• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Is The Trinity A Lie ?

Yhwh is not grasped by most Jews, and hardly any gentiles. He is so much more, so much different that we are able to think. and as to 1 john 5:7
sorry. that's a poor translation. the Hebrew way of language, life and thinking is so different, and english just doesn't get it.
(the greek intrusion (way of thinking and life) was not beneficial, but very deceptive and harmful)
 
They were seeing YHVH Himself who became Moschiach...people often make the mistake of thinking that the God off the Old Testament which was seen and heard WAS/IS the Father...thats a mistake...for example in Isaiah 48

YHVH is speaking...He is the first and last, the one who spread out the heavens, who knows the end from bereshith and then in verse 16 and 17 declares..."Come ye near unto me, hear ye 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, hath sent me. Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go."

YHVH is sent and YHVH sends...the pre-Hebrew tradition culminated in the Targums defines this YHVH (who is sent) as "the Word of YHVH)...the Memra (John 1:1 the Logos in the Greek)...so we have only one YHVH but here is YHVH who sends, YHVH who is sent, and His Spirit...same in Zechariah 2 and other places...

Take Exodus 3...the being speaking to Moses is called "the Angel of the Lord" but identifies Himself as the I AM, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...He is seen and heard...but no one has seen the Father or ever heard His voice (unless Jesus lied)...the Son declares Him (that is makes Him manifest to us)...remember Micah 5:2,3 tells us His comings forth have been from everlasting...

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

" This prophecy is expressly referred to the Messiah by the Targumist, who renders, "Behold my servant the Messiah," etc., ha avdi mesheecha;" [quote esword]
 
Yhwh is not grasped by most Jews, and hardly any gentiles. He is so much more, so much different that we are able to think. and as to 1 john 5:7
sorry. that's a poor translation. the Hebrew way of language, life and thinking is so different, and english just doesn't get it.
(the greek intrusion (way of thinking and life) was not beneficial, but very deceptive and harmful)

I think John was quite deliberate in using the word 'logos' in John 1. Logos was used by the Greek philosophers and the Hellenistic Jews, ie. Philo.
John takes this word and stretches it beyond what they imagined it to be.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html
 
Last edited:
The don't bite his tongue Pastor Gino Jennings answers questions about the lie of angels having sex with women in Genesis 6. He talks about the Trinity, he also talks about Genesis 1:26 the plural word Our. He also talks about Easter & Christmas he also talks about the image of Jesus that people has on the walls in their houses, and much much more.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:10

One scripture from the OT and one from the NT, that can not be denied.

This is how you learn, by taking heed according to the whole counsel of scripture.


Jesus Christ is Lord!

Jesus Christ is YHWH!


JLB
 
I think John was quite deliberate in using the word 'logos' in John 1. Logos was used by the Greek philosophers and the Hellenistic Jews, ie. Philo.
John takes this word and stretches it beyond what they imagined it to be.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html

I don't know if there is a connection to what I said, or what 1 john and john 1 have together or different if you're referring to something such.
 
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:10

One scripture from the OT and one from the NT, that can not be denied.

This is how you learn, by taking heed according to the whole counsel of scripture.


Jesus Christ is Lord!

Jesus Christ is YHWH!


JLB

From my personal study of 1 Tim. 3:16:
1 Tim. 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh”)

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.”

Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he(NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who(ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”). Why do many of the best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC orὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for thetasigmawith a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts – though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved the true reading.” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς[or ΘC, “who” - masc.] or [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:

“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

And even NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.
 
Last edited:
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:10

One scripture from the OT and one from the NT, that can not be denied.

This is how you learn, by taking heed according to the whole counsel of scripture.


Jesus Christ is Lord!

Jesus Christ is YHWH!


JLB
..................................

From my personal study of Zech. 12:10:

Zechariah 12:10

YHWH speaks:

“...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son” - Zech. 12:10, KJV; cf. NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, ASV, AB, KJIIV, ETRV, Douay, Beck, Rotherham, Lamsa.

This is interpreted by many trinitarians as meaning that Jehovah is Jesus since Jesus was “pierced” by the Jews.

Unfortunately for this interpretation even many trinitarian translations disagree:

“...when they look upon him whom they have pierced” - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering are NRSV; GNB; CEV; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10: “According to some MSS. [manuscripts], ‘him’.” Also see Rotherham footnote.)

