catholic Church?
This question
was answered by an article in Le
Monde
(6 April 1971):
"The
scholars responsible for this change - a change ratified by the
majority of French bishops - consider the new translation more
faithful to the Greek text
than the former [1959] one was."
So the French
Catholic cardinals, archbishops, and bishops found themselves in a
dilemma. They could either give up their new, more honest,
translation of Phil. 2:6 which would show they are more loyal to
their trinitarian traditions than to the truth of the inspired
scriptures (Matt. 15:6-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4;
John 8:31-32), or they could keep their new official translation and
thereby admit that many other French trinitarian Bibles (as well as
many translations in other languages) have mistranslated
Phil. 2:6. In order to take the latter course required not only a
strong stand against tradition but the strength and courage to stand
against the desires (and demonstrations, politics, economic
pressures, etc.) of a large number of their countrymen. Courage of
such a magnitude is rare in the ranks of tradition-bound Christendom!
When even a
number of the best trinitarian
scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an
equivalent compromise) of harpagmos
at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking
individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus
as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not
God!
The highly
regarded (and trinitarian) The
New
International
Dictionary
of
New
Testament
Theology,
1986, Zondervan, says:
"Although
Jesus, the Son of God, in his preexisting being as the Word was in
the form or IMAGE of God, he and the Son of MAN resisted the
temptation to
be
equal
with
God
(Phil. 2:6). hat is to say that in the days of his flesh in his
earthly existence Jesus was obedient to God, even unto death on the
cross (Phil. 2:8) .... Then ONLY AFTER the completion of his work on
earth Jesus was highly exalted and has indeed been raised to the
right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still
not
made equal to God.
Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to
him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28)." - p. 80, vol. 2. [Emphasis found in
quotations is nearly always added by me, as it also is here.]
Ison:
"Equal"
Of course most
trinitarians ignore the proper translation of harpagmos.
Among such "scholars" was the influential Dr. Walter
Martin, the anti-"cult" Trinity defender. He tells us, in
fact, that the word "equal" here further proves Jesus'
absolute equation with God [but only if you mistranslate harpagmos
first, of course].
(Please
consider: Being "equal
to someone or something" [like being "the image
of someone"] is really a statement that you are not
really that person or thing at all! When we intend to identify
someone or something, we come right out and say it. We do not say,
"David is equal
to the king of Israel;" "Jesus
is equal
to the Christ;" "Jehovah
is equal
to God;" etc.! No, we clearly
say, "David is
King over Israel" - 2 Sam. 5:17; "Jesus is
the Christ" - 1 Jn 5:1; "Jehovah is
God" - 1 Ki 18:39, Living Bible,
ASV, Young's, and The
Interlinear Bible; Ps 100:3, ASV,
Young's, and The
Interlinear Bible. - - -
Remember, "LORD" in most
Bibles is a mistranslation of "Jehovah.")
"The term
`equal' here," Martin writes, "is another form of ison
[see MINOR 7-10], namely isa,
which again denotes absolute
sameness of nature, thus
confirming Christ's true Deity." - p. 68, KOTC.
So Martin tries
to tell us that Phil. 2:6 is asserting that Jesus "thought it
not something to be retained
[harpagmos]
to be of the absolute same nature
with God."
Now
to me all this does is create another dilemma. If this trinitairian
professor is correct in his interpretation that Jesus “thought is
NOT something to be retained to be of the absolute same nature with
God”, then AFTER the Word was MADE FLESH, then this means that NONE
of the absolute same nature with God was RETAINED.
In
others words, Jesus was 100% MAN a HUMAN BEING with absolutely NO
DIVINE NATURE while Jesus was on the earth in the days of his FLESH.
However, as
even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:
"Morphe
is instanced from Homer onwards and means form
in the sense of outward
appearance."
- The
New
International
Dictionary
of
New
Testament
Theology,
1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Thayer agrees
that morphe
is
"the
form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external
appearance"
- Thayer's
Greek-English
Lexicon
of
the
New
Testament,
p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young's
Analytical
Concordance
(also compare the closely-related morphosis)
and Liddell and Scott's An
Intermediate
Greek-English
Lexicon,
p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.]
It's
easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the
forced "nature" interpretation of morphe
when you look at all
the scriptural uses of morphe
(according to Young's
Analytical
Concordance,
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A
Concordance
of
the
Septuagint,
Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7
in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job
4:16 "there was no form
[morphe]
before my eyes;" Is. 44:13 "makes it as the form
[morphe]
of a man;" Dan. 4:33 "my natural
form
[morphe]
returned to me;" 5:6, 9, 10 "the king's countenance
[morphe]
changed;" 7:28 "[Daniel's] countenance
[morphe]
was changed." - The
Septuagint
Version,
Greek
and
English,
Zondervan, 1976 printing.
In
others words, Almighty God spoke forth his Word and the Word CHANGED
FORM and BECAME HUMAN.
Another
way to translate Philippians 2:6 is ...who was in the IMAGE of God
did NOT even think to RETAIN any of the divinity or glory, but rather
took on the form of a human being.
Even
the early church writer Tertullian what first coin the Latin word
“TRINITAS” in referring to The Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit wrote the following:
"...
who being in the image
of God, `thought it not ...'" - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF,
p. 549, vol. 3.
The
Word in the beginning was with God and the Word was the IMAGE of God.
In other words, what Go was the Word was or the what God was the Word
became the IMAGE of God.
You
see before the Word was brought forth in to existence there was only
God, who was alone before any thing was created. That is to says
there was God and his TOUGHTS and nothing else existed. In other
words, once the Word of God was brought forth into existence, then
the Word word become the IMAGE of what God was thinking to bring
forth.
God
desired and thought to have a SON. This was God's FIRST thought. This
was the BEGINNING of his creation. Before Go THOUGHT to bring any
thing forth, the FIRST thing that God thought ha to have a SON.
So
God chose that the WAY in which he would have a Son would be to speak
forth his thoughts in the FORM of his WORD. And then what God was in
his thoughts would BE the EXPRESS IMAGE of God's thoughts.
This
a why a tree is NOT God, but rather a tree is an IMAGE of God's
THOUGHTS that God brought into existence by his spoken Word.
So
then the Word was in the FORM of God as an OUTWARD EXPRESS IMAGE of
God's INWARD being of his THOUGHTS or his will to become.
Now
some translations of the Bible incorrectly translated the scripture
that says that the things which are SEEN are nade from NOTHING. The
truth of the matter is that the things which are SEEN are made form
that which is UNSEEN. In other words, all things are made FROM and BY
Almighty God the Father, who is INVISIBLE or who is UNSEEN. And God
chose to make all things from himself THROUGH his Word that would one
day bring forth his only begotten Son into the world as God's EXPRESS
IMAGE.
Now
some trinitarians try to argue that the Greek word “MORPHE” also
means a disguise or an appearance of the real, but yet not the real,
when this word is used as Jesus taking on the APPEAPRANCE of man.
Again
those trinitarians that try and ague along this line just create
another dilemma. First of all the SAME Greek word is used for Jesus
or the Word being in the APPEARANCE of God, bet yet NOT the REAL
being of God.
But
worse than this these trinitarians are unknowing becoming antiChrists
when they demand such and INTERPRETATION saying the Jesus ONLY
APPEARED to be HUMAN FLESH.
Can
you not see my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ,
that whatever FORM that the WORD was in the beginning, that the WORD
was MADE FLESH and CHANGED from what ever FORM the Word WAS and
BECAME 100% FLESH, a HUMAN BEING just like you and me and Jesus was
tempted in all point just like we are tempted yet Jesus did NOT sin
or disobey his God and Father in any way. And THEREFORE his God and
Father HIGHLY EXALTED his Son Jesus to BECOME a GOD to sit beside his
Father to rule and reign over God's creation. This is what the WHOLE
word of God teaches when the verses are LEFT in the CONTEXT and then
COMPARED with the REST of God's word.
Some
still try and argue that Jesus NEVER CEASED to BE ALMIGHTY God, when
the Word BECAME FLESH and dogmatically demand the Jesus is fully 100%
Almighty God AND 100% MAN at the SAME TIME. And one of the verses
that they use is Philippians 2:6 specifically focusing on the Greek
word
Huparchon
(or `Uparchon')
Another less
than forthright rendering of "being
in form of God (or a god)" by a few trinitarian scholars
involves the Greek word huparcho
(translated "being" above). Huparcho
(huparchon
or uparchon
[uJparcwn in
Greek letters] is the actual form of huparcho
used in this scripture) is sometimes "interpreted" by a few
trinitarians in an attempt to show an eternal
pre-existence (see TEV).[10]
This is done in an attempt to deny the actuality of Jesus' creation
by God. Similarly, Dr. Walter Martin in his The
Kingdom
of
the
Cults
declares:
"Christ
never
ceased to be Jehovah even during His earthly incarnation. It is
interesting to note that the Greek term uparchon,
translated `being' in Philippians 2:6 [KJV],
literally
means `remaining or not ceasing to be' (see also 1 Corinthians 11:7),
hence in the context Christ never ceased to be God." - p.
94, 1985 ed.
If
uparchon
really had such a meaning, we would expect it to be used especially
for God. What else that exists has an eternal
existence? But search as we will we never see this word used
for God! Some examples where we would expect to see it used (if
it really meant `eternal existence') in the Bible Greek of the
ancient Septuagint are Is. 43:10, 25; 45:15, 22; 46:4, 9. Like
all other scriptures referring to God, they use forms of the "be"
verb (eimi),
which may
be used to mean an eternal existence, but they never
use uparchon to
describe his existence! (Is. 45:22, for example, says, "I
am [eimi]
the God and there is no other." - cf. James 2:19 [estin,
form of eimi])[11]
So why is uparchon
never
used for the only thing in existence that has always
existed (and which will never cease to exist)?
Uparchon
is never used for God because it actually,
literally means (in spite of Martin's "scholarly"
declaration above):
"to
make a beginning
(hupo,
`under'; arche,
`a beginning')" - W. E. Vine's An
Expository
Dictionary
of
New
Testament
Words,
p. 390.
Strong's
Exhaustive
Concordance
also defines huparcho
as "to begin
under (quietly), i.e. COME
INTO EXISTENCE"
- #5225.
And the
authoritative (and trinitarian) An
Intermediate
Greek-English
Lexicon
by Liddell and Scott tells us:
"[huparcho]
... to
begin,
make
a
beginning
... 2.
to
make
a
beginning
of
... 3.
to
begin
doing ... 4.
to
begin
[doing] kindness to one ... Pass. to
be
begun"
- p. 831, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing. [12]
So, even though
it may be rendered into English as "existed" or "is,"
it nevertheless must also be understood as something that has come
into
existence
at some point.
In that sense,
then, uparchon
is very much like another NT word, ginomai,
ginomai [#1096,
Thayer's],
which also literally means "become" or "come into
existence" but is sometimes translated into English as "is,"
"are," etc. E.g., 1 Peter 3:6 "whose daughters
ye are
[ginomai],"
KJV,
NKJV, NAB,
RSV,
NIV,
is more properly understood as "you have become
[ginomai]
her children," NASB,
NRSV,
NEB,
NWT
- Cf. John 6:17, "It was
[ginomai]
dark."
As respected
trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall tells us:
"[Ginomai]
denotes the coming
into
existence
of what did not exist before.... This verb [just like huparchon]
is therefore not
used
of
God...."[13]
Marshall
further explains that although ginomai
is often translated into English as "is," "are,"
"were," etc. it must nevertheless be remembered that it
still retains the additional meaning of having come
into existence! - p. 106, New
Testament
Greek
Primer,
Zondervan Publishing House, 1978 printing.
For another
good example of the similarity of huparchon
with ginomai
see Luke 16:23 and 22:44.
Lk.
16:23 - "he lifted up his eyes, being
[huparchon]
in torment,"
NASB.
Lk.
22:44 - "and being
[ginomai]
in agony he was
praying," NASB.
In very similar
statements Luke has used the very similar (in meaning) huparchon
and ginomai
and the highly respected NASB
has rendered them both "being." But in both cases
their fundamental meanings of "coming into existence" (or
"coming to be") must be remembered. In other words,
the person had not always
been in torment or agony, but at some point had "come
to be" in such a condition!
If you examine
the following examples of the Biblical usage of huparcho,
you will find they are clearly speaking of conditions which once did
not exist but which have come into
existence ("have begun to
be"): Luke 16:23; Acts 2:30; Acts 7:55; Acts 8:16; Ro.
4:19; 1
Cor. 11:18; 2
Cor. 8:17; James
2:15.
These last four
verses not only show a state that has begun
recently but a state that is transient, temporary - e.g., Abraham
hadn't always
been [uparchon]
100 years of age and certainly wouldn't continue to be 100 years of
age: he had begun
to be [uparchon]
about 100 years old at this point - Ro. 4:19.
1 Cor. 11:18,
KJV
says:
"I
hear that there be
[uparchon]
divisions among you [the Corinthian congregation]."
Such divisions
had not always
existed there. Nor must they always
continue to be there, or Paul would not have bothered to counsel them
to heal their divisions. The complete understanding for this
verse is, obviously:
"I
hear that there have begun
to be [uparchon]
divisions among you."
2 Cor. 8:16, 17
tells us:
"But
thanks be to God, who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the
heart of Titus. For he [Titus] ..., being
[uparchon]
himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord." -
NASB.
It should be
obvious to everyone that Titus hasn't been earnest from
all
eternity.
He obviously came
to
be
earnest at some point in time.
And, in fact, we are even told in verse 16 that at some point in time
God put
this earnestness in Titus' heart. Obviously it was not always
there if God put
it in his heart at some point! The meaning of uparchon
as "having come
[or begun]
to be"
is very certain from the context alone in these two verses.
James 2:15
tells us, in the KJV:
"If a brother or sister be
[uparchon]
naked [`without clothes' - NIV,
NASB],"
we must
help him to become clothed again. Obviously the brother has not
been naked for all eternity but has very recently come
to be in this condition.
It's equally obvious that the brother will not always
continue in this condition. In fact his brothers are commanded
to ensure that he not
continue in this naked state. (Famed trinitarian Bible scholar
Dr. Robert Young noted the correct, complete meaning for uparchon
in this verse: "BEGIN
to be [uparchon]
naked" - Young's
Concise
Critical
Bible
Commentary,
Baker Book House, 1977 ed.)
Therefore,
huparcho
(or uparchon)
does not mean "eternal pre-existence" as claimed by some
trinitarians, and it certainly does not have to mean a condition that
must continue to exist as Dr. Walter Martin also implies.
Notice the solitary example (1 Cor. 11:7) he has selected to "prove"
that uparchon
means "not ceasing to be":
"For a man
... is
[uparchon]
the image and glory of God" - NASB.
My trinitarian
NASB
reference Bible refers this scripture to Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6; and
James 3:9. These scriptures all state that man was created
or made
in the image of God. (In fact James 3:9 literally says that men
"have come to be
[ginomai,
#1096] in the likeness of God" and is usually translated in
trinitarian Bibles as "have been made
[or created]
in the likeness of God." - NASB,
NIV,
RSV.)
So there is the
real parallel meaning for the uparchon
of 1 Cor. 11:7 - created!
There obviously was a time (before he was created) when a man was not
the image of God. Furthermore, Martin's solitary "example"
states that "a man" (NASB)
is the image of God. This means that every man who lives has
these qualities in some degree. However, not every man will
have these qualities forever. Many, when they return to the
dust of the earth, will cease to reflect God's qualities and glory!
It would be much better to translate this verse literally as "For
a man ought not to have his head covered, since he has come
into
existence
[huparchon]
in the image and glory of God."
There is little
doubt about what huparchon
was actually intended to mean (regardless of how modern trinitarian
translators wish to translate it). Noted trinitarian scholar
and translator Dr. Robert Young (Young's
Analytical Concordance to the Bible; Young's Literal Translation of
the Holy Bible; etc.) has even
admitted in his Young's Concise
Critical Bible Commentary (p. 134,
Baker Book House, 1977) that his own rendering of huparchon
as "being" at Phil. 2:6 in his own published Bible
translation should be, to be more literal,
"beginning
secretly [huparchon]
in (the) form of God ...." - Phil. 2:6 [14]
So, rather than
any "eternal pre-existence" being implied by Paul's use of
huparchon
at Phil. 2:6 ("who `always
having been' in God's form" -
cf. TEV),
it is more likely just the opposite: "Who came
into existence (or
was created)
[huparchon]
in a form [morphe]
similar
to God (or in God's image)"![15]
Of course, if Jesus first came
into existence in
God's image, then he cannot be the eternal, always-existent
God of the Bible (nor even the always-existent God of the trinity
doctrine)!
Or, put even
more simply, since huparchon
is never used for God himself, then its use for the pre-existent
Jesus shows, again, that Jesus cannot be God!
In
other words, Jesus preexisted as the WORD of God. The Bible clearly
teaches us that in a beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with THE
God and the WORD was God. John 1:1 does NOT say that in a beginning
was Jesus and Jesus was with THE God and Jesus was God. NOR does John
1:1 say
in a beginning was the SON, and the SON was with THE God
and the SON was God.
So then, we can
INTERPRET that the WORD was brought forth to became a SPIRIT BEING
that was with THE God and was God like the Jehovah Witnesses and the
Mormons do.
OR we can interpret the
Word to be the SPOKEN WORD of God that was with THE God and was an
IMAGE of God that CEASES NOT to exist when the WORD became FLESH or a
tree or an animal or anything that God has created THROUGH his SPOKEN
WORD. In other words, the WORD continues to BE whatever God's
THOUGHTS are that God chooses to bring forth into existence even
AFTER the WORD has BECOME all that God has created. So say this
another way God's WORD WILL NEVER RUN OUT. The WORD of God lives and
abide forever. The WORD is the EXPRESS IMAGE of God.
Now the problems that I
myself see with the Word being a SPIRIT BEING that dwells along side
with THE GOD is that as an INDIVIDUAL BEING, the the Word word
literally have to cease to exist as the Word in order to become a
HUMAN BEING or the CHANGE his from of being God to take on the form
of being a MAN. IF this were the case, then the creating as well as
the creation of God would have ceased with the incarnation of the
WORD to become flesh.
But the WORD being an
OUTWARD EXPRESS IMAGE of THE God's thoughts means that the WORD lives
and abides forever even AFTER the Word has BECOME whatever THE God
THOUGHT to BE and then SPOKEN his thoughts in the FROM of his WORD.
What we
really have at Phil. 2:6-7, then, may be more accurately rendered:
"who,
even though he had come
into
existence
as a glorious spirit person in a likeness
[external form or guise] of God (or a god), never gave even the
slightest consideration that by
force he should try to
become equal to God (in even a single aspect or quality), but,
instead, emptied himself of his glorious form and took on the
likeness [external form or guise] of a slave, being born in the
likeness of a man."
=================================================================================================================
DOES REVELATION
1:17
TEACH US THAT
ALMIGHTY GOD
IS A
“TRINITY”?
Does
Revelation 1:17 teach us that Jesus IS THE ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY
God? Does the fact that both Almighty God the Father and his Son
Jesus say the SAME thing automatically make them to be ONE and the
SAME BEING?
You
see those who teach the doctrine of the trinity and the doctrine of
the deity of Jesus argue that since Jesus HIMSELF says of HIMSELF
that he HIMSELF IS the FIRST and the LAST, which is the SAME thing
that Almighty God the FATHER says of HIMSELF in the Old Testament,
then this proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus IS THE
ALMIGHTY God HIMSELF being FULLY ALMIGHTY God and FULLY FLESH at the
SAME time. Those who teach the doctrine of the trinity and the deity
of Jesus being THE ALMIGHTY God himself also use the verse where
Almighty God says “I am Alpha and Omega” and his SON Jesus also
says the same thing “I am Alpha and Omega”.
But
is this the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God? Does the mere
fact that Jesus and his God and Father say some of the SAME things
prove without any shadow of a doubt that Jesus IS THE ONE TRUE and
ONLY ALMIGHTY God? Now just plain common sense tell us that IF SO BE
that Jesus simply saying the same words as as his God and Father were
to make them to be ONE and the SELF SAME BEING, then that would mean
the Jesus IS THE FATHER, which is a direct CONTRADICTION of not only
the doctrine of the trinity but also to the very word of Almighty
God. The scriptures are very CLEAR to plainly teach us that Almighty
God the Father is NOT his SON Jesus and that the SON OF almighty God
the Father is NOT the FATHER himself.
Let
us begin this study in God's word by listing all the passages of
scripture where this phrase “I am the FIRST and the LAST” or
similar wording is found in the Bible.
Isaiah
41:4 / Isaiah 44:6 / Isaiah 48:12 / Revelation 1:11 / Revelation 1:17
/ Revelation 22:13.
I
would like to begin with Revelation chapter 1 where BOTH Almighty God
the Father and HIS SON Jesus each say this same exact phrase in the
same passage of scripture.
Please
read revelation 1:5-19 where we see BOTH Almighty God the FATHER,
which was, and is, and is to come AND his SON Jesus each saying these
words, “I am the first and the last”.
“John
to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and
peace, FROM HIM
which is,
and which was,
and which is to come;
AND FROM the seven Spirits which are before HIS throne;
5.
AND FROM Jesus Christ, (please
notice that John is sending a blessing of grace FROM HIM speaking of
Almighty God the FATHER, which is, and which was, and which is to
come, AND FROM his self same Holy Spirit that is present everywhere
so there are NOT seven different Spirits, but rather just ONE SPIRIT
who IS Almighty God the father himself seeing that Almighty God IS a
SPIRIT, AND FROM Jesus Christ who we know to be the SON OF almighty
God the Father and the Son of MAN)
who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and
the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and
washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6.
And has made us kings and priests unto God and HIS Father; to him (
referring back to Almighty God the Father)
be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (the
word Amen is a CLOSING word that mean I agree. So then, the subject
under discussion in the next verse not only can be, but is speaking
of someone different that Almighty God the Father. Which is, and
which was, and which is to come, who sits upon HIS OWN THRONE that he
SHARES with his SON Jesus. See Revelation 3:11-22.)
7.
Behold, he (speaking
of Jesus, but also keep in mind that Almighty God is coming WITH his
Son Jesus at his second coming. Even though Jesus is now highly
exalted to be a god beside his God and Father it is still Almighty
God's SPIRIT that does the work.)
comes with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which
pierced him: and all kindred of the earth shall wail because of him.
Even so, Amen. (again
the AMEN indicating another change of speakers)
8.
I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the ending,(or
I am Alpha and Omega the FIRST and the LAST, the beginning and the
end.)
says the Lord, which is,
and which was,
and which is to come,
the
Almighty.
(CLEARLY
the one who is speaking here identifies HIMSELF as BEING THE
ALMIGHTY. Some Christians THINK and falsely conclude and inaccurately
teach that the one speaking here in verse 8 is Jesus the SON OF
Almighty God the Father, but in TRUTH the one speaking is ALMIGHTY
God the FATHER himself who definitely is NOT his SON Jesus. Please
notice the EVIDENCE that PROVES what I just said. You see my dear
brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, if we allow the
scriptures to interpret THEMSELVES then their would not be all this
controversy over correct doctrine. Clearly the EVIDENCE teaches us
that the one who is speaking is also identified as being the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to come. We will follow this
phrase through the book of revelation in a moment and you will see
that the Lord ALMIGHTY is the ONE who SITS upon the THRONE.)
9. I John, who also am your brother, and companion in
tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in
the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the
testimony of Jesus Christ.
10.
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard
BEHIND me
a great voice, as of a
trumpet,
11.
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega,
the first and the last:
(this
is clearly the voice of ALMIGHTY God the FATHER which will be made
plain to you as you continue this study in God's word) and,
What you see, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches
which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos,
and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto
Laodicea.
12.
And I TURNED to SEE the voice
that spoke with me. And being TURNED, I SAW
seven golden candlesticks;
13.
AND in the midst of the seven
candlesticks one like unto the Son of MAN
(please
notice that this FIRST voice which John HEARD as of a TRUMPET, which
was behind him and could not see whose voice was as of a trumpet
therefore John TURNED to SEE to whom this voice belonged, but after
being TURNED John saw ANOTHER, who was the Son of MAN, who had a
DIFFERENT voice as of the sound of many waters. Then John goes on to
describe in figurative language the Son of MAN speaking of Jesus.)
clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with
a golden girdle.
14. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as
white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15.
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;
and HIS voice (referring
to a SECOND voice that is DIFFERENT from the FIRST voice as of a
TRUMPET, which is the voice of Almighty God the FATHER, but the voice
of the Son of MAN, HIS voice was)
as the sound of many waters.
16. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out
of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword: and his countenance was as
the sun shines in his strength.
17.
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right
hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I
am the first and the last:
18.
I am he that lives, and was
dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore,
(this
is no doubt Jesus speaking saying the SAME words that his God and
Father just said in verse 11, which are, “I am the first and the
last”. But as you will soon see that this does NOT mean that Jesus
is ONE and the SELF SAME BEING as Almighty God the Father. Also
please notice that Almighty God HIMSELF is an ETERNAL SPIRIT that
CANNOT DIE. In other words, Jesus CAME OUT FROM Almighty God when
Yehweh spoke forth his WORD and his WORD then BECAME or was MADE a
human being IN WHICH the Father DWELT IN to empower his SON Jesus to
do the works that he sent him to do. And when Jesus became obedient
unto death of the cross, then his God and Father Yehweh highly
exalted his SON Jesus and GAVE his SON the same IMMOTALITY that the
Father Yehweh has always possessed so that now his SON Jesus is alive
evermore never to die again.)Amen;
and have the keys of hell and of death.
19. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the
things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;”
So then, clearly BOTH Almighty God the FATHER, which
is, which was, and which is to come, AND his SON Jesus the Son of MAN
each say the same words, “I am the first and the last”. Now
CLEARLY these TWO are NOT ONE and the SELF SAME BEING. There can ONLY
be ONE God who is the ALMIGHTY and that ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY
God is the FATHER who is THE God OVER his SON Jesus who has been
HIGHLY EXLATED BY HIS God and Father to be “A” god to rule and
reign by his Father's right hand.
Therefore simply saying these SAME words, “I am the
first and the last” does NOT mean the Jesus himself IS THE ALMIGHTY
God YEHWEH, who ALONE is the FATHER.
Well then, since simply saying these SAME words does
NOT make them to BE ONE and the SELF SAME BEING, then what do these
words, “I am the first and the last” truly mean? We will get to
this answer as you continue this study in God's word, but first I
want us to follow the phrase, “which is, which was, and which is to
come” all the way through the book of revelation to chapter 5 where
we will CLEARLT and PLAINLY see TWO separate beings in heaven where
Almighty God the Father is the one who SITS upon the THRONE and the
LAMB OF Almighty God who was SLAIN from the foundation of the world
who we all know to be Jesus the SON OF Almighty God the Father come
OVER to the ONE who is SITTING on the THRONE. Please read Revelation
4:1-3 where John hears the FIRST voice as of a TRUMPET.
“After this I looked, and,
behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the FIRST
VOICE which I heard was as
it were of a TRUMPET
talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show you
things which must be hereafter.
And immediately I was in the spirit: and,
behold, a THRONE
was set in heaven, and ONE sat on
the throne.
And he
that sat (speaking
of ALMIGHTY God the Father who dwells in the light) was
to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a
rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.”
Please notice that this is a totally DIFFERENT
description being given by John to the one who sits upon the throne
and has a voice as of a trumpet that the Son of MAN who John actually
SAW when he TURNED to SEE the one who had the voice of the TRUMPET.
Let us continue in this same chapter with verses 8 through verse 11,
which clearly teaches us that the Lord God Almighty is the one who
sits upon the throne. Again please notice the phrase “which was,
and is, and is to come”.
Revelation 4:8-11.
“And the
four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full
of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
holy, Lord God Almighty,
which was,
and is,
and is to come.
9. And when those beasts
give glory and honor and thanks to him
that sat on the throne, who
lives for ever and ever,
10. The four and twenty
elders fall down before
him that sat on the throne, and
worship him that lives for ever and ever,
and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
11. You
are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you
have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were
created.”
Here we see that the ONE who sits upon the
THRONE is the one who has the FIRST VOICE as of a TRUMPET who is
clearly identified as being THE ALMIGHTY, which was, and is and is to
come. Now let us continue reading right on into the next chapter
where we will see the LAMB OF Almighty God who was SLAIN from the
foundation of the world COMING OVER TO the Lord God ALMIGHY, which
was, and is, and is to come who is SITTING ON the THRONE to take a
book OUT the hand of HIS GOD and FATHER who SITS upon the THRONE. So
again we CLEARLY and PLAINLY see TWO “ELOHIM” or “THEOS” in
heaven being Almighty God the Father AND his SON Jesus the LAMB OF
God that was slain for the sins of the world so that WHOSOEVER
believes on him shall have everlasting life in the world to come.
Please read revelation 5:1-10.
“And I saw in
the right hand of HIM that sat on the throne a book
written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
2. And I saw a strong angel
proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is
worthy to open the book, and to loose
the seals thereof?
3. And no
MAN in heaven, nor in earth,
neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look
thereon.
4. And I wept much, because no
MAN (can
you not see my dear brothers an sister in ur Lord Jesus the CHRIST
the ANOINTED MAN that is was needed for Jesus to be a MAN in order to
redeem mankind back to the Father of all, but John did not see any
MAN that) was found worthy to open and
to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5. And one of the elders said
unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of
the tribe of Juda, the
Root of David, (or
do not weep any longer John for the Son of MAN Jesus) has
prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6. And I beheld, and, lo, in
the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of
the elders, stood a LAMB as it had
been slain (which
we all know and agree is Jesus the SON OF Almighty God the Father who
is NOT the Father himself and therefore is NOT ALMIGHTY God himself
who ALONE is the FATHER. It is YEHWEH who is the designer, planner,
thinker, and SOURCE of all creation who raised up from among the
people or mankind a savior who would be obedient to do all his
Father's WILL. In other words, Almighty God provided for himself his
own LAMB to redeem mankind back to himself. The Father kept SECRET
his plain for his LAMB to be slain),
having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God
sent forth into all the earth.
7. And he (speaking
of Jesus the LAMB, the SON OF Almighty God the Father who sits on the
throne) came and took the book OUT
OF the right hand of him
(the
Lord God ALMIGHTY, which was, and is, and is to come)
that sat upon the throne.
8.
And when he (Jesus
the LAMB, the SON OF Almighty God the Father)
had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell
down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden
vials full of odors, which are the prayers of saints.
9. And they sung a new song,
saying, You (Jesus)
are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for you
(Jesus)
were SLAIN, and have redeemed us to
God (or
you Jesus have redeemed us to Almighty God the Father) by
your blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10. And (you
Jesus being understood) have made us
unto our God
kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”
So then, now that it has clearly been establish by
the clear, plain and simple word of Almighty God that Jesus will
ALWAYS continue to be Jesus, as a SEPARATE and completely DIFFERENT
person or being from HIS God and Father the Lord God ALMIGHTY, then
we can now proceed to learn what the TRUE meaning of the phrase, “I
am the first and the last”and why BOTH Almighty God the Father and
HIS SON Jesus spoke the same exact phrase, “I am the FIRST and the
LAST”.
The word that translated as “FIRST” here in
Revelation 1:11,17 means foremost in time, place, order, and
importance, this Greek word “PROTOS” means chief, first, former,
beginning, and best. And the word that is translated as “LAST” in
this same passage of scripture means final, last, end, lowest, least,
utmost. Well we know that Almighty God is the HIGHEST and is God OVER
his SON Jesus. And we also know that Almighty God is the SOURCE of
all and therefore Yehweh is the source of all other gods including
his Son Jesus. There should be no argument or disagreement that the
HUMAN Jesus did indeed have a BEGINNING. Please understand that we
are NOT talking about the WORD, but rather we are talking about AFTER
the Word was MADE or BECAME the HUMAN Jesus IN WHICH his God and
Father DWELT.
Please read Colossians 2:8,9 which clearly teaches us
that the GODHEAD who is the Father DWELT IN his SON Jesus to ANOINT
his Son.
“Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after
the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after CHRIST (or
the ANOINTING or INDWELLING Spirit of Almighty God the Father).
