The virgin goddess motif is prevalent in the ancient world because it is astrotheological, representing not only the moon but also the earth, Venus, Virgo and the dawn. As the Roman poet Virgil described or "prophesied" in his Eclogues in 37 bce, the "return of the virgin," i.e., Virgo would, along with other astrotheological events, bring about "a new breed of men sent down from heaven," as well as the birth of a boy "in whomthe golden race [shall] arise."
The virgin-born "golden boy" is the sun. As Hackwood states:
The Virgin Mary is called not only the Mother of God, but the Queen of Heaven. This connects her directly withastronomic lore. The ornamentation of many continental churches often includes a representation of the Sun and Moon "in conjunction," the Moon being therein emblematical of the Virgin and Child.
As the Moon is the symbol of Mary, Queen of Heaven, so also a bright Star sometimes symbolizes him whose star was seen over Jerusalem by the Wise Men from the East.
Regarding the astrotheological nature of the gospel story, including the virgin birth/immaculate conception, the famous Christian theologian and saint Albertus Magnus, or Albert the Great, (1193?-1280) admitted:
"We know that the sign of the celestial Virgin did come to the horizon at the moment where we have fixed the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. All the mysteries of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ; and all the circumstances of his marvellous life, from his conception to his ascension, are to be traced out in the constellations, and are figured in the stars."
"The goddesses have stories to tell. One such story—far too long ignored—is that, in their original, unadulterated form, they were parthenogenetic. The wordparthenogenesis comes from the Greek parthenos, 'virgin' more or less, andgignesthai, 'to be born.' It means, essentially, to be born of a virgin—that is, without the participation of a male. For a goddess to be 'parthenogenetic' thus means that she stands as a primordial creatrix, who requires no male partner to produce the cosmos, earth, life, matter and even other gods out of her own essence. Plentiful evidence shows that in their earliest cults, before they were subsumed under patriarchal pantheons as the wives, sisters and daughters of male gods, various female deities of the ancient Mediterranean world were indeed considered self-generating, virgin creatrixes."
Dr. Marguerite Rigoglioso, Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity (1)
"Let our Christian readers bear in mind that the worship of the virgin and her child was common in the East, ages before the generally received account of Christ's appearance in the flesh."
Existence of Christ Disproved
"Crishna was born of a chaste virgin, called Devaki, who, on account of her purity, was selected to become the 'mother of God.'"
Doane,Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions
Abundant Life United Pentecostal Church hosted an Easter egg hunt Saturday?
Abundant Life United Pentecostal Church, 191 E. Hwy 327 in Silsbee hosted an Easter egg hunt Saturday. More than 1,000 plastic eggs filled with treats were hidden on the church grounds for the children to find.
We Allow The Operation Of The Spiritual Gifts
because...In the Bible we read: [1]
When they finished all of this they went out to all of Yisar'el and the cities of of Yahuwdah and they found and destroyed the cultic stone pillars cut down the Asherah vestiges and demolished the hill top shrines and alters from all of Yahuwdah, Binyamym Ephraym, and Manaseh. And when they finished the Children of Yisar'el returned restored each individual to his community with his own inheritance ( Dabrah Yowmym / 2 Chronicles 3i:1 )
Asherah vestiges would have been Easter symbols. We see even then religious corruption was destroying the land.
So then they shall not regard or accept altars to gods that are the work of their hands nor what their fingers have made. They will not look to or delight in Asherah and sun images and idols (chamman)." (Isaiah/Yahsayahw 17:8)
Asherah was also called Astarte and Ishtar by the Babylonians and then Venus by the Romans. She was the consort of Ba'al, meaning Lord, the most common Scriptural name for Satan in his sungod manifestation. Worshiped as the Madonna with Child, she was called the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. Catholics show reverence to her when they light candles in front of their Madonna statues and when they repeat their ritual Hail Mary prayers. Her primary religious festival was Easter Sunday during the Vernal Equinox, when Mother Earth was impregnated by the sun. In Babylon, nine months later, the son of the sun was born on the Winter solstice, today's Christmas. The name of our planet was derived from a blend of Asherah and Astarte. Mother Nature references are allusions to this goddess as well. Her pictogram is now the scientific symbol for woman - the combination of a circular sun disc and a cross.
We see clearly that a land is cursed while we have religious symbols in it and God wants us to disassociate ourselves from religious symbols. God in no way wants us to associate with Babylonian religious festivals.
April Fool's Day Marks First Broadcast of Rick Warren's 'Daily Hope' Radio Program
byErin Benziger
April 2, 2013
Purpose-driven pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church has resisted taking his ministry to the radio for the term of his career—until now. As previously reported, this first week of April 2013 marks the launch of Warren's new radio program, 'Daily Hope.' In a promotional video appearing on his website, Warren explains why he has not previously pursued a radio ministry, including the fact that he "did not want to become a celebrity." In the first two minutes of the video, Warren boasts about his own ministry success, using the words "I," "me" and "my" and failing to mention Jesus Christ, Who must be the focus of every Christian pastor's ministry (1 Cor. 1:23, 9:16). Warren then explains that, after prayer, he has decided to begin a daily radio broadcast. To explain this decision, Warren offers "three deep convictions" that God has "burned" into his heart: a concern for the direction of the nation and decay of the culture, to "underwrite what [Warren] thinks is the greatest global mission initiative facing our generation" and to address the "erosion of religious liberty in America." Throughout his explanation of these three reasons, Warren asks the viewer to help support his goals. To conclude his video promo, Warren claims that, throughout his life, God has given him "three great visions" and has helped him to surpass them all. He then says that he has "no doubt that God has given me this new vision" and that he is "more confident" about this venture than any of the others. Warren then makes a final plea for support as he states that he does not "want to do it alone." Since Warren has claimed that this vision was given to him directly by God, the implication, whether intentional or not, is that to refuse to support this God-given vision is potentially to stand in rebellion to God. Yet, in spite of Rick Warren's claims of direct visionary revelation from God and his supposed message of 'daily hope,' the Christian must be mindful of where his true hope lies, and that is not in endeavors of man, but in Jesus Christ the Lord (Col. 1:27). Critics of Warren no doubt will find irony in the fact that his program is set to launch today, on what commonly is known as April Fool's Day. 'Daily Hope' will run for 25 minutes Monday through Friday on various radio outlets, Sirius XM Satellite Radio's Family Talk Channel and Rick Warren's own website. source:
Blessed are Christians
who critisize other's faith
for we call this Love
Cursed are those who return the favor
for we call that Persecution
Rick Warren: Being Gay Might Be Natural, But It's Not Good
Rev. Rick Warren has said that he is okay with homosexuality being natural, but then added that not everything natural is good.
The 58-year-old Warren is the founder and senior pastor of the Lake Forest, California-based megachurch Saddleback Church – the eighth-largest church in the United States – and the author of the best-selling book The Purpose Driven Life.
In an appearance on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, host Piers Morgan asked Warren if being gay is a choice.
“You know what – I think the jury's still out on that. It wouldn't bother me if there was a 'gay gene' found,” he said.
“Here's what we know about life: I have all kinds of feelings in my life and it doesn't necessarily mean that I should act on every feeling. … Sometimes I feel attracted to women who are not my wife. I don't act on it. Just because I have a feeling doesn't make it right. Not everything natural is good for me. Arsenic is natural.”
In this short clip Francis Chan shares a compelling story about engaging two Jehovah Witnesses in his neighborhood. You won't believe what happens next. As Francis and countless other Christians earnestly study the Authorized Version of the Bible, there is a blinding yet prevailing assumption that what you are reading is Heaven-breathed. Tragically, virtually every Christian in the world reads the translation of men rather than the Word of God.
A Closer Look at the ‘Crucifixion Psalm’
A Lutheran Doesn’t Understand Why Rabbi Singer Doesn’t Believe in Jesus: A Closer Look at the ‘Crucifixion Psalm’
Question:
Dear Rabbi Singer
"I am a Lutheran living in Switzerland and have been reading your web page with interest. I admire your commitment to your faith, yet I am perplexed as to why you so assuredly reject Jesus Christ as your messiah. He came not only for the gentiles, but for the Jews as well. He was born to a Jewish mother and came to the Jewish people."
Because you are a rabbi, I am particularly perplexed as to why you have not willingly accepted Christ. You surely have read the 22nd Psalm which most clearly speaks of our Lord’s crucifixion. Read verse 16. It states, “Dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked has enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.” Of whom does the prophet speak other than our Lord? This Old Testament prophecy could only be foretelling Jesus’ unique death on the cross. What greater proof is needed that Jesus died for the sins of mankind than this chapter which was written a thousand years before Jesus walked this earth?
I know that the Jews have been maligned and persecuted by so-called Christians. This has certainly left a bad taste in the mouths of the Jewish people against Christ; but certainly you must know, rabbi, that these were not real Christians, for a believer in Christ must love the Jew, for his Savior is a Jew.
Many Jewish people accuse Christians of anti-Semitism, and one can understand from where this bias is coming; for the Jews have been persecuted by those who claim to be Christian, but they are not. The true Christian loves the Jewish people.
Yours,
Answer:
This is certainly one of the more surprising letters that I have received in recent memory. There is nothing about your question that is unusual or uncommon; I receive questions about this mostdebated Psalm regularly. It is rather the denomination with which you proudly identify that caught me by surprise.
How odd that a Lutheran would proclaim that the tormentors of the Jews “were not real Christians,” yet you apparently are not embarrassed to identify yourself with a denomination that is called after, and founded on, the teachings of Martin Luther. Among all the Church Fathers and Reformers, there was no mouth more vile, no tongue that uttered more vulgar curses against the Children of Israel than this founder of the Reformation whom you apparently revere. Even the anti-Semitism of the New Testament and the church fathers pales in comparison to the invectives launched by Luther’s impious tongue during his lifetime.
In your letter you declared with certainty that those “so-called Christians” who “maligned and persecuted” the Jewish people “were not real Christians.” Do you believe that the founder of your church, Martin Luther, should be counted among those who are not real Christians? Have you not read his odious volume entitled, Of the Jews and Their Lies? If you are familiar with this and other indecent works of Luther, do you also believe that this German Reformer lost his salvation because his maniacal hatred for the Jew prevented him from being an upstanding member of Christendom? If this is in fact what you believe, why would you belong to a church that boasts his unblessed name?
These burning questions do not apply to you and other members of your denomination alone. Every member of the Protestant Church and every Christian who looks to the Reformers as vessels of God must wonder aloud whether God would use anti-Semites to carry out a sacred task? For virtually all the other leaders of the Reformation held the Jewish people in utter contempt as well. Martin Bucer’s sneering disdain for the Jews is legendary; and, although Calvin’s epithets against the Jews are less plentiful than Luther’s abundant invectives, this disparity is not due to Calvin’s piety. Rather, it is unlikely that Calvin, the father of the Presbyterian and Reformed Church, encountered any Jews at all during his lifetime. Although the Swiss Reformer lived in countries where Jews were forbidden to reside, his words were no less disturbing than those of Martin Luther.
Although evangelicals proudly declare that true believing Christians love the Jewish people, this assertion is not consistent with the annals of history. With few exceptions, the tormentors of the Jewish people emerged out of the fundamentalist Church. Remarkably, denominations that evangelical Christians regard as heretical, such as The Church of the Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses, do not have a strong history of anti-Semitism. Liberal-leaning Christian denominations such as the Unitarian and Methodist churches also have for the most part resisted this teaching of contempt that is so ensconced in Christendom’s shameful history.
The consistent and unyielding pattern of Jew-hatred that has for so long gripped the imagination of the true believer cannot be attributed to coincidence or to a remarkable quirk of history. The accounts in the New Testament — the most cherished book of the devout Christian — already display the animus of the early Church toward the Jews, portraying them as the people of the devil: cunning, traitorous, corrupt, deceitful, and conspiring. In essence, whatever it is that humanity abhors, that is precisely how the Jews are depicted in the Christian Bible. Without rest, post-canonical Christian literature continued to perpetuate this dark image of the Jew. There can be little doubt as to why Christians believe of the Jews what common sense would forbid them to believe of anyone else. To some extent, Luther and his countless followers who eagerly embraced his shameful message were together willing followers of a body of literature that scandalized, smeared, and ultimately condemned the children of Israel to an unimaginable history.
