Sunday, February 21, 2010

HWA's Lie about Scriptural Support for the Trinity

I have already mentioned this before but I feel compelled to bring it up again.

One of the more brazen accusations Herbert W. Armstrong hurls from his last book, Mystery of the Ages, is that arguments for the Trinity are mainly based on the Johannine Comma, a piece of spurious writing placed within 1 John 5:7-8.

This false teaching is propagated through M. John Allen's book, Restoration of Truth, when he quotes these words from Mystery of the Ages in Chapter 1. (Emphasis added.)
There is only one small passage in the Authorized Version of the Bible that is generally used by Trinity adherents to support the Trinity doctrine.
Is this accusation true? Before we address that let us observe further what HWA has to say.
This passage is found in I John 5:7-8, and is bracketed in the following quotation: ‘For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’ The bracketed words were added by editors to the Latin Vulgate translation probably in the early fourth century. They do not appear in any of the older Greek manuscripts nor in other modern English translation. They were added to the Latin Vulgate during the heat of the controversy between Rome and Dr. Arias and God's people.

“Bible commentaries explain that these words were never written in the apostle John's manuscript or any existing early copies of it. The apostle John in his three epistles and the Revelation speaks of "the Father, and... Son" (I John 1:3), but never of ‘the Father and the Word,’ except in this uninspired part of I John 5:7-8.
This is totally untrue. There are other Scriptures which can be used to justify this teaching. That is what I discovered after reading Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults.

Here's one argument from Mr. Kevin Quick. (Italics mine.):
John 16:13-15-"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak of his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine [Jesus'] and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
How can the Holy Spirit "guide" someone into "all the truth" unless He is a person?

How can the Holy Spirit "speak" unless He is a person?

How can the Holy Spirit "hear" unless He is a person?

How can the Holy Spirit "declare to you [Jesus' disciples] the things that are to come" unless He is a person?

Thus it can be seen that HWA's accusation that, "There is only one small passage in the Authorized Version of the Bible that is generally used by Trinity adherents to support the Trinity doctrine" is just a LIE!

That is just a vicious lie. And, whether knowingly or unknowingly, M. John Allen is continuing to perpetuate that vicious lie in his book.


  1. Hypocrite! You are in no position to call anyone a liar since you are a liar yourself. I called you out on this several days ago and do so again.

  2. I don't quite understand your logic, Paris.

    What does the truth you point out that RedFox is a liar (we are all liars) have to do with whether or not RedFox can point out lies in another person? Shall we all point out nothing because we are all liars?
    We are all hypocrites, too, in one way or another. So I could ask, who are you to call anyone a hypocrite -- twice?
    See what I'm asking?

    I'm not asking about what RedFox is saying in this post regarding the Trinity. I'm asking about why a liar can't call out another liar?

    Can a murderer not accuse someone else of murder? Can a thief not accuse someone else of theft? Can a sinner not recognize sin in others? Can a hypocrite not recognize hypocrisy in others? Yes, it's best if we take the beam out of our own eye first. But who then can accuse/correct/reprove anyone of anything?

    I just wonder what your logic here is. Please help me understand what you're view is.

  3. Actually, there is archaelogical evidence, as well as evidence from Biblical scholars, that the Johannine Comma WAS a late addition, as per Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus

    "In 1715 Wettstein went to England (as part of a literary tour) and was given full access to the Codex Alexandrinus, which we have already heard about in relation to Bentley. One portion of the manuscript particularly caught Wettstein’s attention: it was one of those tiny matters with enormous implications. It involved the text of a key passage in the book of 1 Timothy.

