Catholics' "Sign of the Cross"

Yet another featured Flipboard article, yet more fodder for my blog articles. This time is an article by a Mr. Philip Kosloski titled “Why do Catholics make the Sign of the Cross before praying?” (One caution in using the link, I noticed it kept pinging my computer. Not sure if it were merely harmless ads or whatnot. I copied the whole article into a text document in order to have it for reference then closed the link.)

Per Philip’s article, the history of this action is as follows:

According to writings that date back to the 3rd century, Christians have been making the sign of the cross over their bodies from the very beginning. Christian apologist Tertullian wrote at the time, “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross.”

First of all, “writings that date back to the 3rd century” do not constitute “from the very beginning” [of Christianity]. Christianity began around 100 years before Tertullian. Speaking of Tertullian, in that he was one of the first to propose the Trinity, he was obviously not an original Christian. It has long been known that it was indeed around the 3rd century that the false doctrine of the Trinity was first proposed. But it was not the belief of those that actually walked with Jesus. Philip also cites “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem” from the 4th century as a reference in using the “sign of the cross.” Cyril was involved in the Council of Nicaea and the formulation of “Homoousion,” the idea that Jesus in being one with God, was, in actuality, God Himself. Essentially, the pagan Trinity doctrine in its earliest form.

So this matter of the “sign of the cross” is something that grew out of the Catholic Church in around the 3rd century. Try as anyone might, they will not find this even alluded to in the Bible. Again, as has been mentioned before, the cross, as an instrument of torture and death was loathsome to first-century Christians. It should be such to ALL Christians.

It is believed this early tradition of marking one’s body with the cross was inspired by a passage in the book of Ezekiel where it says, “And the Lord said to him, ‘Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark upon the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it’” (Ezekiel 9:4).

In some translations of this passage it reads, “mark Tau upon the foreheads.” Tau is a letter of the Greek alphabet that is written as a T, and so the early Christians saw in it the sign of the cross. They believed that the sign of the cross set them apart and “marked” them as a chosen people who belong to the one true God.

The scripture quoted in Ezekiel was only to make a mark. There is no indication of the shape of the mark. If, as Philip cites, “some translations of this passage...reads ‘mark Tau upon the foreheads’” that is a corruption of what Ezekiel recorded as the word of God. And let's not forget that Jesus had not even yet come on the scene, so the supposed making a “T” on the forehead would lose all the symbolic sense that Catholics try to attach to it. In fact, under the heading “Symbolism,” the wiki article on Tau says that better researched and newer Bibles remove “taw” [aka, tau] from the cited passage in Ezekiel and replace it with “mark.”

As the Baltimore Catechism explains, “The sign of the cross is a profession of faith in the chief mysteries of our religion because it expresses the mysteries of the Unity and Trinity of God and of the Incarnation and death of our Lord…[it] expresses the mystery of the Incarnation by reminding us that the Son of God, having become man, suffered death on the cross.”

I’ve never understood why everything needs to be a “mystery” to Catholics. Yet they seem to use that word to describe so many of their beliefs. In the above quote from the Baltimore Catechism, it indeed accentuates that making the “sign of the cross” is directly related to the Trinity belief.

The cross is at the very center of what we believe and crossing ourselves is supposed to be a constant reminder of the price Jesus paid for our sins.

So if a close relative or beloved friend were killed with a gun, I should take that gun and hang it around my neck, and make “the sign of the gun” as a constant reminder of how much I love and miss my friend? How absolutely morbid! I would much rather carry a picture of my loved one -- THAT is what would remind me of what they meant to me, not the murder weapon!

According to Saint John Chrysostom, “wherever [demons] see the sign of the cross, they fly away, dreading it as a staff that they are beaten with.”

LOL. If using the name of Jesus doesn’t stop demons, why would some symbolic gesture do so?

In the end, the sign of the cross is a simple gesture that has ancient and biblical roots. While it may appear that some Catholics make it superstitiously, it was never intended to be done in such a way. It recalls that profound sacrifice of Jesus 2,000 years ago and actively calls upon his aid to help us in our need.

