Discourse on Confusion by Trivial Minute by Trinitarians COMMENTS BY TRINITARIANS ON TRIVIAL AND MINUTE AND ANSWERS WITH 'BIG PICTURE'

IN MIND TO THEM. Trinitarians confuse themselves and others by striving to pay attention to the trivial and minute instead of the 'Big Picture'. They argue trivial and minute points to try and prove their myth has Biblical backing that it does not. In fact they get so wrapped up in this pursuit of trivial they start believing the product of their own confusion. As an example, one believer in the Trinity actually said the following in response to something I said, the Trinitarian's response was: "Go back and read my response to your quote of Barclay. Barclay tried to show a relationship to translating an anarthruous (no article) DIABOLOS in John 6:70 as "you are a devil" to implying the same thing should be done in John 1:1c, "the Word was a God/god." One problem... John 6:70 has EIS - one/a. John 1:1c does not. I have pointed out that if John had wanted to say that Jesus (the Word) was "a god" all he needed to do was add an EIS as in John 6:70. And since you have been unable to show how John could have more strongly proclaimed that the Word was fully God than he did in the Greek in John 1:1c, what can be said? I have shown how John COULD have expressed John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god." (By adding EIS.) You have not shown how John could have added an article before THEOS. You have not shown how John could have arranged the predicate nominative structure in John 1:1c so as to make it more clear that the Word was fully God. Forget all this other stuff. If you cannot do what I did - demonstrate how John could have expressed as translated by the NWT, then you have admitted that John could not have expressed the Word as fully God more strongly than he did. If you think he could have made it more clear, then just HOW, in Greek, could he have done that? If you care to, give an example somewhere else in John where a parallel structure to the predicate nominative structure of John 1:1c was used and which resulted in an indefinite sort of translation." The answer to this absurdity of the trivial and minute is as follows, clearly showing the 'Big Picture': "I have long learned in translating that one must take in consideration the entire context, not one small point which in an overall translation becomes meaningless and this with modern languages. Now with respect ancient languages this fact becomes of the utmost importance since no one today can say with absolute certainty exactly what is so. But if one does not do so, he must surely be in error as later John wrote in many places to the contrary in rather clear language. So are you trying to say John contradicts himself or what. I have already brought out this fact elsewhere as follows: John 17 proves the Trinity is nothing but God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine, a myth or legend, see the following.

John 17:1-19, "These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. nd now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. [Note, here he partitions his Father (YHWH) to give him back the glory he previously had; whereas, if he were one in a Trinity as some falsely claim this would of course be senseless]. 6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.[Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee:[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that all he has was given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received [them], and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that the words he spake were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we [are]. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity, and also they, the followers, were one in the same sense that he was one with his father; that of unity in purpose] 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity, and also they, the followers, were one in the same sense that he was one with his father; that of unity in purpose] 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil [one]. 16 They are not of the world even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even

so sent I them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth." (ASV). Clearly these scriptures show that the false God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of the trinity is nothing but a myth, a legend of the words of men as foretold by 2 Corinthians 4:4, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them]. But as I have previously stated: "I have answered your question and you have failed to acknowledge same, to wit: IN translating from one language to another and especially with respect to one that handles articles quite different, you use an article if that aids the meaning that the original writer intended whether strict language 'rules of thumb' call or do not call for it. The Bible is harmonious throughout and if a translated item does not agree with the remainder, a good translator who is not biased will take that into consideration. Now let's look at the context in brief and the translational constructs used. First consider a biased translation of John 1:1-4, "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). The first translational construct clearly shows the Word, Jesus (Yeshua), "was with God." The next translational construct clearly says "and the Word was God"; now we have a mutual contradiction and/or impossibility as one can NOT BE WITH SOMEONE AND BE THAT SOMEONE, this does NOT jive with English usage as all should clearly know. The next translational construct for John 1:2 says, "The same was in the beginning with God." Clearly here again the same impossibility. Clearly this translational construct, the 2 part of John 1:1 can NOT BE CORRECT AS IT IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH CONTEXT. Why anyone would have a problem seeing this obvious impossible situation is beyond me. But some keep asking the same none sensible question over and over on an obvious case where an item does NOT agree with context. And the great German Bible Scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach in his The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209 definitely did not see it as you falsely claim and not being a Koine Greek expert myself I will go with his way which is as follows: John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the Word 2 This was in a beginning with the God. 3 All through it was done; and without it was done not even one, that has been done. 4 In it life was, and the life was the light of the men, 5 and the light in the darkness shines, and the darkness it not apprehended." And "14And the Word flesh became, and tabernacied among us, (and we beheld the glory of him, a glory as of an only-begotten from a father,) full of favor and truth,"

