Shema Yisrael

[Pierac]

It all started with Greg Deuble and his book They never told me this in Church! A call to read the Bible with new eyes. Books by Bart Ehrman; The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, and Misquoting Jesus. Encountering The Manuscripts An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism by Philip Comfort. Another major source is e-sword's Ante-Nicene Fathers (9 Volumes). There are a host of others that I have read from multiple books and web sires over the past two years that have helped me formulate what I am posting but the majority here is from Greg Deuble.

Hi Pierac, I’ve never heard of Greg Deuble, but I have read a little bit from Philip Comfort and Bart Ehrman. I haven’t encountered any issues with Philip Comfort but I find Bart Ehrman to be a little biased in his views. He does raise some good points but at times but his theories are unconvincing to me. I also heard him have a mini-debate with Darrell Bock on a radio program.

I don’t want to paint Bart Ehrman in a bad light (he comes across as a kind and civil individual in interviews I’ve heard). I’ll also point out that I find many Christian authors to be biased and unwilling to truly engage an issue. Are you aware that Bart Ehrman is an agnostic? Are you aware that he puts heavy credence in writings such as the Gnostic gospels? Does Greg Deuble follow a similar train of thought in regards to the Gnostic writings and other theories of Ehrman?

I realise my questions are pointed but I’m not trying to interrogate you. If you are also an agnostic and believe that Gnostic writings have credence then that’s cool. I just want to understand where you’re coming from.

Thanks
SteveF

Hi Steve, I am aware of Bart Ehrman's agnostic views. I'm not into the Gnostic writings, I just know they caused the early Church much difficulty. Several of the scribal additions are to directly related to some of the issues the Gnostic's were teachings. Mr. Ehrman's agnostic belief has some upside too. For one he does not try to support any particular religious belief, and thus is non bias in this area. Philip Comfort writes excellent books on textual criticism, however Bart is much more open to showing the corruptions. Greg Deuble is not a textual critic at all, he just points out orthodox beliefs that are not scriptual. However I did not agree with some of his beliefs.

Paul

[Pierac]

It is possible to translate, "Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh"- in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh can not be divided into several Yahweh manifestations...

While it is true that Yahweh "cannot be divided", nevetheless Yahweh begat a Son as His first act, and that Son was Another, who was "the exact expression of His essence" as the writer of Hebrews affirms. He shares the name "Yahweh" with His Father.

Yes, but you have a problem, let look at this verse Paul spoke... Heb 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature (essence in some bibles), and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Paidion, Jesus is the expression or representation of his essence, not His essence. Watch what the scripture revel...

Act 7:56 and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Act 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;

Paidion, Jesus is at the right hand of God and Jesus is a man, not the essence of God but man, Paul even tells us this...

1Co 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Jesus is our mediator between God and man. Jesus is the first born from the dead, and a man. We will follow Jesus, the first fruit.

Thus we read of two different divine Individuals each of whom is Yahweh in Genesis 19:24

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

The first Yahweh was the one who remained behind and talked to Abraham, and whom Abraham addressed as "Yahweh". He received His power to rain the brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from His Father, the other Yahweh who was in heaven.

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

YES! Yahweh is our God! And YES! Yahweh is one! Jesus said that He and His Father are one.
To affirm that Yahweh is one is quite different from affirming that only one is Yahweh.

Jesus did not exist during the time of Abraham. See my Agency post.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John tells us no one has seen God at any time, including Abraham and only the Son (Jesus) hath declared him. Note too, declared him, not is Him.

Now note too, when Jesus made the comment.... Joh 10:30 "I and the Father are one." He never said one being. So what did he mean? Unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, just like He wanted his followers to have...

Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Jesus asked His God to keep the aposples as one as we are one. Jesus never spoke of being one being with God, but of being of the same mind, and Spirit. The creator will always be greater than His creation!

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

I too once saw Jesus as the first thing God created, and then through Jesus created everything else. However, I found this did not match scripture.

Paul

[Pierac]

Unlike some angels that defer worship such as the situation Peter found himself in when he bowed down to an angel and the angel told Peter, "Stand up; I myself also am a man" the angel that appeared before Moses and Gideon did not defer worship, and neither did Jesus. Many bowed down before Him, cried for mercy and were healed. He never told anyone to "get up for I am a man also."

Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Mat 15:25 But she came and bowed down33 before him and said,34 "Lord, help me!"