“While it may appear that some Catholics make it superstitiously, it was never intended to be done in such a way.” Well, let’s see here Philip. You just cited “Saint John Chrysostom” as recommending the sign anytime one feels the need to drive away demons and then you wonder why some Catholics make the sign superstitiously!? It’s because the “saint” so much as told them to do it anytime they sense something evil or even just bad. Indeed, my Mexican Catholic mother did exactly that. The Catholic Church is totally accountable, guilty, and reprehensible in this matter.

Philip, you never really proved that “the sign of the cross … has ... biblical roots.” You cited only one passage from Ezekiel that is not applicable and then made a quantum leap in your reasoning. As far as making that sign “recalls that profound sacrifice,” again, I’d much rather read about Jesus life and wisdom, the effect he had on people he taught, and the fulfillment he had on prophecies. Those things are much better than thinking of some instrument of death and torture.

The more I read about my former faith, especially by those supposedly defending it, I see such naivety regarding not only the facts but the guiding doctrines and principles found in the Bible.

About

Atheists on the Divinity of Jesus

I never thought I'd be grateful for the viewpoint of an atheist, but surprisingly I am. One particular atheist pointed out the stupidity of those believing in the divinity of Christ. Specifically, he claimed that if Jesus was/is actually God, then no real sacrifice was made. Although the atheist's concept of the word "sacrifice" was lacking in understanding, he did indeed have a valid point.

Although this article was addressing another challenge made against the Bible, the third and fourth paragraphs in the answer are applicable here. In those paragraphs, the respondent (wrongly) claimed that since Jesus was God, this wasn’t human sacrifice. So the evidence of the claim that some do believe Jesus was/is God is provided there. But I wanted to consider some of the supposed proofs that were given.

"One human life couldn’t possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed…. One finite human life [could not] atone for sin against an infinite God." Really? Then how is that one finite life (Adam’s) could wholesale all mankind into sin and death in the first place? The claimant is very wrong in this matter. In fact, even the apostle Paul would argue with him:

Romans 5:12 "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

Romans 5:15 "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many!”

The fact is, it is not the quantity that matters, it is what God deems is necessary. The principle that comes into play here is the “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (like for like) compensation rule. What was lost was one perfect human life that affected all mankind thereafter. What was needed was one perfect human life that maintained his loyalty (unlike Adam) thus meeting the requirement set out by God. (“For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous.” Romans 5:19. See also 1Tim.2:5,6) There is/was however, two differences between Jesus as a man and the rest of humanity. First, he was perfect in every way. Second, his role and life was also prophesied in scripture.

Next up…

“God didn’t sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus, as God incarnate, sacrificed Himself.... God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father.” This is so far from what the Bible teaches that it made me laugh. There is nothing from scripture in the above claims. First, Jesus is not “God incarnate” nor is that phrase nor concept nor even the phrase “God the Son” found anywhere in scripture. Truly, just as the apostle John concluded and surmised the purpose of his “gospel” account, “These have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.” (John 20:31). The only thing that comes remotely close to having an inkling of truth is the use of John 10:18. Yes, it is true that no one forced Jesus to do what he did, that doesn’t make him God. I also noticed that the respondent conveniently dropped the end of the scripture (which would have debunked his premise) that states: “This commandment I received from my Father.” It is beyond absurd to think that God would have to command himself to do anything.

In case any atheist is reading this blog, know that there are a group of Christians that do not believe Jesus was in any way, shape, or form part of a triune godhead. Those people are Jehovah’s Witnesses.

About

Glib Trinitarian

It seems those belonging to Christendom’s ranks can’t get past the basics. If they aren’t talking about the trinity, eternal damnation, durability of the human soul, they’re moaning over the empty pews in their churches and the general apathy of their parishioners.

I’ve been monitoring a subject division (and subdivisions) of Theology within Flipboard. The specific feed I was viewing today is “The Geeky Pastor” (aka, Tim Challies). In it, he links to an article titled “Is Jesus God?” The actual author of the article is Silverio Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez finishes his one-paragraph introduction, cheerfully claiming: “So, here are five ways Scripture shows that Jesus is God—a distinct person of the Trinity.”

(Both the Scripture citation and the “claim” are from Mr. Gonzalez. The “focus” and “counter” are my thoughts.)

Scripture: Col.1:19

Claim: “Jesus shares the same attributes as God.”

Focus: “fullness”

Counter: Matthew 27:46. If, as the author of this article claims, Jesus is himself God, then how could Jesus “abandon” himself? Yes, indeed, Jesus is glowingly, majestically, spoken of in the prophetic words of Isaiah as: “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Additionally, when Gabriel (the angel) appeared to Mary (at the time, the future mother of Jesus), he also said that Jesus would "rule as King over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his Kingdom." (Luke 1:31-33). However, as my blog articles have explained, being designated a “Mighty God” doesn’t mean he is the Almighty God. Additionally, just as a son can be the “spitting image” of his father, so Jesus (in a spiritual sense) imitated his Father so accurately, that he could say, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” (John 14:9) However, that he did NOT mean he was the same person, Jesus also said, “I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” (John 5:30) Yes, Jesus does “share attributes” but then mankind is also “made in God’s image” and share in God’s attributes (to some limited degree as imperfect beings) of justice, indiscriminate love, mercy, righteousness, faithfulness, and wisdom.

Scripture: John 1:1-3

Claim: “Jesus shares in the creating [sic] work of God.” (The claim should have been "Jesus shares in the creative work of God.")

Focus: Jesus intrinsically and inextricably attached to the creative works.

Counter: The claimant disproves his own words by using the phrase “shares in.” A person cannot “share in” something that he alone is doing. Either Jesus is a discrete entity or he is not. We believe he is a discrete entity, subservient to the Father, God Almighty. We agree that Jesus did indeed work with the Father (Jehovah) in creating all other things. That doesn’t make him “THE” God. 

Scripture: Eph. 1:7–10

Claim: Jesus shares in the saving work of God

Focus: “redemption in his (Jesus’) blood.”

Counter: Acts 4:12. If Jesus hadn’t been named by God (“given under heaven”) he would have been like any other rope not secured at the other end. Read this illustration about a father and son who save people in sinking boat. Another illustration: In this real-life and well-publicized event, a capsule was lowered into a shaft to rescue trapped miners. Question, although it was the capsule that actually saved the miners, who was thanked for the rescue? It was the topside workers that diligently labored to plan and execute a rescue mission. If the rescuers hadn’t been at the other end of the cable lifting the capsule, the capsule itself would have been useless. It is the same with Jesus acting as our savior. God made the provision. Jesus’ faithful sacrifice saved us, and then he “appeared before God in our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24)

Scripture: Matt. 28:16–18

Claim: Jesus receives worship due to God alone.

Focus: disciples did obeisance (NWT), bowed down (NWT, World English, Young's Literal), worshipped (several), did homage (Darby), adored (Douay-Rheims), prostrated themselves (Weymouth).

Counter: Notice the analysis of the Greek word used above. http://biblehub.com/greek/4352.htm. While “worship” seems a bit strong for something that literally translates “kiss,” given the custom of the people at the time, I understand why many translators decided on the word “worship.” However, more accurately, “adore, bow down, and prostrate” seem the right word choices. The disciples were Jews. They knew the truth in Jesus’ words to Satan (Matthew 4:10), "Go away, Satan! For it is written: 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" (See Deut.6:13,10:20, this article on “obeisance.”)

Scripture: Rev.1:8 (Other translations)

Claim: "Jesus shares the names of God."

Focus: The term "Alpha and Omega."

Counter: It is a common mistake that people make, confusing who is speaking in this verse. As the NWT and other translations make quite clear, it was Jehovah, the Father, speaking. Not Jesus.

Jesus is indeed our savior. God Jehovah made several prophecies about him in the Hebrew Scriptures (Reference 1, Reference 2). Jesus is absolutely the “Son of God,” but not “God, the Son.” We “bend our knee to him” in total subjection.

(Before posting this article, I tried to research who Mr. Silverio Gonzalez is. I stumbled across another article he wrote, where once again, he glosses over scriptures in a feeble attempt to prove the Trinity. He really strikes me as very glib. On this page, he is the third contributing writer listed.)

Other Trinity and Jesus identity articles:

Jehovah is One Jehovah

Holy Spirit. The 3rd Person?

John 1 And The Trinity Teaching

Understanding Paul’s Words at Philippians chapter 2, verses 6 and 7

Philippines 2:6-7 Revisited

So Who Is Lying?