Moreover, in an effort to distance Christians from a compelling Jewish message, the founders and defenders of Christianity methodically altered selected texts from the Jewish scriptures. This rewriting of Tanach was not done arbitrarily or subtly. The Church quite deliberately tampered with the words of the Jewish Scriptures in order to bolster their most startling claim: The Old Testament clearly foretold that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. With this goal in mind, missionaries manipulated, misquoted, mistranslated, and even fabricated verses in Tanach in order to make Jesus’ life fit traditional Jewish messianic parameters and to make traditional Jewish messianic parameters fit the life of Jesus.
Bear in mind, the Jewish Scriptures were written in Hebrew, not in seventeenth century King James English. What has made Christian believers so vulnerable to Bible tampering is that almost none of them can read or understand the Hebrew Bible in its original language. Virtually no Christian child in the world is taught the Hebrew language as part of a formal Christian education. As you and countless other Christians earnestly study the Authorized Version of the Bible, there is a blinding yet prevailing assumption that what you are reading is Heaven-breathed. Tragically, virtually every Christian in the world reads the translation of men rather than the Word of God. On the other hand, every Jewish child in the world who is enrolled in a Jewish school is taught to read and write Hebrew long before he or she even heard the name of Luther.
Unbeknownst to you and parishioners worldwide, the King James Version and numerous other Christian Bible translations were meticulously shaped and painstakingly retrofitted in order to produce a message that would sustain and advance Church theology and exegesis. This aggressive rewriting of biblical texts has had a devastating impact on Christians throughout the world who unhesitatingly embrace these corrupt translations. As a result, Christians earnestly wonder, just as you have, why the Jews, who are the bearers and protectors of the divine oracles of God, have not willingly accepted Jesus as their messiah.
What evangelicals fail to understand, however, is that the passionate resistance of the Jew to the teachings of Christianity has little to do with the Church’s bad manners. Rather, it is the direct result of the Church’s contrived and therefore implausible message. This stunning conclusion, however, is impossible for Christians to accept without bringing injury to their own faith and world view.
In Christian theology the Jews are not portrayed as a tribe whose beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Church. Quite the contrary, the religion of Christianity readily concedes that the Jews were God’s “firstborn” — the people who were chosen to receive and protect the divine Oracles of God. The spiritual principles of such a priestly nation cannot be dismissed lightly. As a result, Christendom systematically engaged in a thorough ad hominem assault against the Jewish people, slandering them as a nefarious, demonic nation. It isn’t difficult to understand how polemical literature against the Jews became a common feature in Church writings. By declaring that the Jew rejects the claims of the Church as a result of Christian anti- Semitism, as you insist, or the Jew’s spiritual blindness, evangelicals spare themselves the festering anguish that self-searching and selfdoubt invariably create.
To understand the brazen manner in which Christendom tampered with the Jewish scriptures, let’s examine the verse that you insist “proves” that Jesus is the messiah. Psalm 22:16 in the King James Version (KJV) reads,
Dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.
It isn’t difficult to understand why Christians are so confident that this verse contains a clear reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. “This Old Testament prophecy could only be foretelling Jesus’ unique death on the cross.” “Of whom other than Jesus could the Psalmist be speaking?,” missionaries ask. They insist that the Bible could not be referring to any other person in history but the man that bore the marks of the Cross.
Apparently, you were so impressed by this argument that you wondered how a rabbi like myself could miss this reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. Paradoxically, well-educated Jews are utterly repelled by the manner in which the church rendered the words of Psalm 22:17.1
To understand how Christian translators rewrote the words of King David, let’s examine the original Hebrew words of this verse with a proper translation.
1. Although in a Jewish Bible this verse appears as Psalm 22:17, in a Christian Bible it appears as 22:16. So as not to create confusion, I refer to this controversial verse as Psalm 22:17 throughout this article.
2. In the Book of Luke, Jesus’ last dying words are, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ last words are “It is finished.”
3. Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24.
4. Rosen, Moishe. Y’shua. Chicago: Moody, 1982, p. 45-46.
5. This Letter of Aristeas (2nd-3rd century B.C.E.), written by a Hellenistic Jew, describes the events leading up to and surrounding the writing of the original Septuagint. There is considerable disagreement as to the date when this was written.
7. Josephus, preface to Antiquities of the Jews, Sec 3. For Josephus’ detailed description of events surrounding the original authorship of the Septuagint, see Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, XII, ii, 1-4.
8. For example, St. Jerome, in his preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions, addresses this issue and concedes that, “Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the seventy translators, reports them as translating only the Five Books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest.” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Peabody: Hendrickson, Volume 6. P. 87.
9. Ptolemy II, also known as “Philadelphus,” reigned from 283 to 245 B.C.E.
11. Of these 15 phrases which appeared in the original Septuagint (Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 2:2; 5:2; 11:7; 18:12; 49:6; Exodus 4:20; 12:40; 24:5; 24:11; Leviticus 11:6; Numbers 16:15; Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3), only Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 12:40 are found in the current Septuagint.
The above image was digitally enhanced, and it is difficult to discern by studying the faint, ancient text whether the word in question ends in a elongated י (yud) or a shortened ו (vav). Unlike other ancient texts, the writing on this script found at Nahal Hever is not sharp or uniform. If, for arguments sake, we conclude that the debated word written in the Nahal Hever script is כארו (ka’aru), as Rosen and Flint argue, it is obvious that this anomaly is the result of the scribe’s poor handwriting or spelling mistake. There is clear evidence, in fact, from an obvious spelling mistake in the script itself that the second century scribe was not meticulous. The very next word after the debated word is “my hands.” The Hebrew word in Psalm 22:17 is ידי (yadai). The Nahal Hever scribe, however, misspelled this word [as well] by placing an extra letter ה (hey) at the end of the word. Thus, the Nahal Hever 5/6HevPs reads ידיה instead of the correct ידי. The Hebrew word ידיה (yadehah) means “her hands,” not “my hands.”
Moreover, as explained above, there is no verb in the Hebrew language as כארו (ka’aru). In order to create the word “dig” or “excavate” in the Hebrew language, the א (aleph) would have to be removed from the word כארו as well. Again, כארו (ka’aru) is Hebrew gibberish.
Rosen is not the only church apologist to use scribes and rabbis of antiquity to defend the Christian translation of Psalm 22. In fact, missionaries more frequently refer to the Septuagint to justify the manner in which Christian Bible translators render Psalm 22:17. They argue that the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the entire Old Testament, which was completed by 72 rabbis more than 200 years before the Christian century, renders the last phrase of Psalm 22:17 as “they pierced my hands and my feet.” They conclude from this translation that even the rabbis who lived before the first century believed that the last clause of this verse reads “pierced” rather than “like a lion.”
Evangelists are typically quite fond of this response because it enables them to circumvent the oftentroubling original Masoretic Hebrew Bible. This notion may seem strange at first glance. Yet, although Christians typically launch their assault on Judaism by swearing staunch allegiance to the Hebrew Scriptures, more often than not, they will renounce this vow in order to rescue their dubious proof-texts.
What does the Bible say about women wearing pants?
By Josh Spiers: Formerly Apostolic Pentecostal, always Christian
The first thing that we must understand when asking this question is that no one in the Bible wore pants. They did not exist back then—at least not in the form we have them today. Because of this, the Bible never dealt with the subject of women wearing pants. [Note: I have added an article on what the Israelites did wear when they were in Egypt and during the Exodus.] The Mosaic Law does, however, deal with the subject of cross-dressing. The Mosaic Law says, "A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Deut. 22:5 NASB). The argument against women wearing pants that I always heard when I was in the UPC was this:
Deut. 22:5 applies to us today. Even though we are not under the Mosaic Law anymore, something that is an abomination to God is always an abomination. (This is based off of Rev. 21:27, which says that "no one who practices abomination" (KJV) will enter into the New Jerusalem.) [1]
Since pants are men’s apparel, and dresses are women’s apparel, it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants or for a man to wear dresses.
Notice that I said that this is the argument that I heard during my time in the UPC. It is only fair to say that the official position paper of the UPC uses a different line of reasoning. They say, "[W]e should avoid…slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip1."
In this article I am going to take a look at both views, and then I’ll wrap up with an important point about hypocrisy.
Edit (1/2/07): I found another position paper from the UPCI on men and women’s apparel. In this other paper they do use a modified form of the Deut. 22:5 argument.
Are Slacks Automatically Immodest?
I think that it is ridiculous to say that slacks are inherently more immodest than dresses. Slacks and dresses can be immodest. It is possible that pants on a woman would have been considered immodest 200 years ago in many Western societies, but that’s pure conjecture. Either way, I know of no man in Western culture who is automatically thrown into temptation because a woman wears pants. What we have to deal with is what is modest today, not what was modest 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago. The Bible never defined modesty, it only told us to be modest.