Even the context tells us that the latter rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him) God continues with “they shall mourn for HIM”! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The “me” in the first half simply does not agree with the “him” of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word “him” in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as “him” (or “the one”).

The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers') confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10 ("him"). Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as "him whom they pierced"! This is especially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians themselves claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn't quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the `look upon me' translation originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)! Included in those very early Christian writers' quotes of Zech. 12:10 is Justin Martyr I. Apol., i. 77, who also quotes it as it is found in John. The OT Greek Septuagint uses "me" (in existing copies, at least - 4th century A.D. and later), but it is significantly different from the Hebrew text: "They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved [friend], and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn [son]." - Zech. 12:10, Septuagint, Zondervan, 1976 printing. In other words: (1) they will look upon God whom they have mocked [not "pierced"] as their judgment arrives and (2) they will mourn Christ. The two are not the same person here, nor the same God! According to The Expositor's Greek Testament, : John's translation of Zech. 12:10 is the correct one. "The same rendering is adopted in the Greek [OT] versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus" - vol. 1, p. 860.

“The [Hebrew] text of Zech. 12:10 is corrupt. The [Greek] LXX text reads: ... (‘they shall look upon me whom they have treated spitefully’) .... The text in [Jn 19:37] does not follow the LXX; but it has also avoided the impossible [‘me’] of the Hebrew text.” - p. 195, John 2, Ernst Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar says:

“138. The relative Pronoun.... (2) Not depending on a governing substantive, but itself expressing a substantial idea. Clauses introduced in this way may be called independent relative clauses. This use of [asher] is generally rendered in English by ‘he who,’ ‘he whom,’ &c.... In Z[echariah] 12:10 also, instead of the unintelligible [‘elai eth asher,’ ‘to me whom’], we should probably read [‘el asher,’ ‘to him whom’], and refer this passage to this class [of 'independent relative clauses'].” - pp. 444, 445, 446.

And noted trinitarian scholar Dr. F. F. Bruce tells us:

“But in John 19:37 the piercing is interpreted of the piercing of Christ's side with a soldier's lance after His death on the cross, and here Zech. 12:10 is expressly quoted: ‘And again another scripture says, “They shall look on him whom they have pierced”.’ It is a reasonable inference that this is the form in which the Evangelist knew the passage, and, indeed, the reading ‘him’ instead of ‘me’ appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The R.S.V. thus has New Testament authority for its rendering of Zech.12:10 , ‘And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him 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 first-born.’ Why then is the R.S.V. criticized for conforming to the New Testament here? Because, if the reading ‘me’ be retained, the reference would be to the speaker, who is God, and in view of the application of the passage in the New Testament, there are some who see here an anticipation of the Christian doctrine of our Lord's divine nature. The reading ‘me’ is certainly quite early, for it appears in the Septuagint (which otherwise misses the point of the passage); but the New Testament seems to attach no significance to Zech. 12:10 as providing evidence for the deity of Christ.... And, whoever the pierced one is, the fact that he is referred to elsewhere in the verse in the third person (‘they shall mourn for him....and weep bitterly over him’) suggests that he is Yahweh's representative (probably the anointed king), in whose piercing Yahweh Himself is [figuratively] pierced.” - History of the Bible in English, pages 199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979, third edition. [Emphasis mine – RDB (T2)]

The JPS translation in Tanakh (NJV) also reveals that the text of Zech 12:10 is corrupt. The NJV (New Jewish Version or Tanakh published by the Jewish Publication Society) is highly praised for its accuracy by noted trinitarian Bible scholars Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht in their popular book So Many Versions? which analyzes and critiques modern Bibles:

“The NJV is a monument to careful scholarship .... It ranks as one of the best translations of the Hebrew Bible [the Old Testament] available.” - p. 143, So Many Versions, Zondervan Publ..

A footnote in the Tanakh says that the Hebrew sometimes rendered “when they look upon” is uncertain. Although it also uses the pronoun “me,” it renders Zech 12:10,

“they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born.” - Jewish Publication Society, 1985.

But most important of all is John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as “They shall look upon him [or ‘the one’] whom they pierced.” So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: “They shall look upon him (not ‘me’).” Therefore, Jehovah is speaking in Zech. 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!
 
Last edited:
..................................

