Dispositivos de calentamiento

Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, and Jude 20-21? How someone could refer to such verses as requiring a “trinity” is beyond comprehension. Do any of these verses say “God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being”, or “God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same” etc.?. Just because the words “God,” “Jesus,” and “Holy Ghost” appear in one verse does not mean this verse requires a “trinity”, or “merging of three into one.” Even if this verse also contains the word “one” this still does not necessarily require a “trinity.” For example, if I say “Joe, Jim, and

Frank speak one language” this is not the same as saying “Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person.” Let us clarify this with examples:

1) Matthew 28:19:

If President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to “Go ye therefore, and

speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union,” does this require that these three are one physical entity? They may be

one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are merged into one physical entity. Also remember that the “Great Commission” as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, Bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous “correction” and “addition” to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were “inserted” into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says in his book For Christ’s sake (pp. 102): “All but the most conservative

of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later.”

2) I Corinthians 12:4-6:

If I were to say: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Santa Claus. There are

different kinds of service, but the same Government. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.” Do God, the U.S. Government and

Santa Claus now form another “trinity”? The same verse which moments ago required a merging of three gods into a “trinity” can now be understood without the need for a trinity. Is it impossible to receive “gifts,” “services,” and “works” except from ONE person? Once again, we see that it is necessary to spend a little more time actually

reading the verses in question in order to not read into them statements that are not there.

Why does everything have to be so abstract? If this is the true nature of God then why can’t the Bible just come out and say “God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are physically

joined in one being” or “God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same.” Is this

so very hard? Look at how much less space this would require. Look at how infinitely more clear and decisive that would be. Look at the clear cut decisiveness of Deuteronomy 4:39 “Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.” God does not philosophize and speak all the way around matters. He speaks clearly and in no uncertain terms so that there can be no doubt as to what He meant. If there was a trinity why would He not simply just come out and say so, just as clearly and decisively as He does when He speaks about his uniqueness? Think about it.

3) II Corinthians 13:14

If I say: “May the genius of Einstein, the philosophy of Freud, and the strength of

Schwarzenegger be with you all” does this require all three to be joined in a “trinity”?

Does it require that Einstein is Freud (or a different “side” of Freud)? Does it require that Freud is Schwarzenegger (or a different “side” of Schwarzenegger)?

4) Jude 20-21:

If a man on his death bed told his only son: “But you, dear son, build yourself up in

your strength and strive in good works. Keep yourself in my love as you wait for the fullness of time to guide you to manhood,” show us how these verses require a trinity. Go

back and apply this same logic to the original verse. Deuteronomy 4:39 requires the uniqueness of God. There are no two ways about it. It is very clear, decisive, and to the point. The explicit (and not the “hidden”) meaning is quite clear and direct. Show me just one verse of the Bible that is similarly decisive about the trinity. All of these verses require you to really strain the words and stretch their meaning to arrive at any merging of three into one.

With regard to your description of the trinity please read the analysis of the original sin and the redemption below.

An interesting point is that when people try to force a “trinity” upon a certain verse of the Bible they always do it with the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Why is that? Did the countless prophets of the Old Testament not know about the “trinity”? Did God not see fit to tell the Jews about the trinity? Think about it.

When someone speaks to someone else about a specific matter, they usually spend the majority of their time explaining the major issues and much less time on side-issues. For instance, if I wanted to give someone my favorite recipe for chicken parmesan I would spend most of my time speaking about the ingredients, their amounts, their order of combination, the amount of time needed to cook each one and so on. I would spend very

40 What did Jesus really say?

little time (comparatively) talking about how to set the table or what color bowl to serve it in. When comparing this observation to the Bible, we find that for a matter of such profound importance, the “trinity” is never mentioned in the Bible at all. Sound preposterous? Read on.

The verse most often quoted by almost every Christian around the world in defense of the “trinity” is the verse of 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse we were asking for. However, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later “insertion” of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version ...etc. Have unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his

“Emphatic Diaglott.” Mr. Wilson says: “This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it’s authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.” Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that they were added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Dr. Arius, and God’s people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a “trinity” therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God decided to “inspire” someone to insert this verse in order to “clarify” the “true” nature of God as being a “trinity.” Notice that mankind was being “inspired” as to how to “clarify” the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being “inspired” (see chapter two).

If these people were being “inspired” by God then why did they need to put these words into other people’s mouths. Why did they not just openly say “God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name”? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to “inspire” his “true” nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself? It was Sir Isaac Newton who made public this forged insertion: “Of all the manuscripts

now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the

placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza.” Gibbon, “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” IV, p. 418.

Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a “colt”?, or was it an “ass and a colt”? see point 42 in the table of chapter 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read: “And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.” Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the “trinity” which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. Which is more important to Christian faith, the “trinity” or the description of an ass?

Another verse quoted in defense of the “trinity” is the verse of John 1:1 : “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

1) First of all, these words are acknowledged be every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who claimed no divine inspiration for them, and who had written them long before John or Jesus (pbut) were born. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading “Logos”(“the word”): “Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept ...In

the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria.”

2) Internal evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read “A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely.” Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.”????? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The “disciple who Jesus loved” according to the church is John himself, but the author speaks of him as a different person. In other words, what we have here is a Gospel which someone wants us to think was written by the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him.

42 What did Jesus really say?

3) The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written.

4) C.J. Cadoux writes in “The life of Jesus”: “The speeches in the fourth Gospel (even

apart from the earlier messianic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said: Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters: the best ancient historians made a practice of composing and assigning such speeches this way.”

5) Even if we are to take this verse as authentic, then we must notice the following: In the “original” Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), the first occurrence of the word “God” is the Greek word “ ,” (Hotheos) which means “The God,” or “God” with a capital “G” to denote a proper noun. The second occurrence of the word “God” is the Greek “ ,” (Tontheos) meaning “a god,” or “god” (any god, not necessarily the almighty). So, if the translators were consistent in their translation, they would have written the above verse as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording). If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word is used to describe the devil, however, now the system has dishonestly been reversed: “(and the devil is) the god of this world.” According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the devil should also have been written as “God” with a capital “G.” If Paul was inspired to use the same word to describe the devil, then why should we change it? Why is this word translated as simply a “god” when referring to the devil, but translated as the almighty “God” when referring to a “word”? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the “translation” of the Bible took place?

The apologists always manage to conveniently side-step this issue by conveniently forgetting the Hotheos/Tontheos problem and never mentioning a valid explanation for why one word was translated two different ways in two different verses, but rather, they say “I don’t personally like the New World Translation of the Bible, thus, everything you say is wrong.” Even if you do not like the New World Translation, you still have not explained the selective translation! This is blind faith talking here.

One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called “original” manuscripts available today are written in Greek. The verses of John 1:1 is exactly equivalent to such verses as Psalms 82:6: “I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High”, or Exodus 7:1: “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh” The Jews had no trouble reading such verses while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages

and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church’s extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses. If I were an American, and I were to tell, for example, the citizens of China: “Hit the road men,” we would more than likely find countless people beating the street with sticks. Did they understand the words? Yes! Did they understand the meaning? No!

Mr. Tom Harpur says in the preface to his book: “The most significant development

since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title “Son of God” in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus...this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself.” For Christ’s Sake, pp. xii. (please read chapter 13 for more on the Dead Sea

Scrolls)

6) In the Qur’an we are told that when God almighty wills something he merely says to it “BE” and it is. This is the Islamic viewpoint of “The Word.” “The Word” is literally God’s utterance “BE.” This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read: “And the Word was made flesh”.

The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30 “I and my father are one.” This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage, starting with John 10:23, reads as follows:

John 10:23-30 “And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe