Trinitarian Fallacies | Exposed

Courtesy: GDL Oberink

There exist some common objections against the notion that Elohiym is numerically One, and not a trinity. This article will deal with those objections step by step, and show that the One Elohiym doctrine is consistent with Scripture, contrary to the trinitarian position that lacks Biblical support. The following questions are among the most frequently encountered:

1. Is YaHuWshuaH His own Father?
2. If YaHuWshuaH's will and the Father's will were identical, then why did YaHuWshuaH express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father?
3. Was YaHuWshuaH praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?
4. Why was YaHuWshuaH not saying, “Not My will, but MY will be done?” if there is only one person and one will involved when He was praying in Luke 22:42 & MattithYahuw 26:39.
5. Since the Bible teaches us that YaHuWshuaH is in bodily form now (Colossians 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that Elohiym is in the form of the Ruach Ha'Qodesh? Also, when YaHuWshuaH returns, will He return in His body?
6. If Elohiym is only one person, why did YaHuWshuaH say in Yahuwchanon 14:23, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” If Elohiym is only one person, why does YaHuWshuaH say, “We”?
7. Oneness theology teaches that Elohiym was in the "mode" of the Father in the Old Testament. Elohiym was seen in the OT (not as a vision or a dream or an Angel in the following verses: Shemoth (Exodus) 6:2-3; Bereshiyth (Genesis) 19:24; Bemidbar (Numbers) 12:6-8). Yet, YaHuWshuaH said no one has seen the Father (Yahuwchanon 6:46). If they were seeing Elohiym Almighty (Shemoth (Exodus) 6:2-3) and it wasn't the Father, then who was it?

In the next section, we will parse these objections from a One Elohiym perspective.

The Answers

Is YaHuWshuaH His own Father?

Question 1 | The Answer

This question is misleading, because it is based on a presupposition that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons. It betrays a bias towards a multiplicity in Elohiym. Compare this question: “How did Elohiym use evolution to create the world”? A surreptitious attempt to smuggle in evolution as true! An unbiased formulation of our question might be: Is YaHuWshuaH, besides (being) the Son, also the Father? The answer from the Bible would be: Yes, He is! The Bible says the Son would be called Father (YeshaYahuw 9:6)

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty Elohiym, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

---

YaHuWshuaH clearly said that the Father is in Him, and that he who sees YaHuWshuaH, is in fact looking at the Father (Yahuwchanon 14:9-11, Yahuwchanon 12:45). The correct understanding is that Elohiym is the Father of His own flesh (Yahuwchanon 1:14). The manifestation of Elohiym in His own flesh is called YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach. (1 Timothy 3:16).

For the details of how this happened; how the Father became the Father of His own flesh, visit this page here.

If YaHuWshuaH's will and the Father's will were identical, then why did YaHuWshuaH express the desire to escape "the cup" but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father?

Question 2 | The Answer

This question attributes something to YaHuWshuaH that is unbiblical and false. YaHuWshuaH never desired to escape death on the Cross. Our counter-question would be: if YaHuWshuaH really desired to escape the Cross, how do you explain the following verses?:

YaHuWshuaH answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

---

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

---

For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

---

The fact is, YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach never had a “plan B”. He is Elohiym; His plan will be triumphant. He came to die on the Cross, and He did this by one single will: the will of the Father, for the Father and the Son are One (Yahuwchanon 10:30). Throughout the Bible, Elohiym clearly shows He has only one will:

Then answered YaHuWshuaH and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

---

See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no Elohiym with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

---

Was YaHuWshuaH praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?

Question 3 | The Answer

Before answering this question, let us first assume that YaHuWshuaH was indeed praying to a distinct person Elohiym the Father. Now the official version (of the) doctrine of the trinity states that Elohiym eternally exists as three co-equal and consubstantial persons. If all the persons within the godhead are completely equal and of the same essence, why would Elohiym the Son have to pray to Elohiym the Father? This in fact would be illogical, since both Elohiym the Son and Elohiym the Father are equal. The Son would not need any help from the Father, since they are both individually omnipotent. Does'nt praying imply that a weaker party is appealing to a higher One for help?

The best way of interpreting the prayer of YaHuWshuaH to the Father is by understanding that everything YaHuWshuaH did on Earth was for us (our example - teaching us to pray), for humanity as a whole. He is the Mediator between man and Elohiym (1 Timothy 2:5). Just as YaHuWshuaH did not die on the Cross for Himself, but for us, He also suffered humiliation for us, and He prayed like us. YaHuWshuaH prayed on behalf of Adam as his Mediator. Not because he was weak and needed help. All power belongs to YaHuWshuaH in Heaven and on Earth. He does not need any external assistance. Now as to the question (of) whom YaHuWshuaH was praying to, let us look at two verses and combine them:

To wit, that Elohiym was in haMashiyach, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

---

Likewise the Ruach also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Ruach itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

---

Just as Elohiym (the Father) was in haMashiyach (Yahuwchanon 14:10-11) reconciling humanity to Himself, also the same Ruach (Elohiym) who lives in us will intercede to (sic) Himself. This is the mystery of godliness. Elohiym Himself was manifested in the flesh as YaHuWshuaH, not another Elohiym or person. The trinitarian creed in fact makes the mistake of creating another Elohiym: [Elohiym of Elohiym], Light of Light, very Elohiym of very Elohiym!

These words are profoundly unbiblical. Yet they form the basis of present-day orthodox Christianity. Elohiym however cannot be duplicated. There is only One Elohiym, indivisible (YeshaYahuw 43:10). When YaHuWshuaH is praying to the Father, He is reconciling the world to Himself, not to another Elohiym or elohiym. That is why YaHuWshuaH is called the Alef and Tav, the beginning and the end, the root and the branch. YaHuWshuaH is both Ruach and flesh. He and the Father are One. Elohiym is the source and the end of everything, so indeed YaHuWshuaH is praying to Elohiym, and He is the only Elohiym. YaHuWshuaH is praying to Himself, for Elohiym is One. We should not be confused by this, because Elohiym is certainly capable of praying to Himself to mediate for mankind. He is the ultimate standard for everything. His name expresses this: I AM (YaHuWaH). Elohiym does not need any higher authority or external explanation, He simply Is. That is why the Bible makes the following statement about Elohiym:

For by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:

---

And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

---

Why was YaHuWshuaH not saying, “Not My will, but MY will be done?”, if there is only one person and one will involved when He was praying in Luke 22:42 & MattithYahuw 26:39.

Question 4 | The Answer

To understand why YaHuWshuaH is speaking about His own will as well as the will of the Father, we have to realize that Elohiym played a very special role in YaHuWshuaH. YaHuWshuaH is the Lamb of Elohiym, who was to be slain for sins He had not committed (1 Kepha (Peter) 3:18). In the role of the Son, Elohiym did not have any separate or distinct will. The doctrine of dyothelitism was forced upon the Natsariym world during the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 681 AD, where Pope Agatho issued a long list of anathemas against his opponents. This doctrine, proclaiming that YaHuWshuaH had two distinct wills, one human and one divine, stands on the shoulders of Chalcedon, and will fall. But does YaHuWshuaH really have two wills? The answer from the Bible is a resounding no! The only reason YaHuWshuaH is here speaking about "my will" versus the will of the Father is to teach us 'total surrendering to Elohiym's Will'. The following verses make this quite clear:

For I came down from Heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.

---

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

---

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself: but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works.

---

Since the Bible teaches us that YaHuWshuaH is in bodily form now (Colossians 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that Elohiym is in the form of the Ruach Ha'Qodesh? Also, when YaHuWshuaH returns, will He return in His body? Will Elohiym's form then revert to the form of the Son at a later date?