From my personal study of Zech. 12:10:

Zechariah 12:10

YHWH speaks:

“...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son” - Zech. 12:10, KJV; cf. NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, ASV, AB, KJIIV, ETRV, Douay, Beck, Rotherham, Lamsa.

This is interpreted by many trinitarians as meaning that Jehovah is Jesus since Jesus was “pierced” by the Jews.

Unfortunately for this interpretation even many trinitarian translations disagree:

“...when they look upon him whom they have pierced” - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering are NRSV; GNB; CEV; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10: “According to some MSS. [manuscripts], ‘him’.” Also see Rotherham footnote.)

Even the context tells us that the latter rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him) God continues with “they shall mourn for HIM”! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The “me” in the first half simply does not agree with the “him” of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word “him” in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as “him” (or “the one”).

The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers') confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10 ("him"). Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as "him whom they pierced"! This is especially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians themselves claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn't quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the `look upon me' translation originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)! Included in those very early Christian writers' quotes of Zech. 12:10 is Justin Martyr I. Apol., i. 77, who also quotes it as it is found in John. The OT Greek Septuagint uses "me" (in existing copies, at least - 4th century A.D. and later), but it is significantly different from the Hebrew text: "They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved [friend], and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn [son]." - Zech. 12:10, Septuagint, Zondervan, 1976 printing. In other words: (1) they will look upon God whom they have mocked [not "pierced"] as their judgment arrives and (2) they will mourn Christ. The two are not the same person here, nor the same God! According to The Expositor's Greek Testament, : John's translation of Zech. 12:10 is the correct one. "The same rendering is adopted in the Greek [OT] versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus" - vol. 1, p. 860.

“The [Hebrew] text of Zech. 12:10 is corrupt. The [Greek] LXX text reads: ... (‘they shall look upon me whom they have treated spitefully’) .... The text in [Jn 19:37] does not follow the LXX; but it has also avoided the impossible [‘me’] of the Hebrew text.” - p. 195, John 2, Ernst Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar says:

“138. The relative Pronoun.... (2) Not depending on a governing substantive, but itself expressing a substantial idea. Clauses introduced in this way may be called independent relative clauses. This use of [asher] is generally rendered in English by ‘he who,’ ‘he whom,’ &c.... In Z[echariah] 12:10 also, instead of the unintelligible [‘elai eth asher,’ ‘to me whom’], we should probably read [‘el asher,’ ‘to him whom’], and refer this passage to this class [of 'independent relative clauses'].” - pp. 444, 445, 446.

And noted trinitarian scholar Dr. F. F. Bruce tells us:

“But in John 19:37 the piercing is interpreted of the piercing of Christ's side with a soldier's lance after His death on the cross, and here Zech. 12:10 is expressly quoted: ‘And again another scripture says, “They shall look on him whom they have pierced”.’ It is a reasonable inference that this is the form in which the Evangelist knew the passage, and, indeed, the reading ‘him’ instead of ‘me’ appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The R.S.V. thus has New Testament authority for its rendering of Zech.12:10 , ‘And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him 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 first-born.’ Why then is the R.S.V. criticized for conforming to the New Testament here? Because, if the reading ‘me’ be retained, the reference would be to the speaker, who is God, and in view of the application of the passage in the New Testament, there are some who see here an anticipation of the Christian doctrine of our Lord's divine nature. The reading ‘me’ is certainly quite early, for it appears in the Septuagint (which otherwise misses the point of the passage); but the New Testament seems to attach no significance to Zech. 12:10 as providing evidence for the deity of Christ.... And, whoever the pierced one is, the fact that he is referred to elsewhere in the verse in the third person (‘they shall mourn for him....and weep bitterly over him’) suggests that he is Yahweh's representative (probably the anointed king), in whose piercing Yahweh Himself is [figuratively] pierced.” - History of the Bible in English, pages 199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979, third edition. [Emphasis mine – RDB]

The JPS translation in Tanakh (NJV) also reveals that the text of Zech 12:10 is corrupt. The NJV (New Jewish Version or Tanakh published by the Jewish Publication Society) is highly praised for its accuracy by noted trinitarian Bible scholars Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht in their popular book So Many Versions? which analyzes and critiques modern Bibles:

“The NJV is a monument to careful scholarship .... It ranks as one of the best translations of the Hebrew Bible [the Old Testament] available.” - p. 143, SMV, Zondervan Publ..