First-Born of All Creation. Colossians 1:15

About

Jehovah is One Jehovah

A while back I was curious how the Jewish scholars interpreted the word “us” in Genesis 1:26. Interestingly, after reading a few websites, they believe it is the angels. (2nd reference) However, Christendom, which supports the Trinity doctrine, believes God was talking to the other two members of the Trinity. (I guess it is kind of cruel, but since, according to Trinity beliefs, there are not three gods, but only one, then the logical conclusion was that God was talking to himself.)

The worship of the sons of Israel (Judaism) has always been monotheistic. To them, as Deut.6:4 states, “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” The “Matthew Henry Commentary” at the bottom of this page starts out correctly stating: “Jehovah our God is the only living and true God; he only is God, and he is but One God.” But then, in the very next sentence, it quickly derails by bringing in the trinity with some very questionable reasoning (unsubstantiated reasoning) that “The three-fold mention of the Divine names, and the plural number of the word translated God, seem plainly to intimate a Trinity of persons, even in this express declaration of the unity of the Godhead.” There is absolutely no such implied reference in this scripture. Consider for just a moment: The passage in Deuteronomy is so simple in structure, it cannot possibly be misunderstood. It doesn’t ambiguously state “God our God is one God.” The surviving Hebrew manuscripts actually contain the Tetragrammaton (four-letters) which are the name of God, the Anglicized form of which is Jehovah (but if you insist on Yahweh, I’m good with that.). The passage reads “Jehovah our God, is one Jehovah.” Since Jehovah is mentioned by name as the exclusive God and that he is singularly the only God, the only intelligent conclusion is to take the scripture at its word. There is only one Jehovah, not some split personality disorder of three in one. Throughout all Jewish records there is no indication they ever thought of God as a trinity. (Both Judaism and Jehovah’s Witnesses agree there is no trinity.)

So how did we come to such a situation where the Jews believe, even to this day, in a single entity as God but most “Christian” writers want to read something else into every scripture that may even remotely ambiguously mention a different idea? The foundation of the first century Christians was based on Jewish believers at first (before opening the invitation to Samaritans and Gentiles). These believed Jesus was the son of God, not God the Son. In fact, it seems enough of a shocking idea that Jesus called himself God’s son. Imagine how repulsive it would have been if he said he was actually God! He never did. (In the surrounding verses, Jesus reasons with the hateful Jews about the term “god.” Note that while there is only one ultimate sovereign, Jehovah, as Jesus himself highlighted, even Jehovah called “gods” those who were judges in Israel. This was not a new teaching, nor was it suggestive of there being multiple gods.) (See top paragraph in this Auxiliary information.)

So did the early Christian’s beliefs change sometime after the congregations began to be formed? No. The early Christian writers, such as Paul, even stated that there was only one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus. To finalize the belief even into our own distant future, Paul acknowledged that after everything has been brought under subjection, then Jesus would turn the kingdom back to his father so “that God may be all things to everyone.” If Jesus were already God, this would be impossible in any way, shape, or form. (For all the dancing around John 1:1 and John 20:28 that those advancing the Trinity make, there is no denying that John’s conclusion is irrefutable: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. (John 20:31)

(It is interesting that the “2nd reference” mentioned in the first paragraph acknowledges the same beliefs about the Bible’s teachings of the substance and future of mankind in Judaism as do Jehovah’s Witnesses. Even the belief of future resurrection is shared by both religions. The resurrection performed by God through the prophet Elijah is part of the Hebrew Canon -- see verses 17 through 24. Although the modern Jewish leaders do not seem to teach it and even advance the idea of reincarnation.)

About

Romans 10:13 Salvation From God and His Son

I was preparing some notes I had gathered to write an article on differences I observed the Mormon religion had with the Bible. I had come across some indisputable evidence demonstrating the fallacies of their beliefs (or so I thought). But then I reflected that I had never been a Mormon so, unlike observations I have made about my former Catholic faith, I really could not speak with any experience or authority on the matter. I also remembered that I have a dear relative that is Mormon that I respect as an intelligent person and I knew she also taught the religion to children in her faith. So I determined to write her asking help in understanding her acceptance of points I felt no rational person could ever believe.

Besides respect for my relative, there is another underlying reason I have for contacting her--I know that things found on the internet can be misstated, misunderstood, taken out of context, and even intentionally twisted. I know i would not appreciate someone misrepresenting my faith (although that happens frequently), so inspite of being imperfect like everyone else, I do make every honest effort to understand something before writing about it on my blog. (I am still refining that article.)