Question 5 | The Answer

Elohiym the Father is Ruach, the Bible says (Yahuwchanon 4:23-23). The Father is not the Ruach Ha'Qodesh. The Ruach Ha'Qodesh is the Ruach of Him who is manifested in flesh as YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach (1 Timothy 3:16). From the moment Elohiym manifested in His own Heavenly flesh, Elohiym will forever be flesh and Ruach. We will only see Elohiym as YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach (Yahuwchanon 1:18). YaHuWshuaH will never change. He is the same, yesterday, today, forever (Ivriym (Hebrews) 13:8). Elohiym manifests Himself to believers as the Ruach Ha'Qodesh. The Ruach Elohiym, the Ruach Ha'Qodesh, is available to believers through faith and water baptism (Acts 2:38, 19:1-6). YaHuWshuaH will however return bodily the same as during His Ascension (Acts 1:11). However, this question seems to reveal confusion about the distinction between the Ruach Elohiym and His flesh. This is only a distinction of manifestation and not of substance or person. YaHuWshuaH is both Ruach (the Father) and flesh (the Son). He is called the person of the Father (Ivriym (Hebrews) 1:3). Therefore the Ruach and the flesh cannot be separated (in essence). Both are One Elohiym (Yahuwchanon 10:30).

If Elohiym is only one person, why did YaHuWshuaH say in Yahuwchanon 14:23, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.” If Elohiym is only one person, why does YaHuWshuaH say, “We”?

Question 6 | The Answer

Counter question: If Elohiym is multiple, then why does the Bible refer to Him as “He”?

And the scribe said unto Him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one Elohiym; and there is none other but He.

---

And if there is indeed a multiplicity within the godhead, why does Elohiym often refer to Himself as “I”, first person singular?

Ye are My witnesses, saith YaHuWaH, and My Servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I Am He: before Me there was no Elohiym formed, neither shall there be after Me.

---

I, even I, am YaHuWaH; and beside Me there is no Saviour.

---

See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no Elohiym with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand.

---

Thou, even Thou, art Adonai alone; Thou hast made Heaven, the Heaven of Heavens, with all their host, the Earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all; and the host of Heaven worshippeth Thee.

---

Our point is that verses like Yahuwchanon 14:23 or Yahuwchanon 17:22 are not proof that Elohiym is in three persons. These verses can be offset by an overwhelming amount of Scriptures that use first or second person singular. Moreover, the plural ones could be interpreted as majestic plural, or some form of personification of the titles of Elohiym as Father and Son. The Bible does use a lot of metaphorical or even poetic language at times. The fact that a few verses do use plural pronoun when referring to Elohiym, are not conclusive evidence for a triune Elohiym. If Elohiym is really three, the onus is on the trinitarians to provide an explanation for the large body of evidence for a singular Elohiym.

Oneness theology teaches that Elohiym was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament. Elohiym was seen in the OT (not in a vision or dream in the following verses: Shemoth (Exodus) 6:2-3; Bereshiyth (Genesis) 19:24; Bemidbar (Numbers) 12:6-8). Yet, YaHuWshuaH said no one has seen the Father (Yahuwchanon 6:46). If they were seeing Elohiym Almighty (Shemoth (Exodus) 6:2-3) but it wasn't the Father, then who was it?

Question 7 | The Answer

They saw what is called a theophany in theology. The Father is Ruach, and indeed no human can see Him without serious consequences (death, Shemoth (Exodus) 33:20). Elohiym is holy, and no flesh can see Him and live. Therefore, Elohiym manifests Himself in a form that (is) commensurate with human sensory ability. But at the same time this way of appearing does remove some of the pure glory of Elohiym. When Elohiym appeared to Mosheh, He mentions that he will only see “His back parts” (Shemoth (Exodus) 33:23). Prophets like Yechezkiy'el and YeshaYahuw saw a vision of Elohiym where He appears in the likeness of a Man, or sitting upon a throne. Notice that they always see only one Person:

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also YaHuWaH sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple.

---

And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

---

It was however not the Father that they saw. It was YaHuWshuaH. YaHuWshuaH ultimately reveals the glory of the Father, by taking on flesh and blood (Acts 20:28). He is the fullness of Elohiym in the likeness of human flesh (Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:7). Elohiym's mercy and love are revealed only in YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach. That is why YaHuWshuaH said: if you see me, you will see the Father. Some people however, although they have been a long time with YaHuWshuaH, still entertain the thought that YaHuWshuaH is distinct from the Father! Let the words of YaHuWshuaH spoken to the Apostle Philip shed light here:

YaHuWshuaH saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

---

Let us finish this article with a brief explanation of the identity of YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach from a One Elohiym perspective. This will hopefully enable a clearer understanding of the One Elohiym preached by the Apostles.

Elohiym is Ruach, and Elohiym is Word (Bereshiyth (Genesis) 1:1-3, Tehilliym (Psalm) 33:6). Those are aspects of the One Elohiym of Yashar'el. What does that mean? Before the flesh of YaHuWshuaH was begotten, He was Ruach and Word. The Word became flesh in YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach. The Ruach in YaHuWshuaH is the Father. This helps to understand that YaHuWshuaH is not distinct from the Father (who is Ruach). See the details here.

Elohiym is one. That “one” is a numerical one, not a type of oneness, which is really a form of disguised multiplicity. Oneness is in fact a trinitarian term, that is not found anywhere in the Bible. The Bible simply states that Elohiym is one. The word in Greek for one is “eis”, which is the translation of the Ivriyt “echad”. "Echad" and "eis" simply refer to the ordinal number 1.

Trinitarians have tried to find evidence in the Bible for threeness in Elohiym, but they have to stretch the meaning of Scriptures or rob the verses of their context to make their case. Well-known examples are the supposed trinity in words like "echad" or a plural reference to Elohiym (Gen 1:26). All these examples have very convincing alternative explanations, such as majestic plurality or the plurality of Elohiym (in) glory or titles. And even if they would denote a plurality, they are far from the very specific form of the trinity which consists of three co-equal and eternal persons. Another example is the supposed trinity visiting Abraham. The Bible text however reveals that two of the men are in fact Angels. The evidence for Elohiym being simply one is overwhelming. A few texts will clarify this:

At that time YaHuWshuaH answered and said, I thank Thee, O Father, Adonai of Heaven and Earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

---

And that every tongue should confess that YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach is Adonai, to the glory of Elohiym the Father.

---

Now YaHuWaH is that Ruach: and where the Ruach of YaHuWaH is, there is liberty.

---

And thou shalt love YaHuWaH thy Elohiym with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

---

YaHuWshuaH is called Adonai. The Father is called Adonai. The Ruach is called Adonai, and Elohiym is called Adonai. How many adoniym (lords) are there in Elohiym? One Adonai (Ephesians 4:4). This implies that YaHuWshuaH, the Father and the Ruach are all the same Adonai, without distinction of persons, without multiplicity of natures or wills.

I am Alef and Tav, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

---

I am Alef and Tav, the beginning and the ending, saith YaHuWaH, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

---

Thus saith YaHuWaH the King of Yashar'el, and his redeemer YaHuWaH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no Elohiym.

---

YaHuWshuaH is called the Alef and Tav, and the Father is called Alef and Tav. There are not two "Alef and Tav". There is only one Almighty: YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach, the Father, manifested in flesh and blood.

Closing words:

After 700 AD, and as a result of 500 years of theological debates, the Natsariym world went on from believing in the simplicity of haMashiyach into a state religion that forced people (to) accept the doctrines developed in seven ecumenical Councils. The YaHuWshuaH of the gospels and letters of Paul is thus declared:

• ☞ To be the second person of a celestial trinity, Elohiym the Son.
• ☞ To have two distinct but inseparable wills, one human and one divine

In his book “The history of Christian theology”, Roger E Olson (a staunch trinitarian himself) is quite honest about the driving force behind the development of these doctrines: neo platonic philosophy. One quote about the work of trinitarian, Gregory of Nyssa, is quite revealing:

The one god-head subsists in three coequal, coeternal, coessential persons, and this truth is an incomprehensible mystery. There is communion of substance but distinction of personhood. This trinity is a perfect, inseparable, indivisible union, and the persons work together in all things. The unique distinguishing characteristics of the persons are as follows: the Father is un-begotten, the Son is begotten (generated), and the Ruach Ha'Qodesh is proceeding (spirated). The generation of the Son and the procession of the Ruach Ha'Qodesh are mysteries, however. While the persons are coequal and coeternal, the Father is in some sense the head and the origin”.

---

The meaning of Spiration is the action of breathing as a creative or life-giving function of the Deity.

---

Don't let this be lost on you, please. That the Ruach Ha'Qodesh (holy spirit) was originated by the Father 'breathing' Him into existence! How does this make sense?

One might wonder if these statements are still speaking of the Elohiym of Abraham, Yitshaq and Ya'akob, who was manifested in the flesh as Adonai YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach. The trinity is always referred to as an incomprehensible mystery. The reason is that in the end, the trinity cannot be adequately explained nor understood. But the notion that Elohiym chose to remain hidden during OT times, and then to manifest Himself again in a mystery, is unbiblical:

Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his Saints:

---

To whom Elohiym would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is haMashiyach in you, the hope of glory.

---

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: Elohiym was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Ruach, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

---

The mystery of Elohiym is revealed in YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach, not in another mystery!

The history of the trinity is quite well documented, and excellently described by theologians like Olson, who convincingly links the development of the trinity to neo-platonic philosophy. Church fathers like Justin Martyr, Origen, and later Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, made extensive use of platonic concepts like monad, hypostasis and (Greek) logos to forge what would be known as the trinity. In its initial conception at Nicaea, the Ruach Ha'Qodesh was not yet part of the fully fledged trinity, only to be added at the time of the council of Constantinople in 381 AD. From Justin Martyr to the Cappadocian fathers it had taken the trinitarian theologians more than 200 years to develop a doctrine that is in its core a mixture of Greek philosophy and New Testament theology. The doctrine of the trinity is not found in the Bible; is based on circumstantial textual evidence; seems logically flawed; confuses believers; and was never preached by any of the Apostles. With the correct understanding of Elohiym being One, the trinity is in fact an unnecessary (but dangerous) concept.

But to us there is but one Elohiym, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Adonai YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.

---

And Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Adonai and my Elohiym.

---

( Clarification: ) Please note that the trinity doctrine means that the Savior YaHuWshuaH ended His saving work for us at the Cross! And since His return to Heaven in 31 AD, He has had nothing to do with or for us! Is that true or okay, by you? He died for us; rose from the dead; ascended into Heaven; and has been with us since then and will remain with us to the end of Time.
MattithYahuw 28:20 Cepher, "Teaching them to guard all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amein.

Finally, If the 'made-up' third person of the godhead is a lie and does not exist, why the herculean effort to 'create' him? Who has been behind this millennia-long effort? By the trinity doctrine, Heylel, who is Satan, succeeded in inserting himself unto the Throne of Elohiym! And, by doing so, diminished and usurped the Savior's place and role in the Plan of Salvation! The Savior's role became restricted to His Death on the Cross and subsequent idling on the Throne! What blasphemous insult!

Recall this satanic plan:

12. How are you fallen from Heaven, O Heylel, son of the howling morning! how are you cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!
13. For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into Heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of El: I will sit also upon the Mount of the assembly, in the sides of the north:
14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like El Elyon.

---

By discarding the trinity abomination, we restore YaHuWshuaH to His rightful place and role on the Throne and evict the usurper from there! Don't you like that?

I pray that whoever reads this, will (by the grace of Elohiym) understand that the Son of Elohiym YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach is both Adonai and Elohiym our Father.