Net Commentary:
33 tn In this context the verb προσκυνέω (proskuneō), which often describes worship, probably means simply bowing down to the ground in an act of reverence or supplication (see L&N 17.21).

34 tn Grk "she bowed down to him, saying."

Now let's look into Biblical Worship...

Jesus plainly states, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). Who does Jesus declare are the "true worshipers"? He insists, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father" If we would be amongst the true worshipers we must be with Jesus worshiping this Father. Evidently, those who worship "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God," Are not said by Jesus to be the true worshippers. Those who worship the Father as the "only true God" are. The worshipper of the One God, the Father, as Jesus' own affirmation that he is the true worshipper.

This is the biblical pattern throughout. The so-called Lord's prayer, the model prayer, teaches us to "pray in this way: our Father who art in heaven"(Matt. 6:9). This pattern of prayer and worship prescribed by our Lord Jesus is followed and sanctioned by every example given in Scripture. See the following:

"Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom.15:5-6).

" For this reason I bow my knees before the Father," (Eph 3:14)

" giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, " (Eph 5:20)

" We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, " ( Col 1:3 )

"giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light." (Col 1:12)

"And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father "through" him." (Col 3:17)

This list is by no means exhaustive. But it is sufficient to show that we are, with our Lord Jesus, to worship and pray to the Father. This is the usual pattern of prayer and worship in the New Testament. They prayed to the one God through the name or authority of Jesus Christ. They evidently were not aware that the Holy Spirit was God (a third person), for wherein all the pages of the Bible to the Saints pray to the Holy Spirit? And where in all the pages of Scripture do the worshipers of God sing to the Holy Spirit as is the general custom within Christendom today? What about those passages where the Lord Jesus is worship? Or where the Lord Jesus is pray to?

Surely this is proof positive that Jesus is God because only God is to be worshiped? (The words of Jesus are often used to substantiate this belief: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt. 4:10), as though Jesus meant: "I am the Lord your God, worship only me." But this meaning is totally incongruous and has no parallel in the New Testament record.) Then, of course, there is God the Father's own directive to the Angels concerning Jesus the son of God: "and let all the Angels of God worship him" (Heb. 1:6). The fact that Jesus is worship by Thomas as he falls at his feet and honors him with the confession, "My Lord and my God!" Too many presents the final proof that Jesus is God (John 20:28).

To all of this there is a very simple solution. Once again it comes back to a failure to understand biblical culture; a failure to read the Bible through Hebrew eyes. In the Old Testament in main Hebrew word for worship is shachah. It occurs about 170 times but the surprising thing is that only about half of this number relate to the worship of God as God. This fact is hidden in our English translations. The translators prefer to say "bow down to" or "revere" when shachah refers to homage paid to noble persons, whether Angels or men, but say "worship" when God is the object. This is a false distinction the original texts does not support. Here are just a view examples:

Lot "worshiped" the two strangers who looked like normal travelers as they entered
Sodom (Gen. 19:1).

Abraham "worshipped" the Gentile leaders of the land where he lived (Gen. 23:7).

Jacob "worshipped" his older brother Esau (Gen. 33:3).

Joseph's brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 43:26).

Ruth "worshipped" Boaz (Ruth 2:10).

David "worshipped" Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:41).

David "worshipped" King Saul (1 Sam. 24:8).

Mephibosheth fell on his face and "worshipped" David (2 Sam. 9:6).

Abigail "worshipped" David the outlaw (1 Sam 25:23, 41).

The whole congregation "worshipped" the King (1 Chron. 9:20).

These are just a few instances of the many that could be cited to show the reluctance of the translators to consistently translate shachah as "worship" when worship of important persons was obviously a common feature of Hebrew culture. In Scripture worship is offered to God and to men. There is no special word in the Old Testament for "worship" reserved exclusively for God. But there is a reluctance to translate this one-word consistently. If you looked up your English translations of the above verses you will find that you do not use the "w" word. They prefer to say "bowed down" or "revered" or "pay homage to" instead of "worshiped." This inconsistency of translation has created the false impression that only God can be worshiped.

So then, how do we explain this in light of the clear command that we are to worship God the Father alone as both the first commandment and Jesus himself command? Is this a contradiction after all? No way. The answer is that whenever men "worshiped" other men it was a relative worship. In most of the examples above it is clear that the ones worshiped were God's representatives. Once again we are back to the principle of Jewish agency. The Israelites had no difficulty in offering this proportional or relative worship to the ones who came in Gods Name, with God's message. It is obvious that the first commandment "You must not bow yourself down [shachah] to them nor serve them" is not a prohibition against a relative worship of those worthy of it. If this was the case then obviously all these Old Testament godly men and women sinned greatly. God even promises a coming day when He will make our enemies "to come and worship at your feet, and to know that I have loved you" (Rev. 3:9). Such worship of the Saints at God's degree is clearly a relative and proportional worship. It is perfectly legitimate to give honor to whom honor is due. This is why many Jews felt no impropriety in "worshiping" Jesus in the Gospels because they recognized him as a prophet of God, or the Messiah sent from God. But it is preposterous to think these good people believe Jesus was Jehovah God just because they worshiped him. When they saw and heard the mighty works of Jesus they glorified God through him (Matt. 9:8; 11:27; 28:18; Luke 7:16; 9:11; 10:22). This fits the whole will of the New Testament teaching that it is God the Father who is to receive glory through His son Jesus (Eph. 1:3, 6, 12; 1 Pet. 1:3; Heb. 13:15, etc.). Christ's exaltation is the means to a higher end. For through him all worship is ultimately directed to God and Father.

To worship him (Jesus) as Lord Messiah is thus a divinely pleasing but subordinate or relative worship. It is instructive to read that in the coming Kingdom the Lord Jesus will orchestrate the worship of his brethren in the ultimate praise of his Father. He will "proclaim" the Name of God to his "brothers" and he will "in the mist of the congregation singing your praise" (Heb. 2:12). There, in that glorious Kingdom, Jesus Christ will continue to be a joyful worshiper of God his absolutely. All other divinely appointed worship is homage to persons who are not God himself. Jesus is among those worthy of such worship for he is worshiped as the one Messiah, God's supreme son and agent.

Jesus knew the prophecy: "Worship the Lord with reverence, and do homage to the Son" (Ps. 2: 11-12). Jesus knew God his Father had decreed "Let all the Angels of God worship him" (Psalms 97:7). Jesus knew that the angelic messengers of Jehovah had in the past received relative worship from God-pleasing men and women. Jesus knew that of the one true God could be addressed as though they were God. And Jesus knew he was the Son and ultimately agent of God, so how much greater his destiny! As the "only begotten Son" whom the father had "sealed" and commissioned he knew that whoever honored him honored the Father also. This was his Father's decree (Psalms 2:11-12; 97:7).

Psalms 2:11-12 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Psalms 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods!

2Co 4:4 the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Part one

[darinhouston]

[quote="Pierac"] For one he does not try to support any particular religious belief, and thus is non bias in this area. /quote]

I'm not sure I agree with that -- from what I have seen, he's got a pretty aggressive bias against evangelical Christianity.

As it happens, James White will be debating him this January (21st). See http://sovereigncruises.org/AO2009/debate.htm

[Pierac]

Now back to Thomas' worship of the risen Jesus as "My Lord and my God"

This is why Jesus did not rebuke Thomas when he fell at his feet and worshiped the risen Lord. Not because Jesus knew himself to be Jehovah God and this fact had finally dawned on Thomas. Rather, it was homage it proffered to Jesus as God's ordained Messiah. Jesus can be worshiped as the Lord Messiah. In fact, this is clearly what the writer John means by reporting this incident, for the very next two verses say that these things "have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). To say that Thomas was worshiping Jesus as Almighty God is to directly contradict John's own stated purpose for writing his whole Gospel. When Thomas fell at Jesus' feet and worshiped him, Thomas was at last recognizing that the resurrected Jesus was the long promised Lord Messiah. Thomas' language it was steeped in Old Testament concepts.

Remember when David stepped out of the cave and call to King Saul, "My Lord and my King" (1 Sam. 24:9)? In the same way King Messiah is to be worshiped and adored by his bride: "Then the King will desire your beauty; because he is your Lord, bow down to him" (Ps.45:11). Thomas' language is in the same Hebrew tradition. He means the same thing. Thomas is addressing the rightful king of Israel, the now risen and victorious Lord. We just have to think like first century Jews steeped in their Old Testament prophets! "A Savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord" (Luke 2:11). The wise men believe the infant Jesus was the King of Israel they brought their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to worship him: "Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews? We saw his star in the East and have come to worship him They bowed down and worshiped him" (Matt. 2:2, 11). "God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). Worship is offered to Jesus because he is the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of Israel. We have already seen that in Jewish understanding, the word "God" can refer to one who represents the Almighty God (Exodus 7:1, etc.). The King of Israel could be called "god" because he represented God to the people. Thomas knew the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah was to be called "god" for he was to represent Jehovah perfectly. Thomas' worship was that of a Jew deeply grounded in the Old Testament faith that God is one Jehovah and that the Messiah is also called "god" in a relative and royal rather than an absolute sense. Psalm 45:7 says of the Messiah, "You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellows."

Evidently this anointed one has a God above him: Jehovah is he is God. Come to think of it, isn't this what Jesus himself said just a few verses before he received Thomas' worship? "Stop clinging to me: for I have not yet ascended to the father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God'" (John 20:17).

Exalted in heaven right now Jesus still calls the Lord God Almighty "my God" and "my Father" (Rev. 3:2, 5, 12). The Lord God is still called "his God and Father" (Rev. 1:6). In the Revelation there is always "our God" and "His Christ" (Rev. 12:10; 20:6) or "the Lord God, the Almighty, and the lamb" (Rev. 6:16; 21:22; 21:1, 3). Yes, in good Hebrew understanding, Thomas' worship preserves this Biblical distinction:

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king= Lord and god

Jesus' creed is that his Father is "the only true God" and that he himself is the Messiah whom that one God has commissioned. He defines this knowledge as "eternal life." (John 17:3). In all matters because on that great and unique day in the age to come, "Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11). The worship we give to our glorious Lord Jesus Christ is worship that is ultimately given to his God and our God, to his Father and our Father.

[Pierac]

For one he does not try to support any particular religious belief, and thus is non bias in this area. /quote]

I'm not sure I agree with that -- from what I have seen, he's got a pretty aggressive bias against evangelical Christianity.

As it happens, James White will be debating him this January (21st).

I meant he does not support one denomination over another. For example He is not bias in his research toward Catholic beliefs over say Protestant. He only discussed is views about being agnostic about the scriptures. I know he has a few new books out but the topics do not interest me. His books written for the general public tend to sensationalize, as it sells books. As long as you know who your reading, you can pick the meat off the bones of their research.

[darinhouston]

For one he does not try to support any particular religious belief, and thus is non bias in this area. /quote]

I'm not sure I agree with that -- from what I have seen, he's got a pretty aggressive bias against evangelical Christianity.

As it happens, James White will be debating him this January (21st).

I meant he does not support one denomination over another. For example He is not bias in his research toward Catholic beliefs over say Protestant. He only discussed is views about being agnostic about the scriptures. I know he has a few new books out but the topics do not interest me. His books written for the general public tend to sensationalize, as it sells books. As long as you know who your reading, you can pick the meat off the bones of their research.

True enough, and fair distinction -- for those who care, the upcoming debate is entitled "Can The New Testament Be Inspired In Light Of Textual Variation?"

[Pierac]

True enough, and fair distinction -- for those who care, the upcoming debate is entitled "Can The New Testament Be Inspired In Light Of Textual Variation?"

You know darinhouston, that would be a good topic... "Can The New Testament Be Inspired In Light Of Textual Variation?" The problem is does anyone really want to go down this rabbit hole? The mad hatter is waiting for you down there, and you will find both blessings and curses.

Paul

[darinhouston]

True enough, and fair distinction -- for those who care, the upcoming debate is entitled "Can The New Testament Be Inspired In Light Of Textual Variation?"

You know darinhouston, that would be a good topic... "Can The New Testament Be Inspired In Light Of Textual Variation?" The problem is does anyone really want to go down this rabbit hole? The mad hatter is waiting for you down there, and you will find both blessings and curses.

Paul

I'm not afraid of it in the least -- let's wait until January and revisit it after the debate -- there might be some interesting points raised by one or the other to dialogue over. I suspect I'll learn a thing or two I didn't know.

[Pierac]

Philosophy

I would like to take a look at how Greek philosophy has entered into our Biblical worldview. It is well known that many of our early Church fathers were deeply embedded in the study of Hellenistic philosophy. Robert Hatch, author of Possession and Persuasion: The Rhetoric of Christian Faith, states"The story of how Greek philosophy, with its synthesis of rationalism and mysticism, rhetorically [i.e persuasively] penetrated and permeated the Christian tradition, forever altering Christian faith, is virtually an open secret insofar as it oozes out the pores of the literature of the Church history and theology. The open secret continues to be kept, no doubt, due to his its staggering implications." Author Harold Ellens in his book The Ancient Library of Alexandria in early Christian Theological Development states, "The average Christian today is so unaware of this staggering fact that Christianity as we have today is a form of Greco-Roman mythology."