Are Pants "Men’s Apparel"?
I do not think that pants can be thought of as only men’s apparel in modern Western culture. Cultures and dress codes change over time. They always have. When Deut. 22:5was written men were probably wearing linen kilts and women were probably wearing "full-length, light weight, loose-fitting dresses"[2] In the mid-19th century men were wearing breeches and women were wearing dresses that did not show even their ankles. Yet now the dress code laid by the UPC is that women have to wear dresses but they can come up to the knee3. Why did they choose this style of apparel and not the style that was worn when Deut. 22:5 was written, or the style that was worn in the 19th century? The reason is that cultures and styles change, and the UPC apparently picked the style of apparel that happened to be in fashion when their doctrines started to develop.
There is no biblical excuse for taking a girl who is a third-generation wearer of pants and telling her that she has to only wear dresses. At some point we have to admit that culture has changed. Again, we’re concerned with what culture is now, not what it was in the 1800s and early 1900s.
[1] Bear
in mind, the Jewish Scriptures were written in Hebrew, not
in seventeenth century King James English. What has made
Christian believers so vulnerable to Bible tampering is that
almost none of them can read or understand the Hebrew Bible in its
original language. Virtually no Christian child in the world is
taught the Hebrew language as part of a formal Christian education.
As he and countless other Christians earnestly study the Authorized
Version of the Bible, there is a blinding yet prevailing assumption
that what you are reading is Heaven-breathed. Tragically,
virtually every Christian in the world reads the translation of men
rather than the Word of God. On the other hand, every Jewish
child in the world who is enrolled in a Jewish school is taught to
read and write Hebrew long before he or she even heard the name of
Luther.
Unbeknownst
to parishioners worldwide, the King James Version and numerous other
Christian Bible translations were meticulously shaped and
painstakingly retrofitted in order to produce a message that would
sustain and advance Church theology and exegesis. This aggressive
rewriting of biblical texts has had a devastating impact on
Christians throughout the world who unhesitatingly embrace these
corrupt translations. As a result, Christians earnestly wonder why
the Jews, who are the bearers and protectors of the divine oracles of
God, have not willingly accepted Jesus as their messiah.
[2] FIFTH
CENTURY GAUL (France)
In
the fifth century, the area of southern Gaul was divided into
‘Narbonensis Prima’ (capital Narbonne), and Viennensis (capital
Arles). It was the most Romanized region of Gaul, according to the
first century Pliny.1
The
geographer Strabo noted that even its produce was Italian: olives,
grapes and figs.2 He continues by saying that in climate, culture
and geography, the inhabitants and the area are more like Italy than
the rest of Gaul where they “wear tight breeches”!3
The
contacts with the Italian peninsula had started in the third century
B.C. with trade routes set up between Campania and southern Gaul. A
military alliance was established between Marseille and Rome after
the second Punic War. The region was fully annexed by 120 B.C. The
new province was named ‘Provincia’.
"Although
the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually
every page of the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is
never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew
Bible. Moreover, this doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the New
Testament either because primitive Christianity, in its earliest
stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were
completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would
eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although
the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently
venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems
such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the Judaism
from which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman
mind began to dominate the Church, it created a theological disaster
from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth
century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central
tenet of the Church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by
Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2
When
Christendom adopted a triune godhead from neighboring triune
religious systems, it spawned a serious conundrum for post-Nicene
Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of
Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a
New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate
to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the
teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the
Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge
a first century Christian Bible, which was monotheistic, with a
fourth century Church which was not?"
This
task was particularly difficult because throughout the Gospels and
Paul’s letters Jesus never claims to be God. On the contrary, the
New Testament makes it clear that he is not God, but rather an agent
of God, entirely subordinate to the Father. For example, in John
14:28, the author of the fourth Gospel has Jesus declare,
“I
go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.”
From
Did
Jesus Claim to be God?
Patiently waiting for the so called “anti-Christ” (son of perdition)? You Missed Him... ...the apostasy (a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.) is not only here, but has been here since 325 A.D. Read more:
.jpg)
.jpg)