Bibliography:

1. Trinitarian carm.org:
2. All verses taken from the King James Translation (Biblical Ivriyt (Hebrew) Names replacing pagan names).
3. Grudem, Wayne A. 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press; Page 226
4. Excerpt from the Nicene Creed, 325 AD. The bracketed words were taken out during the first council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
5. Early Church Texts
6. Encyclopedia Britannica.com
7. From: Roger E Olson, The Story of Natsariym Theology Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (1999)

MattithYahuw 28:19 | Fallacy

About Eusebius Pamphilius

• ☞ Eusebius Pamphilius, or Eusebius of Caesarea was born about 270 AD and died about 340 AD.
• ☞ Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament” (Dr. Westcott, General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, page 108).
• ☞ “Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time… worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. Eusebius…relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts” (E. K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, August 1923; Fraternal Visitor, June 1924)
• ☞ “Eusebius Pamphilius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning.”… he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilius, a learned and devout man of Caesarea, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning.” (J. L. Mosheim, editorial footnote).
• ☞ In his library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries” (The Hibbert Journal, October, 1902)
• ☞ Eusebius was an eyewitness of an unaltered Book of MattithYahuw that was likely an early copy near to the original MattithYahuw.
• ☞ Eusebius quotes the early book of MattithYahuw that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of YaHuWshuaH's actual words to His disciples in the original text of MattithYahuw 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"".
• ☞ The MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilius, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of the Father, Son, and Ruach Ha'Qodesh.” It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors (F.C. Conybeare, Hibbert Journal, 1902, p 105)

But while the Disciples of YaHuWshuaH were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In My Name.” And the power of His Name being so great, that the Apostle says: “Elohiym has given him a Name which is above every name, that in the Name of YaHuWshuaH every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in Earth, and things under the Earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations".

With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” …

I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man's and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in My Name.”

And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My Name.”

Bible Footnotes and References Regarding MattithYahuw 28:19

It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts (of the Apostles) speak of baptizing “in the name of YaHuWshuaH.”

Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to YaHuWshuaH and that it represents later (Catholic) Church tradition, for no where in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the trinity…

It may be that this (trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts (of the Apostles) speaks of baptizing “in the name of YaHuWshuaH.”

MattithYahuw 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Natsariym history, and its trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of YaHuWshuaH.”

“It is often affirmed that the words 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Ruach Ha'Qodesh' are not the "ipsissima verba" [exact words] of YaHuWshuaH, but … a later liturgical addition.”

It is doubted whether the explicit injunction of MattithYahuw 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by YaHuWshuaH. ... But the trinitarian formula in the mouth of YaHuWshuaH is certainly unexpected.

“Baptism was changed from the name of YaHuWshuaH to (the) words 'Father, Son & Ruach Ha'Qodesh' in 2^nd Century.”

“The historical riddle is not solved by MattithYahuw 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of YaHuWshuaH”

MattithYahuw 28:19 “… has been disputed on textual grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars, the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of MattithYahuw. There is, however, grave doubt whether they may be the "ipsissima verba" of YaHuWshuaH. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3, suggest that baptism in early Natsarenity was administered, not in the threefold name, but “in the name of YaHuWshuaH haMashiyach” or “in the name of Adonai YaHuWshuaH.” This is difficult to reconcile with the specific instructions of the verse at the end of MattithYahuw.”

“It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of haMashiyach recorded in MattithYahuw 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church”.

Courtesy: Evidence For Christianity.org

The Question:

Is it true that 1 Yahuwchanon 5:7 was added later and was not in the Greek manuscripts until the 1500s? Please explain this to me. If so why is it in the King James Version? If this is the case, has the Bible been subject to changes by human hands?

The Answer:

Yes, this is true. There was an interpolation to 1 Yahuwchanon 5 (an interpolation is a parenthetical comment which is presumably added in the margin which is later incorporated into the text). Actually, the date you quote is not correct. The interpolation came a few centuries earlier. In about the tenth century, one manuscript contained this addition (there are three that testify on the Earth: the Father, the Word and the Ruach Ha'Qodesh), and one manuscript from the thirteenth century has it in the text, but other than that, all direct evidence comes from the 16^th century.