And neither did other excellent scholars who did NOT let any bias they may have had as an individual effect their honesty in translating such as the following: The Complete Bible: An American Translation. Contributors: Edgar J. Goodspeed - translator, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher: University of Chicago Press. Place of Publication: Chicago. Publication Year: 1939.: John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 IN THE beginning the Word exist- ed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. 2 It was he that was with God in 3 the beginning. Everything came into ex- istence through him, and apart from him 4 nothing came to be. It was by him that life came into existence, and that life 5 was the light of mankind. The light is still shining in the darkness, for the darkness has never put it out." And "14 So the Word became flesh and blood and lived for a while among us, abounding in blessing and truth, and we saw the honor God had given him, such honor as an only son receives from his father." A New Translation of The Bible by James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt.: Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. 2 He was with God in the very beginning: 3 through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him. 4 In him life lay, and this life was the Light for men; 5 amid the darkness the Light shone, and the darkness did not master it." And "14 So the Logos became flesh and tarried among us; we have seen his glory-glory such as an only sone enjoys from his father-seen it to be full of grace and reality." Which clearly shows that the translation of John 1:1 is definitely in question with respect what it should be. That is until you consider the context so I do NOT plan to get into silly differences about small points, but point to the obvious fact that your desired rendering does not fit to context. All the silly coloring in your post change nothing. This Trinitarian clearly missed the point as shown my his following comment: "(Concerning John 1:1c) This does not address the very significant question... how could John have expressed it in the Greek so as to make it more clear that the Son is God in essence? I have demonstrated that the NWT rendering of "a god" (in John 1:1c) is not valid. The arguments regarding the lack of an article are completely irrelevant. And these rules concerning the usage of the article are NOT "rules of thumb."' The answer to the Trinitarian, you obviously missed what John was trying to express as clearly shown in the Book of John as follows: John 1:34 - : And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God." John 1:49 - : Natan'el said, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Isra'el!" John 1:51 - : Then he said to him, "Yes indeed! I tell you that you will see heaven opened and the angels of God going up and coming down on the Son of Man!" John 3:16 - :

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed. John 5:25 - : Yes, indeed! I tell you that there is coming a time -- in fact, it's already here -- when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who listen will come to life. John 6:27 - : Don't work for the food which passes away but for the food that stays on into eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For this is the one on whom God the Father has put his seal." John 11:4 - : On hearing it, he said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may receive glory through it." John 11:27 - : She said to him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world." John 13:31 - : After Y'hudah had left, Yeshua said, "Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him. John 19:7 - : The Judeans answered him, "We have a law; according to that law, he ought to be put to death, because he made himself out to be the Son of God." John 20:31 - : But these which have been recorded are here so that you may trust that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by this trust you may have life because of who he is. [source -(The Complete Jewish Bible - Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.)] As can clearly be seen from these scriptures, John was clearly making the case that Jesus (Yeshua) was NOT God (YHWH), but the Son of God (YHWH). Also, you have NOT demonstrated what you claim and to what Bible you are referring to? Perhaps the Interlineary Word for Word English Translation of Dr. J. J. Griesbach of the Vatican Manuscript #1209? Or Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, "and the Word was a God.", or the work of , Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]? And: you are making an assumption with respect the use of an article and we all know what assumptions are. Second, Only two of Jesus" (Yeshua's) Apostles were 'lettered' men, Luke and Paul, John was not, and I very strongly doubt that when he wrote John 1:1 he was even thinking of modalism. I believe if you will but look at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, "for "He put everything in subjection under his feet."m But when it says that "everything" has been subjected, obviously the word does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah. 28 Now when everything has been subjected to the Son, then he will subject himself to God, who subjected everything to him; so that God may be everything in everyone. " (The Complete Jewish Bible -

Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.) which clearly shows the relationship, otherwise the statement, ", obviously the word does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah", so now I hope you see the error in your reasoning. And Third, as I have said many times in the past, the first rule of translation is NOT the wasting time with minute trivials such as an article, but in rendering the exact thoughts of the original article; to wit, his/her thoughts and this can best be done by having a translational construct in agreement with context., as I previously said: translating from one language to another and especially with respect to one that handles articles quite different, you use an article if that aids the meaning that the original writer intended whether strict language 'rules of thumb' call or do not call for it. The Bible is harmonous throughout and if a translated item does not agree with the remainder, a good translator who is not biased will take that into consideration. Now let's look at the context in brief and the translational constructs used. First consider a biased translation of John 1:1-4, "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). The first translational construct clearly shows the Word, Jesus (Yeshua), "was with God." The next translational construct clearly says "and the Word was God"; now we have a mutual contradiction and/or impossibility as one can NOT BE WITH SOMEONE AND BE THAT SOMEONE, this does NOT jive with English usage as all should clearly know. The next translational construct for John 1:2 says, "The same was in the beginning with God." Clearly here again the same impossibility. Clearly this translational construct, the 2 part of John 1:1 can NOT BE CORRECT AS IT IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH CONTEXT. Why anyone would have a problem seeing this obvious impossible situation is beyond me. But some keep asking the same none sensible question over and over on an obvious case where an item does NOT agree with context And: The Trinitarian's statement: "that Jesus is God?" Is ridicules prima fascia since it is likewise a well known fact that a son is NOT his father as you are trying to convince me of. This is utterly ridicules contention and one without redeeming features. Just why do you think God (YHWH) gave us the terms father and son, and had divinely inspired writers use these terms in explaining his relationship to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua)? Obviously to explain heavenly things in things mankind can understand, not so man could twist them and come up with what is impossible, prima fascia. In stating this, this Trinitarian, also clearly overlooked the following by, Uriyah the Messiahite: "John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself

John 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live. " [source - writing of Uriyah the Messiahite] HOW BELIEVERS IN THE TRINITY HAVE REACTED TO OTHER ISSUES IN THE PAST, A STUDY IN ABSURDITY; It is a well known fact that in the middle ages that the Catholic church and many of the so called reformed groups taught and believed in the Ptolemaic System. This is the theory that the sun and the other planets revolved around the earth as opposed to the Copernican System that the planets including the earth revolved around the sun. In fact one of the trivial minute these Trinitarians used to "prove" the Ptolemaic System theory was that when a blade of straw fell to the ground it reflected sun light in such a manner as to prove and/or show the sun was revolving around the earth. Many arguments and discussions over this silly trivial minute were carried on instead of looking at the 'Big Picture' just as the nonsense over the trivial with regard to John 1:1 previously shown. This is a repeat of the same narrow viewing which is when looked at in perspective and objectively absurd. All should seek to gain an understanding of the 'Big Picture' and not get drawn into argument over narrow trivial that is definitely not profitable. This type of narrow thinking reflects back to my response to a Trinitarian on a similar narrow thinking on translation which was: ""I have long learned in translating that one must take in consideration the entire context, not one small point which in an overall translation becomes meaningless and this with modern languages. Now with respect ancient languages this fact becomes of the utmost importance since no one today can say with absolute certainty exactly what is so. But if one does not do so, he must surely be in error as later John wrote in many places to the contrary in rather clear language. So are you trying to say John contradicts himself or what" But let's look with respect to what absurdities the Trinitarians in the past took this Ptolemaic System. They even burnt a very learned Italian, Giordani Bruno, to death at the stake for not indulging in their absurd narrow arguments attempting to prove the un-provable, the Ptolemaic System, at the stake. Why? He took the 'Big Picture" approach and showed that the Ptolemaic System was wrong. Now of course this is absolutely absurd, but it shows to what extremes groups go to when they get wrapped up in trivial minute instead of elevating discussions to the general or 'Big Picture.' See: "Giordano Bruno[jOrdAnO brOOnO] Pronunciation Key, 1548-1600, Italian philosopher, b. Nola. He entered the Dominican order early in his youth but was accused of heresy and fled (c.1576) to take up a career of study and travel. He taught briefly at Toulouse, Paris, Oxford, and Wittenberg, but, personally restless and in constant opposition to the traditional schools, he found no permanent post. His major metaphysical works, De la causa, principio, et uno (1584, tr. The Infinite in Giordano Bruno, 1950) and De l'infinito, universo et mondi (1584), were