A footnote in the Tanakh says that the Hebrew sometimes rendered “when they look upon” is uncertain. Although it also uses the pronoun “me,” it renders Zech 12:10,

“they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born.” - Jewish Publication Society, 1985.

But most important of all is John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as “They shall look upon him [or ‘the one’] whom they pierced.” So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: “They shall look upon him (not ‘me’).” Therefore, Jehovah is speaking in Zech. 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!


YHWH please, not Jehovah!

The Tetragrammaton is the 4 letters. YHWH

Adding some letters to this to come up with Jehovah is not recommended.

  • There are no "J"'s in Hebrew, so "Jehovah" is not a Hebrew word.
  • Jehovah is a compound word.
Yah - Strong's Number: 03050 - Shortened form for LORD

Hovah - Strong's Number: 01943 -
Definition
  1. ruin, disaster

Jesus is YHWH!
 
From my personal study of 1 Tim. 3:16:
1 Tim. 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh”)

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.”

Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he(NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who(ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”). Why do many of the best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC orὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for thetasigmawith a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts – though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved the true reading.” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς[or ΘC, “who” - masc.] or [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:

“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

And even NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.


When Comparing scripture with scripture such as -

God was manifested in the flesh 1 Timothy 3:16

and

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, And the Word became flesh... John 1:1,14

There is perfect harmony and agreement.


Your personal study seems to lack comparing scripture with scripture, and seems to focus more on "mans" interpretation and commentary.



JLB
 
I did not watch that video Lewis. I don't have too. The truth is plain in scripture.

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./(KJV)

Any other questions? :)

With very little effort one can find that this verse in the KJV is spurious! Most Bible translations omit it. Most recognized Trinitarian scholars reject it on the grounds that it simply is not in the ancient manuscripts nor in the writings of the early Church fathers.
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8
 
I think John was quite deliberate in using the word 'logos' in John 1. Logos was used by the Greek philosophers and the Hellenistic Jews, ie. Philo.
John takes this word and stretches it beyond what they imagined it to be.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html

I agree. I think his usage is more closely aligned with the Tarumim's concept of "The Memra" (google it)
 
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

tob
 
When Comparing scripture with scripture such as -

God was manifested in the flesh 1 Timothy 3:16

and

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, And the Word became flesh... John 1:1,14

There is perfect harmony and agreement.


Your personal study seems to lack comparing scripture with scripture, and seems to focus more on "mans" interpretation and commentary.



JLB

I agree since it is infact inferred or quoted also in Ignatius, Hippolytus, Didymus the blond, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and more...and also it has been said by Burgeon and agreed with by Ruckman that "The extant cursive copies of Paul's letters number 300, of which 254 (designated "Paul 1" to "Paul 301") contain 1 Tim. 3:16. Of these, no less than 252 read "God," in agreement with this passage. (The two exceptions, which have already been discussed, are "Paul 17" and "Paul 73," of which the latter is a doubtful witness.) Added to this favourable testimony are 29 out of 32 Lectionary copies from the Eastern Church, reaching back to earliest times t.e. before Aleph, which support the reading "God." And that was known in the late 19th century when Westcott and Hort contrived their eclectic hodge-podge, mixing and matching, and filling in with their own obscure word choices from the two discarded and most heavily edited 4th century texts which are in horrid disagreement from one another...

So actually modern Critical Scholars sort of tell a lie, believing most will just accept their "best uncials" claim without doing their research. There is actually much evidence (earlier evidence) for the Theos reading
 
nobody understands the YHWH fully, when you think you are that knowledgable, check you heart. the Infinite is beyond us.
 
Correction...in the shema'Yitsrael the singular Eloheinu is used along with YHVH (changed to Adonai by the Masoretes in 900 A.D.)...so it transliterates Yisrael, YHVH Eloheinu, ha'YHVH echad...

Is not echad more of a unity of pluralities as opposed to yachid (numerically one)?
the jews today don't say that.
 
the jews today don't say that.

I know Jasonc but what does God's word say? I only brought up that point because "Elohim" is not used in the shema...the question about
"echad" verses "yachid" was a side note (but if open to pluralities this is relevant to our discussion)...