“Driving home” (accentuating) the above point, the author of the same material I read on Mormon beliefs also commented on Jehovah’s Witnesses. (No surprise there. In fact, this fellow gives the impression that he is the only person who understands life correctly. Everyone else is demonic and associate with the Masons.) After spewing his cursory, shallow reasoning, he culminated with a point he felt completely discredited the New World Translation (NWT).

In 2013, the NWT underwent a substantial revision (PDF, Web online verison). Although it was already a modern-English Bible translation, changes in phrasing to make it easier to read were deemed necessary. This is nothing unusual, it is a trend amongst most translators today to render the Bible thought-for-thought, instead of literally word-for-word. These rendering methods are actually hotly contended. While the old camp insisted that word-for-word was the best and most loyal way to translate, the newer camp was readily able to cite instances where such thinking would completely (and inaccurately) change the intended meaning. Especially with certain idioms common to the original languages of the Bible, this is a big problem.

But I digress. He cited our rendering of Romans 10:13. (Other translations here.) The problem he had with our rendering is that the context shows that prior to verse 13, Paul was obviously talking about Jesus Christ. Yes, indeed. The thing this man so conveniently (or perhaps ignorantly) passed over was the quote marks in verse 13. Paul was quoting from the Hebrew writings, specifically from a passage in Joel, chapter 2, verse 32. Joel lived and wrote before Jesus came to earth, so when he wrote what most translations render as “LORD,” what he actually wrote in the Hebrew language was the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), which happens to be what many modern translations actually render as God’s name (Yahweh or Jehovah).

So does this prove then that Paul was making Jesus and Jehovah out to be the same person in one? No. Most claiming Christianity can readily recite Acts 4:12, essentially stating that God provided no other name by which we may get saved. Picture a father and son (which coincidentally is the relationship that the Bible says Jehovah, the Father, and Jesus, the Son, share--not twins, not brothers). Say a father and son are out fishing when the waters start to become very choppy and they hear cries for help in the distance. They go to the rescue. The father ties a lifeline to the son’s waist, throws him in the water and the son, in turn, uses floatation devices tied to himself to give to those in need that are struggling in the water. Finally, the father pulls everyone back to the boat.

Question: Who saved the endangered people, the son or the father? If you answer “both,” that would be the most accurately correct answer. It is the same case with what was done to save mankind from sin. If God had not provided Jesus, it would have been as much use as the father in the boat letting go of the rope holding his son--no one would have won. The father would have lost his son, the son would have lost his life and the lives of everyone holding onto the lifelines that were thrown to them. That essentially is the effect of a false prophet--someone who cannot lead us back to the Father because the father has not approved him.

In agreement with Peter’s words at Acts 4:12 (and elsewhere in scripture), Paul cited our need to rely on Jesus, then, quoting from Joel, demonstrated that Jehovah is where “the buck stops” when it comes to salvation.

Final note: The author of the video I am referring to concluded that as much as Jehovah’s Witnesses try to prove that there is no trinity, our rendering of Romans 10:13 demonstrates Jehovah and Jesus are the same person. I had to chuckle at that statement. First, because I just demonstrated that it was his misunderstanding (intentional or not) that was confused, not us. Second, because he adamantly claimed (without substantiation) that the weight of scripture proves Jesus is God. The truth is, the weight of scripture demonstrates that Jesus taught he was subject to God, and therefore not equal to Jehovah God.

Jesus Is Our Savior

Infrequently I hear people say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. Since that is a lie or at very least a misconception, I work hard to explain the facts and truth of the matter. Normally, I end up going into a lengthily explanation. For decades I’ve struggled to find a brief explanation. I think I finally hit on it….

We believe what Acts 4:12 says about Jesus: “There is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” Indeed, Jesus is the designated savior of sinful mankind, which includes all humans. But now focus on the part that says “has been given.” Who did the giving of Jesus’ name? The answer is found at John 12:49 where we read that “the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak.” Yes, the one Jesus taught us to pray to at Matthew 6:9 with the words “Our Father in the heavens,” God himself, is the one that pointed to Jesus in prophecies as being the Messiah.