9. For (or
because) IN HIM (or
IN his SON Jesus) DWELLS all the
fulness OF the Godhead bodily.”
In other words, in the HUMAN BODY of Jesus DWELT
Almighty God the FATHER HIMSELF who is the ETERNAL SPIRIT. Please
read the study “JESUS THE CHRIST” for a deeper understanding of
the INDWELLING presence of Almighty God the Father that is called the
Holy Spirit OF Almighty God.
But for now let us continue this study in God's word
by reading Isaiah 41:1-4 where we learn that BOTH Almighty God AND
his SON Jesus TOGETHER come to execute the wrath of judgment at the
second coming of Jesus.
“Keep silence before me, O
islands; and let the people renew their strength: let them come near;
then let them speak: let us come near together to judgment.
2. WHO
raised up the RIGHTEOUS MAN from the east,
(the
righteous MAN is the ANOINTED ONE Jesus the SON OF Almighty God and
this is a PROPHECY of the COMING Messiah who will execute the WRATH
of Almighty God the Father WHO
raised up Jesus and)
called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him
rule over kings? He gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven
stubble to his bow.
3. He
pursued them, and passed safely; even by the way that he had not gone
with his feet.
4. WHO
has wrought and done it, calling
the generations from the beginning? I
the LORD, the FIRST (clearly
speaking of YEHWEH the Almighty God who ALONE is the Father),
and WITH
the LAST (speaking
of his Son Jesus the RIGHTEOUS MAN who Almighty God the Father raised
up to execute his judgment and wrath);
I am he (referring
back to YHWH Almighty God).”
So then, here in this passage of scripture in Isaiah
chapter 41 we see TWO, who are: Almighty God, I the Lord, Yehweh, the
FIRST, WHO wrought and had done all these things CALLING them or
SPEAKING them forth by his Word from the beginning or the FIRST and
this Almighty God the Father is WITH his REDEEMER, his SON Jesus the
LAST at the SECOND COMING of Jesus. Please keep in mind that this is
a PROPHECY of the second coming of Jesus. Then Almighty God the
Father says I am he WHO has raised up this RIGHTEOUS MAN to be my
redeemer to redeem mankind back to myself, I am he the one who called
all these things into being.
Now let us read Isaiah 44:6-8, which has been
INCORRECTLY interpreted by some to mean that there is ONE and ONLY
ONE God. So therefore since we know that Jesus IS GOD, then Jesus
MUST BE that ONE and ONLY God.
However this is NOT what this verse truly means.
Please read the study “OUR GOD IS ONE!” for a deeper explanation
of this verse, but for now please consider the few comments of
explanation below.
Isaiah 44:6-8.
“Thus says the LORD the
King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first,
and I am the last; and BESIDE ME (The
English words “BESIDE ME” is translated from two Hebrew words
“bal de” Strongs #1107, which means apart from ME, beside ME and
WITHEOUT ME + “min”or “minni” Strong's # 4480, which means
marker of SOURCE or extension FROM a SOURCE, from out of, because of.
In other words, APART FROM Yehweh being the SOURCE)
there is no God. (that
it to say there are indeed other gods, but there is NO other god that
was not created by THE Almighty YEHWEH, the FIRST, the SOURCE of ALL
including his SON Jesus, the LAST)
7. And who, as I, shall
call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I
appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and
shall come, let them show unto them.(Now
this verse literally says: “ and who? Like me shall call out and he
shall tell her and he shall arrange her for me from place to me
people of eon and things arriving and which they shall come they
shall tell to them.” In other words, Jesus the LAST who is LIKE the
FIRST who called things to BE, in the same way he like me shall call
out...FOR ME. Also the ancient people may very well be speaking of
the angels who will fight and stand up with Micheal the archangel to
fight for God's people at the SECOND COMING of Jesus who will again
be coming WITH hid God and Father the ALMIGHTY YEHWEH.)
8.
Fear you not, neither
be afraid: have not I told you
from that time, and have declared it (Jesus
said shall I find FAITH on the earth WHEN I COME? This tells me that
that both the physical and spiritual hearts of mankind will FAIL when
the SEE the signs of the COMING of Jesus, but we as Christians are
taught NOT to FEAR, but rather LOOK UP fro our REMPTION draws near)?
You are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no
God; I know not any.(NOW
Almighty God is speaking about false gods that he himself is NOT the
SOURCE. The following verses speak of MAN MADE gods that cannot do
anything to save)
9. They that make a graven image are all of them
vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are
their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be
ashamed.”
Let us continue with Isaiah 48:11-16 where one of the
reasons that Almighty God is doing all the things the WAY he chose to
do them is to CLEAR his NAME. Please read the study “UNDERSTANDING
WHY?” for a deeper more detailed explanation of HOW God's name is
being FALSELY ACCUSED. But for now please read Isaiah 48:11-16.
“For mine OWN SAKE, even
for mine OWN SAKE, will I do it: for how should my
NAME be polluted ? And I will not
give my glory unto another. (speaking
of his Son Jesus and NO OTHER will Almighty God give or share his
glory. Jesus is the LAST or the END of this FALSLE accusation against
Almighty God the creator. Jesus is the IT IS DONE! Who Almighty God
brought forth to clear his OWN NAME.)
12. Hearken unto me, O
Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the FIRST, I also (the
word translated as “also” here means how much better, how much
more, even more, of a surety, and WITH)
am (the word
“am”is not in the original Hebrew)
the last. (One
of the reason that Jesus came was to SHOW us the Father the INVISIBLE
God. Jesus is the EXPRESS IMAGE of his God and Father the Almighty.
So how much better it will be when we can SEE Jesus. Also the meaning
of WITH the LAST or Almighty God the Father being WITH his SON Jesus
agree with Isaiah 41:4)
13 Mine hand also has laid
the foundation of the earth, and my right hand has spanned the
heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. (here
the Lord God Almighty's HAND can be INTERPRETED as his own self same
SPIRIT, and his RIGHT HAND can be INTERPRETED as hos own spoken WORD.
So then when Almighty God calls his WORD is brought forth and his
Spirit moves or TOGETHER they stand up and perform whatever God
SPEAKS forth to come into being. The right hand of God is
representative of Yehweh's authority and sometimes speak of his SON
Jesus, and the hand of the Lord sometimes expresses the presence of
the Lord's SPIRIT being upon someone. OR the THEM is speaking of the
creation of God in general, which fits better with the next verse.)
14. All you, assemble
yourselves, and hear; which among them (YHWH
the UNDERSTOOD speaker or creator WHO)
has declared these things?
The LORD (YHWH)
has loved HIM
(his SON
Jesus): he
(Jesus)
will do his pleasure on Babylon (or
Jesus will execute the wrath of Almighty God on Babylon),
and his arm
(the Lord's
or Yehweh's arm speaking of Jesus) shall
be on the Chaldeans.
15. I,
even I, have spoken; yea, I have
called HIM:
I have brought HIM,
and he
shall make his way prosperous.
16. Come you near unto me,
hear you this; I have not spoken in
secret from the beginning; from the
time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit,
has sent me.(or
Yehweh the Almighty has sent me his Son Jesus WITH his SPIRIT)”
Please see the study called “Does Isaiah 48:16
Teach Us that God is a TRINITY?” for all the scriptures and a
deeper explanation of Jesus being sent WITH the SPIRIT of Almighty
God at both his first and second comings. But for now let us finish
taking a look at the verses that speak of the first and the last.
Here in Revelation 2:8 we again
see these words being spoken by Jesus, the Son of MAN, who DIED for
our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the WHOLE world so
that WHOSOVER BELIEVES on him will not perish but have eternal life
in the world to come.
Revelation 2:8.
“And unto the angel of the
church in Smyrna write; These things says the first and the last,
which was dead, and is alive;”
Again Almighty God YHWH is
NOT a MAN who is a MORTAL being subject to death. We also have to
remember and keep in mind that Jesus came as a REPRESENTATIVE of his
God and Father. Jesus came is the NAME of his Father. So like an
ambassador Jesus was GIVEN all power to do what he was SENT to do.
Jesus SPOKE what his God and Father told him to speak. In other
words, when Jesus spoke the words, “I am the first and the last”he
was speaking in BEHALF of his God and Father the Almighty. Please
consider Revelation 22:6-17 where an angel of a messenger speaks FOR
or in the BEHALF of Jesus and it SOUNDS or APPEAR as IF Jesus HIMSELF
is doing the SPEAKING.
Revelation 22:6-17.
“And he
(the angel or messenger) said unto me
(John),
These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy
prophets sent his angel (or
his messenger) to show unto his
servants the things which must shortly be done.
7. Behold,
I come quickly: (now
this sounds or appears to be Jesus who is speaking and it may be, but
it may very well be the angel or messenger who was SENT to show John
and us the things that must shortly be done. Verse 8 tells us MORE.)
blessed is he that keeps the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
8. And
I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and
seen, I
fell down to worship before the feet OF the ANGEL which SHOWED me
these things. (now
it definitely appears to be an ANGEL or a messenger who spoke the
words, “Behold, I come quickly”, which we know is referring the
the second coming of Jesus. But wait there is MORE in verse 9, the
next verse.)
9. Then said he
(The ANGEL
or messenger) unto me, See you do it
not: for I am
your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of them
which keep the sayings of this book (now
to my knowledge the ANGELS are not our fellow BRETHREN the PROPHETS
so this word that is translated and “ANGEL” would better be
translated as MESSENGER, which can mean and angel or a HUMAN
messenger. So now the question becomes is this HUMAN fellow brethren
messenger Jesus speaking of himself saying, “Behold I come quickly”
or it this another human messenger speaking in BEHALF of Jesus
saying, “Behold I come quickly”? Now if we conclude that it is
Jesus HIMSELF speaking, “Behold I come quickly”, then this same
Jesus tell John NOT to worship him, but rather worship God, which
teaches us again that Jesus is NOT the Lord God ALMIGHTY, because
Jesus HIMSELF says): worship God.
10. And he
(the ANGEL,
the human messenger or Jesus himself) said
unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the
time is at hand.
11. He that is unjust, let
him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still:
and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is
holy, let him be holy still. (keep
in mind that the SAME HE is still speaking and goes on to say,)
12. And, behold, I
come quickly; and my reward is
with me,
to give every man according as his work shall be.
13. I
am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the
last.
14. Blessed are they that do
HIS commandments (Speaking
of the commandments of Almighty God the Father),
that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in
through the gates into the city.
15. For without are dogs,
and sorcerers, and whore mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and
whosoever loves and makes a lie.
16. I
Jesus have sent mine angel (now
is this actually Jesus speaking saying that he sent his angel that
spoke the things we just read? Or is this the angel speaking saying
that Jesus has sent him to speak these things? Or is the messenger
still speaking in BEHALF of Jesus saying that Jesus will bear WITNESS
of the truth that he is the offspring of David the prophesied one to
come by sending his messenger to testify of him in the churches.)
to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and
the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And
let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
No matter how one INTERPRETS this passage of
scripture the end result is that Jesus is NOT THE ALMIGHTY God. For
you see IF one INTERPRETS that this angel of messenger is actually
Jesus, then Jesus HIMSELF say to John do NOT worship ME, but rather
worship GOD for I am you fellow brethren the prophets. And IF one
INTERPRETS the speaker to be ANOTHER messenger other than Jesus
speaking is BEHALF of or FOR Jesus, then this set a precedent, so to
speak, where Jesus would not be speaking the words”I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end the first and the last” as
speaking OF HIMSELF, but rather speaking these word in BEHALF of his
God and Father the ALMIGHTY.
Also we read Revelation 21:1-7 about Almighty God the
Father HIMSELF being the ALPHA and OMEGA, the BEGINNING and the END.
“And I saw a new heaven and
a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed
away; and there was no more sea.
2. And I John saw the holy
city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as
a bride adorned for her husband.
3. And I heard a great voice
out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and
he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God
HIMSELF (Speaking
of Almighty God HIMSELF who is the Father) shall
be with them, and be their God.
4. And God (Almighty
God the Father) shall wipe away all
tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither
sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the
former things are passed away .
5. And HE
that sat upon the throne (Almighty
God the Father) said, Behold, I make
all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true
and faithful.
6. And he (Almighty
God the Father) said unto me (John),
It is done. I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end. I will
give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life
freely.
He that
overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he
shall be my son.”
Clearly the word of TRUTH speaking of TWO being in
heaven so we know without a doubt that Jesus is NOT ONE and the SELF
SAME BEING as Almighty God the Father who sit on the throne. So the
obvious answer to the meaning of Jesus and the Father speaking the
SAME words is that Jesus came in the Father's NAME. Please read Mark
11:7-11 where Jesus rides the colt and his followers say blessed is
he who comes IN THE NAME of the Lord.
“And they brought the colt
to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.
8. And many spread their
garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and
strawed them in the way.
9. And they that went before,
and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed
is he that comes in the NAME
of
the Lord:
10. Blessed be the kingdom
of our father David, that comes
in the NAME
of the Lord:
Hosanna in the highest.”
Then we read in John 5:43 where Jesus himself says
that he came in the NAME of his Father.
“I
am come in my Father's NAME,
and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye
will receive,”
Then we read in John 10:24,25 where Jesus says that
the works which he did in his FATHER'S NAME bore witness that he was
THE CHRIST the ANOINTED ONE of Almighty God the Father who was the
PROPHESIED one which was to come to be the Messiah.
“Then
came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long do you
make us to doubt? If you be THE
CHRIST, tell us plainly.
25. Jesus answered them, I
told you, and you believed not: the
works that I do IN my Father's NAME, they bear witness of me.”
The truth of the matter is that Almighty God chose to
save mankind by the LAST Adam, who was Jesus the Son of MAN, because
Adam was a MAN. John 5:27 teaches us that Almighty God the father
GAVE ALL POWER TO his SON Jesus, BECAUSE Jesus was the Son OF MAN.
Not because Jesus was the Son of God,and NOT because Jesus CAME OUT
FROM Almighty God. But rather BECAUSE Jesus is the Son of MAN.
“And has GIVEN him
authority to execute judgment ALSO, BECAUSE
he is the Son of MAN.”
Now you may think that I over emphasize the HUMAN
Jesus, and that by doing so I am pulling Jesus DOWN to the level of
MAN. But in truth I am just teaching you what the word of TRUTH is
teaching us, which is that Almighty God chose that a MAN, a RIGHTEOUS
MAN, and INNOCENT MAN who was slain without cause to be the WAY in
which he himself redeemed mankind back to himself. Jesus did not come
to do his OWN will, but rather conformed his OWN will to AGREE with
his Father's WILL and this is WHY his God and Father HUGHLY EXALTED
his Son Jesus to become a GOD to rule and reign at his right hand to
settle ONCE and for ALL time that Almighty God did NOT create Lucifer
to be and evil rebellious angel. Again please read the study
“UNDERSTANING WHY?” for a deeper understanding of Jesus being the
LAST, the END, the IT IS DONE of Almighty God the Father.
Thanks for reading. May God bless you richly as you
continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. Below
are some other verse used to try and support the doctrine of the
trinity. There may be another verse that you can only see one way
because you have been dogmatically TOLD what it means and that there
is NO OTHER possible meaning. Every verse used to teach the doctrine
of the trinity has another meaning that does NOT contradict any other
part of God's word.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mark.
RETURN TO
HOMEPAGE
AT
AmatterOfTruth.com
Verses used to try and support the doctrine of
the trinity.
Genesis
1:26--- Let us make man in our image.
Genesis
19:24--- YHWH rained down fire... from YHWH.
Isaiah
6:3--- Holy, Holy, Holy.
Isaiah
7:14--- Call his name Immanuel (meaning God with us)
Isaiah
9:6--- Mighty God, Everlasting Father.
Isaiah
48:16--- The Lord and his Spirit has sent me (trinity)
Micah
5:2--- From everlasting.
Zechariah
12:10--- Look upon me whom they have pierced.
Matthew
1:23--- Emmanuel, being interpreted God with us.
Matthew
28:19---In the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
John
1:1--- And the Word was God.
John
2:19-22--- Jesus raised himself from the dead.
John
5:18--- Making himself equal with God.
John
8:24--- If you do not believe I am [he], you shall die...
John
8:58--- Before Abraham was, I am.
John
10:30--- I and my Father are one.
John
14:19--- He who has seen me has seen the Father.
John
20:28--- My Lord and my God.
Acts
20:28--- He has purchased with his own blood.
Romans
9:5--- Christ came...God blessed forever.
2
Corinthians 13:14---Trinity
Ephesians
3:9-11---DID JESUS CREATE ALL THINGS?
Colossians
2:9--- Godhead.
Philippians
2:6---Thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
1
Timothy 3:16--- God was manifest in the flesh.
Titus
2:13--- Looking for... our great God and Savior Jesus...
Hebrews
1:8--- Your throne O' God.
1
John 5:7--- And these three are one.
1
John 5:20--- Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God...
2
Peter 2:1--- God and our Savior Jesus Christ.
2
Peter 3:18--- Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Isaiah 43:11)
Revelation
1:8--- I am Alpha and Omega...the Almighty.
Revelation
1:17--- First and the Last (Isaiah 44:6)
Revelation
17:14--- WHO IS THE KING OF KINGS
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/isa-4816.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1461121/posts
===================================================================================================================
MICAH
5:2
FROM
EVERLASTING
Does
Micah 5:2 where the goings forth of Jesus have been form old from
everlasting mean that Jesus did NOT have a BEGINNING? Does Micah 5:2
prove without a doubt that Jesus has always existed with Almighty God
the Father? Does Micah 5:2 prove beyond any shadow of a doubt the
Jesus IS THE ALMIGHTY God who has always possessed IMMORTALITY? In
other words, does Micah 5:2 prove the doctrine of the trinity and the
doctrine of the deity of Jesus?
Here
is Micah 5:2.
“But
you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of you SHALL he COME
FORTH unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel; whose GOINGS
FORTH (or
whose ORIGIN) have been
from of old, from everlasting.”
This verse is a PROPHECY or the COMING Messiah who
will be BORN or COME FORTH as a MAN and this PROPHECY or more
precisely this PLAN of Almighty God had its GOINGS FORTH or ORIGIN
from of OLD from AGES ago before the foundation of the world.
Let us read this same verse from a few other
translations.
Here is Micah 5:2 from the Bible in Basic English.
“And you, Beth-lehem
Ephrathah, the least among the families of Judah, out of you one
WILL COME
to me who is to be ruler in Israel;
whose going out has been PURPOSED
from time past, from the eternal
days.”
In other words, this PLAN of Almighty God has bee
PURPOSED from the very beginning before God ever created mankind.
Here is Micah 5:2 from the Common English Bible.
“As
for you, Bethlehem of Ephrathah, though you are the least significant
of Judah's forces, one who is
to be
a ruler in Israel on my behalf will come out from you. His
ORIGIN is from remote times, from ancient days.”
Here is Micah 5:2 from the God's Word Translation
“You, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
are too small to be included among Judah's cities. Yet, from you
Israel's future ruler
will come for me. His origins go
back to the distant past, to days long ago.”
Here is Micah 5:2 from the Good New Translation.
“The Lord says, Bethlehem
Ephrathah, you are one of the smallest towns in Judah, but out of you
I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose
family line goes back to ancient times.”
The prophet Micah was a later prophet long after
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which is the FAMILY line of Jesus from
which he came forth and was born of the Virgin Mary.
Here is Micah 5:2 from the New International Reader's
Version.
“The LORD says,
"Bethlehem, you might not be an important town in the nation of
Judah. But out of you will come a ruler over Israel for me. His
family line goes back to the early years of your nation. It goes all
the way back to days of long ago."
Bethlehem was also called Ephrathah.”
None of these translations
even hint of Jesus preexisting for all eternity. In fact just the
OPPOSITE is clearly taught to us, because to have an ORIGIN, then one
cannot be ETERNAL. Some of these translations speak of his goings
forth as his ancestry or his family line going back long ago. Other
translations speaking of his ORIGIN being from ancient times. And one
translation says the PURPOSE of his ORIGIN has always been from all
eternity. But they all speaking of his GOINGS FORTH as being a ORIGIN
or a BEGINNING.
Please read the study “DID
JESUS HAVE A BEGINNING?” for a deeper understanding that the HUMAN
Jesus did indeed have a beginning. Also please read the study
“UNDERSTANDING WHY?” for a deeper understanding that even the
Word that was WITH God in a beginning had to be BROUGHT FORTH at some
point in time even though in may have been so long ago one might as
well say from eternity past.
Thanks for reading. May
God bless you richly as you continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE
word of Almighty God. Below are some other verses that are used to
try and support the doctrine of the trinity and the deity of Jesus.
There may be other verses which you may be having trouble seeing any
other way that what you were dogmatically taught, but I assure you
that each and every verse used by those who teach the doctrine of the
trinity does indeed have a different meaning that does NOT CONTRADICT
any other part of God's word.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mark.
RETURN TO
HOMEPAGE
AT
AmatterOfTruth.com
Verses used to try and support the doctrine of
the trinity.
Genesis
1:26--- Let us make man in our image.
Genesis
19:24--- YHWH rained down fire... from YHWH.
Isaiah
6:3--- Holy, Holy, Holy.
Isaiah
7:14--- Call his name Immanuel (meaning God with us)
Isaiah
9:6--- Mighty God, Everlasting Father.
Isaiah
48:16--- The Lord and his Spirit has sent me (trinity)
Micah
5:2--- From everlasting.
Zechariah
12:10--- Look upon me whom they have pierced.
Matthew
1:23--- Emmanuel, being interpreted God with us.
Matthew
28:19---In the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
John
1:1--- And the Word was God.
John
2:19-22--- Jesus raised himself from the dead.
John
5:18--- Making himself equal with God.
John
8:24--- If you do not believe I am [he], you shall die...
John
8:58--- Before Abraham was, I am.
John
10:30--- I and my Father are one.
John
14:19--- He who has seen me has seen the Father.
John
20:28--- My Lord and my God.
Acts
20:28--- He has purchased with his own blood.
Romans
9:5--- Christ came...God blessed forever.
2
Corinthians 13:14---Trinity
Ephesians
3:9-11---DID JESUS CREATE ALL THINGS?
Colossians
2:9--- Godhead.
Philippians
2:6---Thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
1
Timothy 3:16--- God was manifest in the flesh.
Titus
2:13--- Looking for... our great God and Savior Jesus...
TITUS
3:2 God our Savior toward man APPEARED
Hebrews
1:8--- Your throne O' God.
1
John 5:7--- And these three are one.
1
John 5:20--- Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God...
2
Peter 2:1--- God and our Savior Jesus Christ.
2
Peter 3:18--- Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Isaiah 43:11)
Revelation
1:8--- I am Alpha and Omega...the Almighty.
Revelation
1:17--- First and the Last (Isaiah 44:6)
Revelation
17:14--- WHO IS THE KING OF KINGS
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/isa-4816.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1461121/posts
==============================================================================================
IS
JESUS
THE
ANGEL of the LORD
in
the OLD TESTAMENT?
The
purpose of this study is to closely examine ALL the verses that
contain the phrases “THE ANGEL OF THE LORD” “AN ANGEL OF THE
LORD” and “THE ANGEL OF GOD” to see is these verses are truly
saying that the angel OF the Lord IS Jesus PREEXISTING AS God
the SON,
the second person of the trinity.
Now
there are some Christians, who even though they do NOT believe in the
doctrine of the trinity, they still believe that these Old Testament
verses are speaking of Jesus preexisting as the Angel of the Lord in
the Old Testament before the Word was made flesh and dwelt among men
as recorded in John chapter one. And still other Christians like the
Jehovah's Witnesses use some of these same verses to try and prove
that Jesus preexisted AS a LITERAL created ANGELIC being before Jesus
became the Son of MAN at his birth recorded in the gospels of the New
Testament. But other Christians say NO, and proclaim that Jesus never
preexisted AS a LITERAL ANGEL, but rather preexisted AS the SON of
God before all time.
Now
I am not going to go into great detail here in this particular study
as to whether or not Jesus PREEXISTED and HOW or in what manner or
state of being that Jesus preexisted, but rather the main focus of
this study is to closely examine all the verses that speak of the
Angel of the Lord to determine what they are truly saying in the
LIGHT of the WHOLE word of God.
With
that being said I let us begin this study in God's word by reading
these passages of scripture that speak of the Angel of the Lord in
the order that they appear in the Bible. The first time we see the
phrase the angel of the Lord is in the book of Genesis chapter 16 and
verse 7 where
Here
is Genesis 16:1-16.
“Now
Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an
Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD
has restrained me from bearing: I pray you, go in unto my maid; it
may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the
voice of Sarai.
3. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the
Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and
gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and
when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her
eyes.
5.
And Sarai said unto Abram, My
wrong
be upon you: I have given my maid into your bosom; and when she saw
that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge
between me and you.
6.
But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, your maid is in your hand; do to
her as it pleases you. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled
from her face.
7. And the
angel OF
the LORD found her by a fountain
of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8. And he said (or
the angel of the Lord spoke forth the WORDS
OF Almighty God IN BEHALF OF Almighty God
saying), Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence
came you? And whither will you go? And she said, I flee from the face
of my mistress Sarai.
9. And the
angel OF
the LORD said unto her, Return to
your mistress, and submit yourself under her hands.
10. And the
angel OF
the LORD said unto her, I will
multiply your seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for
multitude.
And
the angel OF
the LORD said unto her, Behold,
you are with child, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name
Ishmael; because the LORD
has heard your affliction.(speaking
of Almighty God HIMSELF has heard the affliction of Hagar)
12. And he will be a
wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand
against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
(Many Bible
scholars all agree that the seed of Ishmael is the Arab nations who
hold to the faith of Islam. This prophecy does indeed seem to be
coming o pass through radical Muslims whose hand is against any and
all who do not follow the teaching of Muhammad.)
13.
And she called the name of the LORD
that spoke unto her, You God see me:
for she said, Have I also here looked after him that sees me? (Now
some Christians INTERPRET this verse to mean without fail that the
ANGEL OF the Lord IS ALMIGHTY God himself, simply because the
previous verses specifically say that the ANGEL of the Lord spoke to
Hagar. But is this a SOUND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION of these verses?
Please consider closely that when a PROPHET speaks the WORDS
OF
Almighty God in BEHALF
OF or FOR
Almighty God in his STEAD then people say that the LORD SPOKE to them
when in REALITY it was a PROPHET OF God simply speaking the WORDS
OF
God in the BEHALF
OF
Almighty God, who was speaking to them. No one would ever try and
make that PROPHET to actually BE Almighty God HIMSELF, so why do some
Christians dogmatically demand that this ANGEL OF
the Lord IS the LORD GOD the Almighty HIMSELF? Can you not see my
dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, that this angel
OF the Lord was simply speaking forth the WORDS OF Almighty God is
the BEHALF OF Almighty God much in the same way that a PROPHET speaks
forth the WORDS OF Almighty God to whom so ever the prophet OF God is
sent to speak the WORDS OF God.)
14. Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi;
behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.
15.
And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which
Hagar bare, Ishmael.
16.
And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to
Abram.”
So
then, we can clearly see that the angel HIMSELF does NOT specifically
and clearly state that he HIMSELF IS the LORD God the Almighty. But
rather the clear plain and simple word of God says that Hagar says
that the LORD SPOKE to her. And again when a PROPHET speaks the WORDS
OF the Lord to the people, then the people often say that the have
HEARD the LORD speak to them. You see just because Hagar said that
the LORD spoke to her does NOT dogmatically demand that she actually
heard the DIRECT VOICE of Almighty God HIMSELF speaking to he
DIRECTLY as some have falsely INTERPRETED these verses to mean and
therefore they have also falsely concluded that the ANGEL OF the Lord
IS the Lord God the Almighty HIMSELF or that the ANGEL OF the Lord is
JESUS preexisting AS the SON of Almighty God.
As
always I am here to give you all the evidence from both sides of the
controversy and it is up to YOU to decide for YOURSELF as how you
wish to believe. All that I ask is that you consider the WHOLE matter
before your draw any final conclusions. As I said at the beginning of
this study I am not going to go into any great detail on HOW Jesus
preexisted. I already have many other studies dealing with that
subject. I will post a list of all the related studies that I have
writing on this subject of Jesus preexisting, which deal with all the
highly controversial verse that are used to try and prove that Jesus
preexisted AS the SON of Almighty God for all eternity past WITHOUT
ever having a BEGINNING. But for now let us continue with this study
at hand closely examining all the verses that speak of the Angel OF
the Lord.
The
next time that we see this phrase “the Angel of the Lord is in
Genesis chapter 22 where Almighty God tries Abraham’s love for God
by asking him to offer up his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON as a burnt offering
to God.
Here
is Genesis 22:1-19.
“And it came to
pass after these things, that God
did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: (Now
here in this verse we see that Almighty God is speaking to Abraham.
We ASSUME that every time that Abraham is hearing this voice out of
heaven that Abraham is hearing the very voice of Almighty God
HIMSELF, but it may be that this voice out of heaven is the voice of
an angel OF Almighty God speaking in BEHALF OF Almighty God who said
unto him, Abraham:) and he said (or
Abraham answered this voice out of heaven saying),
Behold, here I am.
2. And he (Almighty
God) said (Whether
this voice out of heaven be the direct voice of Almighty God HIMSELF,
or whether this voice out of heaven be the voice of an angel OF the
Lord God Almighty speaking in BEHALF OF Almighty God in God's stead
saying), Take now your son, your
ONLY SON Isaac, whom you love, and
get you into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt
offering upon one of the mountains which I
will tell you of. (To
me, I see this verse as teaching us that BEFORE God could legally
offer up his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON as a sacrifice to redeem mankind, it
was needful for one of mankind to freely offer up his ONLY son to
God. Please read the study called ÜNDERSTANDING WHY” for a deeper
understanding of the bigger picture of the plan of salvation and WHY
it needed to be KEPT a SECRET. Again no matter WHO the this actual
VOICE belongs it it for SURE that the WORDS spoken are the very WORDS
OF Almighty God HIMSELF.)
3.
And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and
took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the
wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of
which God
had told him.
4.
Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place
afar off.
5.
And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide you here with the ass; and
I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
6.
And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon
Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and
they went both of them together.
7. And Isaac spoke unto Abraham his father, and said,
My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the
fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8.
And Abraham said, My son, God
will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both
of them together.
9.
And they came to the place which God
had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood
in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the
wood.
10.
And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his
son.
11.
And the angel of the LORD
called unto him out of heaven,
and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12.
And he said (or
and the angel OF the Lord said in BEHALF OF Almighty God),
Lay not your hand upon the lad, neither do you any thing unto him:
for now I
know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your
only son from ME.
(these
personal pronouns are NOT referring to the ANGEL OF
the Lord, but rather they are referring to Almighty God himself where
the angel OF
the Lord is speaking these personal pronouns because
he is speaking these words OF
Almighty God in BEHALF OF or FOR Almighty God in God's stead.)
13.
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a
ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the
ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14. And Abraham called the name of that place
Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it
shall be seen.
15
And the angel OF the LORD
called unto Abraham out of heaven the
second time,(so
this is the SAME angel of the Lord speaking again a SECOND time.)
16.
And said, By MYSELF have I sworn,
says the LORD, for BECAUSE you
have done this thing, and have not withheld you son, your ONLY son:
(Here in
this verse we see that the angel OF the Lord called out to Abraham
out of heaven speaking the
words OF Almighty God in BEHALF OF Almighty God.
Now some may INTERPRET
this verse to mean that the angel OF the Lord IS the LORD God, the
Almighty, HIMSELF, but in doing so these Christians, who dogmatically
demand that these verses mean without fail that the Angel OF the Lord
IS
Jesus
without a doubt, must
ALSO INTERPRET every other verse of scripture where the PROPHETS OF
God speak forth the words
OF
Almighty God
in BEHALF OF or FOR
Almighty God saying, “Thus
says the Lord.”
You see my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, just
because an angel or a man speaks forth the WORDS
OF
Almighty God in BEHALF OF or FOR Almighty God that they have been
sent to SPEAK forth does NOT make that angel or that man and prophet
of God to actually BE Almighty God himself. Can you not see my dear
brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, that this angel OF
the Lord was simply speaking forth the WORDS
OF Almighty
God when the angel OF
the Lord said, “By MYSELF
have
I sworn
SAYS
the LORD”?