published in France. Further works appeared in England and Germany. Bruno also wrote satire and poetry. In 1591 he returned to Venice, where he was tried for heresy by the Inquisition. After imprisonment at Rome, he was burned to death. Bruno challenged all dogmatism, including that of the Copernican cosmology, the main tenets of which, however, he upheld. He believed that our perception of the world is relative to the position in space and time from which we view it and that there are as many possible modes of viewing the world as there are possible positions. Therefore we cannot postulate absolute truth or any limit to the progress of knowledge. He pictured the world as composed of individual elements of being, governed by fixed laws of relationship. These elements, called monads, were ultimate and irreducible and were based on a pantheistic infinite principle, or cause, or Deity, manifest in us and in all the world. Bruno's influence on later philosophy, especially that of Spinoza and Leibniz, was profound. See P. H. Michel, The Cosmology of Giordano Bruno (tr. 1973); S. Drake, Copernicus : Philosophy and Science: Bruno : Kepler : Galileo (1973); F. A. Yates, Lull and Bruno (1982)."[source - The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright (c) 2003, Columbia University Press.] Now Let's look at the facts, 'Big Picture', with respect this theory of the Ptolemaic System, by considering the Copernican System model or theory and how it differed from the Ptolemaic System model by looking at some facts. The Copernican Model: A Sun-Centered Solar System" The Earth-centered Universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy held sway on Western thinking for almost 2000 years. Then, in the 16th century a new idea was proposed by the Polish astronomer Nicolai Copernicus (14731543). The Heliocentric System. In a book called On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (that was published as Copernicus lay on his deathbed), Copernicus proposed that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the Solar System. Such a model is called a heliocentric system. The ordering of the planets known to Copernicus in this new system is illustrated in the following figure, which we recognize as the modern ordering of those planets. The Copernican Universe In this new ordering the Earth is just another planet (the third outward from the Sun), and the Moon is in orbit around the Earth, not the Sun. The stars are distant objects that do not revolve around the Sun. Instead, the Earth is assumed to rotate once in 24 hours, causing the stars to appear to revolve around the Earth in the opposite direction. Retrograde Motion and Varying Brightness of the Planets The Copernican system by banishing the idea that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, immediately led to a simple explanation of both the varying brightness of the planets and retrograde motion: 1. The planets in such a system naturally vary in brightness because they are not always the same distance from the Earth.