Does God, “our Father” have a name? At Psalms 83:18 we read: “May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.” (Other translations) Yes, the Father’s name is Jehovah and that is why we primarily call ourselves Jehovah’s Witnesses—because the Father, Jehovah, is the one that Jesus himself directed that we should pray to and worship.

In short, then, Jesus is God's means for saving mankind from sin and death. He is God's spokesman (John 1:1, "the Word"), and, as the "son of God," is second in command.

So Who Is Lying?

If there is one thing true Christians should believe, it is that God cannot lie. They agree with Jesus’ words “Your Word is truth.“ Through the decades, supporters of the trinity teaching have lambasted Jehovah’s Witnesses for supposedly attempting to change the meaning of John 1:1. Although what we teach about that scripture is intelligent, holds to correct grammar, and praises both God and Christ in their respective roles, opposers falsely and slanderously accuse us of wrongdoing. But what is the track record of our opposers?

In Phil.2:1-10, Paul teaches a lesson in humility.  In verse 5 Paul drives home how Jesus set the example by leaving heaven and coming to earth. Those advancing the trinity argue that Paul was teaching that Jesus was/is God. Reading the context, such a conclusion would nullify the passage and make Jesus guilty of false humility. So who is right the Bible or the trinitarians? My vote is for the Bible.

In Col.1:15-20 Paul builds successively on a reasoning point that Jesus is "first" in so many ways: 1) created first, 2) is responsible for the rest of creation (working alongside his Father), 3) is head of the Christian congregation, 4) was the first raised to eternal, heavenly life, and 5) is the first, last and only one designated by God that can save all mankind by virtue of his forfeiting his human life for our sake. But the trinitarians break the chain of Paul's reasoning at the first link by purporting that Jesus was never created because he is God. So who is right? Again, my vote is for God’s word. (If the trinitarians were right, this passage would have to be re-written into mindless dribble: Jesus wasn’t the firstborn, instead he is God. He worked alongside himself in making everything else. He was pleased to have everything rely on and be reconciled through himself (which, if Jesus were already God, it already did according to the trinitarians, so why go through all the trouble?!).

In Hebrews 1:1-4 Paul makes a point similar to both the above scriptures but also adds that Jesus became better than the angels, having attained a name better than any angel. But the trinitarians teach that Jesus is God, so how could he possibly be given a position by God that elevates Jesus? It would not surprise me that people get a migraine trying to understand the trinitarian viewpoint. To believe the trinitarians, we would have to believe that the Bible lied on three fronts: 1) God didn’t give Jesus a superior title because he already was God. 2) He wasn’t raised above the angels because he already was. 3) Jesus never sat down at God’s right hand because, again, he is already God. But, it is the trinitarian's beliefs that are the lie. The Bible truthfully says that 1) God (the Father) did indeed give Jesus a position superior to any other intelligent creation. 2) Jesus was given a position much above all the angels. 3) Jesus did indeed take a secondary place "at God's right hand."

In John 20:17 Jesus himself states that he has yet to ascend to his God and Father. But the trinitarians say that Jesus is a liar. He is God, therefore he was using some sort of euphemism. A plain, simple and easy to understand statement by Jesus is taken by the trinitarians and turned into convoluted, indecipherable brainless babble.

It really is no wonder that agnostics and atheists feel religion is the “opium of the people.” For the greater part, this is absolutely true. The truth taught in the Bible has been scrambled into such stupidity, that honest, thinking people can see right through it. Sadly, they conclude that all those teaching the Bible are wrong. However, there is a small group of us that finally saw through the smoke and fog and found the clear air of Bible truth.

(The above was only a small sampling. However, in each and every case where those adhering to the trinity doctrine try to change the scripture around so that Jesus is made out to be equal to or even the same person as the Father, the lie is easily demonstrable by merely considering the context and implications.)

First-Born of All Creation. Colossians 1:15

Colossians 1:15 (other translations here) refers to Jesus as the firstborn of all creation. I was curious how those believing in the Trinity explained that verse. One such explanation is here. First, I noted that the article was written with the unproven assumption that Jesus is God, therefore any explanation of the verse would be slanted to conform to that belief.

One of the worst cases of reasoning in that article was stating that “Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase 'the image of the invisible God.' The word 'image,' meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity. This word involves more than a resemblance, more than a representation. He is God!”