How is this any different from a PROPHET of God speaking forth the
WORDS
OF
Almighty God saying, “Thus
says the LORD”?
I do not believe that any Christian would try and say that these
PROPHETS OF
Almighty God PREEXISTED as Jesus, the Son of God before all time and
appeared to man as a thyophany of the preincarnated Jesus, so why
then do some Christians dogmatically demand that an ANGEL OF
the Lord is a thyophany of the preexisting Jesus before the
incarnation of the Word of God recorded in John chapter one? The
angel OF
the Lord is NOT speaking these words OF the Lord as being his OWN
words speaking of HIMSELF, but rather the angel OF
the Lord is speaking these WORD
OF
Almighty God FOR
or in BEHALF OF
Almighty God, saying,)
17. That in blessing I
will bless you, and in multiplying I
will multiply your seed as the
stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and
your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18.
And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
BECAUSE you have OBEYED
my voice.
(Now again
the words MY voice may be referring to the literal ACTUAL voice of
Almighty God himself, or the words MY voice may be referring to the
voice OF the Angel OF the Lord, who was speaking in BEHALF of or FOR
Almighty God. But either way these WORDS
came FROM Almighty God himself whether it be that Almighty God spoke
to Abraham directly or Almighty God SENT HIS angel to speak these
WORDS in his STEAD or in BEHALF of himself. Also I want you to notice
that the REASON WHY the seed of Abraham is blessed is BECAUSE Abraham
OBEYED the VOICE of Almighty God to freely OFFER is ONLY son Isaac to
God, which allow God to then offer his ONLY begotten Son as an
atonement for the sins of all of mankind.)
19.
So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went
together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.”
Again
I myself conclude that this passage of scripture ALSO is the angel OF
the Lord speaking the WORDS OF Almighty God IN BEHALF OF Almighty
God, rather than the angel OF the Lord actually BEING Almighty God
HIMSELF as some have falsely concluded. So then, let us move on o the
next verse where we see the phrase, “the angel OF the Lord”,
which is found in Exodus 3:2.
Here
is Exodus 3:1-22 where again we see that the angel OF the Lord is
speaking the WORDS OF Almighty God, who ALONE is the SELF EXISTING
one that has always been without beginning nor end and who alone is
the SOURCE of all of creation.
“Now
Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of
Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came
to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
2.
And the angel OF the LORD
appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and
he (Moses)
looked,
and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not
consumed.
3. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see
this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4.
And when the LORD saw
that he turned aside to see, God
called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses.
And he said, Here am I. (Now
here once again we see that the ANGEL or MESSENGER OF the Lord is
speaking the WORDS OF Almighty God IN BEHALF OF Almighty God to Moses
out of the bush that appears to be burning with flaming fire. Or it
may actually be the VOICE of Almighty God doing the speaking and the
angel making the appearance of the bush being burnt with fire. Please
keep n mind that if one INTERPRETS this verse to dogmatically mean
without fail that this ANGEL OF the Lord is Almighty God HIMSELF or
that this ANGEL of the Lord is the preexisting Jesus, the Son of
Almighty God, then they MUST be CONSISTENT with their INTERPRETATION
throughout this entire passage of scripture AND their INTERPRETATION
must AGREE with the rest of God's word.)
5.
And he said (where
the he here is referring to either the angel speaking the WORDS OF
Almighty God in behalf OF Almighty God, or it is the VOICE of
Almighty God along with the presence of the angel OF the Lord
manifesting as a flaming fire. Either the message being spoken is
FROM Almighty God directly or indirectly by God sending one of his
angels to speak in his behalf saying to Moses),
Draw not nigh hither: put off your shoes from off your feet, for the
place whereon you stand is holy ground.
6.
Moreover he said (the
same explanation as above in verse 5 remains true for the he here in
this verse as well. Again please keep in mind that IF SO BE that one
INTERPRETS this angel OF the Lord to BE the preexisting Jesus, the
Son of Almighty God, then they are actually saying that Jesus IS THE
ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God HIMSELF. In other words, they are in
fact saying that Jesus IS
the FATHER,
as in, that Jesus is ONE and the SELF SAME BEING, because the rest of
this verse goes on to clearly identify the speaker as Almighty God
who says,),
I
am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look
upon God.(This
last phrase where it says that Moses was afraid to LOOK upon GOD can
be compared to other places in the Bible where others have said that
they have SEEN God and LIVED, but in the same passage of scripture
the word of truth also clearly states that they had seen an ANGEL. In
other words, some Old Testament saints liken seeing an ANGEL to
seeing Almighty God himself. But Jesus clearly teaches us that NO MAN
have EVER SEEN Almighty God the FATHER at any time. Now some
Christians understand the clear plain and simple teachings of Jesus
and realize fully that absolutely NO ANGEL or MESSENGER OF Almighty
God could ever possibly BE Almighty God HIMSELF, but still
dogmatically insist that this angel OF the Lord BE without fail the
preexistence of Jesus preexisting AS the SON OF Almighty God before
all time. But again if so be one INTERPRETS this verse to mean that
the angel OF the Lord IS the preexistence of Jesus AS the SON OF
Almighty God, then they must be CONSISTENT in their interpretation to
keep this verse in CONTEXT, which clearly and plainly teaches us that
the WORDS OF the one speaking are FROM the ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY
God the FATHER and therefore consequently makes Jesus to BE the
FATHER, thus disproving their own doctrine of he trinity that plainly
states that Jesus is NOT the FATHER. Please keep reading and all this
will become quite clear to those of you, who are truly seeking the
truth of the whole word of God.)
7.
And the LORD said,
I
have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and
have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I
know their sorrows;
8.
And I am come down
to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them
up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing
with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the
Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and
the Jebusites.
9.
Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto
ME:
and I
have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.
10.
Come now therefore, and I
will send you unto Pharaoh, that you may bring forth MY
people the children of Israel out of Egypt.
11.
And Moses said unto God,
Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring
forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?
12.
And he said (Again
the he here is simply referring to either the angel speaking the
WORDS
OF
Almighty God in
behalf OF
Almighty God, or it is the VOICE of Almighty God along
with the
presence of the angel OF the Lord manifesting as a flaming fire.
Either the message being spoken is FROM Almighty God directly or
indirectly by God sending one of his angels to speak in his behalf
saying to Moses),
Certainly I
(Almighty
God your God and Father) will
be with you; and this shall be a token unto you, that I
(the
ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God) have
sent you: When you have brought forth the people out of Egypt, you
shall serve God
upon this mountain.
13.
And Moses said unto God,
Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto
them, The God
of your fathers has sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What
is HIS name?
what shall I say unto them?
14.
And God
said unto Moses, I
AM THAT I AM:
and he (Almighty
God whose name ALONE is the SELF EXISTING ONE who will become who or
what he is becoming, the SOURCE of all things) said,
Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, I
AM
(or
the self existing being and source of all things) has
sent me unto you.
15.
And God
said moreover unto Moses, Thus shall you say unto the children of
Israel, The LORD God
of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob, has sent me unto you: this is MY
name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
16.
Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The
LORD God
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared
unto me,
saying, I
have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
17.
And I
have said, I
will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the
Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites,
and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and
honey.
18.
And they shall hearken to your voice: and you shall come, you and the
elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and you shall say unto him,
The LORD God
of the Hebrews has met with us: and now let us go, we beseech you,
three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the
LORD our God.
19. And I
am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a
mighty hand.
20.
And I
will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all MY
wonders which I
will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.
21.
And I
will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians: and it
shall come to pass, that, when you go, you shall not go empty:
22.
But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that
sojourns in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and
raiment: and you shall put them upon your sons, and upon your
daughters; and you shall spoil the Egyptians.”
Again, all the personal pronouns that I have
emphasized are referring to the ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God, who
ALONE is the SELF EXISTING ONE and the SOURCE of ALL creating
including his SON Jesus who clearly teaches us that he CAME OUT FROM
the FATHER.
Now
just because the angel OF the Lord is speaking the WORDS
OF
Almighty God, the I AM THAT I AM, does NOT mean that the ANGEL OF the
Lord IS the LORD HIMSELF.
Some
Christians clearly understand that the angel OF the Lord could not
possibly BE the Lord God the ALMIGHTY HIMSELF simply because of the
clear, PLAIN, and SIMPLE words, “the angel OF the Lord”, which
clearly teaches us that the angel BELONGS TO the Lord and is NOT the
Lord God the Almighty HIMSELF, but rather the angel OF the Lord is
simply speaking forth the OWRDS OF the one true and only Almighty
God, who ALONE is the FATHER. But yet other Christians dogmatically
demand that the angel OF the Lord is Jesus preexisting AS the SON OF
Almighty God before all time and is therefore NOT Almighty God, the
Father, but rather the angel OF the Lord IS God the SON.
Now
if so be that you are TRULY UNDERSTANDING WHO these WORDS belong to
no matter who is ACTUALLY speaking these words, then you can clearly
see that these WORDS being spoken to Moses are the very WORDS OF the
great I AM THAT I AM or the SELF EXISTING ONE who is becoming who or
what he is becoming. So then if one concludes that the angel OF the
Lord IS Jesus preexisting AS the SON OF Almighty God simply because
the angel OF the Lords says, I AM THAT I AM, then they are in fact
saying that Jesus HIMSELF IS the great I AM THAT I AM and therefore
they are saying that Jesus the SON OF Almighty God IS THE ONE TRUE
and ONLY ALMIGHTY God who ALONE IS the FATHER. And thereby they
disprove their own doctrine of the trinity by making Jesus to be ONE
and the SLEF SAME BEING as Almighty God the I AM THAT I AM.
In
other words, ALL the verses that speak of the angel OF the Lord, or
an angel OF the Lord, or an angel OF God where the angel OF the Lord
is speaking is the FIRST PERSON does NOT mean that the angel OF the
Lord IS the Lord HIMSELF, but rather simply means that the angel OF
the Lord is speaking the WORDS OF Almighty God the father IN BEHALF
OF Almighty God the I AM THAT I AM, the self existing one and the
source of ALL that is or shall be including his SON Jesus.
To
me this should be more than enough sound Biblical evidence to prove
without fail that Jesus is NOT the angel OF the Lord, but let us
continue this study in God's word to closer look at ALL the verses
referring to the angel OF the Lord. The next place we see the phrase,
“the angel OF the Lord is in Numbers chapter 22.
Numbers
22:22-35
“22.
And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the
angel of the LORD stood in the way
for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his
two servants were with him.
And the ass
saw the angel of the LORD
standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass
turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam
smote the ass, to turn her into the way.
24.
But the angel of the LORD
stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a
wall on that side.
25.
And when the ass saw the angel of
the LORD, she thrust herself unto
the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote
her again.
26.
And the angel of the LORD
went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn
either to the right hand or to the left.
27.
And when the ass saw the angel of
the LORD, she fell down under
Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a
staff.
28.
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam,
What have I done unto you, that you have smitten me these three
times?
29.
And Balaam said unto the ass, Because you have mocked me: I would
there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill you.
30.
And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I your ass, upon which you have
ridden ever since I was yours unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so
unto you? And he said, Nay.
31.
Then the LORD
opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the
angel of the LORD standing in the
way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he (Balaam)
bowed down his head, and fell flat on
his face.
32.
And the angel of the LORD
said unto him, Wherefore have you smitten your ass these three times?
Behold, I went out to withstand you, because your way is perverse
before me:
33.
And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she
had turned from me, surely now also I had slain you, and saved her
alive.
34.
And Balaam said unto the angel of
the LORD, I have sinned; for I
knew not that you stood in the way against me: now therefore, if it
displease you, I will get me back again.
And the
angel of the LORD said unto
Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto
you, that you shall speak. So Balaam went with the princes of
Balak.”
Now
in his passage of scripture to me there does not seem to ba any
wording that would suggest that the angel OF the Lord is anything
more than just an ANGEL, a MESSENGER OF Almighty God being SENT BY
Almighty God.
Some
may try and say that Balaam fell down on his face before the angel
and worshiped the angel and that the angel did NOT refuse the worship
being given unto him, therefore this proves that the angel OF the
Lord is without fail Jesus preexisting AS the SON OF Almighty God,
because the angel OF the Lord did NOT rebuke Balaam for worshiping
him.
However
in TRUTH dear child of God the word of God does NOT clearly and
plainly tell us that Balaam WORSHIPED the angel of the Lord. The word
of truth simply says that Balaam bowed down his head and fell flat on
his face. But even if one were to INTERPET these words to mean that
Balaam worshiped the angel OF the Lord this still does not prove
beyond any shadow of a doubt the the angel OF the Lord is Jesus,
because people in the Old Testament MISTOOK the appearances of angels
as being and appearance of Almighty God himself. But rather these
appearances of angels were just that, the appearances of ANGELIC
BEINGS who were SENT BY Almighty God to speak forth the WORDS OF
Almighty God in his BEHALF.
The
next occurrence of the phrase. “the angel OF the Lord is found in
Judges chapter two.
Judges
2:1-4
“
And an angel of the
LORD came up from Gilgal to
Bochim, and said, I
made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land
which I
swore unto your fathers; and I
said, I
will never break MY
covenant with you.
2.
And you shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; you
shall throw down their altars: but you have not obeyed MY
voice: why have you done this?
3.
Wherefore I
also said, I
will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns
in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.
And it came to
pass, when the angel of the LORD
spoke THESE WORDS words unto all the children of Israel, that
the people lifted up their voice, and wept.”
Here
again we see that the people REACTED to HEARING the WORDS OF Almighty
God being spoken to them by the angel OF the Lord as IF the ANGEL OF
the Lord WAS the LORD HIMSELF.
To
ME, it is very obvious that the WORDS being SPOKEN BY the angel OF
the Lord in ALL of these passages of scripture are the very WORDS OF
Almighty God simply being spoken forth by one of his ANGELIC BEINGS
that he himself SENT to speak forth his WORD in his BEHALF. And ANY
manifestation of an ANGEL or a VOICE out of heaven was seen to be
FROM Almighty God, so the people naturally fell down n fear and
reverence to these ANGELIC visitation SENT FROM Almighty God.
Let
us continue this study in God's word by taking a closer look at
Judges 6:7-40 where Gideon puts out a fleece to see if God will
deliver Israel by his hand. I have skipped over Judges 5:23, simply
because I saw nothing in that passage of scripture that could be
interpreted that the angel of the Lord was Jesus.
Here
is Judges 6:7-40.
“
And it came to pass, when the children of Israel
cried unto the LORD
because of the Midianites,
8. That the LORD
sent a prophet
unto the children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus says the LORD
God of Israel, I
brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of
bondage; (Here
is an example where a PROPHET of Almighty God is sent BY Almighty God
the speak the WORDS OF Almighty Godd in the FIRST PERSON using the
first personal pronoun “I”, but not one Christian would ever try
and make this PROPHET OF God to actually BE Almighty God HIMSELF, nor
would any Christian try and make this prophet to be the preexisting
Jesus as the Son of Almighty God either. So why then do some
Christians dogmatically demand that an angel OF the Lord IS Almighty
God himself or demand that an angel OF Almighty God, who is merely
speaking the WORDS OF Almighty God to BE the preexisting Jesus as the
Son of Almighty God?)
9.
And I
delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand
of all that oppressed you, and drove them out from before you, and
gave you their land;
10.
And I
said unto you, I
am the LORD your God;
fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but you
have not obeyed MY
voice.
11. And there came an
angel of the LORD, and sat under
an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite:
and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the wine press, to hide it from
the Midianites.
12.
And the angel of the LORD
appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD
is with you, you mighty man of valor.
13.
And Gideon said unto him,
Oh my Lord,
(here the
word that is translated as Lord is not speaking of Almighty God, but
rather to the ANGEL as being a lord or one greater than or mightier
than Gideon. So Gideon is speaking to the ANGEL as his lord saying,)
if the LORD
be with us, why then is all this befallen us? (in
other words, Gideon is asking the ANGEL, IF the Lord God the Almighty
is with us, then WHY is all this befallen us?) And
where be all HIS miracles (now
IF SO BE that Gideon was speaking to the ANGEL as actually BEING the
one true and only Almighty God HIMSELF, then the writer would have
said, And where is all of YOUR miracles as opposed to where are all
of HIS miracles,) which our fathers
told us of, saying , Did not the LORD
bring us up from Egypt? But now the LORD
has forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
14.
And the LORD
looked upon him, and said, Go in this your might, and you shall save
Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I
sent you?
15. And he said unto him, Oh my Lord,
wherewith shall I save Israel? Behold, my family is poor in Manasseh,
and I am the least in my father's house.
16.
And the LORD
said unto him, Surely I will be with you, and you shall smite the
Midianites as one man.
17.
And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in your sight, then
show me a sign that you talk with me.
18. Depart not hence, I pray you, until I come unto
you, and bring forth my present, and set it before you. And he said,
I will tarry until you come again.
19. And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and
unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a basket,
and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the
oak, and presented it.
20.
And the angel of God
said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them
upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.
21.
Then the angel of the LORD
put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the
flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the
rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the
angel of the LORD departed out of
his sight.
22.
And when Gideon perceived that he
was AN ANGEL OF the LORD, Gideon
said, Alas, O Lord GOD! For BECAUSE
I have seen AN ANGEL OF the LORD face to face.
(In other
words, even though Gideon perceived that this was AN ANGEL OF the
Lord, he still yet feared dying, BECAUSE to Gideon, seeing an ANGEL
OF the Lord was just like seeing Almighty God HIMSELF. But the angel
of the Lord explains to Gideon that he has no reason to fear that he
should DIE simply because he saw AN ANGEL OF the Lord.)
23
And the LORD
said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: you shall not die. (The
people of the Old Testament had this great FEAR that if ANY man ever
SAW Almighty God face o face, then that man would DIE. But here in
this verse the ANGEL OF the Lord assures Gideon that he has NOT SEEN
Almighty God HIMSELF, but rather that Gideon has merely seen an ANGEL
OF Almighty God.)
24. Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD,
(Please
notice that Gideon builds and altar unto the LORD and NOT unto the
ANGEL OF the Lord.) and called it
Jehovahshalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
25.
And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD
said unto him, Take your father's young bullock, even the second
bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that
your father has, and cut down the grove that is by it:
26. And build an altar unto the LORD
your God upon the top of this
rock, in the ordered place, and take the second bullock, and offer a
burnt sacrifice with the wood of the grove which thou shalt cut down.
27.
Then Gideon took ten men of his servants, and did as the LORD
had said unto him: and so it was, because he feared his father's
household, and the men of the city, that he could not do it by day,
that he did it by night.
28.
And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the
altar of Baal was cast down, and the grove was cut down that was by
it, and the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built.
29.
And they said one to another, Who has done this thing? And when they
inquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash has done this
thing.
30.
Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out thy son, that he
may die: because he has cast down the altar of Baal, and because he
has cut down the grove that was by it.
31.
And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will you plead for
Baal? Will you save him? He that will plead for him, let him be put
to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for
himself, because one has cast down his altar. (in
other words, if so be that Baal is truly a god as you CLAIM then let
Baal fight his OWN battles to prove that he is a god.)
32. Therefore on that day he called him Jerubbaal,
saying, Let Baal plead against him, because he has thrown down his
altar.
33.
Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the
east were gathered together, and went over , and pitched in the
valley of Jezreel.
34. But the Spirit
of the LORD came upon Gideon, and
he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered after him.
35. And he sent messengers throughout all Manasseh;
who also was gathered after him: and he sent messengers unto Asher,
and unto Zebulun, and unto Naphtali; and they came up to meet them.
36.
And Gideon said unto God,
If you
wilt save Israel by mine hand, as you
have said,
37.
Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be
on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then
shall I know that you
wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said .
38.
And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the
fleece together , and wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of
water.
39.
And Gideon said unto God,
Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this
once: let me prove, I pray you, but this once with the fleece; let it
now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be
dew.
40.
And God
did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was
dew on all the ground.”
========================================
=============================================================================
HOW DID THE CHURCH
DIVIDE?
WHAT CAUSED THE
REFORMATION
OF THE CHURCH?
WHY ARE THERE SO
MANY DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS
IN THE CHURCH?
Was
there always division in the church from the very beginning? In other
words were there MORE than just ONE group of believers in Jesus
Christ than just the Catholic church from the very beginning of the
church? Or was there ONLY the Catholic church in the beginning and
ALL the other churches today split OFF from the Catholic church? Does
the Roman Catholic church really go all the way back to the apostle
Peter being the first pope? Was the church always Roman Catholic or
did the Roman Catholic church just ADOPT the name Catholic to make it
APPEARED that she cane trace her roots all the way back to Peter? And
is the Roman Catholic church the ONLY ONE TRUE church ALONE apart
from which there can be NO salvation? And IF this were true, then
WHAT caused the great Protestant reformation of Catholics WITHIN the
Roman Catholic church, who were just PROTESTING and crying our for
the Catholic church to REFORM some of her teachings and practices?
And IF the Roman Catholic church was the ONLY church in the beginning
and ALL other church SPLIT from her, then HOW was it possible from
those who left the Catholic church to JOIN with other groups of
Christians, who were ALREADY in existence BEFORE the reformation if
so be there was only ONE church?
These
questions and many more will be addressed in this study to give the
reader HOPE that UNITY
has always been God's plan for his church. But where do we even begin
with such a complex subject? All I can say upfront is that UNITY of
the body of Jesus Christ has always been on my heart from the very
first day I truly came to know the Lord Jesus as my savior. It has
always been the cry of my heart to see all the fighting stop
between Christians who are supposed to be walking in love one toward
another. God's word teaches us that we all should be speaking the
SAME thing!
So
why then are there so many different denominations in the church
today? Why is the church so divided in what each different
denomination teaches? And what exactly caused the reformation of the
church right after the middle ages or the dark ages? What caused this
SPLIT in the Catholic church, which used in it's PROPER setting
simple means the “UNIVERSAL” church where it seemed
at least that every believer was indeed speaking the SAME things
under the leadership of the clergy or the elders and the bishops of
the Catholic church? Yes there were divisions withing the “UNIVERSAL”
Christian church from the very beginning, but all these smaller
individual body of believers did at least call each other brothers
and sisters in the Lord. There was UNITY in that they ALL believed
that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died from their sins and
was raised from the dead. So what happened to cause these divisions
to grow to the point that today many of these different denominations
do NOT consider any other Christians to be saved UNLESS they belong
to that particular denomination?
Let
us begin this study in God's word by first taking a look at what
caused the REFORMING of what the church SHOULD be teaching as opposed
to what the universal or the Catholic church was actually teaching at
that particular time in history.
But
before we get deep into this study of the history one true church AND
how the great well known split from the Roman Catholic church came to
be. it is vitally important for my readers and seekers of the truth
to know that as one searches the history of the church that they will
find that there has ALWAYS been divisions in the body of Jesus Christ
from
the very beginning
and they did NOT start at the great Protestant Reformation as many
Christians mistakenly believe.
You
see even though there were always divisions in the church since it's
beginning these DIVISIONS or these different groups of BELIEVERS in
the one true UNIVERSAL church were indeed built on the solid
foundation of Jesus being the CHRIST, the SON of the one true and
only Almighty and living God. This TRUTH is made clear to us even in
the New Testament of the Bible without even searching the historical
record of the church.
Please
read 1 Corinthians 1:11-14, which teaches us that even the early
church was divided and disagreed on certain teachings.
“For
it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are
of the house of Chloe, that there are CONTENSIONS among you. (or
there is DEBATE, variance and even rivalry among you causing strife.)
12.
Now this I say , that every one
of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I
of Christ.
13.
Is Christ DIVIDED? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized
in the name of Paul?
14.
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest (or
for fear that) any should say that I
had baptized in mine own name.”
Then
Paul continues to write to the church, speaking to ALL of us, just as
Paul was speaking to ALL these different groups of believers in the
New testament, who were DIVIDED and followed DIFFERENT MEN, Paul
writes in chapter 3 and tells us that because of all this division
between the brethren we are yet carnal Christians. In other words,
Paul still yet referred to them ALL as being CHRISTIANS, but he
identified those who had different teachings that did not agree with
the teachings of Jesus as being CARNAL Christians.
But
Paul did this not so much that there were disagreements among true
born again believers, but rather because of the pride of placing
names upon themselves as we ourselves do today and having the
attitude that ONLY they themselves had the truth, which is equivalent
one saying today that THEIR particular church or denomination ALONE
has the truth and UNLESS you follow THEIR leader, then you are NOT
saved nor can you be saved.
Please
read 1 Corinthians 3:1-15 where we learn that all these leaders of
all these different denominations are nothing more than ministers by
which we learned of Jesus Christ to be our savior.
“And
I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto
carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto you were
not able to bear it, neither yet now are you able.
3. For you are yet carnal: for (or
you are yet carnal because) whereas
there is among you envying,
and strife,
and divisions,
are you not carnal, and walk as men?
4.
For while one says, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are
you not carnal?
5.
WHO then is Paul, and WHO is Apollos, but
ministers BY
whom you believed, even as
the Lord gave to every man?
6.
I have planted, Apollos watered; but
God gave the increase.
7.
So then NEITHER is he that plants
any thing,
NEITEHR he that waters
(ANYTHING
either);
but God that gives the increase.
(in other
words, we are NOT to glorify and exalt preachers of the word of God
and place them on some kind of pedestal that they ALONE teach the
TRUTH of Gods, word, but rather we are to thank, praise, and glorify
Almighty God for hi ministers that preach the true gospel of Jesus
Christ.)
8.
Now he that plants and he that waters are ONE:
and every man shall receive his own
reward according to his
own labor. (God
will be the judge and will reward our his OWN ministers by their OWN
works whether they be true or whether they be false. We are only to
preach that which is the truth of the whole word of God, and those
who believe are to search the word of God for themselves to see if
they are being taught the true. This check and balance system is
designed so the false teach can be REFORMED, but as you will in this
study that PRIDE often prevents those in ERROR to REFORM their
teachings. The ONLY guide that we have is the word of God and the
Holy Spirit who leads and guides us into all truth helping us to
RIGHTLY divide the word of TRUTH.)
9. For we are laborers together with God: you are
God's husbandry, you are God's building.
10.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a WISE
master builder, I have laid the FOUNDATION (which
is the true gospel of Jesus Christ),
and another builds thereon. But let
every man TAKE
HEED HOW he builds
thereupon. (in
other words, we are being warned to take heed what we teach, because
what we teach may cause our work and labor of the gospel to NOT
ENDURE unto the end and be saved, and therefore we shall lose
whatever reward we would have received if the ones we preached the
gospel to would have endured unto the end to be saved. But more
importantly because some have not taken heed of what they are
teaching the ones who fall way because of their false teaching shall
lose their reward of eternal life in the world to come. And for me, I
do NOT what to be even remotely part of causing anyone to not receive
the end of their salvation, which is eternal life in the world to
come.)
11.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ. (there
is only ONE core central belief of the one true church of Jesus
Christ, which is the FOUNDATION of all other church doctrines that
must AGREE and never CONTRADICT this HEART of true Christianity. For
if it does, then those who believe these FALSE teachers may be in
danger of NOT persevering unto the end to receive the END of their
salvation of ETERNAL LIFE in the world to come.)
12.
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious
stones (representing
SOUND
Biblical teaching that produces Christian who will endure unto the
end and be saved),
wood, hay, stubble (representing
false doctrine that may cause some Christians to fall away if they do
not get some good sound Biblical teaching from some other
Christians);
13.
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare
it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try
every man's work of what sort it is. (again
our work is those we MINISTER TO who believe the gospel. This is what
the CONTEXT is teaching us)
14.
If any man's work abide (or
REMAIN) which he has BUILT
thereupon, he shall receive a reward. (WHAT
are we BUILDING? The kingdom of God by MINISTERING the gospel to the
world. And IF our work of the gospel abides or REMAINS faithful unto
the end, then HE shall receive a reward. Now you can INTERPRET the HE
here to mean the MINISTER of the gospel, or the ONE who ABIDE, or
perhaps BOTH are being referred to as receiving a reward.)
15.
If any man's work shall be burned, HE shall suffer loss (again
the HE shall shall suffer loss can INTERPRETED that the HE here mean
EITHER the MINISTER of the gospel, OR the ONE who does NOT ABIDE, OR
perhaps even means BOTH are being referred to as suffering loss):
but he himself shall be saved (The
he here is definitely speaking of the MINISTER of the gospel IF SO BE
he or she that ministers does indeed endure unto the end of all the
fiery trials in life to receive the END of their salvation, which is
eternal life in the world to come); yet
so as by fire. (meaning
that we ALL have to go through tough trials in life that test our
faith. So think it not strange the fiery trial that is to try you,
which also may be speaking of a future trial at the time of the
second coming of Jesus where there will be a LITERAL fire that will
perhaps cause many to loose their faith. Jesus said shall I find
faith on the earth when I come?)”
The
main point that I want you to see for now is that from the very
beginning the ONE TRUE UNIVERSAL church, which was obviously the ONLY
church, had divisions and
contentions
in the teachings WITHIN the church. So then, there has always been
PROTESTERS, or PROTESTANTS, who protested to the ways in which
certain scriptures have been INTERPRETED by others, which then caused
DIFFERENT teachings to arise in the ONE TRUE and ONLY UNIVERSAL
church. In other words, they were ALL still CHRISTIANS even though
they did NOT AGREE upon certain
points of doctrine.
However,
today these protesters are called PROTESTANTS, which are NOT
considered BY the Roman Catholic church to be TRUE believers that are
indeed SAVED, because they protested against the teachings of the
Catholic church and refused to ACCEPT and believe any more some of
the DOCTRINES of what had come to be called the Roman Catholic
church.
Now
again the word “CATHOLIC” actually and simply means “UNIVERSAL”,
which means that the church in general as a whole held to certain
teachings that were widely accepted by ALL in the church to be what
Jesus and the Apostles and the early church taught. Please keep in
mind that this does NOT mean that every
single doctrine
of the universal church was the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God even
though they were ACCEPTED by the majority as being the truth. This is
why there were some other groups of Christians who were NEVER
actually a part of this other group of Christians that CAME TO BE
called the “KATHOLIKOS” church, which is a Greek word first used
by Tertullion is the second century that means universal, complete,
or whole church.
You
see, true believers AFTER the first original apostles of Jesus Christ
all died, started to break up into many more individual groups than
ever before partly because the church was GROWING and there were not
enough ELDERS to properly teach these NEW believers. Plus add to this
the fact that the church began to be spread out over great distances,
which made it harder to stay in communication with each other. These
things coupled with the enemy Satan's attacks to destroy the church
led to many FALSE teachings and doctrines of DEVILS to arise even
more in the church.
So
then, many, but NOT ALL the elders joined
together
to fight against these false teachings in order to contend for the
TRUE faith that was first delivered to them by the original apostles
of Jesus. And this group of Christians came to be a much larger group
of believers that took on the Greek name “KATHOLIKOS”, which is
translated as “CATHOLIC”, which again means universal, complete
or whole.
But
yet this larger group of believers was NOT the WHOLE COMPLETE church,
because there were other true born again believers that did NOT agree
with these bishops self appointing themselves as lords over the whole
church. In other words, to understand the TRUE history of the church
then, first of all you must understand the setting of the church
throughout much of it's history. You cannot just hear ONE SIDE of
church history to arrive at the TRUTH.
You
see, some great men in the church saw the many divisions in the
church and decided that the ONLY way to get rid of these divisions
was to get more ORGANIZED. So little by little the CLERGY or the
elders and the bishops, that is to say the pastors of these smaller
groups began to become more organized and consequently in order to
CONTROL these many controversial teaching these bishops began to lord
over the flock and basically just TELL them what Christians were to
believe and what Christians were NOT to believe, rather than TEACHING
them BY the word of God and leading them as to WHY we believe what we
believe.
In
other words, ALL the INTERPRETING of the scriptures was placed into
the hands of those who set themselves up to be in complete and total
charge over the people in the church. These bishops were no longer
overseers as it was in the first century, who lead and guided the
flock gently and humbly teaching Christians only what Jesus and the
first original apostle taught. But rather beginning in the third and
fourth centuries these bishops who called themselves Catholic began
to RULE and REIGN OVER the church to the point that if you did not
agree and accept ALL that they taught, then you were deemed a
HERETIC. An did you did not recant and submit to ALL their teachings
then you were excommunicated from the church that was called the
church of ROME or the Holy ROMAN church by some was called the Holy
Roman Apostolic Catholic church.
Thus
began the division between the common believers, who were TOLD what
to believe called the LAITY, or the common uneducated peasants, and
the CLERGY, who were the more highly educated men of power and
prestige who took charge and made themselves lords and guides over
the rest of the less educated believers.
Now
some Bible scholars today believe that what is called the hated
doctrine of the Nicolaitans in Revelation chapter 2 is in fact this
teaching that only the CLERGY could properly understand the
scriptures and therefore the so called LAITY needed to be TOLD what
to believe and what NOT to believe, because they supposedly did not
have enough intelligence to read the word for themselves and come to
the knowledge of the truth without being TOLD what the word of God
was teaching. Please read Revelation 2:1-6 where Jesus is speaking to
the church at Ephesus.
“Unto
the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that
holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the midst of
the seven golden candlesticks;
2.
I know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and how
you can not bear them which are evil:
and you have tried them which say they
are apostles, and are NOT, and have
found them LIARS:
3.
And have borne, and have patience, and for my name's sake have
labored, and have not fainted.
4.
Nevertheless I have somewhat against you, because you have left
your first love.
5.
Remember therefore from whence you are fallen, and repent, and do the
first works;
or else I will come unto you quickly, and will remove your
candlestick out of his place, except you repent.
6.
But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which
I also hate.”
Now
ever these faithful believers were not perfect as they were in the
beginning, because the LEFT their first love and stopped doing the
FIRST WORKS, which they did in the beginning. I myself interpret this
to mean that even the faithful believers who held fast to the true
gospel of Jesus Christ left off loving the brethren the way they
should have been loving each other. And also even the faithful
Christians who hated the doctrines of the Nicholaitans, left off
doing the mighty works of healing that they did in the beginning. So
then the church as a whole basically became teachers of
“PROPER”doctrine, which is NOT a bad thing, but rather a good
thing so long as the OTHER things are Not left off from being done.
Then
in Revelation 2:12-16 Jesus again addresses the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans to the church of Pergamos that was among them which Jesus
HIMSELF also hated
and unless they repented they word suffer the wrath of God when Jesus
returned.
“And
to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things says he
which has the sharp sword with two edges;
13.
I know your works, and where you dwell,
even where Satan's seat is: and you
hold fast my name, and have not denied my
faith, even in those days wherein
Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where
Satan dwells.
14.
But I have a few things against you, because you have there
(where
Satan's seat is) them that hold the
doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before
the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to
commit fornication. (The
Roman Catholic church is the only
church that offers the SACRIFICE of the mass before or in the
presence of IMAGES such as the CRUCIFIX that must
be present and in VIEW of the people during the sacrifice of the
mass.
The Catholic church also adores, venerates and even worships the
Eucharistic HOST that is housed in a Monstrance, which is a SUN
shaped IMAGE. And then Catholics eat the Eucharistic HOST, which they
believe is Jesus is the FLESH)
15.
So have YOU also THEM
that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (in
other words, there were groups of believers who had AMONG them other
believers who lorded OVER the LAITY),
which thing I hate.
16. Repent; or else I will come unto you quickly, and
will fight against them
(speaking of
those who do not repent of the doctrine of or the DEEDS of the
Nicolaitans who lorded OVER other believers dogmatically demanding
that the LAITY believe what they were TOLD or else be excommunicated
from the church. In other words, at the second coming of Jesus he
will come and fight against those who say that they are Christians,
but yet they do not OBEY his words to REPENT and one of the things
Jesus is telling the church to repent from is this lording over the
laity by the clergy. Jesus says, I will come and fight against THEM,
the NICOLAITANS) with the sword of my
mouth.”
Now
the word or the name “NICOLAITANS”
comes from the Greek word “nickolaos”, which is a compound word
that comes from two other Greek words “nikos” and “laos”. The
Greek word “nikos” means to conquer, subdue, or lord over as in
control. And the Greek word “laos” means the people. This Greek
word “laos” is also where we get the word LAITY, which should
sound familiar to many of you, who are in the Catholic church.
So then, when these two Greek words are put
together into one word, they form the word “nikolaos” where we
also get the name Nicolas, which literally means one who conquers and
subdues the people to lord over and control the people. Therefore it
seems that the Nicolaitans were given this name as a result of their
deeds and doctrines of conquering and subduing or lording over the
common people called the LAITY.
Now since Jesus was
indeed speaking to the churches,
then he was obviously not referring to the world or world government
lording over the LAITY, as being the thing Jesus hated, but rather
the deed that Jesus hated was the CLERGY lording over and controlling
the LAITY with their FALSE doctrines like fires of PURGATORY and the
tormenting fire of hell in order to keep the common people in line
using fear of these fiery doctrines to control them and keep them in
line so to speak.
You see my dear
brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, a great many of the
believers throughout the forming of the church even as late as the
16th century were pagans that were converted to Christianity, who
already believed in these fiery places in the afterlife, so it was
very easy to use their fears to control them because they already
believed these things having a PAGAN background. This controlling the
people by the priests was no new thing, because the pagan priests of
these pagan religions controlled their people using these same fears
of suffering in flames of fire in the afterlife.
Can you not see my
dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, that just because
the “CHURCH” teaches something does NOT mean that the “CHURCH”
is always teaching the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God. So I implore
my readers, and seekers of the TRUTH to read the studies called, “IS
THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY BIBLICAL?”, “IS THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL
TORMENT IN HELL BIBLICAL?”, and “DOES REVELATION 20:10 TEACH
ETERNAL TORMENT?”, which will give you a SOUND BIBLICAL foundation
that exposes the ERRORS of these teachings of fiery suffering after a
person dies.
My point is this that
most every one in the entire church age up to around the 16th
century sincerely believed in these fiery
judgments after a person dies and they feared them, because they
already believed them due to their PAGAN influences, so whatever the
“CHURCH” taught in order to escape these fiery judgments they
believer without question.
I mean if the “CHURCH”
would have said even something as ridiculous as something like, “If
you stand on your head you can take three days of suffering off your
judgment”, then some of these Gentile or pagan Christians would
have stood on their head every day even multiple times a day without
hesitation, because this was their PAGAN superstitious upbringing
before they became Christians. This is one of the ways that the
Catholic church ruled over the LAITY and they were successful in
doing this because of many reasons, which we will examine further on
in this study, but for now let us take a look at the main CAUSE of
the GREAT PRTESTANT REFORMANTION, which again BEGAN with the
Catholics WITHIN the Catholic church itself, who were in the
beginning just crying out and protesting for REFORM of just SOME of
the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. But BECAUSE of the PRIDE
of the Roman Catholic church the leaders refused to budge even an
inch to change or REFORM any of their teachings. They only stopped
their abuse of SELLING indulgences, but kept on teaching this false
doctrine.
You see, it was when
the Catholic church started to really ABUSE
their authority over the common people by
the SELLING
of INDULGENCES that great men within the
leadership of the so called Holy Roman
Catholic church finally stood up against
some of the FALSE teachings and practices of the mighty powerful
Catholic church. In other words, this was the straw that finally
broke the camels back so to speak. There were many other false
teaching that were tolerated and often overlooked for the sake of
keeping unity, but WHEN this ABUSE of SELLING indulgences began that
was all many of these bishops and priest and the laity could stand so
they PRTESTED and called for REFORM or the reforming of some of the
teachings within the Catholic church.
But you must also keep
in mind that there were OTHER groups of believers OUTSIDE this highly
organized Roman Catholic church, who were never ever a part of this
highly organized Roman Catholic church itself, because they had
always seen that she did NOT teach the WHOLE truth of the WHOLE word
of Almighty God. And some of those who split from the Catholic church
during this Protestant reformation JOINED with these smaller groups
of believers OUTSIDE of the Roman Catholic church, while others
formed their OWN denominations such as the Lutherans, who followed
Martin Luther, and the Calvinists, who followed the teachings of John
Calvin. There were other new groups of believers as well, but these
two groups seemed to be the main Protestant groups that also
continued to split and form even more Protestant denominations as
time went on.
Also there where the
orthodox Christians who remained very similar to the Roman Catholic
church, but did indeed OPPOSE some of the teachings of the Roman
Catholic church. Some of the orthodox believers today still call
themselves CATHOLIC, but they do NOT like to be called ROMAN
Catholics at all. So you see there is DIVISION even among the so
called UNIVERSAL roman Catholic church that CLAIMS she can trace her
roots all the way back to Peter that the Roman church professed to be
he first pope. Please read the study “WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?”
for a deeper understanding of the truth or the whole word of God and
the early church history, but for now let us get back to this ABUSE
of the selling of indulgences that CAUSE what has been come to be
called the Great Protestant Reformation.
Now for those of you
who may not know what “INDULGENCES” are let us go to the Catholic
encyclopedia to properly understand what the Catholic church means by
indulgences. The following is a quote taken from the Catholic
encyclopedia.
“In
the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of remitted, but
also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance
the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal
punishment due to mortal sin; but there still
remains the temporal
punishment required by Divine justice, and this
requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the
world to come,
i.e., in
Purgatory.
An
indulgence offers
the penitent sinner the
means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.”
In
other words, an INDULGENCE is basically a WAY of paying ones DEBT now
on the earth that would normally be paid suffering in the tormenting
fires of purgatory according to the doctrine of PURGATORY. That is to
say INDULGENCES get Catholics OUT of PURGATORY or at the very least
they shorten the time spent in the tormenting firs of purgatory.
The
Catholic encyclopedia goes on to say under the heading of the various
types
of indulgences that the penitent sinner is freed
from any further temporal
punishment due to sin that would ordinarily
be required after death in purgatory
with a plenary indulgence.
“By
a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the ENTIRE
temporal
punishment due to sin so that no
further
expiation is required in Purgatory.”
Now
for Catholics who believe in this doctrine of temporal suffering in
tormenting flames of fire to purge them of the effects of sin this
was a GOOD DEAL, so to speak. I mean think about this for a moment,
who wouldn't PAY even a great deal of money to get out of SUFFERING
in the flames of fire of purgatory after death, IF SO BE that you
truly believed in this doctrine of Purgatory and suffering in
tormenting flames of fire in the afterlife until you debt was paid in
full.
You
see you have to understand HOW the doctrine of purgatory was taught
to Catholics at this time in history. Please read the study “IS
PRUGATORY BIBLICAL?” for a deeper understanding of the Catholic
doctrine of purgatory and why it is not a SOUND Biblical teaching of
the whole word of God.
You
see, back then at that time in history we can read under the heading
of Luther in the Catholic
encyclopedia were it plainly states that the Catholic
church does NOT DENY that ABUSES of SELLING indulgences
and that they did indeed occur,
but they also say that the SELLING of indulgences were then condemned
after they where brought to the attention of the Church. Here is a
direct quote from the Catholic encyclopedia.
“It
is NOT
DENIED
that a doctrine
like that of the indulgences,
which in some aspects was still a disputable
subject in the schools,
was open to misunderstanding by the laity;
that the preachers in the heat of rhetorical enthusiasm fell into
exaggerated
statements, or that the financial
considerations attached,
though not of an obligatory character, led
to abuse
and scandal.
The opposition to indulgences, not to the doctrine—which remains
the same to this day—but to the mercantile methods pursued in
preaching them, was NOT
NEW or silent.
Duke George of Saxony prohibited them in his territory, and Cardinal
Ximenes, as early as 1513, forbade them in Spain.”
In other words, this
ABUSE of SELLING indulgences is NOT just so called Protestant
“propaganda” as the protesters of the Catholic church have been
FALSELY accused of spreading, but rather this ABUSE is actually and
openly admitted by the Catholic church itself that these ABUSES of
SELLING these INDULGENCES did indeed take place and that it was NOT
NEW nor silent that PROTESTERS among the laity went on for quite some
time BEFORE this practice of SELLING these indulgences was finally
addressed by the so called SCHOOLED clergy.
Now depending upon
which side your are reading the history of the church this will no
doubt influence the reader to that particular side whether it be
Catholic or whether it be Protestant. But here at AmatterOfTruth.com
I am merely presenting to you the facts
as I have researched them. Yes I am indeed PROTESTING false teaching
that is indeed exposed to be FALSE by the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of
God. But I myself do not consider my self to belong to any particular
PROTESTANT denomination, nor am I any longer a Catholic.
I myself despise
denominational names that others use saying of themselves, I am a
Catholic, or I am a Baptist, or I am a Lutheran, or I am a Methodist,
and so forth, and so on. We are ALL BRETHREN in our Lord Jesus
Christ. Paul taught against saying that were are followers of MEN
saying things like, I am of Apollos, or I am of Paul, of I am of
Cephas. Paul then said is Christ DIVIDED? This answer is an absolute
NO!
The truth of the
matter is that we ALL are brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus
Christ, even though we DISAGREE on some points of DOCTRINE.
In other words, there
should be absolutely NO teaching from ANY denomination or Christian
church saying they THEY ONLY have the TRUTH, and UNLESS you are a
member of THEIR church, then you CANNOT be SAVED.
To ME this BOASTING of
some, who CLAIM to be the ONLY TRUE church, is the true mark of a
CULT, because EVERY church and denomination teaches SOMETHING that is
FALSE that does NOT agree with the WHOLE word of Almighty God.
Anyone who has read
some of my other studies knows that I do NOT single out any one
denomination, but rather I expose FALSE teaching no matter WHO is
teaching these false doctrines. And I can honestly say that up to
just a few days ago of writing this particular study that every one
of the studies that I have written exposing the errors of false
doctrine have been the false teachings of different PROTESTANT
churches and other Christian groups that are NOT Catholic false
teachings.
So please understand
that I am NOT teaching against any one personally, but rather I am
teaching against FALSE doctrine that does not agree with the word of
TRUTH, the Holy Bible, which is being taught by the LEADERS of these
different denominations, who are keeping their congregations from the
TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God by forbidding any teaching
that does not agree with their own personal denomination to be openly
discussed and examined in the light of the whole word of God.
With that being said
and the plain truth of the Catholic Church NOT DENYING that ABUSES of
SELLING indulgences where indeed made by Catholic priests sent out to
preach indulgences here is another excerpt from a sermon by a
CATHOLIC priest named Johann Tetzel.
You
may obtain letters of safe conduct from the vicar of our Lord Jesus
Christ, by means of which you are able to liberate your soul from the
hands of the enemy, and convey it by means of contrition and
confession, safe
and secure from all PAINS of Purgatory,
into the happy kingdom. For know, that in these letters are stamped
and engraver all the merits of Christ's passion there laid bare.
Consider,
that for each and every mortal sin it is necessary to undergo seven
years
of penitence
after confession and contrition, either in this life or
in Purgatory.
How
many mortal sins are committed in a day,
how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how
many in the whole extent of life!
They
are well-nigh numberless,
and those that commit them must needs suffer endless
punishment in the burning pains of Purgatory.
But
with these confessional letters you will be able at any time in life
to obtain full
indulgence for all penalties
imposed upon you, in all cases except the four reserved to the
Apostolic See. Thence throughout your whole life, whenever you wish
to make confession, you may receive the same remission, except in
cases reserved to the Pope, and after wards, at the hour of death, a
full indulgence as to all penalties and sins, and your share of all
spiritual blessings that exist in the church militant and all its
members.
Do
you not know that when it is necessary for anyone to go to Rome, or
undertake any other dangerous journey, he takes his money to a broker
and gives a certain per cent-five or six or ten-in order that at Rome
or elsewhere he may receive again his funds intact, by means of the
letters of this same broker? Are you not willing, then, for the
fourth part of a florin, to obtain these letters, by virtue of which
you may bring, not your money, but your divine and immortal soul,
safe and sound into the land of Paradise?
You
see, my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are
in the Catholic church, it was when this ABUSE of SELLING indulgence
was brought to the attention of Martin Luther, who was at that time
is history a part of the CLERGY of the Roman Catholic church that he
wrote a theses containing 95 points of CONTENTION against the
teachings
of the Catholic church wanting REFORM or some changes to be made in
some
of the teachings of the church, which was the only church he knew to
be the true church, because he was born into and raised as a Roman
Catholic.
You
see, many Catholics often blame Martin Luther for slitting the
Catholic church causing all the strife between the many different
denominations of today. But this is simply NOT the case as I have
already shown you from the word of Almighty God. Division in the body
of Jesus Christ already existed from it's very beginning and the
church has always been PROTESTANT to FALSE teaching WITHIN the
church.
The truth of the matter is that if the Roman Catholic
church had not been so filled with the pride that it was INFALLIBLE
in interpreting the scriptures and would have given their own priests
and bishops the audience that they requested to explain their views
of the scriptures and then hear their explanations of the scriptures
objectively, then reform or changes is some of the teachings of the
Catholic church would have indeed taken place and there would have
been no split in the church to form the Catholic and the Protestant
beliefs.
I mean for the first time in history the Christian
church was TRULY DIVIDED, BECAUSE the Roman Catholic church now
consider ALL Protestant churches to NOT be SAVED. You see, before
this time in history it seemed that despite the differences in
doctrine ALL believers were considers BROTHERS and SISTERS in the
Lord Jesus Christ.
But after this great protesting CALL for REFORM
within the Roman Catholic church that eventually caused that Catholic
church to literally SPLIP into TWO SEPARATE churches where the
orthodox or the western church continued to split even further, then
the Roman Catholic church took the stand that there could be
absolutely NO salvation OUTSIDE the teachings of the Catholic church.
And all because the Roman Catholic church would NOT make ANY changes
in there teachings for she came to sincerely believe that ONLY by
COMPLETE and TOTAL UNITY could the church survive. But the truth of
the matter is that DIVISION or differences of opinions had ALWAYS
been in the one true church of Jesus Christ and the church was
surviving just fine WITHOUT the CLERGY lording OVER the laity.
Yes there most likely these divisions in the church
would have continued with or without the self appointed lordship of
the bishops and then eventually the pope. And it may well have been
that some of these
division would have gotten out of control where it would seem to be
hopeless to try and persuaded those who had gone into error to come
back to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. But again if an open
unbiased discussion from both
sides are given adequate opportunity, then most contentions could be
resolved.
But because of the arrogant prideful infallible
attitude of the Catholic church that has spilled over into many
Protestant churches the laity is ignored as being completely
incapable of correctly interpreting the scriptures. And this kind of
arrogance of the main stream church and even the smaller Christian
groups is driving many brothers and sister to leave the church
completely. And sadly that because of the unwillingness of the
leaders of some of these the churches to even listen to their flock
has caused some Christians to even leave their faith in God
altogether.
So all I am saying is take heed how you build upon
the central core the foundation that Jesus Christ died for my sins as
well as yours.
Anyway the past is in the past and we can not change
what has already happened, but we can learn from the past mistakes
made by the church. So then, what is it that we can learn from the
mistakes that the church has made, BOTH the Catholic and the
Protestant churches?
First the NAMES could be dropped and we could just go
by the name Christian, because that is who we all are, believers in
Jesus the Christ. But it is doubtful that the leaders of these
different branches of the same church at it's core will humble
themselves enough to drop these names of Catholic or Protestant
denominations.
So
I suppose the next best thing is that the LAITY, the common people,
who support these mega organizations with their hard earn living,
make a firm quality decision in their own heart to treat one another
as dear brothers and sisters in our lord Jesus Christ regardless of
what denomination one attends and their so called DENOMINATION
teaches them. In other words, IF your particular denomination teaches
that they ALONE are the ONE TRUE church and NO one can be SAVED apart
from that particular denomination, then stand AGAINST that PARTICULAR
teaching
and call for REFORM. Yes you may get kicked out of that PARTICULAR
domination, but sooner or later when they LOOSE all their SUPPORT
they will hopefully STOP their FALSE teaching that they ALONE are
the ONE TRUE church. We are ALL brothers and sisters in our Lord
Jesus Christ.
Then the next step is for the LAITY to be sincerely
open to hear and listen with an unbiased heart the views of others
that oppose the views of the church in which you were brought up in
all your life and then let the word of Almighty God speak for itself.
Let scripture interpret scripture for itself and be led by the Holy
Spirit into all truth rather than dogmatically demanding that your
particular denomination ALONE has the truth.
Now
the one thing that did come out of the reformation that many accredit
to Martin Luther, but to which I attribute to the Holy Spirit is that
not just the LAITY, but also some in the CLERGY truly began to search
the word of God for
themselves
in order to see if what they were being TAUGHT by the Catholic church
was indeed the truth of God's word. Then as more and more bishops and
priests withing the Catholic church began to closely investigate the
teachings of the Roman Catholic church they found that some of their
teachings did NOT AGREE with what the Bible was actually teaching. So
more and more Catholics became PROTESTANT of the Catholic teachings
and were either martyred for their faith in that had returned to the
true gospel and no longer accepted the teachings of the Catholic
church, or they were excommunicated from the Catholic church for not
ACCEPTING ALL the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
Martin Luther was first called a HERETIC, but when
that did not stop his protesting he was excommunicated from the Roman
Catholic church. And then when that did not work but rather increased
Martin Luther's protesting he was exiled from his homeland later by a
strict Catholic leader in government. In other words Luther was not
exiled from his homeland by the Catholic church itself, but rather he
was exiled by a faithful Catholic ruler in the state government.
Now before the so called official beginning of the
great protestant reformation that began when Martin Luther nailed his
theses of 95 contentions against the teaching of the Roman Catholic
church in the year 1517 there was also the PERSECTION of the
believers, who were LABELED as HERETICS because they would not accept
some of the teaching of the Roman Catholic church. This period of
history was know as the middle ages or the dark ages, because of this
barbaric INQUSITION.
The Inquisition
was a Roman Catholic tribunal court that was established for the
purpose of finding and punishment of HERETICS. This period of many
inquisitions was marked by the severity of questioning the barbaric
punishment of those who refuse to bow their knee to the Roman
Catholic church. Some even say that the rights of the accused were
violated in that these Christians were NOT allowed to DEFEND their
faith in the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now while many
Christians associate the Inquisition with only the Spanish
inquisition or the inquisition in Portugal the truth of the matter is
that the original or the first inquisition was actually instituted by
Pope Innocent III during hi reign as pope between 1198-1216 in Rome.
Then a later
pope, Pope Gregory IX officially established the Inquisition, in 1233
in order to fight against what the Roman Catholic church defined as
heresy. Now at this time in history there was the heresy of the
Abilgenses, which was Christian sect in France. These inquisitions
grew and in around 1255 the Inquisition against heretics was in full
force throughout most of Europe. However the inquisition did not
reach England nor Scandinavia.
At it's beginning
the inquisition would start in a place with an open edict of grace
that would be published and posted in the community calling upon
those who are conscious of or who knew of heretical teaching that
opposed the teachings of the Roman Catholic church to come forward to
confess their heresy or to rat on those they knew who were teaching
doctrine that did not agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic
church.
Then after this
period of grace, the leader of this court of the Catholic church
could make accusations or accuse whomsoever they willed to accuse.
Those accused of heresy were sentenced at an “auto de fe”, which
in Spanish means an act of Faith. In other words, during this time
that the accused where being tried so to speak there was a Catholic
sacrifice of the mass. Then these leaders of the church or Clergy
would sit at the proceedings and would judge the accused by observing
their lack of participation in the Catholic mass. The ones who did
not partake in the celebration of the sacrifice of the mass were then
hand out punishments.
These punishments
included things like being confined to a dungeon, or a prison to
actual physical abuse and even severe
torture, without going into any grotesque detail. Even those
Christians, who reconciled with the church or recanted of their
heresy, were still punished. At time many Christians had their
property confiscated by the Roman Catholic church, which added to the
wealth of this Roman church. Those who never recanted of teaching
false doctrine were burned at the stake without being strangled or
hung by the neck until dead first before being burned at the stake.
In other words, these faithful believers were burned ALIVE at the
stake. But those who did recant were strangled first, before they
were burned at the stake. So it seemed that the only Christians who
escaped this severe persecution from the Roman Catholic church were
those who stepped forward during that short period of the edict of
grace when the officers of the inquisition first came to town.
Also just as a
side not these inquisitions during the 16th and 17th centuries became
spectacles for the public, who would come out to attend these
inquisitions and then watch the public execution of these Christians.
These events of these inquisitions became as popular as some
bullfights where the whole community came to watch. The reader should
know that this account that I am rendering to you is MILD in
comparison to the many that I have read.
The main point
that I want you to see is that there were many different groups of
believers other than the Roman Catholic church. Now while it is true
that some of the groups of believers were more pagan than Christian
that still does NOT give the right for the Roman Catholic church to
exercise a literal genocide in essence of these groups of believers
that taught differently that the Catholic church. In other words, the
protestant reformation or more precisely the protesting against false
teaching actually began with in the third and fourth century when
Arius was accused of being a heretic by the bishop Alexander of
Alexandria, Egypt, which we will come back to in a moment.
But first as most of you already know that Martin Luther became the
founder of the Protestant church known as Lutheran.
Also
many other non
Catholic conformist believers came out of the reformation, groups
like Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Baptist, Quakers, Methodist,
Unitarians, Plymouth Brethren, and Salvation Army where all groups of
believers that did not follow the “Lutheran Protestants” nor did
they follow the teachings of Catholicism. Another group of Protestant
believers were called Calvinist, because they followed the teachings
of John Calvin.
The Reformation also owes
much to the Renaissance, for you see, the Renaissance was a time when
artists and scholars, who weary of the drab "Dark Ages",
looked back to classical times of Ancient Greece, which became their
model. Many scholars set about learning the Greek language, and their
studies led them to the ORIGINAL Greek scripts from which the Gospels
had been translated.
Now from the fourth
century upward to the time of the great Protestant Reformation
the only translation of the Gospels that had been ALLOWED to be used
by the Catholic Church was the LATIN translation of the New Testament
by St. Jerome dating back to 405 A.D.. This version was called the
VUGALTE and again it ws written in Latin, which was a language know
by only the well educated people.
The Catholic Church had given this version its seal
of approval, so to speak. That is to say, the Church controlled
the contents of the text of the Gospels by keeping the copies of the
Vulgate within the church and by the clergy acting as middle-men in
communicating the Gospels to the people. In other words, ONLY the
CLERGY could properly interpret the scriptures according to the Roman
Catholic church.
But as soon as scholars were capable of translating
the Gospels from the ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts, it became crystal
clear that there could be different interpretations than that of what
the common people were being told to believe. This meant that The
Latin Vulgate was put into question as also was the Roman Catholic
church. Naturally, there was much debate both WITHIN and outside the
Roman Catholic church. Such debate encouraged thought about the
origins of Christianity and gave rise to the realization that the
Roman Catholic church might NOT have always CORRECTLY INTERPETED the
scriptures.
Now all this debate and QUESTIONING f the teachings
of the Roman Catholic church might well have had a limited influence
if it had not been for the development of the printing press. Quite
suddenly the printed word was available to all those who could read.
Johannes Gutenberg finished printing one of the new translations of
the Bible in 1455. The Bible was also translated into other
languages. Luther, for example, produced a German translation. This
access to the written word caused the religious debate to spread
rapidly across Europe. It also stimulated new thinking. The
domination of the domination of the Catholic Church over religious
issues had ended.
The rest is history so to speak. That is to say, the
rest we are living today. This brings us back to the very beginning
called the sub apostolic age or the age right after that last
original apostle John died in around 100 AD.
Let us begin this section of this study on how the
church divided by saying that the enemy Satan has from the very
beginning tried to destroy the church.
Satan first used false teaching of Judaism. Then when
God turned to the Gentiles Satan tried to corrupt the church by
mixing paganism withing Christianity primarily with the false
teaching that Jesus had not truly come in the flesh. The next big
strategy to destroy the church was severe persecution by the Roman
state, which lasted from 64 AD to 313 AD when Constantine declare
freedom of religion for the Roman Empire.
This brings us to the beginning of state control in
the church, but before we get into that let us go back to some early
church writings to get the story straight from the horses mouth so to
speak. Let us see what these early church writers actually wrote
rather than listening to the BIASED opinions or those who write about
the history of the Roman Catholic church.
http://www.cogwriter.com/limbo.htm
http://www.cogwriter.com/purgatory.htm
the
causes of the reformation
http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.Arnold.RMT.2.html
who
started the reformation?
The
church before the reformation
http://saburchill.com/history/chapters/chap5102.htm
====================================
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TESTIMONY
OF CATHOLICS
The word
“CATHOLIC” means universal. So being in the “CATHOLIC” church
means to a Catholic that they are in the one true church. Now while I
do agree that there is indeed only ONE TRUE church and that a person
could call this one true church a UNIVERSAL church or a “CATHIOLIC”
church, but somehow this term “CATHOLIC”, which again means
UNIVERSAL church has ONLY come to mean the ROMAN CATHILC CHURCH,
which is not at all what this word “CATHOLIC” truly means. In
other words, in TRUTH, the term “CATHOLIC” church is speaking of
ALL Christians that are scattered about in ALL the many different
denominations and NOT just referring to the Roman Catholic church.
So the title of
this testimony page “TESTIMONY OF CATHOLICS” is speaking of the
testimonies of people, who now KNOW with absolute certainly that they
are saved and that they will without a doubt go straight to heaven,
because their faith is no longer in ANY church denomination, or
church organization, but rather their faith is now totally and
completely in Jesus Christ, who died for their sins. In other words.
These testimonies are from former Catholics, who were once very
devout and faithful Catholics, but now have come out of the Roman
Catholic church to follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible rather
than following the religious system of the Roman Catholic church.
These testimonies are from true born again Christians, who now have a
personal relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord and savior and who
now KNOW that NO church denomination can save a person from their
sins.
So then, if YOU
the reader are a Catholic, but you do NOT have the assurance that you
are saved and that you will go straight to heaven when you die and
you do indeed desire to KNOW that you are saved and have the
ASSURANCE that without fail you WILL go to heaven without a doubt,
then I implore you to read these testimonies of former very devout
Catholics, who were once very faithful to the Roman Catholic CHURCH
and like you they had NO assurance of going to heaven, but now they
KNOW without a doubt that they are truly saved and that they will go
to heaven when they die. Do NOT let the DEVIL deceive you by being
offended at what these former very devout Catholics may say in their
testimonies. Their sole purpose is to speak the TRUTH in LOVE,
because they LOVE YOU and they sincerely desire for YOU to have the
same PEACE that Almighty God has given them by OBEYING God's written
word the Holy Bible OVER church tradition and the doctrines of men.
The following
testimonies are found on various other websites that I myself found
quite enlightening and some bore witness to my own testimony of being
a former Catholic myself. There are many reasons why Catholics are
leaving the Catholic church, but one very main reason that those in
the Catholic church will NOT tell you is that many Catholics are
leaving the Catholic faith because there are many doctrines in
Catholicism that contradict what the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible,
clearly and plainly teaches. Few Catholics realize that the Roman
Catholic church had once BANNED the Holy Bible from the common lay
people for a time during the history of the church. I pray and
implore you my dear Catholic friend that you pick up a Bible, your
own approved “Catholic” Bible and read it for YOURSELF asking God
to open your eyes of understanding so that you can see the TRUTH of
the whole word of God and know that these following testimonies are
TRUE. I implore all Catholics everywhere to please read the following
testimonies of former and very devout Catholics whose eyes have been
opened to the TRUTH of God's word.
At the end of
these testimonies I have posted a list of several websites with many
other personal testimonies of devout former Catholics who also have
some sound Biblical teaching of the history of Catholicism and the
many doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. Their are also some
video testimonies as well for those who would rather listen to audio
than read.
TESTIMONIES
OF FORMER CATHOLICS
MY OWN PERSONAL
TESTIMONY
Hi
my name is Mark. I was raised in the Catholic church and baptize as a
baby in the Catholic faith. My mom was Catholic as was her family
before her and so on, but my dad was raised in the Methodist church.
My dad was a faithful Methodist before he married my mom. Upon being
married my dad allowed me and my three older sisters to be raised in
the Roman Catholic faith.
During
my childhood from birth to the eighth grade I was a very very devout
Catholic. I went to mass 6 days a week. I attended a parochial school
or a private Catholic school. I was an altar boy and I even tossed
around the ideal of becoming a priest for awhile. I never once
questioned what I was taught in the Catholic church because it was
drilled into me to NEVER question what the nuns or the priests
taught.