N.H. Snaith in his book The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament explains, "The confusing of Greek ideas with the Hebrew heritage of the apostle in the Church began very early, as early as Clement of Alexandria [AD 150-215] and Origen [AD 185-254] and it rose from the fact that these scholars were Hellenists first and Christian second. It was furthered by the fact that all men until Jerome [AD 347-420] tended to read the Greek Bible as a Greek book, and with Hellenistic eyes the result of this has been that from the very early stage, Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato."

It is well known that the very early in the Church history there was no "Central Church." Every region and local congregation could hold a variety of theologies and doctrines. There was no established "orthodoxy" that is, no basic theological system acknowledged by the majority. There were many competing voices. In some regions, what was to be termed "heresy" by others was in fact the original and only form of Christianity they had. The sense of a unified group advocating an apostolic doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians everywhere did not exist in the second and third centuries.

The evolving Christian Church did not develop in a vacuum. As always, "the world" seeped into the church. During the first few centuries, the whole Roman Empire was increasingly knit around the worship of Caesar. In the book Constantine versus Christ written by Alistair Kee, senior lecturer in religious studies at the University of Glasgow, Kee establishes quite convincingly that Jesus in effect played no part what ever in the religion of Constantine. If he ignored Jesus, Constantine certainly acknowledged the principle of Messiahship. In fact, he did more than acknowledge it; he took on the role of the anointed one upon himself. It seems probable, for instance, that Constantine converted to Christianity (in the early 4th century) for the very purpose of shoring up the support of Christians and of bringing stability to the crumbling empire he had inherited. As scholar Leonard Verduin points out:

When Constantine came into to the Church he did not check his imperial equipment at the door. No indeed, he came in with all the accounterments that pertained in the secular regimen.
He was not just a Roman who had learned to bow to the Christ; he had been pontifex maximus hitherto, the High Priest of the Roman State Religion, and he entered the Church with the
understanding that he would be pontifex maximus there to. And just as his sword had flashed in defense of the old religion so would it now flash in defense of the new.

During the next few centuries, as an orthodox theology came to be crystallized, it was as much a product of imperial politics as it was a theological debate or Biblical exegesis.

The conclusions, reached by the authors of The Messianic Legacy, is that when the Church compromised with Constantine, the historical Jesus was officially destroyed, denied, and lost.
These conclusions are confirmed by the work of archaeologists. In the book Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts the authors, Crossan and Reed, indicate that the further the strata are removed from the first-century world of Jesus, the tendency is to decrease his Jewish identity. The other tendency is to increase his social status. In short, later archaeological layers commemorating Jesus' life tend to efface signs of his Jewishnessand replace them with features from Rome or Byzantium. On the other hand, the farther removed Jesus is from his first-century Galilean context, the more elite and regal he becomes. Art work depicted from as early as the 1100's shows scenes from the lives of the apostles. The apostles look European and not Semitic. Their accessories appear medieval not ancient, and their cloths are regal not peasant.

It should not be surprising that the majority of church leaders were well educated from the finest schools that were deeply embedded in the study of Hellenistic philosophy. One of the most revered of all "saints" who gave this new direction substance was Augustine of Hippo. Augustine's influence on modern Christianity is almost without parallel. With the rise to political power in the Roman church, it was Augustine who supplied the theological justification for compulsory measures taken by the state against Christian minorities. Anyone who disagreed with the Church party line was thought to be a heretic and labeled mad or insane. Churches that housed these free spirits were closed with a vengeance and thus the paganization of the Christian church was complete.

One "orthodox" doctrine championed by Augustine was the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet he "confesses" that he was driven to seek God's truth after reading "those books of the [Neo]Platonist." (Confess VII.20). It was these books which convinced him of the literal deity of Jesus! (Confess VII.9;VIII.2). Prior to this time, his view of Christ had been similar to that of the Photinus of Sirmium. (Confess VII.19). That is to say, Augustine believed in Jesus' complete and uncompromised humanity before being persuaded by Neo- Platonic philosophy that Jesus had preexisted as God Himself.