Whoa, there! Back that train up. First Jesus is the “image” then, all of a sudden he is not the image, but instead he is actually God. In which alternate universe is this possible? How can an image of someone be the person itself? Even if twins stood next to each other and someone remarked that they are “the spitting image of each other,” does that mean that they are each other? No, it doesn't. Similarly, Jesus is either a copy/likeness or he is the original, he can’t be both. Further, to claim that “The word 'image,' ... expresses Christ’s deity” is completely ludicrous. Or maybe the article just (conveniently) forgot that humans are also spoken of as being made in God’s “image and likeness.” Are we, then, also God himself? You can see how ridiculous such reasoning is. (See more on “image” here.)

Another point in that original quote is his opening, “Christ’s relationship to His Father….” is that Christ is God. If he is God, then there is no relationship. Don’t understand? Let me ask you--what is your relationship to yourself? Even if you have Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), there is no relationship. You are you. At times you may argue with yourself and at times you may need to make peace with yourself, but neither of those are statements of being more than one person. So is Christ a separate person or is he God? Those advancing the Trinity belief cannot seem to make up their minds. On the other hand, scripture is very plain on the subject. There is one God, the Father; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.

There were so many derailments in this article’s reasoning. If I were to provide an explanation and rebuttal for each one, my post would be too long. So here is a short list:

• The article states that believing that Jesus was actually a creation of the Father “conflicts with the rest of the Bible.” There were no links provided to which scriptures were involved “in the rest of the Bible.” In contrast, consider this long list of scriptures that prove Jesus and God are separate entities.
• The article stated: “Christ could not be both Creator and created.” Why not? So just because my parents made me means I cannot also make other humans? That is essentially what the article implies. And yet, guess what, I also am a father! So yes, Jesus can be (and was) created and is also himself a creator, by drawing on his Father’s power. One thought-stimulating passage is found in the creation account--where God says “let US make man in our image.” In order for there to be an “us” there has to be more than one. If, as the Trinitarians believe, Jesus is God, then there is no “us.” There would be just one--which just happens to be the belief of Trinitarians. Yet, the scripture says very plainly “let us make….”
• The article states: “The word 'firstborn' (Greek word 'prototokos') signifies priority.” It can, but it also indicates the person born first. Trying to dilute that fact only beclouds the plain and simple reasoning the scriptures put forth.
• The article states: “In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the firstborn was not necessarily the oldest child. Firstborn referred not to birth order but to rank. The firstborn possessed the inheritance and leadership.” Once again an unsubstantiated claim. But lets stick with scripture, not general “culture of the Ancient Near East.” There were two scripture-based incidents where the natural firstborn lost the rights. One was Esau, the other was Reuben. Using just two famous incidents in the Bible to base an assertion that “firstborn referred not to birth order but to rank” is just plain wrong. In fact, both those instances recognized that the natural firstborn rights were Esau’s and Reuben’s but they forfeited those rights.

Everything considered, the evidence from scripture is that Jesus is the “son of God,” not God himself. He is firstborn in that he was God's first creation of a living sentient being. After that, all things came into existence through Jesus. Really, if Colossians 1:15-20 is taken at face value, without trying to run it through the meat grinder of Trinitarian beliefs, it is very straightforward, clear and easy to understand. Verse 15 states that Christ was the first creation. Verse 16 states states that after he was created, he worked side-by-side with his Father creating the rest of everything, both seen and unseen.Verses 17 and 18 (not verse 15) address the preeminence of Jesus over everything else--which would make sense seeing as he took part in creating it. Verse 19 says that God was/is pleased to bestow honor on his son. Finally verse 20 recaps how the ransom sacrifice of Jesus was/is designed to restore peace and unity in all creation, thus further driving home the preeminent position of Jesus. Through all this, Paul builds his reasoning in each verse like we would stack blocks one on top of the other to make a tower of evidence. Christ was the first created, Christ was the first permanently resurrected, Christ is second in command to Jehovah God, and without Jesus, we wouldn't have the hope of ransom from sin and death.

(Please don’t send me this link. I am aware of it. To me it seems the article doesn't really explain the passage in Colossians 1. Its real intent is to discredit, through shallow misrepresentation, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Addendum: New article on Colossians 1:16 added April, 2017