Does this mean that the Bible has been subject to change? The answer is NO! Here is why. Although someone put this addition in the margin in what was presumably a sincere attempt to help readers of his manuscript understand 1 Yahuwchanon 5:6-7, we know for a fact that it was not in the original. There is no confusion about this, as the evidence is a slam dunk. Here is the bottom line, all of us can know for certain that this was not in the original. Therefore “the Bible” is certain with regard to this.

Courtesy: Bible.org

7. "1 Yahuwchanon 5:7, For there are three that testify,
8. “1 Yahuwchanon 5:8, the Ruach and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.”

---

(“in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Ruach Ha'Qodesh, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on Earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence — both external and internal — is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16^th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10^th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until 1215 AD (in a Greek translation of the 'Acts of the Lateran Council', a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

The trinitarian formula (known as 'the Comma Johanneum') made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furore over the absence of 'the Comma' that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in 'the Comma' because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus (TR) and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of 'the Comma Johanneum' on the basis of heretical motivation by Scribes who did not include it. But these same Scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings — even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR equals the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the Apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings — due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that 'the Comma Johanneum' must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16^th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that 'the Comma' must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Natsarenity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked 'the Comma'. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10^th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized 'the Comma' for the English-speaking world. Thus, 'the Comma Johanneum' has been a battleground for English-speaking Natsariym more than for others.

Unfortunately, for many, 'the Comma' and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition. If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they'd be writhing in their graves.

Courtesy: trinity Truth.org

The only verse in the entire Bible that can be genuinely interpreted as saying 'the Father, Son and Ruach Ha'Qodesh are a 3-in-1 being' is 1 Yahuwchanon 5:7.

1 Yahuwchanon 5:7 KJV “For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Ruach Ha'Qodesh: and these three are one. (8) And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Ruach, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

This is the clear and decisive type of Scripture that you would expect to find in the Bible if the godhead was literally a three in one Elohiym. However, it is slowly becoming universally recognized that this verse is a later insertion of the Church. So what does that tell us?

All recent versions of the Bible and most others do not include the underlined text which also includes verse 8 and with very good reason! Here it is from the New International Version. 1 Yahuwchanon 5:7 “For there are three that testify: (8) the Ruach, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

Some person or persons in centuries past were so zealous to find support for their belief in the trinity that they literally added it. There are numerous Scholars in fact that inform us that this passage has a spurious comment which has been added. The textual Scholar Bart Ehrman described this forgery as follows: "... this represents the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

Thus the scholarly consensus is that this passage is a Latin corruption that found its way into a Greek manuscript at an early date while being absent from the thousands of other manuscripts. This addition is so famous and hence so well known that it has even been given its own name and is called the “Comma Johanneum.” Comma means a short clause.

Modern Bible translations come from two manuscripts called the Codex Sinaiticus, which has more edits than any other manuscript in Biblical history (14800 edits), and the Codex Vaticanus which comes from the Vatican. Neither of these two manuscripts contain 'the Comma Johanneum' and why this added text is not found in modern Bible translations other than the NKJV where it was added only to match the KJV.

The King James New Testament on the other hand was compiled from over 5000 copies of the original manuscripts which have long since perished. Now please take careful note that this added text was found in only ONE of the 5000 plus manuscripts. that means, added! And so there is not one major theologian that does not acknowledge this fact. And yet considering all the irrefutable facts, it is amazing that there are still some who go into denial rather than acknowledge this well-known corruption that is so famous that it has even been given its own name!

The English King James Bible translated in 1611 AD retains this trinitarian forgery, but none of our modern translations have it except the NKJV where it was added to match the KJV. The King James Version reads as follows, “For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Ruach Ha'Qodesh: and these three are one. (8) And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Ruach, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” 1 Yahuwchanon 5:7-8

Thus the words in red are found in the KJV, NKJV but are missing from almost every other translation. Thomas Nelson and Sons Catholic Commentary, 1951, page 1186 states, “It is now generally held that this passage, called 'the Comma Johanneum', is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15^th and 16^th Centuries.”