Then
one day I started to question the teachings of the Catholic church.
You see, one day during a high school catechism class, which is a
religious class teaching Roman Catholic doctrine for those who may
not know what catechism is, the priest, who was teaching on the
doctrine of the trinity, asked of if we had any QUESTIONS. No one
responded, so he asked again, saying SURELY there is someone here who
doubts this teaching and who has QUESTIONS. Almost immediately I was
is a trance like state wondering how could I have been taught all
these years NEVER to QUESTION what the priests or the nuns taught and
now I was being ASKED to QUESTION what I was being taught. This
opened the door for me to start QUESTIONING what I had been taught
even though I had already had a few QUESTIONS before this catechism
class where the priest himself ASKED us to QUESTION what we have been
taught. I cannot tell you if any others asked any questions that day,
because I was lost in this world of wondering how come it was alright
to question my faith now when before it was drilled into me never to
question what I was taught in the Catholic church, but I can tell you
that I was freed that day to QUESTION what I was taught in the
Catholic church.
The
Bible teaches us to diligently search daily the scripture written in
the Holy Bible in order to SEE and to know for SURE that what we are
being taught is indeed the truth of the whole word of God. In other
words, the Bible teaches us to QUESTION what we are taught in church
to SEE if it AGREES with what Almighty God himself teaches us in his
word, the Holy Bible.
As
I said earlier I had already had some questions in my mind, but I did
not act on them. I never asked anyone about what I was questioning. I
kept it all to myself, because I was AFRAID to ASK. One of the
questions that I had was about the Roman catholic teaching on hell. I
could not accept this teaching in my mind and eventually this false
teaching on hell drove me away from God completely for a short season
in my life. But before that season of darkness and despair I also
questioned in my my the Roman Catholic doctrine of being a MORTAL sin
for missing even ONE Sunday of not attending mass.
You
see, a few years prior to this high school catechism class my family
went camping with another family as their guests. Upon the close of
this weeks camping trip this other family asked if I would like to
stay another week with them knowing that my parents had to get back
to work. You bet! I said, but my mom quickly said NO. When I asked
why, she said that I had to go to church. They said, We will take
Mark to church, but again my mom said no. Long story made a little
shorter I found out later that they were not “CATHOLIC” and my
mom was afraid that they would not take me to a CATHOLIC church. When
I asked her what did it matter I got slapped in the face and told
that I should be ashamed of myself. I was reminded that it was a
MORTAL sin to miss mass without being really really sick and unable
to go to mass and that I should confess even the thought of missing
mass to go camping.
This
event caused me to QUESTION why and how a loving God would send
someone to HELL just because they missed ONE mass on Sunday to go
camping, which was like a one in a lifetime opportunity for me seeing
that my family never went camping without being the guest of this
family. I was only a kid and I began to form these thoughts that if
this is the God of the Roman Catholic church, then I was not sure I
wanted to be a Catholic anymore. This is why we as Christians should
not FORCE religion upon our children, but that we should teach them
all along the way. Let them ASK their questions and with God's help
do our best to instruct them in the ways of the Lord and they will
NOT DEPART from God EVER.
So
then, this questioning in my own mind that I was NOT allowed to talk
about kept eating at me until I became bitter with God. I know now
that this BITTERNESS was from that old serpent called Satan and the
Devil, but had I been ALLOWED to ask QUESTIONS I do not think that I
would have ever departed from God for that little season. I thank God
to this day that the darkness and depression got so bad so quick that
I cried out to God saying that I could NOT believe in the God that I
was TAUGHT in the Roman Catholic church, but that I need at least to
believe that there was indeed a GOD otherwise I would have committed
suicide and ended my life.
God
heard my cry and somehow I just knew that there was a God out there.
So for about three years I believed in God forming my OWN ideas of
what my God should be like. I came up with this theory or thought
that God created all things and people and church or religion was
likened to a game so to speak. In other words, if so be that a person
what to play this game to try and win the game, then heaven would be
their reward. But if so be a person chose to play this game and lost
then they would as a consequence receive hell. I decided the price
was too high to play the game and chose to belief that for those who
did not play the game that they would simply die and receive NEITHER
the reward of heaven NOR the pains of hell.
You
see at this time I had never ONCE read any part of the Bible FROM the
Bible so I did not KNOW what the Bible taught about hell or heaven or
about being saved or being lost. I only knew what the Catholic church
had taught me and what LITTLE I had heard from others who were in
other churches. At this time in my life I still had drilled in me
that the Roman Catholic church was the ONLY TRUE church and unless
you were a Catholic you could NOT be saved. So while I began to form
my OWN ideas the Roman Catholic teaching was still yet controlling
many of my thoughts by FEAR.
Then
one day I met the girl that I would soon marry. She was raised in the
Assembly of God church, which is a full gospel Bible believing
Pentecostal church. And when I told her of my THEORY about God she
boldly told me that I was WRONG! Straight to my face. Her boldness
and rock solid FAITH caused me to go out and but my FIRST Bible and
search out the truth for MYSELF.
This
was around the time that my sister just got married to a PROTESTANT,
who was also raised in an Assembly of God church, but who did not
display any of the faith that my girlfriend boldly lived. The only
reason that I bring this marriage up is that a FIGHT or very heated
argument arose between being Catholic and being Protestant. I hated
all this fighting. Both believed in God so what was all the fighting
about. I did not understand as yet the FEAR that is drilled into
Catholics that if they ever leave the Roman Catholic church that they
would go straight to hell. Yes I was TAUGHT this all my life, but I
had not actually LIVED this FEAR until I myself was faced with
leaving the catholic church and choosing Jesus as my personal savior,
which we will get to shortly.
I
took the Bible and held it up before God saying that I do not care
who is right or who is wrong. I said ALL churches say that they use
the BIBLE as their foundation of what they teach, but yet they all
teach something different. They argue and fight with one another over
their different doctrines. I asked God with all the sincerity of my
heart that I wanted to know the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH, and NOTHING
BUT the TRUTH. I laid the Bible on the floor and I stood upon the
Bible saying to God that I now stand upon YOUR WORD of TRUTH and
nothing else. I picked up the Bible and began to read it like any
other book that you would read starting at the beginning of the book.
I
must tell you that I hated reading in school. I am a very slow reader
and I was made fun of in school. I have to read every word to
understand something that is written. There is NO shimming over
something for me. So in school I learned that if I read the first
chapter, the middle chapter and the last chapter that I could learn
enough to pass the test or make a book report. I tell you this,
because as I was reading the Bible it became very boring when I got
to the book of Numbers so I skipped to the end of the Bible, which is
the book of Revelation. Well any one who has ever read the book of
Revelation you know how confusing it can be. So not understand much
in the book of Revelation I turned to the center of the Bible and it
fell open at the New Testament. I remember thinking What is the new
Testament? I began reading the gospel of Matthew and some of the
stories of Jesus I remembered a little from the Catholic church and
what my baby sitter that I called grandma McQuinny even though she
was only a friend of the family. Anyway the reading was still
somewhat dry until I got to 1 Corinthians 1:10-15, which OPENED my
EYES to the TRUTH that all the different churches and denominations
are NOT OF God, but of MAN and that we as Christians should NOT be
DIVIDED like we are over doctrines of men. Here is the verse that
opened God's word to me and gave me great HUNGER to read and study
God's word for myself.
“
Now I beseech you, BRETHREN, by the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that you ALL speak the SAME THING, and that there be NO
DIVISIONS among you; but that you be
perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which
are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12.
Now this I say , that every one of you say, I am of Paul; and I of
Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. (today
Christians say, I am a CATHOLIC, or I am a BAPTIST, or I am a
Methodist and so forth)
13.
Is
Christ divided? Was Paul
crucified for you? (Did
Mary DIE for you sins or did JESUS die for your sins?)
Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (Where
you baptized in the name of Mary, or where you baptized in the name
of Jesus?)
14.
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15.
Lest (or for
fear that) any should say that I had
baptized in mine OWN name.”
When
God showed me this TRUTH I knew that I could TRUST what he showed me
to always be the TRUTH. From this point one the Bible was NO LONGER
boring. I began to see things for the first time. God gave me such a
HUNGER to read and study his word that I read the Bible 6 to 8 hours
a day. You see at the time I had a real gravy job that I just had to
be there if any thing broke down. All the machines were brand new and
the day mechanic kept everything running smoothly. The boss made it
clear to us that we could watch TV, listen to the radio, even sleep,
but we could not leave the building. We had a room called the tool
room that was sound proofed from the machines and there was an
intercom that could wake the dead if any thing went wrong with the
machines. I worn that first Bible out in hardly no time it seemed.
God
showed me a lot in that short time and I remember my wife telling me
that she became jealous of me and told God that she had been a
Christians for many years and that I had only accepted Jesus as my
savior a few short months and that it was not fair that I was passing
her up on knowing the Bible. Now while I may have been teaching my
wife things that God had showed me that she had not been taught
before I was far form knowing it all. In fact she set me straight
once again when I started reading books written by others who were
Christians and read that the Holy Spirit and speaking in other
tongues had ceased and was not for the church of today. Again she
boldly told me to my face and said, your WRONG Mark. So once again I
went to the BIBLE to find out the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God.
I
say this because I have learned that the devil cannot keep anyone
from SEEKING the truth, but the devil CAN and DOES deceive good
honest sincere Christians to believe teaching that has ERROR mixed
with a little truth. You see these books that I was reading were
indeed written by sincerely loving Christians who TRULY believed with
all their heart that they were teaching the truth just like the Roman
Catholic church sincerely and truly believes that she is teaching the
truth. But you see my dear Catholic friend the DECEIVER works in
EVERY church and in every denomination so it is up to YOU to search
the word of God daily in order to see if you are being taught the
TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God.
These
Christian books that I was reading quoted scripture, but when one
studies those verses left in the context sincerely desiring to know
only the TRUTH, then their eyes of understanding are opened and they
can clearly see that what they are being taught does NOT AGREE with
the WHOLE word of God.
You
see while I was reading the Bible for MYSELF those first few months I
saw very clearly that the teachings of the Roman Catholic church
CONTRADICTED what the clear plain simple word of truth, the Holy
Bible taught. Please read this summarized study of these
contradictory teachings of the roman catholic church when compared to
the light of the word of Almighty God himself, but for now just know
that that contradictions that the Holy Spirit was showing cause me to
have to make a CHOICE between that Roman Catholic church and Almighty
God himself. The things God was showing me caused me to come to a
place where I could NOT in good conscious remain in the Catholic
church and follow it's teachings.
Now
I want you to understand that making this decision was one of the
hardest things that I ever had to do. Yous see the FEAR that was
drilled into me all those years in the Catholic church that if I ever
LEFT the Catholic church that I would go straight to hell and that
there was NO possible way to be saved other than being a CATHOLIC.
Let
me assure your right now that this Roman Catholic teaching of
Catholicism being the OEN TRUE church is the LIE of the devil, who
wants to keep you bond to RELIGIOUS ritual ceremonies that have
absolute NO power to save any one not matter how much faith a person
places in them. Now I am not saying that absolutely no one in the
Catholic church is saved, but what I am saying is that if so be that
any true born again Christian withing the Roman Catholic church who
comes to the knowledge of the truth that I had come to KNOWING that
the teachings of the Roman Catholic church CONTRADICT the teachings
of the very word of Almighty God himself, the Holy Bible, then they
will NOT remain any longer in the Catholic church to follow the
teachings of the Catholic church. They may remain for awhile to help
others Catholics come to the knowledge of the truth, but I assure you
that the TRUTH of God's word will NOT let them truly follow and obey
the false teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
So
when God show me the truth through his WORD, the Holy Bible, I had to
CHOOSE between remaining in the Catholic church and following what I
KNEW to be in direct contradiction with God's written word, the Holy
Bible or TRUSTING in Almighty God himself by TRUSTING in his WORD,
the Holy Bible and what this word of TRUTH was teaching me. I made
the choice to believe God's WORD over the teachings of the Roman
Catholic church. It took a few days that seemed much much longer to
overcome the FEAR, but eventually the word of TRUTH silence the FEAR
forever and now I KNOW that I KNOW that I KNOW with absolute
certainty that I am SAVED and the I will without fail go to heaven,
because I am TRUSTING, continually trusting in the resent tense that
God's word is TRUTH and the Jesus died for my sins.
I
do not need to confess my sins to a priest anymore, I can BOLDLY come
before the very throne of Almighty God himself because of what his
Son Jesus did for ALL of mankind so that ALL who BELIEVE can be
forgiven of all their past sins and be brought back into a right
RELATIONSHIP with Almighty God the Father. This is one of the
meanings of what the word SAVED means, being brougt back into having
a RIGHT and pleasing RELATIONSHIP with Almighty God the Father.
My
own personal testimony is just one of thousands that are out there on
the Internet. Please read as many of these following testimonies and
studies on this site AMatterOfTruth.com
as it takes to have your eyes opened to the TRUTH that you can KNOW
without a doubt that you are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and
your word of TESTIMONY that you are TRUSTING in Jesus alone for your
salvation. Again NO CHURCH or church denomination can save you. Only
YOUR faith in the shed blood of Jesus can save you. Please read the
study “
HOW CAN I BE SAVE?” or more precisely “WHAT MUST I DO TO BE
SAVED!”
and please continue to read the following testimonies to assure you
that OTHER very good and very devout Catholics like yourself have had
some of the very SAME questions that your are having right now. I
have no doubt that one of these testimonies will touch your heart as
set you free from fear and sin and bring you into a right
relationship with Almighty God the Father.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
Gift – The Testimony of a Form Roman Catholic Priest Charles
Chiniguy
I was born and baptized a Roman Catholic in 1809 and
I was ordained a priest in 1833 in Canada. I am now in my seventy
fourth year, and it is nearly fifty years since I received the
dignity of the priesthood in the church of Rome.
For twenty-five years I was a priest of that Church,
and I tell you frankly that I loved the Church of Rome, and she loved
me. I would have shed every drop of my blood for my Church and would
have given a thousand times my life to extend her power and dignity
over the continent of America, and over the whole world. My great
ambition was to convert the Protestants, and bring them into my
Church, because I was told, and I preached, that outside the Church
of Rome there was no salvation, and I was sorry to think that those
multitudes of Protestants were to be lost.
A few years after I was born we lived in a place
where there were no schools. My mother became my first teacher, and
the first book in which she taught me to read was the Bible. When I
was eight or nine years old I read the Divine Book with an incredible
pleasure, and my heart was much taken up with the beauty of the Word
of God. My mother selected the chapters she wished me to read, and
the attention I gave to it was such that, many times, I refused to go
and play with the little boys outside in order to enjoy the pleasure
of reading the Holy Book. Some of the chapters I loved more than
others, and these I learned by heart.
But after my mother died, the Bible disappeared from
the house, probably through the priest who had tried to obtain
possession of it before. Now this Bible is the root of everything in
this story. That is the light which was put into my soul when young,
and, thanks be to God, that light has never been extinguished. It has
remained there: it is to that dear Bible, by the mercy of God, that I
owe today the unspeakable joy which I feel at being among the
redeemed, among those who have received the light, and are drinking
at the pure fountain of truth.
But perhaps you are inclined to say, “Do not the
Roman Catholic priests allow their people to read the Bible?” Yes,
I thank God that it is so. It is a fact that today, almost all over
the world, the Church of Rome grants permission to read the Bible,
and you will find the Bible in the homes of some Roman Catholics.
But when we have confessed this we must tell the
whole truth. When the priest puts the Bible in the hands of his
people, or when a priest receives the Bible from his church, there is
a condition. The condition is that though the priest or people may
read the Bible, they must never, under any circumstances, interpret a
single word according to their conscience, their intelligence, or in
their own mind. When I was ordained a priest I swore that I would
interpret the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of
the Holy Fathers.
Friends, go to Roman Catholics today, and ask them if
they have permission to read the Bible. They will tell you, “Yes, I
can read it.” But ask, “Have you permission to interpret it?”
They will tell you, “No.” The priest says positively to the
people, and the Church says positively to the priest, that they
cannot interpret a single word of the Bible according to their own
intelligence and their own conscience, and that it is a grievous sin
to take upon themselves the interpretation of a single word. The
priest says in effect to the people, “If you try to interpret the
Bible with your own intelligence you are lost. It is a most dangerous
book. You may read it, but it is better not to read it, because you
cannot understand it.”
What is the result of such teaching? The result is,
that though both the priests and the people have the Bible in their
hands, they do not read it. Would you read a book if you were
persuaded that you cannot understand a single word by yourself? Would
you be such fools as to waste your time reading a book which you were
persuaded you could not understand a single line of? Then, my
friends, this is the truth about the Church of Rome. They have a
great number of Bibles. You will find Bibles on the tables of the
priests and of Catholic laymen, but among ten thousand priests there
are not two who read the Bible from the beginning to the end and pay
any attention to it. They read a few pages here and there; that is
all.
In the Church of Rome the Bible is a sealed book, but
it was not so with me. I found it precious to my heart when I was a
little boy, and when I became a priest of Rome I read it to make me a
strong man, and to make me able to argue for the Church.
My great object was to confound the Protestant
ministers of America. I got a copy of the “Holy Fathers,” and I
studied it day and night with the Holy Scriptures, in order to
prepare myself for the great battle I wanted to fight against the
Protestants. I made this study in order to strengthen my faith in the
Roman Catholic Church.
But, blessed be God! every time I read the Bible
there was a mysterious voice(1) saying to me, “Do you not see that
in the Church of Rome you do not follow the teachings of the Word of
God, but only the traditions of men?” In the silent hours of the
night, when I heard that voice, I wept and cried, but it was repeated
with the strength of thunder. I wanted to live and die in the Holy
Roman Catholic Church, and I prayed to God to silence the voice, but
I heard it yet still louder. When I was reading His Word He was
trying(2) to break my fetters, but I would not have any fetters
broken. He came to me with His saving light, but I would not have it.
I have no bad feeling against Roman Catholic priests.
Some of you may think I have. You are mistaken. Sometimes I weep for
them because I know that the poor men – just as I did – are
fighting against the Lord, and that they are miserable as I was
miserable then. If I relate to you one of the struggles of which I
speak, you will understand what it is to be a Roman Catholic priest,
and you will pray for them.
In Montreal there is a splendid cathedral capable of
holding 15,000 people. I used to preach there very often. One day the
Bishop asked me to speak on the Virgin Mary, and I was glad to do so.
I said to those people what I thought to be true then, and what the
priests believe and preach everywhere. Here is the sermon I preached:
“My dear friends, when a man has rebelled against
his king, when he has committed a great crime against his emperor,
does he come himself to speak to him? If he has a favour to ask from
his king, dare he, under the circumstances, appear himself in his
presence? No; the king would rebuke him, and would punish him. Then,
what does he do? Instead of going himself he selects one of the
friends of the king, some one of his officers, sometimes the sister
or the mother of the king, and he puts his petition into their hands.
They go and speak in favour of the guilty man. They ask his pardon,
they appease his wrath, and very often the king will grant to these
people the favour which he would refuse to the guilty man.”
“Then,” I said, “we are all sinners, we have
all offended the great and mighty King, the King of kings. We have
raised rebellious colours against Him. We have trampled His laws
under our feet, and surely He is angry against us. What can we do
today? Shall we go ourselves with our hands filled with our
iniquities? No! But, thanks to God, we have Mary the mother of Jesus,
our King, at His right hand, and as a dutiful son never refuses any
favour to a beloved mother, so Jesus will never refuse any favour to
Mary. He has never refused any petition which she presented to Him
when He was on earth. He has never rebuked His mother in any way.
Where is the son who would break the heart of a loving mother, when
he could rejoice her by granting what she wants?
“Then I say, Jesus, the King of kings, is not only
the Son of God, but He is the Son of Mary, and loves His mother. And
as He has never refused any favour of Mary when He was on earth; He
will never refuse her any favour today. Then what must we do? Oh, we
cannot present ourselves before the great King, covered as we are
with iniquity. Let us present our petitions to His holy mother; she
will go to the feet of Jesus, herself, Jesus, her God and her son,
and she will surely receive the favours which she will ask; she will
ask our pardon and will obtain it. She will ask a place in the
Kingdom of Christ, and you will have it. She will ask from Jesus to
forget your iniquities, to grant you the true repentance, and He will
give you anything His mother may ask of Him.”
My hearers were so happy at the idea of having such
an advocate at the feet of Jesus interceding for them day and night,
that they all burst into tears, and were beside themselves with joy
that Mary was to ask and obtain their pardon.
I thought at the time that this was not only the
religion of Christ, but that it was the religion of common sense, and
that nothing could be said against it. After the sermon the Bishop
came to me and blessed me, and thanked me, saying that the sermon
would do great good in Montreal.
That night I went on my knees, and took my Bible, and
my heart was full of joy because of the good sermon I had given in
the morning. I opened and read from Matthew 12:46, the following
words:
“While He yet talked to the people, behold, His
mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to speak with Him.
Then said one unto Him, ‘Behold Thy mother and Thy brethren stand
without, desiring to speak with Thee.’ But He answered and said to
him that told Him, ‘Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?’
And He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples and said,
‘Behold, My mother and My brethren, for whosoever shall do the will
of My Father which is in Heaven, the same is My brother, and sister,
and mother.’”
When I had read these words there was a voice
speaking to me more terrible than the voice of loud thunder, saying,
“Chiniquy, you preached a lie this morning when you said that Mary
had always received the favours which she had asked from Jesus. Do
you not see that Mary comes to ask a favour, that is, to see her son,
during whose absence she has been lonesome, and who has left her
during many months to preach the Gospel?” When Mary got to the
place where Jesus was preaching, the place was so crammed that she
could not enter. What will she do? She will do what every mother
would do in her place. She raises her voice and requests Him to come
and see her; but while Jesus hears the voice of His mother, and with
His divine eyes sees her, does He grant her petition? No. He shuts
His ears to her voice and hardens His heart against her prayer. It is
a public rebuke, and she feels it keenly. The people are astonished.
They are puzzled, almost scandalized. They turn to Christ, and they
say to Him, “Why don’t you come and speak to your mother?” What
does Jesus say? He gives no answer except this extraordinary one:
“Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” and, looking upon
His disciples, He says: “Behold, My mother, My brethren, and My
sisters.” As for Mary, she is left alone, and publicly rebuked.
And then the voice spoke to me again with the power
of thunder, telling me to read again in St. Mark 3:31-35. You will
find the same incident both in Mark and in Luke 8:19-21. Instead of
granting her petition Jesus replied in such a way as to publicly
rebuke His mother. And then the voice spoke to me with terrific
power, telling me that Jesus, so long as He was a little boy, obeyed
Joseph and His mother; but as soon as Jesus presented Himself before
the world as the Son of God, as the Saviour of the world, as the
great Light of humanity, then Mary had to disappear. It is to Jesus
alone that the eyes of the world must be turned to receive Light and
Life.
Then, my friends, the voice spoke to me all the
night: “Chiniquy, Chiniquy, you have told a lie this morning, and
you were preaching a lot of fables and nonsense; and you preach
against the Scriptures when you say that Mary has the power to grant
any favour from Jesus.” I prayed and I wept, and it was a sleepless
night with me.
The next morning I went to table with the
Bishop-Prince, the coadjutor, who had invited me to breakfast.
He said to me, “M. Chiniquy, you look like a man
who has spent the night in tears. What is the matter with you?”
I said, “My lord, you are correct. I am desolate
above measure.”
“What is the matter?” he asked.
“Oh! I cannot tell you here,” I said. “Will you
please give me one hour in your room alone? I will tell you a mystery
which will puzzle you.”
After breakfast I went out with him and said:
“Yesterday you paid me a great compliment because of the sermon in
which I proved that Jesus had always granted the petitions of His
mother. But, my lord, last night I heard another voice, stronger than
yours, and my trouble is that I believe that voice is the voice of
God. That voice has told me that we Roman Catholic priests and
bishops preach a falsehood every time we say to the people that Mary
has always the power to receive from the hands of Jesus Christ the
favours which she asks This is a lie, my lord – this, I fear, is a
diabolical and damning error.”
The Bishop then said, “M. Chiniquy, what do you
mean? Are you a Protestant?”
“No,” I said, “I’m not a Protestant. (Many
times I had been called a Protestant because I was so fond of the
Bible.) “But I tell you, face to face, that I sincerely fear that
yesterday I preached a lie, and that you, my lord, will preach one
also the next time you say that we must invoke Mary, under the
pretext that Jesus has never refused any favour to His mother. This
is false.”
The Bishop said, “M. Chiniquy, you go too far!”
“No, my lord,” I said, “it is of no use to
talk. Here is the Gospel; read it.”
I put the Gospel into the hands of the Bishop, and he
read with his own eyes what I have already quoted. My impression was
that he read those words for the first time. The poor man was so much
surprised that he remained mute and trembling. Finally he asked,
“What does that mean?”
“Well,” I said, “this is the Gospel; and here
you see that Mary has come to ask from Jesus Christ a favour, and He
has not only rebuked her, but has refused to consider her as His
mother. He did this publicly, that we might know that Mary is the
mother of Jesus as man, and not as God.”
The Bishop was beside himself. He could not answer
me.
I then asked to be allowed to put to him a few
questions. I said, “My lord, who has saved you and saved me upon
the Cross?”
He answered, “Jesus Christ.”
“And who paid your debts and mine by shedding His
blood; was it Mary or Jesus?”
He said, “Jesus Christ.”
“Now, my lord, when Jesus and Mary were on earth,
who loved the sinner more; was it Mary or Jesus?”
And again he answered that it was Jesus.
“Did any sinner come to Mary on earth to be saved?”
“No.”
“Do you remember that any sinner has gone to Jesus
to be saved?”
“Yes, many.”
“Have they been rebuked?”
“Never.”
“Do you remember that Jesus ever said to sinners,
‘Come to Mary and she will save you’?”
“No,” he said.
“Do you remember that Jesus has said to poor
sinners, ‘Come unto me’?” “Yes. He has said it.”
“Has He ever retracted those words?”
“No!”
“And who was, then, the more powerful to save
sinners?” I asked.
“Oh! it was Jesus!”
“Now, my lord, since Jesus and Mary are now in
Heaven, can you show me in the Scriptures that Jesus has lost
anything of His desire and power to save sinners, or that He
delegated this power to Mary?”
And the Bishop answered, “No.”
“Then, my lord,” I asked, “why do we not go to
Him, and Him alone? Why do we invite poor sinners to come to Mary,
when, by your own confession she is nothing compared with Jesus, in
power, in mercy, in love, and in compassion for the sinner?”
Then the poor Bishop was as a man who is condemned to
death. He trembled before me, and as he could not answer me, he
pleaded business and left me. His “business” was that he could
not answer me.
But I was still not converted. There were many links
by which I was still tied to the feet of the Pope. There were other
battles to be fought before I could break the chains which bound me.
But in those days, though I was troubled I had not
lost my zeal for my Church. The Bishops had given me great power and
authority, and the Pope had raised me above many others, and I had
the hope, with many others, that little by little, we might reform
the Church in many things.
In 1851 I went to Illinois to found a French colony.
I took with me about 75,000 French Canadians, and settled on the
magnificent prairies of Illinois, to take possession in the name of
the Church of Rome. After I had begun my great work of colonization I
became a rich man: I bought many Bibles and gave one to almost every
family. The Bishop was very angry at me for this, but I did not care.
I had no idea of giving up the Church of Rome, but I wanted to guide
my people as well as I could in the way in which Christ wanted me to
lead them.
Now the Bishop of Chicago did a thing at that time
which we Frenchmen could not tolerate. It was a great crime, and I
wrote to the Pope and got him dismissed. Another Bishop was sent in
his place, who deputed his Grand Vicar to visit me.
The Grand Vicar said to me, “M. Chiniquy, we are
very glad that you have got the former Bishop dismissed, for he was a
bad man: but it is suspected in many places that you are no more in
the Church of Rome: it is suspected that you are a heretic and a
Protestant. Will you not give us a document by which we can prove to
all the world that you and your people are still good Roman
Catholics?”
I said, “I have no objection.”
He rejoined, “It is the desire of the new Bishop,
whom the Pope has sent, to have such a document from you.”
I then took a piece of paper – and it seemed to me
that this was a golden opportunity to silence the voice which was
speaking to me day and night and troubling my faith. I wanted to
persuade myself by this means that in the Roman Catholic Church we
were really following the Word of God, and not merely “traditions
of men.” I wrote down these very words: “My lord, we French
Canadians of the colony of Illinois want to live in the Holy Catholic
Apostolic and Roman Church, out of which there is no salvation, and
to prove this to your lordship we promise to obey your authority
according to the Word of God, as we find it in the Gospel of Christ.”
I signed that and offered it to my people to sign,
and they did. I then gave it to the Grand Vicar, and asked him what
he thought of it. He said, “It is just what we want.” He assured
me that the Bishop would accept it, and all would be right.
When the Bishop had read the submission, he too found
it right, and with tears of joy said: “I am so glad that you have
made your submission, because we were in fear that you and your
people would turn Protestants.”
My friends, to show you my blindness, I must confess
to my shame, that I was glad to have made my peace with the Bishop, a
man, when I was not yet at peace with God. The Bishop gave me a
“letter of peace,” by which he declared that I was one of his
best priests, and I went back to my countrymen with the determination
to remain there. But God looked down upon me in His mercy, and He was
to break that peace which was peace with man and not with God.
The Bishop, after my departure, went to the telegraph
office and telegraphed my submission to the other bishops, and asked
them what they thought of it. They unanimously answered him the very
same day: “Do you not see that Chiniquy is a disguised Protestant,
and he has made a Protestant of you? It is not to you that he makes
submission; he makes his submission to the Word of God. If you do not
destroy that submission you are a Protestant yourself.”
Ten days later I received a letter from the Bishop,
and when I went to him he asked me if I had the “letter of peace”
he had given me the other day. I produced it, and when he saw it was
that letter, he ran to his stove and threw it into the fire. I was
astonished. I rushed to the fire to save my letter, but it was too
late: it was destroyed.
Then I turned to the Bishop, and I said, “How dare
you, my lord, take from my hand a document which is my property, and
destroy it without my consent?”
He replied, “M. Chiniquy. I am your superior, and I
have no account to give you.”
“You are indeed, my lord, my superior, and I am
nothing but a poor priest, but there is a great God who is as much
above you as above me, and that God has granted me rights which I
will never give up to please any man; in the presence of that God I
protest against your iniquity.”
“Well,” he said, “do you come here to give me a
lecture?”
I replied, “No, my lord; but I want to know if you
brought me here to insult me?”
“M. Chiniquy,” he said, “I brought you here
because you gave me a document which you know very well was not an
act of submission.”
Then I answered, “Tell me, what act of submission
do you require of me?”
He said, “You must begin by taking away these few
words: ‘according to the Word of God, as we find it in the Gospel
of Christ,’ and say simply that you promise to obey my authority
without any condition; that you will promise to do whatever I tell
you.”
Then I got to my feet and I said, “My lord, what
you require of me is not an act of submission, but an act of
adoration, and I refuse it to you.”
“Then,” said he, “if you cannot give me that
act of submission, you cannot any longer be a Roman Catholic priest.”
I raised my hands to God, and said, “May Almighty
God be forever blessed,” and I took my hat and left the Bishop.
I went to the hotel where I had engaged a room, and
locked the door behind me. I fell on my knees to examine what I had
done in the presence of God. Then I saw, for the first time clearly,
that the Church of Rome could not be the Church of Christ. I had
learned the terrible truth, not from the lips of Protestants, not
from her enemies but from the lips of the Church of Rome herself. I
saw that I could not remain in it except by giving up the Word of God
in a formal document. Then I saw that I had done well to give up the
Church of Rome. But oh! my friends, what a dark cloud came upon me!
In the darkness I cried out, “My God, my God, why is it that my
soul is surrounded with such a dark cloud?”
With tears I cried to God to show me the way, but for
a time, no answer was vouchsafed. I had given up the Church of Rome;
I had given up position, honour, my brothers and sisters, everything
that was dear to me! I saw that the Pope, the Bishops, and the
priests would attack me in the press, and in the pulpit. I saw that
they would take away my honour and my name – and perhaps my life. I
saw that war to the death was begun between the Church of Rome and
me, and I looked to see if any friends had been left to me to help me
fight the battle, but not a single friend remained. I saw that even
my dearest friends were bound to curse me, and look upon me as an
infamous traitor. I saw that my people would reject me, that my
beloved country, where I had so many friends, would curse me, and
that I had become an object of horror to the world.