Augustine did not get his belief in the Trinity from the Scriptures, but he honestly admits it was from the Greeks. "The Neo-Platonist philosophers who thought and writings play the most influential part in Augustine's story were Plotinus and his disciple Porphyry." (The Confessions of St. Augustine p.16). In this connection, it is instructive to note that Origen's teacher was Ammonius Saccas, who was Plotinus' master.

Is not difficult to observe the early influence of the Greek philosophers on the Church fathers. Clement of Alexandria was so steep in pagan philosophy that he explained, "Greek philosophy purges the soul, and prepares it beforehand for the reception of faith, on which the truth builds up the edifice of Gnosis." (Clement of Alexandria, xia iii). Clement, who is honored as a saint by the Roman Church, wrote volumes on the "Gnostic" whom he called the "true Christian." He stated, in Stromata 7:1, The Gnostic alone is truly pious...The true Christian is a Gnostic!"

He also explained "Thus philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness, until the coming of the Lord. And now it assists towards true religion is a kind of preparatory training for those who arrive at faith by way of demonstration. For 'Thy foot shall not stumble' if thou attribute to Providence all good, whether it belong to the Greeks or to us. For God is the source of all good things; of some primarily, as of the old and New Testament; of others by consequence, as of philosophy. But it may be, indeed, that philosophy was given to the Greeks immediately and primarily, until the Lord should call the Greeks. For philosophy was a 'schoolmaster' to bring the Greek mind to Christ, as the law brought the Hebrews. Thus philosophy was a preparation, paving the way towards perfection in Christ." Clement of Alexandria (c.200), Stromateis, I.v.28

Tertullian writes, "Wretched Aristotle! Who taught them dialectic, that art of building up and demolishing, so protean in statement, so far-fetched in conjecture, so unyielding in controversy, so productive of disputes; self-stultifying, since it is ever handling questions but never settling anything what is there in common between Athens and Jerusalem? What between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?... away with all the projects for a 'Stoic,' a Platonic' or a 'dialectic' Christianity! After Christ Jesus we desire no subtle theories, no acute inquiries after the gospel" (Tertullian (c.160-240) De praescriptione haereticorum (c.200) ,vii).

That this new triumph in Church was a departure from the church which the Lord founded is provided by the centuries of violent persecution from the church that followed. This doctrine produced not "the fruit of the spirit" but the "works of the flesh." (Gal. 5:19-23)

Why is all this important? Jesus tell us in Mark that it is possible to nullify God's Word in our lives because we refuse to give up human tradition Mar 7:13 "thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." We need to stop looking at Scriptures through the eyes of the Greek philosopher, and start looking anew with Hebrew eyes. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their book The Jesus Mysteries go on to explain that a divine Trinity is not found in Judaism, but it is prefigured by paganism. Aristotle writes of the Pythagorean doctrine that "the whole and everything in it is comprehended by the number three, for end, middle and beginning have the number of the whole, that is the Trinity." Hundreds of years earlier, an ancient Egyptian text has God proclaimed: "being One I became Three." Another reads, "Three are all the gods, Amon, Ra, Ptah: there are none like them. Hidden in his name Amon, he is Ra, his body is Ptah. He is manifested in Amon, with Ra and Ptah, the three united."

It was against the threat of Gnosticism that the Apostles battled continuously as they sought to preserve the Jewish Messianic framework in which biblical Christianity is set. The first target of the Gnostics was the resurrection of the dead, which for the apostles meant the calling to life of the faithful dead to gain immortality. The struggle to preserve the pure NT doctrine of the resurrection was unfortunately lost in the centuries following the death of the Apostles. Though certainly the church claimed that it was winning the battle, what actually happened was a partial surrender to the Gnostics. What survived as "Christian" teaching about life after death owes as much to Gnosticism as it does to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. According to the New Testament the dead are at present "asleep" (1 Cor.15:18, 20; 1 Thess.5:10) in the grave waiting to be called in to life again when Jesus returns.

It is interesting to note the warning sounded by Justin Martyr about 150A.D:
"For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christian, but who do not admit the truth of the resurrection and venture to blasphemy the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who say that there is no resurrection of the dead but that their souls when they die are taken into heaven: Do not imagine that they are Christians" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch.80).

For, as William Tyndale argued with the Roman Catholic Church, what point is there in a future resurrection of the dead if in fact they have already achieved their glory in heaven? Thus, it is established that the later Christian doctrine of the One God in Trinity is paralleled in a number of pre-Christian belief systems along with doctrine of the resurrection.


Paul