2. The retrograde motion could be explained in terms of geometry and a faster motion for planets with smaller orbits, as illustrated in the following animation. "Brahe, Tycho , 1546-1601, Danish astronomer. The most prominent astronomer of the late 16th cent., he paved the way for future discoveries by improving instruments and by his precision in fixing the positions of planets and stars. From Brahe's exact observations of the planets, Kepler devised his laws of planetary motions (see Kepler's laws). Brahe's achievements included the study of a supernova (first observed in 1572 and now known as Tycho's supernova) in the constellation Cassiopeia and the discoveries of a variation in the inclination of the lunar orbit and of the fourth inequality of the moon's motion. He never fully accepted the Copernican system but made a compromise between it and the Ptolemaic system. In the Tychonic system, the earth was the immobile body around which the sun revolved, and the five planets then known revolved around the sun. Given funds by the Danish king Frederick II, Brahe built on the island of Ven a castle, Uranienborg, and an observatory, Stjarneborg. He was deprived of his revenues by Christian IV in 1596 and left Ven (1597); in 1599 he settled near Prague under the patronage of the German emperor Rudolf II. He published (1588) De mundi aetherii recentioribus phaenomenis, the second volume of a projected three-volume work on his astronomical observations; from an incomplete manuscript and notes Kepler edited Volume I, Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata (1602). Brahe's Astronomiae instauratae mechanica (1598) contained his autobiography and a description of his instruments. The preface of Osiander, pretending that the book of Copernicus suggested a hypothesis instead of announcing a truth, served its purpose well. During nearly seventy years the Church authorities evidently thought it best not to stir the matter, and in some cases professors like Calganini were allowed to present the new view purely as a hypothesis. There were, indeed, mutterings from time to time on the theological side, but there was no great demonstration against the system until 1616. Then, when the Copernican doctrine was upheld by Galileo as a truth, and proved to be a truth by his telescope, the book was taken in hand by the Roman curia. The statements of Copernicus were condemnned, ``until they should be corrected''; and the corrections required were simply such as would substitute for his conclusions the old Ptolemaic theory. That this was their purpose was seen in that year when Galileo was forbidden to teach or discuss the Copernican theory, and when were forbidden ``all books which affirm the motion of the earth.'' Henceforth to read the work of Copernicus was to risk damnation, and the world accepted the decree. The strongest minds were thus held fast. If they could not believe the old system, they must pretend that they believed it; - and this, even after the great circumnavigation of the globe had done so much to open the eyes of the world! Very striking is the case of the eminent Jesuit missionary Joseph Acosta, whose great work on the Natural and Moral History of the Indies, published in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, exploded so many astronomical and geographical errors. Though at times curiously credulous, he told the truth as far as he dared; but as to the movement of the heavenly bodies he remained orthodox - declaring, ``I have seen the two poles, whereon the heavens turn as upon their axletrees.'' [source - Warfare of Science with Theology Chapter III: Astronomy]

As can clearly be seen, Trinitarians get wrapped up in their own pursuit of trivial and are not capable of opening up to the more general or 'Big Picture' at a higher level or plain. That is why this myth or legend created by ancient Greek philosophers just like the Ptolemaic System theory. The only reason they are not still backing the Ptolemaic System theory today is that it was so badly shown by true science to be in error that even these diehard lovers of trivial and minute could no longer argue against the Copernican System model as modern science has made this completely impossible. Now they content themselves with trying to defend the absurdity of the Trinity another myth or legend created by ancient Greek philosophers originally introduced into so called Christianity, actually apostate or counterfeit Christianity by a pagan Roman Emperor as an attempt to gain religious unity to beef up his slowly crumbling empire. When so called Christian Bishops permit a pagan to call a so called Christian Church Council, Council of Nicea of 325 AD you know they have departed from the true ways of Christ. This Council of Nicea of 325 AD even usurped God's (YHWH's) exclusive legitimate right to declare which day was the Sabbath day by declaring that it was Sunday; whereas, God (YHWH) had declared it was Saturday which is quite clear if you look at the Spanish word for Saturday, 'Sabado.' Now to know the truth, go to: 1) 2) 3) http://religioustruths.yuku.com/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/ http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

If you wish more information and/or wish to ask a question or what ever, contact me by leaving a PM (personal message) at http://religioustruths.yuku.com/ Your Friend in Christ Iris89 Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!