Then I tried to remember if I had some friends
amongst the Protestants, but as I had spoken and written against them
all my life, I had not a single friend there. I saw that I was left
all alone to fight the battle. It was too much, and in that terrible
hour, if God had not wrought a miracle, I should not have been able
to bear it: it seemed impossible for me to go out from that room into
the cold world, where I should not find a single hand to shake my
hand, or a single smiling face to look upon me, but where I should
see only those looking upon me as a traitor.
It seemed that God was far away, but He was very
near. Suddenly the thought entered my mind: “You have your Gospel;
read it, and you will find the light.” On my knees, and with
trembling hand, I opened the book. Not I, but God opened it, for my
eyes fell on 1 Cor. 7:23: “Ye are bought with a price, be not ye
the servants of men.”
With these words the light came to me, and for the
first time I saw the great mystery of salvation, as much as man can
see it. I said to myself, “Jesus has bought me; then, if Jesus has
bought me, He has saved me; I am saved! Jesus is my God! All the
works of God are perfect! I am, then, perfectly saved – Jesus could
not save me by half. I am saved in the blood of the Lamb; I am saved
by the death of Jesus.” And these words were so sweet to me that I
felt unspeakable joy, as if the fountains of life were open and
floods of new light were flowing in upon my soul. I said to myself,
“I am not saved, as I thought, by going to Mary; I am not saved by
purgatory, or by indulgences, confessions or penances. I am saved by
Jesus alone!” And all the false doctrines of Rome went away from my
mind as falls a tower which is struck at the base.
I then felt such a joy, such a peace, that the angels
of God could not be more happy than I was. The blood of the Lamb was
flowing on my poor guilty soul. With a loud cry of joy I said, “Oh!
dear Jesus, I feel it, I know it; Thou hast saved me! Oh! Gift of
God, I accept Thee! Take my heart and keep it forever Thine. Gift of
God, abide in me to make me pure and strong; abide in me to be my
way, my light, and my life; grant that I may abide in Thee now and
forever! But, dear Jesus, do not save me alone; save my people; grant
me to show them the Gift also! Oh! that they may accept Thee and feel
rich and happy as I am now.”
It was thus I found the Light and the great mystery
of our salvation, which is so simple and so beautiful, so sublime and
so grand. I had opened the hands of my soul and accepted the gift. I
was rich in the gift. Salvation, my friends, is a gift; you have
nothing to do but to accept it, love it, and love the Giver. I
pressed the Gospel to my lips, and swore I would never preach
anything but Jesus.
I arrived in the midst of my colony on a Sabbath(3)
morning. The whole people were exceedingly excited and ran towards
me, and asked what news. When they were gathered in the church, I
presented to them The Gift. I showed to them what God had presented
to me. His Son Jesus as a gift – and, through Jesus, the pardon of
my sins, and life eternal as a gift. Then, not knowing whether they
would receive the gift or not, I said to them: “It is time for me
to go away from you, my friends, I have left the Roman Catholic
Church forever. I have taken the gift of Christ, but I respect you
too much to impose myself on you; if you think it is better for you
to follow the Pope than to follow Christ, and to invoke the name of
Mary than the name of Jesus, in order to be saved, tell it to me by
rising up.”
To my exceeding great surprise the whole multitude
remained in their seats, filling the church with their sobs and
tears. I thought some of them would tell me to go, but not one did
so. And as I watched I saw a change come over them – a marvelous
change, which cannot be explained in natural ways – and I said to
them, with a cry of joy: “The mighty God who saved me yesterday can
save you today. With me you will cross the Red Sea and go into the
Promised Land. With me you will accept the great gift – you will be
happy and rich in the gift. I will put the question to you in another
way. If you think it is better for you to follow Christ than the
Pope, to invoke the name of Jesus alone than the name of Mary, that
it is better to put your trust only in the blood of the Lamb shed on
the Cross for your sins, than in the fabulous purgatory of Rome after
your death to be saved; and if you think it is better for you to have
me preach to you the pure Gospel of Christ, than to have a priest
preach to you the doctrines of Rome, tell it to me by rising up – I
am your man!”
And all, without a single exception, rose to their
feet, and, with tears, asked me to remain with them. The Gift, the
great, the unspeakable Gift had, for the first time, come before
their eyes in its beauty; they had found it precious; they had
accepted it; and no words can tell you the joy of that multitude(4).
Like myself they felt rich and happy in the Gift. The names of one
thousand souls, I believe, were written in the Book of Life that day.
Six months later we were two thousand converts; a year later we were
about four thousand! And now we are nearly twenty-five thousand who
have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
The news spread quickly all over America, and even in
France and England – that Chiniquy, the best known priest of
Canada, had left the Church of Rome, at the head of a noble band of
men. And wherever it was said, the name of Jesus was blessed, and I
hope you will bless the merciful and adorable Saviour today with me,
when it is my privilege to have told you what He has done for my
soul.
Pray for the Roman Catholics of America and
everywhere, that I may be the instrument of the mercies of God toward
them; that they may all receive, with you, the unspeakable Gift; may
love and glorify the Gift during the few days of our pilgrimage here,
and throughout all eternity. Amen.
ENDNOTES:
1. Chiniquy does not mean that this “voice” was
an audible one, but that it was as if a voice was speaking in his
heart and conscience.
2. This was a poor choice of words, for God, the
sovereign God, does not “try” to do anything; what He purposes to
do, He always does.
3. By “Sabbath” he meant Sunday, for he believed
that the first day of the week was the “Christian Sabbath.”
Note the difference between this and the
modern-day “altar calls” (so-called): Chiniquy did not ask
that multitude to rise up and repeat a “sinner’s prayer”
like parrots, he merely asked them to rise to indicate that they
desired to reject Romanism and to hear the true Gospel preached to
them. It was a heaven-sent revival, and multitudes repented of
their sins and received Christ by faith that day; but the work was
of God, not man.
Charles Chiniquy (1809-1899)
was for twenty-five years a priest of Rome in Canada and the United
States, who became a minister of the Gospel after his conversion and
departure from Romanism. After his conversion he toured England
several times and this particular narrative of his life was first
given in London. He wrote his classic autobiography and refutation of
Romanism, Fifty
Years in the Church of Rome,
as well as the wonderful account of his life after leaving Romanism,
Forty Years in
the Church of Christ.
He narrowly escaped death on many occasions at the hands of fanatical
Roman Catholics. He also wrote an exposure of the diabolical Romish
confessional, The
Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional.
He lived to his ninetieth year.
The Gospel means the glad tidings, or good news; and
truly, the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is “good tidings of
great joy” (Luke 2:10), the greatest news ever heard on earth:
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”! (1 Timothy
1:15). And “He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto
God by Him”! (Hebrews 7:25).
All men and women are sinners, and sin is a terrible
thing: it is the transgression of the perfect and holy law of God,
and it has separated all mankind from God. Those who die in their
sins suffer the torments of eternal fire. Jesus said, “Enter ye in
at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that
leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto
life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13,14). The Lord
Jesus Christ Himself is that strait gate, and narrow way, that leads
to life! “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” Jesus said; “no
man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).
If you, then, are asking, “What must I do to be
saved from my sins?” here is the answer: “Repent”! (Acts 2:38);
and, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”
(Acts 16:31). Forsake your sin, repent of it, turn from it, and
believe, with all your heart, in Jesus Christ! To believe in Him is
to cast yourself upon Him, by faith, for salvation. He is the Son of
the living God, holy, harmless, undefiled, sinless, the only Lord and
Saviour. He died on a cross, He was crucified, not for His own sins –
for He had none of His own – but for the sins of His chosen people,
those given to Him by His heavenly Father to save, paying the penalty
for sin in their place, shedding His blood to redeem them. And after
dying in their place, the wrath of God being poured out upon Him,
having satisfied the justice of God and having put away the sins of
those He died for by the sacrifice of Himself, He rose from the dead,
victorious over death, sin, and Satan; and He gives eternal life to
as many as the Father has given Him. Eternal life cannot be earned,
and it cannot be bought; it is the gift of God through Jesus Christ
the Lord. He alone is the One who can save the soul and set the
spiritual captive free! Forsake your sin, forsake the false religion
of Rome and all other false religion, turn to the Lord by faith, and
be saved!
Shaun Willcock
Bible Based Ministries
Shaun Willcock is a minister of the Gospel. He runs
Bible Based Ministries. For other pamphlets (which may be downloaded
and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages,
news articles, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website,
or write to the address below. If you would like to be on Bible Based
Ministries’ electronic mailing list, please send your details.
If you have repented of your sins and believed in the
Lord Jesus Christ, or if you would like to know more about Him, His
Gospel, and the true Christian life, please contact us.
Bible Based Ministries
info@biblebasedministries.co.uk
www.biblebasedministries.co.uk
Bible Based Ministries’ Worldwide Contact for
Orders:
Contending for the Faith Ministries
42055 Crestland Drive Lancaster, CA 93536 USA
BBMOrders@aol.com
Used by Permission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony of a
former Roman Catholic
By CM
Preface
I'm a former roman catholic now for 17 years and can
surely testify about the lies I was taught as a roman catholic,
comfortable and appealing lies. Hard for those not raised catholic to
grasp how anybody with common sense can really place any faith in the
traditions and rituals of Rome, but I'll tell you, Tracy, the average
roman catholic is downright ignorant about the roots of Catholicism
and what it teaches in writing, not to mention biblically ignorant! I
say that charitably but honestly, it's just plain willful ignorance
and laziness and refusal to move from that comfort zone.
My own family is still primarily catholic, and I've
shown them time and again factual secular writing (and catholic
writing) and history about their beloved catholic church that doesn't
even faze them; they just refuse to believe the truth and sputter and
get mad... Myth and tradition have a terrible hold on people, and God
help you when you attempt to get through that to show someone the
truth.
Her Testimony
I'd say I had a "normal" catholic
middle-class upbringing and family. I'm 45 now and the oldest of
three, and we all attended parochial school. My folks were
hardworking good people, not overly involved in church activities per
se but in church on Sundays and holy days, and I was blessed with a
happy comfortable childhood. I vividly remember my first communion
and confirmation ceremonies, the May processions in honor of "our
lady", my Girl Scout troop (where we worked on our "Marian
award," a special project for Catholic Girl Scouts - don't know
if that still exists!), etc. I truly have nothing but good memories
of my years all through grade school. Our parish was building a new
church building, and we had a beautiful big pipe organ, and I loved
being in the choir and like most other little catholic girls went
through a phase of wanting one day to be a nun. Back then I never
questioned what we were taught and happily accepted what the younger
nuns would tell us about this new pope John (this was back in the
early 60's) and all the "new changes" he was bringing about
in the catholic church. I remember what a big deal it was when the
mass went from Latin to English and the priest began to face the
people. In particular, I remember being so fond of a little nun who
would tell us about "our lady's" childhood and read to us
about her from a book (more about this later).
I know now I lived in a closed world, really, in a
basically catholic town and suburban neighborhood where everybody we
knew and associated with believed the same way so that I never had
much exposure to different ways of living or thinking (and certainly
never once heard a single testimony from a real Christian in all
those years!)
This began to change for me when it came time to go
to high school. My folks had both gone to a business/trade high
school and had instilled in us kids the desire to "get ahead"
by working hard and getting more of a practical education, so unlike
most of my grade school classmates who went to the suburban catholic
high school, I attended the aforementioned high school where my folks
went. I still went to mass on Sundays and holy days and to the CCD
classes once a week (for catholic teens not attending catholic high
school). I began to meet kids who had had different upbringings and
for the first time found out that not everybody was catholic (but
strangely enough also had "good morals"!) I should say I
was never afraid to think for myself (despite the fact that I knew
the catholic church would prefer we Catholics not read those books
not having the catholic "imprimatur") and was a voracious
reader and liked to write and keep a journal,
I started to get antsy at mass on Sundays, wondering
why in the world the different priests I would listen to never seemed
to have much of a lesson to teach in their sermons, and it seemed
strange to me that most priests I ever heard would not even teach
much about catholic doctrine but would tell football stories or make
jokes (I was always more on the serious side, and this really
bothered me). Once I learned to drive, I began to visit different
catholic churches on Sunday, hoping to find a priest who had more of
a message, one who would stick to one topic and teach me something as
I was sure not getting much from the rest of the mass and could not
seem to "feel" the way I used to as a kid. My high school
years passed this way as did my early 20's - I'd find a mass nearly
every Sunday or holy day and attempt to "feel holy" during
the service, pray the rosary and long litanies to "our lady"
and other saints, give money to the church, do volunteer activities
but was always hungry for something more substantial and that made
sense, some straight answers. I'd talked to a nice older priest I
admired, but he seemed embarrassed when I'd asked him questions about
hell or other topics and would more or less pat me on the head and
tell me not to be so serious, that I was a good person and just to
continue doing what I was doing.
One Sunday (16 years ago now) I got brave and walked
into a little independent Baptist church. By this time, on my own, I
had collected some different bibles but had not truly read much from
them. I had enough sense to walk into that church with one of these
bibles (don't remember if it was my King James version I had that
day) and for the first time, I heard a man in a pulpit who spoke with
authority and who had a book open in front of him. I was so impressed
with this, the fact that everybody in the church had the same book
and could follow along as he read and expounded on the verses, and I
thought this was wonderful. It made so much sense to me. When he
asked if there was anyone there who had never really asked Jesus to
be their personal Saviour, I had no trouble walking down that aisle,
I just knew I was hearing what I'd been hoping to hear for years and
that I was in the right place.
I began to get more even more serious about what I
read and couldn't get enough of my King James. One of the first
things I remember doing was trying to find that story about "our
lady's" childhood and being puzzled about why there wasn't much
in my bible about Mary. I remember being shocked that Jesus had
half-brothers and sisters and that there was nothing in my bible
about Mary ascending into heaven! I was given some of Matthew Henry's
commentaries and also began to read more secular and factual history,
what an eye opener. I got a hold of Hislop's "Two Babylons,"
and that one really changed my way of thinking about roman
Catholicism and its origins, especially regarding the mother and
child depictions, sheer paganism! Oh, and I also found a little book
that I believe my favorite nun had read from concerning "our
lady's" childhood in the public library one day a few years ago
(sorry, can't remember the name of this one, but it was obviously not
bible!)
For me, one of the saddest things the catholic church
has done and still does is to make Mary something she is not and to
take the focus off our Saviour. I recently tried once again to
witness to an old friend of mine, a very devout elderly catholic who
has a special devotion to "our lady." She also remembers
the stories we were told as kids about Mary's supposed childhood and
got furious with me when I told here those stories were nowhere in
the bible. So you see where a great deal of difficulty lies, that
people would rather hang on to their happy childhood stories and
memories and traditions than to hear, read and understand the plain
literal truth of the Holy Bible, and how hard it is to tear people
away from their love of entertainment and passivity.
My prayer is that those of us who have been saved by
His grace out of the whore of Babylon can learn to witness
effectively to those still caught up in the old stories and myths of
Catholicism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORSHIPPING
MARY—THE SIN OF SUPERSTITION
A whirlwind of
memories came flooding through my mind when I saw the above
illustration taken from My Catholic Faith. I was conditioned, at a
very early age, to believe that I had to go through Mary to get to
Jesus. I can remember kneeling and praying before her image, singing
songs that praised Mary as "Queen of Heaven", and watching
movies like "The Song of Bernadette" and "The Lady of
Fatima".
This worship of
Mary continued into my adulthood. I can remember when my first born
son had a very high fever, I was so afraid he would die that I went
begging Mary on hand and knee. I confessed she was the Mother of
Jesus and, understanding what being a mother was all about, I cried,
saying, "Please Mary, ask God to let my baby live". When my
son lived, I truly worshipped Mary.
Yet for all these
things, if a Christian confronts a Catholic on his/her worshipping of
Mary, the reply is always the same: "We don't worship her! We
just give her honor that is due her as the Mother of God." But
is this true? I practiced Catholicism for 30 years and I can, from
experience, tell you that we prayed to her, through her, by her and
for her as taught by the Roman hierarchy.
Yet the Bible
tells me: hat all things are "by him [Jesus], and for him"
(Col.1:16), "...of him, and through him and to him"
(Rom.11:36).
Acts 4:12 clearly states: "Neither is there
salvation in any other: for there is but one name under heaven given
among men whereby we MUST be saved.”
NONE
OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN, WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVE So
why worship Mary? How did Jesus' offer to "Come to me..."
(Jn.7:37) turn into "Go to Mary"? In the same book, "My
Catholic Faith", on page 204 we read: "WHEN DOES A PERSON
SIN BY SUPERSTITION? - A person sins by superstition when he
attributes to a creature a power that belongs to God alone."
Catholicism has admitted by her own writings that it is a sin
to attribute to a creature a power that belongs to God alone. Now we
know that God possess the following attributes:
Omnipotent
(all-powerful)
Omni-present (everywhere)
Omniscient
(all-knowing),
"To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be
equal? saith the Holy One." (Isa.40:25)
We know that the
angels are not Omni-present as God is. Notice that after Daniel
prayed, the angel sent by God was detained: "But the prince of
the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo,
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained
there with the kings of Persia. Now I am come to make thee understand
what shall befall thy people in the latter days" (Dan.10:13-14).
(Emphasis mine)
When the Lord asked Satan: "Where comest
thou?", Satan answered, "From going to and fro in the earth
and walking up and down in it."
This Scripture verifies
that even Satan is not Omni-present. Psalms 139 speaks of the
Omni-presence of the Lord. "Whither shall I go from thy spirit?
or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into
heaven, thou are there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art
there." (v.7-8)
Elijah, knowing that only God is
Omni-present, mocked those who called on Baal saying,
"...Cry
aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or
he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked."
Their reaction? The prophets of Baal cried even louder and
cut themselves "till blood gushed out", but still "there
was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded." (I
Kings 18:20-40)
God and God alone is Omni-present. God, and
God alone, is the only one who can dwell in every man's heart because
He alone is everywhere. Therefore, when we call upon the Lord, we
know He hears us. He is even at our hearts knocking at the door.
(Rev.3:20) God alone can read the hearts of men and know their intent
(Rev.2:23, Jer.17:10)
But what about Mary? Isn't she
omni-present? After all, you have millions of prayers a second being
offered to her. People in Mexico, Russia, Europe, America, and all
over the world, are praying the Rosary, asking Mary to be there at
the hour of their death, asking her to guide them, help them, teach
them, secure for them eternal redemption (something a Catholic
believes that even Jesus did not do) and imploring her to come dwell
in their hearts as though she were able to fulfill all these
requests! A Catholic may deny that Mary is a god, but by asking all
these things of her, she would have to be God to do them. She has
powers and capabilities that even the pagan gods of Greece, Rome and
Egypt did not possess, yet men called them gods.
Keeping this
is mind, I would like to share with you some of my Catholic memories,
and let our Christian readers decide if the Church of Rome has
committed the "sin of superstition" (as they interpreted it
- by attributing to a creature a power that belongs to God alone).
The following song, "Daily, Daily Sing to Mary", I
learned in 2nd grade. It was one of my favorites, and as a child, I
sang it with all my heart.
"Daily, daily sing to Mary
Sing, my soul, her praises due;
All her feasts, her actions
worship, With the heart's devotion true.
She is mighty to
deliver; Call her, trust her lovingly;
When the tempest rages
round thee, She will calm the troubled sea.
Gifts of heaven
she has given, Noble Lady, to our race;
She the Queen who
decks her subject, With the light of God's own grace."
(Baltimore Catechism No.1, 63)
If Roman Catholics do not
worship Mary, then why does line three say to worship her? Take in
consideration that in Rev.19:10, it says, "And I fell at his
feet to worship him [the angel of God], And he said unto me, See thou
do it not: I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the
testimony of Jesus: worship God:"
Would the Catholic
Church have me believe that Mary would accept what the angel of God
rejected? Mary was a Hebrew woman who was acquainted with the book of
Psalms 89:9 which says, "Thou [God] rulest the raging of the
sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them". But, she
is now presented as telling the Catholic people that SHE can calm the
troubled sea!
When Jesus calmed the raging sea, the disciples
said, "What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the
sea obey him?" Mary is not God to command the sea, Jesus is.
Line 8 of this song, above, says, "Gifts of heaven she has
given" which for a Catholic means that Mary is the Mediatrix of
all graces! This is truly the spirit of idolatry, for by "ONE
SPIRIT" we have access to the Father, not two! (Eph.2:18, 4:4, I
Cor.12:13)
As you may recall from the debate, the Catholic
Church teaches that all graces flow through Mary; therefore, she is
present in all the sacraments. That means, if a Christian attends
mass or prays with a Catholic, he must join with the spirit of
idolatry, who claims to be able to give the grace that God alone can
give. Now we have Mary taking the place of the Holy Spirit! What
blasphemy!
What more proof do we need that the Roman church
has given to Mary the attributes that belong to God alone? Even
Archbishop Paul Hallinan, in 1964 said that devotions and prayers to
Mary were so exaggerated that they were a "blasphemy to the Son,
an embarrassment to the memory of the mother and a pathetic
deviation".
There is a Catholic organization called
"Legion of Mary" which has an "Apostolic Blessing"
from Pope John XXIII, and from Pope Pius XI, "We give a very
special blessing to this beautiful and holy work - the Legion of
Mary." On page 225 of their book, "Legion of Mary", we
read:
"Put thy feet into her fetters, and thy neck into
her chains. Bow down thy shoulder and bear her; and be not grieved
with her bonds. Come to her with all thy mind; and keep her ways with
all thy power...Then shall her fetters be a strong defence for thee,
and a firm foundation, and her chain a robe of glory. For in her is
the beauty of life: and her bonds are a healthful binding. -
Ecclesiasticus vi, 25-31, applied to Our Lady by the Church.
Applicable by Legionaries to the Legion system and especially to the
meetings."
But, Jesus says, "Come unto Me, all ye
that labor and are heavy laden [to overburden with ceremony] and I
will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am
meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For
My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." (Matt.11:28-30)
A
Catholic reading this quote from Legion of Mary would find nothing
offensive, but a Christian’s mind would be flooded with Scriptures
rebuking such powers as belonging to anyone but God. A Christian
would believe that he should go to God, for God Himself has
said:
"For what nation is there so great, who hath God so
nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call
upon him for?" (Deut.4:7)
But a Catholic doesn't have
the confidence to approach God, so he depends on Mary to mediate for
him. I remember when the nuns would tell us that Mary could get for
us what God refused to give us. In one book, Catherine Laboure and
the Modern Apparitions of Our Lady, page 237, Mary's apparition at
LaSalette is reported to have said, "'Ah, if you knew what it
costs me to withhold his avenging arm.' It is costly; she must
sometimes plead, but in the end she always prevails."
Again,
does the Catholic Church expect us to believe that Mary is more just
than God? If God refused me something in His divine wisdom and
perfect will, could Mary override His decision and attain for me a
more just or superior course of action? That's exactly what St.
Alphonso Liguori says in Glories of Mary, page 149-150. Mary is "more
prompt to answer than God or Christ". This blasphemous statement
means that the Catholic considers God and Jesus Christ to be less
than perfect! They can make mistakes, and need Mary present to set
them straight!
Job 4:17-20 says: "Shall mortal man be
more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold,
he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with
folly: How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose
foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?...Call
now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the
saints wilt thou turn?"
I have barely touched the
surface of the attributes of God that Romanism has unabashedly given
to Mary. They go so far as to call her the following names that
should belong to God or His Kingdom alone:
* "Ark of the
Covenant
* Seat of wisdom
* Morning star
* The burning
bush
* Jacob's ladder
* Benefactress
* Advocate
*
Helper
* Guide
* Foundation of the Church
* Sign of hope
* Restorer of life
* Majestic cloud that led Israel
Many
of our Christian readers are undoubtedly shocked at the unwarranted
usurpation of our Lord’s titles. We suggest that the next time
you’re by a Catholic bookstore, stop in and thumb through a few
books on Mary. We’re sure you’ll be able to find even better
examples of titles and attributes blasphemously misappropriated to an
unscriptural Mary by the Catholic hierarchy.
The Scriptures
use marriage to liken our relationship to Jesus (Eph.5:23-32),
telling us we are espoused to "one husband" (2 Cor.11:2) I
understand this, having had one husband for almost 25 years. Our
relationship is based on intimacy shared in confidence. I would not
go to my husband’s mother to ask her to speak to him for me. I am
close enough to go to him myself.
I read in Legio Mariae, on
page 158, "What, Mary not know in advance?" Quite a
deceiving statement in light of Luke 2:48, where Mary sought Jesus
for three days "sorrowing". If she had foreknowledge, then
why did she sorrow? Didn’t she know that, since it was the
Passover, Jesus was only going to be missing for three days to
foreshadow His own death? Why didn’t she know she would find him in
the temple going "...about the Fathers business?"
(Lk.2:41-50)
For my Catholic readers, I would like to leave
you with one final thought concerning God: "Whom have I in
heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside
thee."
by Rebecca A. Sexton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY
OF A FORMER CATHOLIC
“FALSE
PROPHET”
by
Diane M. Wachtel
2 Peter 2:1: "BUT
THERE WERE FALSE PROPHETS ALSO AMONG THE PEOPLE, EVEN AS THERE SHALL
BE FALSE TEACHERS AMONG YOU, WHO PRIVILY SHALL BRING IN DAMNABLE
HERESIES, EVEN DENYING THE LORD THAT BOUGHT THEM, AND BRINGING UPON
THEMSELVES SWIFT DESTRUCTION." (Emphasis mine)
This month,
let's take a closer look at the above Scripture. The words "privily
shall bring in" are actually one word in the Greek. It describes
the method by which false doctrines are smuggled into the church and
why. The Greek word is "pareisago" which is a three-fold
word that begins with the preposition "para", which means
"alongside". False teaching, therefore, runs alongside true
teaching. It is a very clever deception because it seems so close to
the truth. The next part of "pareisago" is "eis"
which means "into". This infers that false prophets would
bring their false teachings alongside (para) true doctrine and thus
gaining access into (eis) the body of Christ. The last part of the
word is "ago" which translates into "to lead".
This describes the Satanic purpose. To lead the flock astray. As
Henri-Frederic Amiel said, "Error is more dangerous in
proportion to the degree of truth which it contains. Take for
example, the Catholicism that is being portrayed by Mr. Sungenis, Mr.
Madrid, etc...with one breath, we hear that they believe all the
Councils and teachings of Rome, and with their next breath they speak
of joining with their brothers and sisters the Muslims, Jews, and of
course, all of us Christians. Yet I have documentations where the
Church of Rome called the Muslims their number one enemy and then in
Vatican II, the Muslims are our number one brother. Mr. Madrid and
Mr. Sungenis, joined the “Church” as adults. They were raised
something other than Catholic and do not understand where true
Catholics are coming from. They were not born and raised and educated
in the Catholic Church. They do not know what it is like to have nuns
and priests teaching you 6 days a week, 8 hours a day. They did not
experience being a young child forced to go to confession every week,
having to make up things to confess. And where were they when we were
little kids being forbidden to eat meat on Fridays and told to kneel
for hours before a statue of Mary? Mr. Madrid, Sungenis, Matatics,
etc. can use terms like "evangelical, saved, sanctification,
born-again", but any honest Catholic will tell you - we were
NEVER taught such things. These are foreign terms to most Catholics.
We never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ! In place of going to Jesus
Christ, our only Mediator, for forgiveness of sins, boldly
approaching the throne of grace - we were taught to fear God's wrath
and run to the priest and confess all and do penance and then we
could be forgiven...hopefully. But I want to be fair. Mr. Madrid
stated that he believes all the Councils and their declarations, so
lets look at some. For our readers unfamiliar with the term
"anathema", it means to be "accursed".
"If
anyone says that justifying faith is nothing more than confidence in
Divine Mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this
confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent)
Well, Mr. Madrid, believe that if you
wish, but Romans 4:5 tells us, "But to him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted
for righteousness."
"If anyone says that the sinner
is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to
cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification let him be
anathema." (Council of Trent)
"Even as Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye
therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of
Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be
of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." (Gal.3:6-9) "That
if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved." (Rom.10:9) "Therefore by the deeds of the
law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the
knowledge of sin...Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what
law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude
that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
(Rom.3:20,27) "For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of
God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom.6:23)
Another interesting doctrine that came out of the council of
Trent on Nov.11, 1563, was their view on celibacy and marriage.
Remember, these are the doctrines that Mr. Madrid admittedly holds.
"If anyone says the married state is to be place above
the state of virginity or of celibacy and that it is not better and
more blessed to remain in virginity and celibacy than to be united in
matrimony, let him be anathema."
This is one reason why
the Catholics maintain that Mary remained a virgin even after she
conceived and bore Jesus. If she remained a virgin, she was more
blessed than if she honored the marriage bed. Of course this also
keeps the Catholic hierarchy at an advantage, since they are "holier
than thou", because they remained celibate. Since when does
marriage make a man or woman less holy? Heb.13:4 says,
"Marriage
is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled". Growing up with
nuns and priests, I can say from experience that we were taught that
they were holy people who served God and we were never to question
their integrity or actions. Is it any wonder that so many of the
children who have been abused by priests waited till they were adults
to confront their attacker? Though the "new" Catholics are
promoting "unity" and use terms that sound biblical, the
truth is their tactics are as old as Satan. Every evil leader has
used the same method.
“The art of leadership...consists in
consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary
and taking care that nothing will split up that attention...The
leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents
appear as if they belonged to one category” (Mein Kampf, Adolph
Hitler).
Just as Hitler did, the Catholic Church is using the
pro-life issue to join forces with the “Christians”. They seem to
be saying “if we just forget our differences and join together...we
can overcome this great evil...” but we must not forget who it is
that we are joining with!
“You say, ‘We want unity.’ Oh
really? What kind of unity? ‘We want all the churches to get
together.’ Oh really? You mean in error, in confusion, in heresy?
That is, dear friends, the ecumenical movement of our hour, in which
all the great denominations and all the great church leaders are
becoming more and more unified. In what? In compromise and
theological error; and this is the ultimate horror” (Human Races, a
message delivered at Indian Hills Community Church, Lincoln,
Nebraska, Fall of 1984).
They seem to be under the delusion
that we have no memory. But we do remember. We remember the blood of
the saints that cry out from the pages of history. Those who died
rather than be forced into Catholicism. We remember the doctrines we
were taught. We remember the Words of our Lord ringing clear:
"Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of
wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But
beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they
will scourge you in their synagogues." (Matt.10:16-17)
The
false prophets are in the midst. Beware. They will bring in false
doctrines that runs alongside true doctrine to get into the body of
Christ and lead individuals astray as Jude 4 says, "For there
are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to
this condemnation..."
The only armor and weapon we have
to war against such devils (spiritual wickedness in high places) are
given to us in Ephesians 6:10-20:
"...having your loins
girt about with truth and having on the breastplate of righteousness:
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. Above
all taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench
all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always
with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching
thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; 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...."
The
Catholic church teaches and preaches another Christ, another gospel
than that found in God's Holy Word. (2 Cor.11:1-4) The Church of Rome
has not changed their doctrines, only their methods in covering up
the true facts of what they still follow by using Protestant terms.
My heart cries out for the millions of lost souls who are imbedded in
her false religion. We have been called out of bondage. John 8:32,
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free." Jesus said, "Come unto me, all that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matt.11:28) The Greek
word for "heavy laden" is "phortizo", which means
"to overburden with ceremony (or spiritual anxiety)". If
you are trapped in any religion that tells you salvation can be
earned in any way, you need to enter into Christ's rest. Trust in
Him. Rom.10:13 says, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved." Please call on Him today. Do not
listen to any church, any man...hear ye the Word of the Lord and be
saved!
by Diane M. Wachtel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY
OF A TYPICAL ROMAN CATHOLIC
The
TESTIMONY OF A FORMER NUN
By
Sandy Hooper
sjhooper@bellsouth.net
"Let no man
beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of
angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen..."