This was of such concern to Rabbinical Jewish people early on. So much so that Maimonides changed every instance of "echad" to "yachid" in his 13 Principles...Why?

Do you get the point I am trying to make? I am not puffed up in knowledge I am sharing a defense of this Trinitarian view...

In His love

brother Paul
 
nobody understands the YHWH fully, when you think you are that knowledgable, check you heart. the Infinite is beyond us.


I think we all agree with this.


JLB
 
Amen...we can only be ever grateful for the degree to which He has revealed Himself and His will for us through Messiah Jesus and His word...blessed be the name of YHVH (the LORD)
 
I know Jasonc but what does God's word say? I only brought up that point because "Elohim" is not used in the shema...the question about
"echad" verses "yachid" was a side note (but if open to pluralities this is relevant to our discussion)...

This was of such concern to Rabbinical Jewish people early on. So much so that Maimonides changed every instance of "echad" to "yachid" in his 13 Principles...Why?

Do you get the point I am trying to make? I am not puffed up in knowledge I am sharing a defense of this Trinitarian view...

In His love

brothert Paul
if a word is plural,and the Masoretic text were written by jews who were kabballistic go figure, why is it translated as singular? if all three of the godhead were to stand before us. would it be God or Gods? we say god has three persons. so why not? that is the point. three as one. the echad being in that act in unison. jesus answered the apostles and said. if you have seen me you have seen the father. why would it matter to see the Father or the Holy spirit?they act the in unison. the apostle paul said jesus was all of the godhead in bodily form.

you tied in the targum of the midrash/mishna where john used it to link and define what jesus was and where he was.
 
that is the point. three as one.

No! The point is One as three!

Godhead is the Greek word meaning "Deity" and actually has nothing to do with the plurality of personae...He is the fulness of the deity dwelling bodily...also see John 1 "and He dwelt among us" (Dwelt is skeenoo...tabernacled)...the glory of the Father...

Now the word elohim is also used with plural personal pronouns when referring to angels or humans (it is written you are gods)...but refers to YHVH when it is written with singular personal pronouns.

So Elohim (a plural), created man (mankind, a plural) in His (singular) own image, in the image (singular) of Elohim (plural) created He (singular) him, (singular generic), male and female (plural) created He (singular) them (plural).“ (parenthesis mine)

This is not confusing if the nature of the one and only God is also a unity of personae but if not then it is...

Rabbi Simeon commenting on Deuteronomy 6:4 asks, “Why is there a need of mentioning the Name of God three times in this verse?” Then he answers his own query for us when he says, “The first Lord is the Father above. The second is the stem of Jesse, the Messiah Who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And the third is the Way below (meaning the Holy Spirit Who comes and shows us the way on earth) and these three are one.” (parenthesis mine)


Rabbi Nassi, much later though considered a sage by most Rabbinical Scholars, writing on Rosh HaShannah says, “…the three-fold sound of the ram’s horn which is sounded on Rosh HaShannah is an emblem of the three-fold nature of God.”

Though the word “trinity” never literally appears in scripture, the scripture makes it clear from the beginning, that the one (yachid) God is the Father, the Word, and the Spirit they are all the one God (echad), who’s Holy Name is constructed of three Hebrew characters, one being doubled, representing the dual nature of the Son, who tells Moses, His servant, whose name is also composed of three letters, that His name is Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, a threefold name, and refers to Himself as a plural again in both Genesis 3:22 and 11:7.


In Genesis 19:24 we see YHVH, (the Targumim call this person of YHVH “the Word“ or the Memra in the Hebrew/Aramaic), here on earth in the form of a man, and He is sitting in the tent of Abraham breaking bread, and this YHVH sends forth the two angels that are with Him (who also came in the forms of men), to rain fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, from YHVH who is in heaven! What? Are there two YHVH’s? God forbid! Yet YHVH manifest on earth sends the angels while YHVH rains down the fire and brimstone. All throughout the Torah we see this truth of this Unity of the Godhead revealed.

In Exodus 3, as pointed out earlier, the Angel of the Lord, calls Himself “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”, from amidst the burning bush, thus He is also YHVH Himself manifest (the Word), and then Moses goes forth filled with the Spirit of God! If He were not the "I Am that I Am" then the Angel of the LORD is a blasphemous liar...but He is not...He is YHVH. Do you agree?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top