Colossians 2:18
"Why...are
ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which
all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and
doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will
worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body..." The
apostle Paul, Colossians 2:20-23
I come from a family of eight children (a much later
addition made it nine). From early childhood we were made to attend
church every Sunday. My earliest memories take me back to the time
when I would make my first communion. I can remember being very
excited, because I too can now have the flesh and blood of Jesus
Christ just like the grown-ups. I can remember Sister Peter having us
children practice with those little round candies to show us how we
were to accept Jesus into our mouths. We had to be careful, because
we did not want Him to fall on the floor. I was under the impression
that would be a grave sin.
When it was time to make Confirmation, I was excited
about this too. I had learned in the Catholic school that
Confirmation was necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.
Through this special occasion I would be more bound to the Church and
enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. I realized I
would be sealed with the Holy Spirit as the Bishop would anoint me
with oil.
ABUSED BY A MAN CALLED "ANOTHER CHRIST"
My mother told me I would have to see the priest at
the church in order to get my confirmation lessons to understand it
more fully. I was to go each Saturday morning to see him. However,
the subject of Confirmation I did not learn. This priest was sexually
molesting me. I was shocked because I had never had anything like
this happen before. I was scared. Since good Catholics were suppose
to obey their priests, for they are in higher authority, I submitted
though I was frightened. Each Saturday I had to go face this priest
and didn't dare tell a soul what was happening. This lasted for about
six to seven weeks.
THE CONVENT
But in spite of what I went through, I still kept
going to church and learned all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic
church. We had Catechism each week and learned what was necessary in
this life and to make it to heaven. When I was about 16, I wanted to
enter the Convent. There was only one problem. I didn't finish high
school. I had just quit that summer. Most of the orders required that
a girl have her diploma. But I finally found one that didn't require
it. The order was the Sisters of St. Martha. At the time they were
located at La Salette Shrine in Attleboro, Massachusetts. I wrote to
the sisters and told them I wish to be a nun. She wrote back and
wanted to know why. My simple answer was, " I wanted to serve
the Lord."
I was to meet Sister Germaine, the Mistress of
Novices at the Shrine. After my interview she decided I could enter.
My mother was not very happy about losing her daughter, but my father
was very proud there was going to be a nun in the family. I had
learned my father always wanted to be a priest.
I can remember my mother coming short of tears as she
saw me board the bus leaving for La Salette Shrine in Enfield, New
Hampshire. I waved good bye as the bus departed.
I had learned the Sisters of St. Martha was a
domestic order. The Seminary itself was a school for high school boys
. The Priests and the Brothers took care of these boys and their
education. On the other hand, the Sisters prepared their meals, three
times a day. On Saturdays? That was laundry day. We had to do the
laundry for the Priests and Brothers, besides our own. The following
is a schedule I adhered to while in the convent.
VOLUNTARY HUMILITY
At 5:15 in the morning the bell would ring to wake
us. We had fifteen minutes to get washed and dressed. At 5:30 we had
to be down in the chapel for morning prayers. This consisted of
reciting certain sections of the Psalms. One group would read about
three verses, then the other half would read three verses. At 5:45 we
would go back to our bedrooms. Between 5:45 and 6:00 a.m., the priest
would hear confessions before he did the Mass in our chapel. One by
one each nun would take their turn.
Mass would be over about 6:30 and we would make our
way to the kitchen to prepare breakfast for everyone. By 8:30 a.m. we
would start preparing for lunch, and the time for silence would begin
at 10:00 a.m until the lunch meal was served. We were forbidden to
talk. We were to concentrate on God. If I had any questions, I had to
whisper to the cook. It wasn't long before I learned how to use sign
language.
The sisters had their own dining room. Before we
could have our meal, we all had to stand by our assigned seats. Every
day each nun would have her turn reading a section from the
"Imitation of Christ." Then we would say grace, and thank
God we could then talk!
By the time the meals and dishes were done, it would
be about 2 to 2:30 in the afternoon; from there we would say the
rosary together. Whatever time was left after that, we got to rest in
our rooms. At 3 p.m. it was time for Vespers and then to the kitchen
again preparing for dinner. All would be over with about 6:30 p.m.
and it was back to the convent. We were allowed to watch T.V., but
were only allowed to watch certain programs. That was "Hogan's
Hero's" and "The Waltons". After the Walton's, myself
(Postulant), and the two Novices, along with the Mistress of Novices
had to spend an hour together in the basement for quality time. My
quality time consisted of playing pool with the two Novices, Sister
Joan and Sister Judy, while the Mistress of Novices did sewing or
whatever needed to be done. At 10 p.m. the lights had to be out. On
Saturdays? As I said, that was laundry day and Sunday was a day for
rest. This was my schedule.
NEVER HAD TO READ THE BIBLE
When I had those quiet times in my room, I remember
one time trying to read the Bible but found it very boring. I was in
the convent for almost two years and I can only remember picking up
that Bible that one time. We never read the Bible together outside
what we had to do for morning prayers when reciting the Psalms, but
even that wasn't in the Bible. The Psalms were in a book by itself.
We did a lot of praying to the saints when we didn't have our time in
the basement. We would often make Novenas and kneel by the statute
when doing so. People would ask for prayer, and that is how we did
it.
LEAVING THE CONVENT
I began to question myself of why I was there. I can
remember thinking, "Do I want to do this for the rest of my
life?" But something happened that made me very angry and sad.
Sister Judy was told she could not make her final vows. Needless to
say, she was very broken hearted. She cried and I cried too.
Sister Judy got to go home and visit her family
before she had to leave the convent for good. During this time, while
working in the kitchen, I couldn't help but cry. The head cook wanted
to know what was wrong. I told her it wasn't fair that Sister Judy
couldn't serve the Lord. But she smiled and said, "Well, many
are called, but few are chosen." That statement hit me like a
ton of bricks. I got angry with God. If God loved us so much, why
would He not let someone serve Him? Later, Sister Judy told me why
she couldn't make her final vows. It was due to an illness she had as
a child.
It wasn't long after Sister Judy left, I left too. I
couldn't see going all the way to making my final vows for something
that didn't make sense to me. "Many are called, but few are
chosen," rang in my ears for a long time. I considered myself as
one of those who was not chosen for this kind of life.
STILL IN ROMANISH CHAINS
However, I did not leave the Catholic Church. I
prayed my rosary still, prayed to Mary for help, and continued to go
to church. I was still searching and wanted something deeper with
God. I had an emptiness that kept going further and further down.
There were times I felt like I had to climb up just to reach bottom.
I kept going to the La Salette Shrine in Massachusetts. I would say
my rosaries there. I felt like I was closer to God there. There were
times I would look at the statue and ask, "Mary, why don't you
show yourself to me? I need you." I would often look up in the
sky trying to find her. Maybe, just maybe, she would appear to me. I
would crawl up the stairs on my knees while saying the rosary,
praying, and hoping that the pain I was enduring would help me to
heaven. [Editor's note: this self-inflicted pain is called penance in
Romanism. Some even beat themselves until the blood flows to show
sorrow for sin instead of calling on the Lord.] After all, who
belongs to God unless you are willing to suffer physical discomfort?
I must prove I am worthy. I must pray my way and suffer in order to
get to heaven. I didn't want to go to purgatory, but heaven.
I would often go to La Salette, but I will never
forget the last time I was there. It was in the evening and they were
having a prayer service. I stood at the door staring because I
couldn't believe what I was seeing. I saw the priest laying hands on
people and they were passing out cold on the floor. The music was
beautiful, but I didn't understand what was happening. I stood there
for a long time observing when a nun began to walk by me. I stopped
her and asked what was happening. She said, "They are
experiencing the slaying of the Holy Spirit." She didn't
explain, she continued on. I decided I would walk up and get prayer
too. I remember the priest laying his hands on my head. I closed my
eyes and listened to him pray. I felt like God was touching my head.
I felt peaceful. At that I was on the floor myself. I didn't lose
consciousness, but yet I couldn't move. Finally I was able to get up.
I went home that night not knowing what exactly happened to me.
DEPRESSION SETS IN
Time went on and the depression was getting worse.
There were two times I attempted suicide but failed. I was still
empty and still climbing and reaching nothing. I decided that maybe
if I moved out of the state of Rhode Island, that would help. I
traveled all the way to...California but only lasted two days in a
hotel room. Then I thought about my mother. At that I was headed for
[her mother's].
CHARISMATIC MASS
When I was settled...I began looking for a church. I
found "Our Lady Of Lourdes" and attended the evening Mass.
It was similar to what I experienced at the La Salette Shrine. These
people were on fire for the Lord. I found out they called it a
Charismatic Mass. However, the one thing that impressed me at the
time was when it was time to give each other the sign of peace. I was
shocked. The priest got off the altar and started shaking hands with
the people. I never saw a priest leave the altar during a Mass.
I also noticed the music ministry and liked their
music. After the Mass I went up and asked if I could practice with
them since I played the guitar. They told me they met on Friday
evenings, but it was a prayer meeting. One of the men gave me the
address and I was there the following Friday. Everybody was so
friendly. They were also ready to start their prayer meeting. I
noticed they started speaking in different languages, or at least
that is what I thought it was. I didn't know, but figured it had to
do something with their faith. It was very strange to me. I thought I
got myself in a house with a bunch of koo koo's, but here I found
myself staying because I needed something.
HEARING THE GOSPEL
After the meeting one of the sons took me in the back
room to explain Jesus to me. I thought to myself, "What is this
guy going to tell me what I don't already know? After all, I've been
in the convent, and there is nothing new he is going to tell me."
But he started talking about Jesus and he talked about Him as if He
were real. He talked as if he knew him personally. I wanted that! He
gave me the gospel message. He asked me if I wanted to receive Jesus,
and I said yes. We went right into the living room and he had me sit
in the chair in the middle of the room and everybody surrounded me
and started to lay their hands on me. It was there I accepted and
confessed Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.
However, I didn't feel any different. But I do
remember going home that night and as I walked in, my mom was
watching television. I could remember the awful feeling I got from
what she was watching. It had never bothered me before, but his time
it was like I could see the darkness in the program. I said nothing
but went straight into my bedroom. I began to read my Bible. It was
then it was not the same. As I read, the words seem to come off the
pages. It wasn't boring like it was in the convent.
A few weeks later I was baptized in [a] pool. The
prayer meetings were large for this small house, but we managed. It
was during one of these meetings I was now about to experience the
Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I can remember standing with the others
singing a worship song. It was at the end of this song I began to
feel this tingling sensation in my feet. It worked its way to my
ankles, then my knees, belly, neck, and finally my head. When I went
to say "Thank you Jesus," nothing came out but another
language. I realized I had gotten the gift of tongues (more on this
later). I looked around to see if anybody was watching me. I was kind
of embarrassed. I was also confused. I knew what I had was the gift
of tongues, but I began to doubt. I approached Mr. Walsh at the end
of the meeting and told him of my fears. He gave me a book to read on
tongues which explained why we shouldn't doubt it. I was also led to
another book "The Holy Spirit and You." I believe it was by
a Rita Bennett and her husband. I read these books and they
fascinated me. From there on I began to read everything I could
concerning the Holy Spirit, but as I think back, I read everything
except what the Bible had to say about it. I realize now the word of
God was not"rightly divided."
FALSE DOCTRINE & CONFUSION
We continued to have our Bible studies, but I never
searched the Scriptures to see if what they were teaching was true or
not. I assumed they knew what they were talking about and I needed
them to learn. Little did I know I was getting a lot of false
doctrine.
As we had these prayer meetings, we also continued to
attend Mass at Our Lady of Lourdes. There was a problem beginning.
After the Charismatic Mass a whole crowd of us would meet in the next
hall for our Sunday prayer meetings. However, there began disputes
about Catholic doctrine and the Bible. The question of Mary came up,
confession, praying to the saints, etc. The order from the priest was
set forth. If there were any who didn't agree with the Catholic
church, they had to leave. He was not going to allow division. So
some left, but I stayed. Those who met at the [leaders] all left and
started their own church. I was going to their service in the
mornings, and went to the Charismatic Mass in the evening each
Sunday. I was too afraid to leave. To leave the Catholic church would
be inviting myself to hell for all eternity. Salvation, I learned as
a little girl, was through the Catholic church. It was a sin to step
inside another. It was for these reasons I didn't want to leave the
Church, but I also didn't want to lose the other friends I had made.
But as far as I was concerned, I was safe attending their services
for they were held outside at Tomoka Park. Finally, my conscious
began to bother me and I stopped it all together, even the Friday
prayer meetings. I stayed faithful to the Church.
It was nearing the year 1984 when I decided to
move....I got involved with a group that was not Catholic, but part
of the Vineyard movement. I soon left that because it seemed to
controlling in personal matters. It was not too long after I found
myself involved with the Lamb Of God Community. This was another
Charismatic group and mainly Catholic.
I had met my husband before I joined the Lamb of God.
Father Joe was one of its leaders, but I heard they had certain rules
for dating. Tom and I were engaged before we joined. If you were
engaged before you joined, you were fine. Tom and I were married in a
Catholic Church by Father Joe on November 30, 1985.
Lamb of God was associated with the Word of God
Community in Ann Arbor, Michigan. There were many things going on at
that time, and division started taking place.
We were informed that there was a split at the Word
of God Community. The co-founders, Ralph Martin and Steve Clark had a
parting of the ways. We, in turn, had a split here in the Lamb of God
Community. It concerned excessive control over its members, which I
agree. We were "encouraged" a certain way to dress, what
roles we played in the family as who took out the trash, cut the lawn
etc., the matters concerning faithful attendance to the meetings,
authority, etc. My husband and I found ourselves not going to the
meetings anymore. We never talked about it much, we just didn't go.
WANDERINGS
After the first three babies were born, we were still
attending church on Sundays. I have four children and all of them got
baptized into the Catholic church. But church attendance also began
to fade in the background. We got to the point where we didn't attend
church at all.
In 1991 I received a computer as a gift by my
brother-in-law. I began to learn how to use it and then found myself
writing to other people in Bible conferences. I conversed with a
number of Jehovah Witnesses. I tried to prove Jesus is God and so
forth. The messages seemed endless. I wasn't getting through to them,
but the whole activity was getting me involved in studying the Bible
for myself. I would wake up very early in the mornings typing away at
the computer trying to prove different things from the Bible to tell
my Jehovah Witness friends.
Then there began a need to get back in church. I was
feeling empty like I had before. I missed all the fellowship I had at
one time. However, after studying the Bible for a while I noticed
certain things of the Catholic doctrine that did not line up with the
Bible. It concerned the Lord's body and blood, eternal security, and
the church. Though I knew I needed to find a church, I had made up my
mind that I would not go back to the Catholic church knowing what I
knew now where it concerned the Lord's body and blood. Why should I
believe in something that profits nothing? Where it concerns the
Lord's body, we never hear John 6:63 read before communion, "It
is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:"
STRUGGLING WITH ROMAN BLASPHEMIES
The Church doctrine and the Bible were in conflict
and I struggled and asked many questions. How many times do we need
to be saved? If I receive Jesus Christ at communion time, what
happens to Him during the week that I have to go back and receive Him
again? And why should I drink blood when blood is forbidden before
the Law (Genesis 9:4); Under the law (Lev. 17:14); and in New
Testament times (Acts 15:29; 21:25)? The Bible says Blood is off
limits, we are to abstain from blood, but in the Catholic church we
are to drink it!
I never admitted I didn't really believe the
Eucharist was actually the body and blood of Christ, for if I did, I
knew I would be condemned to hell by the curse pronounced by the
Roman Catholic church. But I praise God now, because I know no curse
will keep me out of heaven.
I told my husband I was going to start going to
church again, but also let him know I would not go back to the
Catholic church. I was still a little uncertain though. I thought to
myself, "What if the Catholic church is really right and I'm
wrong." In the back of my mind, eternal security was always the
question. In the Catholic Church you had salvation through the
sacraments, but even that wasn't a sure thing. Purgatory always
lingered over my head. I didn't want to suffer in purgatory and wait
for the prayers to get me out. For that matter, the Catholic church
has yet to say how many prayers are needed to get one out of
purgatory. However, what if I were wrong about all this? I don't
know, but I took my chances, I left for good.
It so happened I found a Baptist Church. I thought to
myself this church would really be something if these people could
only be baptized in the Holy Spirit and experience tongues like I had
and practiced. But regardless of what I thought they lacked, these
people were joyful even without the so-called baptism of the Holy
Spirit in the Charismatic terms.
REALIZED SATAN TAMPERING WITH THE WORD OF GOD
Now, I shall share what happened from there when I
discovered what was happening to God's word. I'm not talking about
the "Incarnate Word," Jesus Christ, but His "words."
I shall excerpt one of my own writings to explain:
"My husband had a visit from an old friend whom
he hadn't seen in years, along with his wife. At the time of their
visit they were both in a drug treatment program to kick the habit.
During the course of the evening I began to witness to the couple.
During this time I had pulled out at least 6 to 8 different versions
of the Bible. The husband stopped me in the middle of a conversation
and asked me, Which Bible is the true Bible?' His questioned stumped
me. The question made such an impact on me that I began to wonder
myself! From then on that question stayed with me.
This incident took place in the early part of
November of 1995. It was several weeks before this time I had decided
to leave the Catholic church. I had been a Christian for 20 years and
had remained in the Catholic Church all that time. Something was
missing in my life and I couldn't pin-point the problem other than
that I missed Christian fellowship. I missed the fellowship like I
had when I lived in Florida. Down there I was very involved in the
Charismatic movement (Don't worry, the Bible straightened me out on
the tongues business).
It was near the end of summer of 1995 when I started
attending a Baptist Church, and it was the end of November I decided
to join. New members were required to take membership classes which
took place in the Pastor's office each Sunday. About the third Sunday
of my visit I noticed a book on his desk. I asked him if I could
borrow the book. It was titled, New Age Bible Versions,' by Dr. G.A.
Riplinger. That night I started to read her book and was brought to
tears just after reading the first two chapters as I saw what was
happening with God's words. About a week or two before I borrowed
that book, I had purchased for the first time in my life a King James
Bible, therefore, I was able to compare the versions as I read her
book."
It was from here when my life was actually changed
concerning the Bible, the Catholic church, Catholic doctrine, the
so-called Baptism of the Holy Spirit, tongues and so forth.
When I compared these versions, I did notice how
these other bibles lined up with the Roman Catholic bible. No wonder
I was still in confusion! In these modern bibles, salvation is shown
as a "process" which requires good works. All this is
brought out by the straining of the tenses in the modern bibles. Let
me show you exactly what I mean. When you read the following, please
do notice the straining of the tenses:
Luke 13:23 (new versions), "Are there few
who are being saved?" KJV, "...be saved."
II Cor. 2:15 (new versions), "are being
saved." KJV, "are saved."
I Cor. 1:18 (new versions), "those who are
perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved" KJV,
...are saved."
Acts 15:19 (new versions) "are turning to
God." KJV, "turned."
Luke 15:32 (new versions), "your brother
was dead and has begun to live." KJV, "is alive."
Acts 2:47 (new versions), "were being
saved." KJV, "should be saved."
2 Cor. 4:3 (new versions), "are perishing."
KJV, "are lost."
With all the unnatural straining of the tenses, and
the teachings of the Catholic Church, no wonder I didn't know if I
was truly saved!
AUTHORIZED KING JAMES IS GOD'S BOOK
From there the King James Bible became the final
authority in my life. In that Book I knew I would get the truth. It
straightened me out on a lot of doctrines concerning tongues, baptism
of the Holy Spirit, eternal security, about heaven and hell, the
saints, purgatory, and many other things. When I used these other
bibles, they led me nowhere but in confusion and frustration.
Doctrines such as the Deity was hard to prove to a Jehovah's Witness.
Now I know why! I don't have that problem any more with a King James
Bible. I've had Mormons at my door and Jehovah's Witnesses, and when
I get the King James out, all of a sudden every body gets Greekitis.
I tell them I don't know Greek, and therefore there's not a lot of
sense going through it. But there's one thing I do know and have, and
that is the Holy Bible. I don't have to apologize to anyone for
having the truth in my hands. It's either believe it or reject it. No
need to turn to man's teachings, the Catholic church, traditions, the
Greek, Another Testament, or other bibles to disprove the LIVING ONE.
FREE AT LAST!
I know a person can't be born again twice, but that's
what it seems to me. My eyes have been opened. I no longer walk in
darkness. I no longer hang by the rules of the Roman Catholic church.
When I began to study from the King James Bible, I saw how the Roman
Catholic church is really an enemy to God's word. When reading from
the true word of God, God will also give us back our common sense.
For instance, let me share with you the following concerning Original
sin. As a Catholic, we were taught we needed baptism to free us from
sin. But yet the Roman Catholic church does not believe that chapters
1-3 of Genesis is real history. What they have actually done is call
Jesus a liar.
Jesus Christ quotes Genesis 2 and 3 as a strict,
straight history. "And Jesus answered them, For the hardness of
your heart he (Moses) wrote you this precept. But from the beginning
of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:5-6).
Jesus also quotes Moses verbatim from Genesis 2:24 (Mark 10:7-8).
Jesus said, "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had
ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But
if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words"
(John 5:45-47).
If Jesus were here in the flesh, He would say the
same thing to the Catholic Church who tells me Genesis 1-3 is not
straight history. They have made Jesus a liar. Genesis tells how the
world began (Gen. 1), how human beings began (Gen. 2), how they fell
(Gen. 3).
And this is what I mean by common sense. The Roman
Catholic church fails to remind us that between chapters 1-3, is the
fall of man. Here is where Original sin began! If the Roman Catholic
church does not believe Genesis 1-3 is not real history, then why,
from A.D. 500 to 1997, were all those babies baptized for!!!?
And what about the saints whom we were taught to
pray? Every good Catholic should read his Bible. The Bible says that
God puts no trust in His saints (Job 15:15). "Behold, he putteth
no trust in his saints;"
If God doesn't put any trust in His saints, why
should I?
And what about Blessed Sinless Mary? The Bible says,
For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom.
3:23). This means Mary too! Even Mary herself knew she needed a
Saviour and went through purification for sins as the Jewish law
required. Mary said herself, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God
my Saviour." (Luke 1:47).
Mary needed purification from sin, "And when the
days of her purification according to the law of Moses were
accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the
Lord.....and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in
the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
(Luke 2:22,24).
The fact is, Mary is a Jewish woman following the Law
handed down to Moses. Read Leviticus 12 my friend. Mary, a sinner,
had to make a "sin-offering" (see Lev. 12:8). We must ask
ourselves, why does the Roman Catholic church insist she was sinless
when the Bible says she was not? Mary had to make a sin offering, and
they were so poor they were not even able to offer the required
sacrifice for Mary's cleansing as all females were to do in obedience
to the law. Mary was so poor she and Joseph could not bring the
required LAMB for sacrifice (see Lev. 12:8 again). They could only
offer a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons (Luke 2:24).
However, Mary didn't need the lamb, she held Him in her arms! She had
the Lamb who could save her from her sins! A Saviour her heart
rejoiced in!
The Catholic Mary no way resembles the Jewish Mary of
the Bible. Even in the days of Jesus people tried to elevate Mary in
a position that was not her's. "And it came to pass, as he spake
these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and
said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which
thou hast sucked." (Luke 11:27). But Jesus immediately corrected
the woman and said, "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the
word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:28).
Jesus was way ahead of the Roman Catholic Church. We
are not to sway from the word of God and put our trust in Mary or the
saints, but in Jesus Christ Himself.
I could cry when I think of all the years I have
wasted and abiding by these false doctrines. If only I had known
sooner. But I thank God I have come at least this far. The truth
certainly has freed me indeed! Put your trust in Jesus Christ and His
infallible word. With those words in your hands, the Holy Spirit
shall lead you and guide you into all truth.
As of this moment, I have four children (ages 9, 8, 6
and 4), homeschool, and attend a King James Bible Believing Church...
I pray the Lord will use me with the little time we have left before
the Rapture.
KNOW JESUS FOR YOURSELF
May you find peace and eternal life by inviting Jesus
Christ into your life. Don't let anything stop you from receiving
Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and enjoying eternal life with Him.
God gave His only begotten Son for you. Christ died on the cross for
you. He shed His blood for you and me. Oh, what love! We deserved the
death Jesus endured for us on the cross, but He paid the price for
sin and said, "It is finished." He rose again the third day
conquering death.
Nobody has to work for salvation. It is finished!
Sacraments will not save us. The saints cannot help us, and Mary
cannot be our mediator. There is only one mediator, and that is Jesus
Christ, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus;" (1 Timothy 2:5). Obey Jesus. Hear
the word of God and keep it (Luke 11:28). The word of God tells us,
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the GIFT of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should
boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9)
The Roman Catholic Church had me doing just the
opposite, works. Sacraments, saints, purgatory, and traditions do not
save. Jesus Christ saves! It is a gift and a gift is not a gift until
it is received. And if anybody says you can lose your salvation, then
again, they choose to call Jesus a liar, but you shall know better.
You turn them to John 10:28. For Jesus said about those to whom He
gives eternal life, "and they shall never perish, neither shall
any man pluck them out of my hand." You may walk out on God, but
God doesn't go back on His promises. What He said is true! Once you
are saved, you are saved forever. His hand is bigger than your faith
or lack of it. Don't depend on your feelings, stand on the promise of
God.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he
the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name." John 1:12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE
CONVERSION OF A CATHOLIC PRIEST
Bartholomew
F. Brewer, PHD
More Catholic Than
Rome
Millions—perhaps the majority—of Roman Catholics
are Catholic by name, by culture, or by inertia. Our family, however,
was Roman Catholic by conviction. We understood and practiced the
teachings of our religion. We believed it to be the “one true
church” founded by Jesus Christ. Because of this, we accepted
without question everything our priests taught. In those days before
Vatican II, the common belief was that “outside the Roman Catholic
Church there is no salvation.” This brought us a feeling of
security, of being right. We were somehow safe in the arms of “holy
mother church.”
From the time my father died (I was almost ten), my
mother attended daily mass, not missing even one day for over
twenty-four years. Our family faithfully recited the rosary every
evening. We were encouraged to make regular visits to the “blessed
sacrament.” In addition to the teaching at home, all of our
schooling was Roman Catholic. Monsignor Hubert Cartwright and the
other priests at our home parish, the Cathedral of Saints Peter and
Paul in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, used to say that our family was
more Catholic than Rome.
It is no wonder that as I approached high school age,
I felt called to prepare for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Rather
than the secular priesthood, which serves parishes, I chose to apply
to the Discalced Carmelites, one of the more strict and ancient
monastic orders.
From the first day at Holy Hill, Wisconsin, I loved
the religious life, and this love was the motivation I needed to get
through all the Latin and other studies, which I found very
difficult. The dedication and self-sacrifice of the priests who
taught our classes was a continual reminder of the value of making
any sacrifice to reach the goal of ordination.
The training I received in four years of the high
school seminary, two years in the novitiate, three years of
philosophy, and four years of theology (the last after ordination)
was thorough. I was sincere in practicing the various mortifications
and other disciplines and never once doubted my calling nor anything
I was taught. Taking the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience
represented my lifetime commitment to God. For me, the voice of the
church was the voice of God.
My ordination to the Roman Catholic priesthood was at
the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington, D. C.,
the seventh largest church in the world today. When “His
Excellency, the Most Reverend Bishop” John M. McNamara imposed his
hands on my head and repeated the words from Psalm 110:4, “Thou art
a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” —I was awed with
the belief that I was now a mediator between God and the people. The
anointing and binding of my hands with special cloths signified that
they were now consecrated to change bread and wine into the real
(literal) flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, to perpetuate the
sacrifice of Calvary through the mass, and to dispense saving grace
through the other Roman Catholic sacraments of baptism,
confession,—marriage, and the last rites. The other two sacraments
of confirmation and holy orders require a bishop. At ordination a
Roman Catholic priest is said to receive an “indelible” mark: to
experience an unending interchange of his personality with that of
Christ, that he may perform high priestly duties as “another
Christ” (alter Christus) or in the place of Christ. People actually
knelt and kissed our newly consecrated hands, so sincere was this
belief.
After completing the last year of theology, which was
principally a final preparation for preaching and hearing confession
(which involves giving absolution or forgiveness of sin), I was
granted my long-expressed desire to be a missionary priest in the
Philippines.
The Beginnings Of Doubt
The change from a regimented, monastic life to the
simplicity and freedom of missionary life provided a challenge for
which I had not been prepared. I loved traveling to some of the
eighty or more primitive barrios assigned to our parish and I also
cherished teaching my religion class at the Carmelite high school in
our small town. Until then my life had been almost exclusively among
men. I enjoyed watching the girls giggle as they flirted with teasing
boys. After a while, though, my attention was drawn to one of the
more diligent students, who thoroughly captivated my interest. This
young lady was mature beyond her years because of the
responsibilities that had fallen to her after her mother had died.
She was lovely and shyly responded as we stole moments talking alone
after class. This was a new adventure, and I soon interpreted our
newly discovered affection as love.
It is not surprising that soon the bishop learned of
this, though he was many miles away, and he quickly returned me to
the States before any serious relationship could develop. The
embarrassment of this discipline was difficult for both of us, but
life always moves on.
After the adventure and freedom in the Philippines, I
had no motivation to return to monastic living, so the Father
Provincial granted permission for me to work at a Discalced Carmelite
parish in Arizona. I enjoyed my responsibilities in that parish, but
my next assignment was not so fulfilling. Soon I applied for and was
granted a dispensation from Rome to leave the Carmelite order to
serve as a secular (diocesan) priest. While serving a large parish in
San Diego, California, I received permission to enter the United
States Navy as a Roman Catholic Chaplain. There new goals, rank, and
travel served as an escape from what had gradually become a sterile
parochial life of ritualism and sacramentalism.
My religious life broadened quickly as I mixed with
non-Catholic chaplains. For the first time, I was living outside my
Roman Catholic culture. Amid the ecumenical atmosphere I gradually
became neutralized. Then as Vatican II opened the windows of rigid
tradition to let in fresh air, I took in a deep and delightfully
refreshing breath. Change was in. Some wanted it to be radical,
others wanted only a little modernization.
For many, the Roman Catholic faith was failing to
give answers to common modern-day problems. Many felt alienated and
misunderstood. This was especially true of priests. With all the
change, the priesthood was losing its glamour. No longer was the
priest’s education considered far superior to that of the
parishioner. No longer was the priest cultured above the majority of
his people. To experience an identity crisis was more common among
priests than any were willing to acknowledge, even among the
chaplains.
At first I was scandalized to realize that some of
the Catholic chaplains were actually dating. I listened with interest
as some openly discussed the impractical nature of mandatory
celibacy. Soon I also gained the courage to question the authorities
of our church who persisted in retaining such traditions-especially
when the law of celibacy was the source of so many moral problems
among priests. For the first time in my life, I doubted the authority
of my religion, not because of intellectual pride, but in conscience,
in true sincerity.
As students for the priesthood, we were well informed
regarding the ancient tradition that binds the Roman Catholic priests
to celibacy. We well knew that the few granted permission from the
Vatican to marry may never again function as priests. But times were
changing. Questions never before voiced were being raised at the
Vatican Council in Rome. Many thought that priests with wives could,
as the Protestants did, bring greater sensitivity and understanding
to marital and family issues. Discussions about such things were
commonplace whenever priests got together—even as they visited the
apartment that Mother and I shared together off base.
The Authority Of Scripture
Mother was not shy in joining the discussions. She
was a well-informed and intelligent person, and I greatly valued her
opinions. I recall how appalled she was that evolution was being
taught in Catholic schools and that Rome had established dialogue
with the communists. She had long been disturbed over some of the
conflicts she had observed between principles taught in Scripture and
the lack of principles among many of our religious leaders. Many
years before, Monsignor Cartwright had comforted Mother with the
reminder that though there were many problems in our church, Jesus
promised that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it.”
Mother always expressed a tremendous respect for the Bible. Though
she read it faithfully through the years, she was now becoming an
avid student of Scripture. As I observed a general liberal trend
among my colleagues, Mother was leaning in another direction. It was
a mystery to me. While others discussed desires to see relaxation and
loosing of traditional rules and rituals, Mother expressed her desire
to see a more Biblical emphasis in the church—more attention to the
spiritual aspects of life, and a greater emphasis on Jesus, even a
personal relationship with Him.
At first I didn’t understand, but gradually I
observed a wonderful change in Mother. Her influence helped me
realize the importance of the Bible in determining what we believe.
We often discussed subjects such as the primacy of Peter, papal
infallibility, the priesthood, infant baptism, confession, the mass,
purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, and the bodily
assumption of Mary into heaven. In time I realized that not only are
these beliefs not in the Bible, they are actually contrary to the
clear teaching of the Scripture. Finally the barrier against having
personal convictions was broken. There was no doubt in my mind about
the Biblical view on these subjects, but what effect would all this
have on my life as a priest?
Making The Break
I truly believed that God had called me to serve Him.
An ethical dilemma was staring me in the face. What was I to do? Yes,
there were priests who did not believe all the dogmas of Rome. Yes
there were priests who secretly had wives and families. Yes, I could
remain a Catholic Chaplain and continue serving without voicing my
disagreements. I could continue receiving the pay and the privileges
of military rank. I could continue receiving the allotment and other
benefits for my mother. There were many reasons to stay, both
professional and material, but to do so would have been hypocritical
and unethical. From my youth I always tried to do right, and that is
what I choose to do now.
Though my bishop had recently granted approval for me
to pursue twenty years in the military, I resigned after only four.
Mother and I simply and quietly moved near my brother, Paul, and his
wife in the San Francisco Bay area. Shortly before we moved, Mother
cut her ties with Roman Catholicism by being baptized in a
Seventh-day Adventist church. I knew she had been studying the Bible
with one of their workers, but she did not tell me about the baptism
until I had already decided to leave the priesthood.
The decision to leave was anything but easy. Rome’s
claim that there are no objective or subjective reasons for leaving
“the one true church” was something to be carefully considered.
Traditional Catholics would still consider me to be a “Judas
priest,” “damned, excommunicated, and to be avoided.” Yes,
there were many difficulties involved in leaving the security of the
Roman Catholic fold, but I have found that Jesus never fails.
After shaking the Roman Catholic dust off my shoes, I
faced a momentous issue: Where is ultimate authority? Through the
process of elimination, I gradually concluded that the Bible is the
only authority that cannot be shaken. Many systems, including Roman
Catholicism, have attempted without success to undermine its
sufficiency, its efficiency, its perfection, even that it was not
written merely by the will of men but holy men of God as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:21). Oh, happy day when all who
name the name of Jesus Christ understand that the Bible is the only
source of authority that doesn’t change! It is the final authority
because of its complete identification with its unchanging Author.
God has communicated clearly. It is tragic that Romanism and most of
traditional Protestantism, as well as many Pentecostals and other
groups, reject Biblical sufficiency. They choose rather to trust
questionable traditions, visions, apparitions, or prophecies. Not
only are these unsubstantiated as being “of God,” but many
contradict clear Biblical teaching. No one can accept these
extra-Biblical revelations without degrading the authority of
Scripture. II Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may
be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Perhaps the reason that many regard the Bible as
insufficient is that they have not thoroughly studied it. My
transcripts from thirteen years of formal study in the Discalced
Carmelite Order show that I had only twelve semester hours of
Bible—all from text books. This alone is evidence that Scripture is
not the basis of Roman Catholic teaching.
After leaving Roman Catholicism I wanted to study the
Bible. I was a “church-oriented” person, not being opposed to
joining another denomination. After investigating some of the
Protestant churches, I sadly concluded that in their ecumenical folly
they were Romeward bound at the expense of Biblical truth. Viewing
the smorgasbord of churches can be discouraging and even dangerous
for the former Catholic in his search for truth.
Meeting Mother’s Adventist friends, however, was a
delight. They were enthusiastic about their faith, and their love of
the Scriptures echoed my desire to study the Bible. This resulted in
a somewhat premature decision to join the Seventh-day Adventist
denomination. The pastor who baptized me arranged for the Southern
California Conference to send me to seminary at Andrews University
for a year.
Salvation At Last!
While making plans for a year of study, I met Ruth. I
had been hoping and praying to find a wife for about a year. From the
first time Ruth visited our church, I knew she would be my life’s
companion. We were married shortly before leaving for the seminary.
She was a convert to Adventism, and like everyone else, had assumed
that since I wanted to enter the seminary, I was born again.
Realizing that I never mentioned anything about being
“born again,” one day my wife asked me, “Bart, when did you
become a Christian?” My unbelievable reply was, “I was born a
Christian!” In the conversations that transpired, she tried to help
me understand that man, being born in sin, at some point must
recognize the need of a Saviour and be born again spiritually by
trusting only in Jesus Christ to save him from the consequences of
sin. When I responded that I had always believed in God, she observed
that according to James 2:19, “the devils also believe.”
In time, because of these conversations and because
of classes in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, I finally understood
that I had been relying on my own righteousness and religious efforts
and not upon the completed and sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
The Roman Catholic religion had never taught me that our own
righteousness is fleshly and not acceptable to God, nor did it teach
that we need only to trust in His righteousness. He already did
everything that needs to be done on our behalf. Then one day during
chapel, the Holy Spirit convicted me of my need to repent and receive
the “gift” of God.
During all those years of monastic life I had relied
on the sacraments of Rome to give me grace, to save me, but now by
God’s grace I was born spiritually: I was saved. Being ignorant of
God’s righteousness, like the Jew of Paul’s day, I had gone about
establishing my own righteousness, not submitting to the
righteousness of God (Romans 10:2-3).
I do not know who you are or what your relationship
with God may be, but I ask you the most important question of life:
Are you a Biblical Christian? Are you trusting only in the completed
sacrifice of Christ for the forgiveness of all your sin? If not, why
not settle it right now? As in a simple wedding ceremony, promise Him
your love, your devotion, your trust. Receiving Jesus as Saviour is
not something you do as a religious ritual, it is a one-time
commitment of your life to Him for the forgiveness of all your sin.
The very moment you do that, Jesus Christ takes up a vital position
in your being, and you receive eternal life. After that, you will
change. The Bible says, “He which hath begun a good work in you
will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6).
Near the end of my fourth year as an Adventist, I was
influenced by several church members to attend some charismatic
meetings. They said that the Holy Spirit was breaking down the
denominational barriers in the last days before the return of Christ.
Wanting all that God has for me, I went into a prayer room to receive
the “gift of tongues.” I was somewhat leery of it all, especially
since I didn’t experience the feelings that so many described. I
did privately practice tongues, but I could not get myself to recruit
others into the movement. It was far more important to me to move
people to study the Bible, to bring people to trust Christ, and to
live by Scriptural principles. My major interest in the charismatic
movement was the concern for others it seemed to inspire. This, along
with the spontaneity and zeal, impressed me as exemplifying a
Biblical lifestyle which seemed to be missing in many churches.
Leaving Again
Not long after I was ordained as a Seventh-day
Adventist minister, the Southern California Conference had a special
promotion for the writings of Ellen G. White, one of the founders of
Adventism and one whom the Adventists believe to be a prophetess.
Ruth and I found the series of pastors’ seminars very helpful and
informative until the last one. The lecturer was from the General
Conference in Washington, D. C., and some of his statements were
highly disturbing. The one that became a turning point in my life was
that the writings of Ellen G. White are “equally inspired as
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” Disturbed, I counseled with a
highly respected leader but could in no way reconcile this in my
conscience. I had already begun to feel spiritually shackled in
Adventism because of its legalism and exclusivism, but this, in my
opinion, was adding to Scripture. When I chose not to begin the
series called the “Testimony Countdown” in our church, several
members protested. Within a few days I realized, in conscience, that
I could no longer continue as an Adventist minister. Had it not been
for the encouragement and help of several non-Adventist ministerial
friends the transition would have been much more difficult.
During the next four years, I pastored two churches
and grew rapidly in the knowledge of the Bible and realized the
difficulty of dealing with people not under an authoritarian system.
I also had many opportunities to give my testimony. I was convinced
that God had “counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry,”
but not as a pastor.
A Mission To Catholics
I prayerfully and deliberately decided to return to
San Diego, where I once served as a parish priest. Aware that Vatican
II had brought many Roman Catholics confusion and disillusionment, I
felt led to begin a ministry to help them in the transition from the
Catholic denomination. Before long, the Lord opened doors to speak.
People wanted to know the name of the ministry. Our answer was that
it was like a mission to Catholics.
As Ruth and I grew spiritually, we were convinced of
the ecumenical nature of the charismatic movement and we left it.
About that same time, we met some Biblical Fundamentalists who
believed and faithfully practiced the principles of the Bible. Though
we have many friends in independent Bible churches, we joined a
Fundamental Baptist church, in which I was also ordained.
Mission To Catholics International was incorporated
and granted non-profit status. Since that time millions of tracts,
books and tapes have been distributed exposing the contradictions
between Roman Catholicism and the Bible and presenting Biblical
salvation. A monthly newsletter is sent to contributors. The Lord has
allowed us a bit of radio and television exposure and we are pleased
that my autobiography, Pilgrimage From Rome, has been published and
is receiving an excellent acceptance in English, Spanish, and Polish.
We have held meetings and taken literature into many foreign
countries, and mail-orders are sent out from our home office in San
Diego. Meetings keep us busy traveling throughout both the U.S.A. and
other countries. A School of Roman Catholic Evangelism provides
intense training of pastors, missionaries and key workers who desire
to establish specialized ministries for effectively reaching the
Roman Catholic community through their churches. Ex-Catholics are
also encouraged to attend (especially ex-priests and ex-nuns, so that
they may be prepared to minister within Biblical Fundamentalism).
At Mission To Catholics we are convinced that it is
not love to withhold the truth from those in darkness. Roman
Catholics need to be challenged to think about what they believe and
to study the Bible, comparing their religion with the truth of
Scripture. Only then can they experience the freedom and light of
God’s truth. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free: (John 8:32).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former
Catholic
Priest
Describes
Horrors
of Catholic Monastic
Life
Priest released from Hellish monasticism!
by Herman Hegger, a Former Priest
"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a
voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those
things which he hath not seen..." -Colossians 2:18
"Why...are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not;
taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after
the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a
shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the
body..."
The apostle Paul, Colossians 2:20-23
LIGHT AND LIFE IN CHRIST
(Born in Holland and saved by God's grace in Brazil,
Herman has authored about 25 books since his conversion. The ministry
that he founded called "In the Straight Street" has been a
solid witness to Biblical truth and a resource for those inquiring
about Catholicism. In 1996 he published "God's Commandment is
Love" and the "Army of the Light." His best seller in
Holland is: "Mother Church I Accuse You!" He may be
contacted at telephone number: 01131- 26-361-5215 or you may write to
him in Dutch, English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese or
Italian. His address is: Dillenburglaan 8, 6881 NV VELP Holland).
MY EFFORTS IN THE MONASTERY
During my childhood I often heard it said that one of
the best ways to escape from eternal hell was to enter a monastery. I
decided to follow that advice. Monastic life is meant to cultivate
strong will power and make one capable of controlling all passions
and lusts. In my monastery, various forms of bodily torture were
employed to achieve such will power. We scourged ourselves several
times a week, lashing our naked bodies with knotted cords. Despite
the great pain, we were told that if we could endure such whipping
calmly, we would receive strength to resist every kind of sensual and
sexual urge. We were also told that by scourging ourselves we could
atone for sins we had already committed and so shorten future
punishment in Purgatory. Around our waists, thighs and arms we wore
penitence chains on which were spikes which dug into our flesh. There
were also many other kinds of "bodily chastisement."
Along with self-inflicted punishments, we had other
kinds of humbling exercises designed to extinguish our pride and
vanity. In one of these routines a priest had to lie on the floor
across a doorway so that other priests would tread on him as they
went by. Whenever I did this I felt like a worm upon which people
trod, but I thought that God must be very pleased with me for such a
voluntary self-humiliation.
The worst humiliation included licking an area of the
floor clean with our tongues. Doing this made me feel like an animal,
like a pig wallowing in the mire or a dog sniffing around. Sometimes
I even felt like an insect creeping in the dust.
But however I punished and humiliated myself, I could
not detect any change or improvement in my character or behavior. I
only discovered that my weak and sinful nature was very much alive.
For example, when I licked the floor clean with my tongue, it was
just then that the strongest feelings of vanity and pride rose up in
me. What a wonderful chap you are, I would think. What will power you
must have. You inflict such painful humiliations upon yourself. How
wonderful! I realized that by these absurd practises I was only
inflating myself with pride. The monastery is a sublime effort that
is doomed to fail. Why? Because the priest or monk takes his sinful
nature along with him into the cell.
MY ATTEMPT TO REACH GOD BY MYSTICISM
During the novitiate years, in addition to our
attempt to gain the victory over the body with its passions by means
of asceticism, we also applied ourselves to the practice of prayer.
This was called the cultivation of the spiritual, or inner, life. Its
purpose was to bring about an increasing intensity in our
uninterrupted contact with God, Jesus Christ and Mary. Our highest
goal was the attainment of true mysticism.
During my novitiate I never experienced this desired
mysticism. Consequently I thought the practice of prayer very
difficult. We were shown a few methods to pass the time of meditation
well. In the evenings, pious reflections on our Lord's passion
written by one author or another were read aloud to us. We were to
ask questions such as the following: Who is suffering? What does He
suffer? Why? For whom? The answers to these questions were intended
to induce acts of repentance of for our sins and acts of faith, hope,
and love, as we were to make up our minds to lead better lives.
Usually I was prompt with the answers to these
questions, and then my imagination wandered away out of the chapel.
Also, I thought the reflections of Roman Catholic authors upon
Christ's suffering quite poor. They were thoughts that had been
worked out by men who had colored and molded them in conformity to
their own emotional life. They never could hold my attention for
long.
One day in 1940 the idea occurred to me: Why not take
the Bible? In it you will not find the thoughts of men, but of God
Himself. Our monastic rules, however, required us to listen to what
was being read to us during meditations. We were not to read the
Bible on those occasions unless granted permission. That permission
was given me.
MY PROVISIONAL USE OF THE BIBLE
From that time everything became quite different.
Meditation no longer caused me mental fatigue as before. I began to
enjoy it; the very thought that I now had to do with the infallible
Word of God made me happy. I knew I entered holy ground. My
imagination would lovingly rejoice in the biblical text. I would turn
it about again and again, and tremble before the blazing fire of
God's presence in its sentences. And I would be profoundly moved by
the love of the Father Who bent over me in His words. I preferred
above all else to meditate on the story of the Passion. Every
sentence revealed something of the greatness of the suffering soul of
Jesus. He rose before me in His glory, His mercy, His purity, and His
peace.
Jesus was no longer a coldly intellectual idea, no
longer the effeminate and characterless doll at which for so long I
had been obliged to look in countless pictures. There was now a bond
between Him and me, between soul and soul -- 0h yes, between two
souls, but not yet between two persons. That was to be later on, when
I knew Jesus through the pure Gospel as my personal, perfect and only
Savior.
I HAD NO ASSURANCE OF SALVATION
What remains as the chief obstruction to this kind of
personal union is the doctrine of the possible forfeiture of grace.
While I was lost in the loving contemplation of the triune God, or of
Jesus Christ, the thought suddenly would assail me from another
quarter: But this same God, this same Jesus Christ, with Whom you now
know you are in the closest union, may perhaps one day reject you,
saying, "Get thee hence, damned soul, into the everlasting
fire!" To be sure, I knew this condemnation would be of my
deserving on account of my sins. And the very possibility of God and
myself hating each other eternally disturbed my pure relation to Him.
I TRY TO RELATE TO MARY
Another obstacle to perfect love of Christ is the
worship of Mary. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, devotion to
Mary is the best means for bringing about perseverance. A child of
Mary will never be lost. This assertion is repeated continually from
the pulpit. And the implication is that anyone who is not a true
child of Mary runs the great risk of being consigned to Hell.
In spite of all my efforts, I never succeeded in
developing great affection for Mary. To me, she remained a creature,
a woman, although exalted and ";blessed among women." But I
was unable to detect anything divine in her. I failed to place her in
my life. My prayers to her were always somewhat restrained. I could
not be silently immersed in her. Yet this failure on my part to
develop a profound devotion to Mary greatly troubled me.
When in my meditation I surrendered wholly to the
contemplation of Jesus Christ, it would suddenly occur to me that I
rarely prayed to Mary. I therefore feared that one-day I would be
separated forever from Jesus Christ. Then turning nervously to the
Mediatrix of all grace, I implored her to save me from eternal
damnation. And when I thought that I had paid enough attention to
her, I returned at once to Christ, to the Christ as He had revealed
Himself in the Holy Word of God.
Later I sought to discover something divine in Mary.
I thought I could find in her the eternal, passive, pristine basis of
things, and the feminine, receptive, productive principle manifest in
the entire creation, in contrast to the masculine, active and
creative principle. Thus I hoped to establish a kind of mystic bond
with her which might facilitate my prayer to her. But this search led
me into a sea of paganism.
MY BIGGEST PROBLEM:
ROME'S CLAIM TO HAVE THE
FINAL WORD
Another stumbling block to perfect communion with
Christ was the doctrine declaring that the pronouncements of the
Roman Catholic Church are the highest and the ultimate source of the
knowledge of God's revelation. Whichever way one views it, this
doctrine reduces the Bible to a second-rate book in Roman Catholic
eyes. No papal admonitions to believers to read their Bibles often
can alter that fact. A Roman Catholic, therefore, never can devote
himself fully to meditating upon the Bible. The deeper meanings of
the divine Word, which he is convinced he must infer from it, are
always surrounded by a multitude of questions. If the Church has made
some pronouncements on the matter, the Catholic must relinquish his
own conviction as to what the Scriptures say and conform to the view
of the Church. It would be more consistent, therefore, with the
Church's position if the pronouncements of Popes and councils were
given to Roman Catholic people for more careful consideration. But
this would create a problem in that these pronouncements are often
very abstract and scholarly. They cannot bear comparison with the
living Word of God. They embody a dry, doctrinal scheme. Besides,
though such pronouncements are held to be infallible, they are not
the Word of God Himself, even according to Rome.
They remain human utterances, although Rome claims
that through the Holy Spirit, they contain no error! The result is
that these pronouncements lack the direct appeal that the Bible has.
It is not God Who speaks to man directly in them. They remain merely
the interpretation of the divine Word, even in Rome's eyes.
THE BIBLE IN THE SHADOW OF ROME.
Thus the Roman Catholic Church labors under the
ambiguity of a Bible that cannot give any certainty and the
pronouncements of the Church which lack life. It exhorts its members
to read the Bible, though such reading can lead to nothing. The Bible
never can have the central and prominent position which it has with
Biblical Christians. Sustained propaganda may be conducive to a
temporary revival of Bible reading among Roman Catholics, but in the
long run it will subside. Who will continue to read a second-rate
book which cannot give absolute certainty, and do so day after day
and year after year? Besides, it is a book that brings along with it
the risk of doubting the doctrines of one's own Church, which doubt
amounts to a capital sin and might spell eternal damnation.
All these difficulties were met and overcome by the
Biblical doctrines of salvation by "grace only" through
"faith only" on the authority of the "Bible only"--the
teaching of the Reformation. This is the reason that the Reformed
doctrine is excellently suited to make possible the genuine revival
of the soul of man. Man is saved through faith only -- faith in Jesus
Christ as his Savior.
TRUE SPIRITUAL UNION
Union with God is in its essence dependence on the
Totally-Other; it is an interpersonal relationship. Nature based
search cannot be true union, even though it experiences the
Totally-Other behind the changing phenomena. A naturalist perceives
something of the beautiful divine garment, and may point out God's
footprints in the creation. He may attain to a certain kind of
ecstasy, an exodus from the narrow limits of his little self. He may
break through the oppressive earthly forms and enter the realm of the
incorruptible behind the form of this world. Panoramas of goodness,
truth and beauty may be disclosed to him. But he cannot grasp the
essence of true union, namely the personal bond with God, even though
theoretically he makes confession of the existence of a personal God,
the Creator of the universe, who is not to be identified with it but
remains apart from it. A naturalist has no experience of true
communion with God. There is the question of an absolute bond with
the living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
True union is not merely a feeling of dependence on
the creator; it also implies a sense of dependence on the grace of
God. Thus the ring of union with God is made whole. In the awareness
of one's creatureliness, his arms reach out to Heaven, his soul
yearns for the multicolored light of God, it kneels down in adoration
and worship of the majesty of the Eternal, the Limitless; it
experiences the innate urge towards the Eternal, the Timeless. But it
does not feel the embracing arms of the Father. Sooner or later it is
bound to feel at least an uneasy flutter of the heart as it senses
the vacuum below. Then the soul has an inkling of the gaping darkness
beneath.
A human being with this creaturely awareness may long
be ignorant of any feeling of sinfulness. This ignorance is due to
his failure to realize that the light playing about his soul is only
the reflection of the Divine Light. It is God's robe shimmering over
his soul. The doctrine of "faith only," however, gives the
soul perfect peace, upwards as well as downwards. According to this
doctrine, man's salvation is faith --exclusively based on Jesus
Christ in His propitiatory death and in His resurrection from the
dead. Trust in Jesus is thus a question of to be or not to be.
TO BE OR NOT TO BE
My reliance on Him is my salvation. That is the
reason that this faith seizes hold of my deepest being. It is
something of my most intimate self. It is the predominant attitude in
the whole of my existence, stirring energies within me, straining my
whole person in its exclusive direction toward Jesus. Yet this
straining is nothing painful, for my faith turns to the merciful love
of Jesus and is comforted. Also, the downward doubt is cut off, for
it is not my faith in the sincerity of my faith that saved me, but my
faith in Jesus. Thus it is as though the soul were torn away from
itself. It cannot fail to transcend its own being and linger in the
loving contemplation of its Savior. This faith leads one to practise
true mysticism; spiritual union with God.
"Grace only" -- man is saved by grace
alone. He cannot earn heaven. It is God's faithfulness that saves
him. "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John
10:28). By these promises of the Savior, man knows he is perfectly
safe in the arms of the Good Shepherd. He knows he will never fall
away from the grace of God. God Himself takes our perseverance in
hand. God will never relinquish the work of His own hands. There is
no longer anything to disturb love; no fear of hell can darken its
glow or extinguish its light.
"The Bible only" -- only the Bible is the
record of the revelation of God. Here is God's revelation of Himself
to man in black and white for him to scrutinize at will. It is the
pure gift of God to man in search of God.
TRUTH THAT SETS YOU FREE
No longer may human traditions make claims upon man.
It is true, in the communion of the saints -- and this is also valid
for the Church, which is the communion of the saints in divine
service and has been so through the centuries -- a believer may find
a great many things that will lead him to a deeper understanding of
the Word of God. But the Scriptures will always remain the final
court of appeal and the ultimate test of the truth of any doctrine.
Therefore, the believer pores over the Bible and listens to its
message, praying for the illumination of the Spirit, and there the
living God speaks to him and fills his soul with reverence, goodness,
and joy.
MY PROMOTION AND DOUBTS
After seven years as a priest I was promoted to be
Professor in Philosophy in a Roman Catholic Seminary in Brazil.
However, serious doubts had already begun to assail me.
What did I do when such doubts arose? I never
entertained them voluntarily. I refused to consider the notion that
the doctrine of my Church actually might be wrong. Had I for one
moment accepted the real possibility of error in the doctrine of my
Church, I would at that moment have been guilty of mortal sin,
according to the teaching of Rome.
This absolute prohibition against doubting or
questioning the doctrine of the Roman Church is the source of her
great strength. Protestants wonder how it is possible for Roman
Catholic scholars to study the Scriptures without discovering the
pure Gospel. The answer lies in the simple fact that the mind of the
Roman Catholic is not free; it is ever under the threat of fire
unquenchable should it deviate from Rome. The very instant he even
considers as a genuine possibility the idea that the Reformation view
of the Bible might be correct, the abyss of rejection opens at his
feet. The Roman Catholic is sure that God is ready to speak the
words: "Depart from me, ye cursed!"
More than once we were told that we need not be
afraid when such doubts assailed our souls. I often discussed them
with my spiritual adviser, but his unhesitating advice was
invariably, "Your doubts are no reason for you to give up your
priestly idea." According to Roman Catholic doctrine, each time
one overcomes a doubt, he earns a higher station in heaven. We were
advised to say a short prayer in such cases, and to try to think of
something else. Later on when the doubt had subsided, we would be
able to make a study of the question. But the supposition that
Protestantism might be right could come only from the devil we were
taught.
THOMASTIC DOUBTS ALLOWED
I have stated that we were forbidden to hold any real
doubts about the doctrine of the Church. But it was permissible to
have a methodological doubt. Such a doubt was often indulged for
didactic purposes. Thomas Aquinas makes a systematic use of it in his
Summa Theologica. It consists of positing the correctness of the
opposite view for the time being, in order to understand it better
and afterwards to refute it more effectively. The same method also is
applied to discussions with non-Catholics. A Roman Catholic may
pretend to believe that his opponent could be right, but that such an
admission might be genuine is really impossible.
MY PRIESTLY DUTIES INCREASE DOUBTS
As a priest, the first power given me was the daily
celebration of the Mass. While I was whispering, according to Rome,
the holy words of consecration, the substances of bread and wine
would change into the Body and Blood of the Lord -- a daily miracle
at my hands! This doctrine of transubstantiation never fascinated me.
I felt a certain reluctance to kneel before those external elements.
Something in me refused to offer prayers to the Host. A God localized
by the forms of bread and wine was against the grain of my deepest
religious sentiments. I felt it difficult to lift up my soul to a God
Who appeared to me in those dead things. I could not really discover
the splendor of the glorified Savior in the Host that I was eating.
Roman Catholic authors are also aware of this
difficulty. They never mention "Jesus who is in my stomach,"
but speak of "Jesus who rests on my heart." Involuntarily
they change over in some way to a spiritualization of the formula:
"This IS my body!"
And indeed, what is the point in transubstantiation?
What use is it to me if Jesus ultimately lands in my stomach in the
shape of bread and wine? The truly great thing is my living communion
with the Savior. What good is a bodily presence in those forms? They
only divert my attention from the glorious shape of my Redeemer.
Jesus appears to me through His Word and Spirit. I rest on Him as He
reveals Himself in His Gospel.
PHYSICAL PRESENCE?
The doctrine of the magical presence after
transubstantiation only frightened me. I felt as if I were standing
before a fire which seared me, not a glow that warmed me. There was
no question of love. This was why I did not know what to say to Him.
I struggled on to the obligatory thanksgiving. I became terrified by
all the diversions assailing my imagination. Afterward there often
remained a sense of frightening emptiness. Another difficulty for me
was the involved character of the theory of transubstantiation.
According to Rome, it is not really Jesus who descends body and soul
onto the altar. Jesus remains in heaven. The substances of bread and
wine change into the substances of the Body and the Blood of Christ.
I found great difficulty in addressing Jesus in this reasoned
presence. I felt it to be a hindrance when I wanted to turn to Him,
for there is not much left of a real physical presence in this way.
SPIRITUAL PRESENCE
Most Protestant theologians teach Jesus' real
presence in the Lord's Supper, but they conceive of it in a spiritual
way. They do not try to unravel the mystery with cold reason. They
are nonetheless certain that Jesus is with us in that supper in order
to assure us of His eternal faithfulness and love by means of the
signs and seals of bread and wine. Therefore, His holy supper does
not frighten by the pure presence of the divine majesty; rather it
fills one with a supra-mundane peace.
MY SECOND POWER, MORE DOUBTS
My second important function as a priest was in the
administration of the sacrament of confession. Confession holds a
very important place in the structure of Rome's power. To Rome it is
a strategic basis of the highest importance. It emphasizes the
subjection of the layman to the clergy. In the confessional, the
priest is sitting in his judgment seat. The penitent is confessing
his weaknesses. He divulges secrets that he would not reveal to
anyone else. And it depends upon the priest as to whether or not the
penitent will be absolved from his sins. The priest decides for him
between heaven and hell.
I will not speak here about the Biblical grounds the
Roman Catholic Church adduces in defense of the practise of auricular
confession. I would only ask: Is this the "glorious liberty of
the children of God?" Is this the blissful salvation of which
the Bible speaks in its rapturous praise? Is this the peace
proclaimed above Bethlehem? Is there anything here of the picture of
the Good Shepherd Who goes to seek the lost sheep in the wilderness
and carries it on His shoulders back to the fold? Are not the sheep
rather kicked along the path of auricular confession to the so-called
sheepfold with the threat of eternal death?
TRUE CONFESSION TO GOD
It is good indeed for a believer who is oppressed by
the load of his guilt to seek to confess his sins to God. And there
is something fine in his confessing them also to a reliable human
being. It may have an elevating effect, and it may comfort him. A man
may be so broken-hearted on account of a particular sin that he can
hardly believe that his sins have been forgiven. He knows indeed that
according to the Bible, there are no limits to the forgiving mercy of
Jesus. But it may fortify him when a fellow-believer, a minister or
another Christian, affirms this truth explicitly and in a very
personal way: "It is for your sins, too, that Christ died."
But this is quite a different kind of confession and absolution from
that taught by the Roman Catholic Church. I rarely heard anyone in
the confessional who had come because he was urged by the need to
accuse himself. The great majority came because they had to come. It
was a troublesome job which they must tackle if they wanted to escape
hell.
I AM PRESSED BY TRUTH
At various times I read the Bible and asked myself,
"Is my Church really in accord with this book?" In the
Bible it is clearly stated that the only mediator between God and man
is Jesus Christ, who took away the punishment of sin on Calvary's
Cross. My Church, however, taught that there were several mediators,
especially Mary, the "Mediatrix of all grace." I also began
to doubt that God had given to the Pope infallible authority and
power to interpret the Bible and that it was the duty of every
Christian to accept the Pope's view. Could it be right that the Pope
had absolute authority to overrule and restate the plain words of the
Bible?
Since it is especially through fear that one's mind
is paralyzed and one's thoughts are blurred, how can the intellect
work properly if, behind it, there is the threat of deadly sin and
hell and if the flames of eternal reprobation force one to a
particular conclusion? Critically speaking, the conclusions of an
understanding that is forced to operate in such a way are manifestly
unreliable. Do what I would, I could not attain to any degree of
certainty about Roman Catholic doctrine. At best, I could grant the
probability of its truth, but nothing more. I should be lying to
myself were I to assert anything beyond that. My subconscious now
could no longer succeed in projecting an irrational conviction upon
my intellectual uncertainty. I had observed too long the workings of
the subconscious. I knew that my conscience would always reproach me
with being guilty of self-deceit. And, holding such a view, I could
no longer be called a Roman Catholic. The doctrine of my own Church
drove me out.
In our textbook, Theologia Maralis, by Aertnijs
Damen, XII, No. 323, I had read that a man who obstinately holds that
the truths of the faith are doubtful is a downright heretic and,
therefore, has lost his faith. In accordance with the adage, "Dubius
in fide, infidelis est" (Anyone who doubts his faith is an
infidel), I was no longer a Roman Catholic believer. I could only
assert doggedly that the Church's arguments for the existence of
God's revelation could establish nothing more than a probability.
This doggedness did not spring from any rebellious disposition on my
part, nor from pride. It was simply a matter of sincerity towards
myself. I was confronted with the choice between two ways of life: I
could remain a Roman Catholic and go through life as a liar; or I
could remain true to my profoundest insights and leave the Church. I
chose the latter course. With Luther, I could but say: "Here I
stand; I cannot do otherwise."
SAND NOT ROCK WAS WHERE I HAD STOOD
It was a terrible moment when, in all sincerity, I
felt obliged to refuse to submit my mind to the doctrinal
pronouncements of Rome. Until then, the Roman Catholic Church had
been my support, the rock on which I had built my convictions. Now I
saw that I had built my house on sand. The waves of honest
self-analysis had washed away the sand from under its foundations,
the house collapsed, and I was carried along by the flood of despair.
Nowhere could I find a support on which to lean. Alone I had to push
my way through the undergrowth of many views of life.
With such doubts in my heart I could obviously not
remain a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. For me, the living
death of the monastery came to an end. I left the life of semblances
and shadows for a world of fascinating reality in which I was free to
breathe at last. I surrendered my office as professor and left the
Roman Catholic Chu