    The passage in question, 1 Tim. 3:16 [read about Paul and the Pastorals here and 1 Timothy in particular, here] had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God. For the text, in most manuscripts, refers to Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit.” As I pointed out in chapter 3, most manuscripts abbreviate sacred names (the so-called nomina sacra), and that is the case here as well, where the Greek word God is abbreviated in two letters, theta and sigma, ImageImage with a line drawn over the top to indicate that it is an abbreviation. What Wettstein noticed in examining Codex Alexandrinus was that the line over the top had been drawn in a different ink from the surrounding words, and so appeared to be from a later hand (i.e., written by a later scribe). Moreover, the horizontal line in the middle of the first letter, Image, was not actually a part of the letter but was a line that had bled through from the other side of the old vellum.

    In other words, rather than being the abbreviation (theta-sigma)ImageImage for “God”, the word was actually an omicron and a sigma ImageImage, a different word altogether, which simply means “who.” The original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh” but of Christ “who was made manifest in the flesh.“ According to the ancient testimony of the Codex Alexandrinus, Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage."

  4. Argh, the image links got borked. The image links in my final paragraph are correct.

    The short version is, many Biblical translations have used the theta-sigma when referring to the christological figure, based on this manuscript, but they should have actually been translating it from omicron-sigma.

  5. One last note, and that's it, I promise! :-)

    Using the correct term omicron-sigma throughout the Pauline and deutero-Pauline texts, is consistent with the panentheistic gnostic underpinnings that were present, in the Pauline sect of Ancient Middle Eastern religion, which viewed humanity as "fallen", with the exception of the baptized believers, who "remembered" and had "gnosis" of the divine spark of the Ineffale Aeon (godhood) within themselves, and within all humankind. The "fallen" part lies just in forgetting that one contains this divine spark, in gnostic theology.

    Hope this was educational!

  6. I take your word, xHWA, that you don't really understand what I am talking about. It is sad that you don't.

    It made me realize how profoundly blessed I am to fellowship with men and women who are not liars and hypocrites.

    A scripture which came to mind is in Col 3. In verses 5 - 10 we are told to put to death former sins. The exhortation concludes with "Do not lie to one another." Christians are to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. They are to repent and be converted. They are to stop lying.

    So you say "We are all liars". (Present tense) As I say, I am privileged to fellowship with those, I believe true Christians, who do not lie and are not hypocrites.

    The interesting thing about Redfox is one can call him a liar and he does not protest, he does not ask to be shown where he is lying, he does not defend himself. Is this because he knows that he is lying and does not want his readers to be shown his lies.

  7. I'd love to know precisely where I am lying. My conscience is clear in regards to Armstrongism.

    I say what I believe to be the truth. If I say something, whether you agree or disagree, I regard my word as sufficient evidence that I say is what I believe to be true.

    This may sound harsh but the reason I do not respond to you sometimes is because I honestly do not see anything worth responding to. Bland assertions of lies are not enough to convince me to respond.

    I know you believe on some level that I lost the spiritual war and that I am now deceived by the same Devil who supposedly deceived mainstream Christianty. That is what I would have believed if I was in your position while I was a follower of LCG. I can see no reason how to convince that such is not the case.

  8. Redfox, you wrote in your email to the Kenyan magazine,

    "Members are required to give three tithes to LCG. This is a tremendous financial burden imposed upon all members." Two sentences, two lies.

    Firstly, no member is required to pay three tithes to LCG. You know this very well. To say this is required of members is a lie.

    Secondly, even one tithe is not imposed upon all members. A member on an unearned social welfare benefit, for instance, is not required to tithe at all.

    You wrote, "LCG cleverly hides this from potential converts. They do not mention Second or Third Tithes in any of their tithing booklets." Another lie.

    The booklet containing Lesson 17 "Tithing - God's Financial Plan for You" of LCG's Bible Study Course devotes a whole page to explaining all three tithes. The opportunity to enrol in the Bible Study Course is offered in every issue of the Tomorrow's World magazine. It is not hidden at all.

    You wrote, "Also interracial marriage is forbidden". I invite you to show any LCG policy which forbids interacial marriage.

    Now, I am sure, you will resort to weasel-words to explain away these lies. Your sycophants will lend you support. I hope you will have the courage to say, "I was wrong" and correct your email to the Kenyan magazine. To expect you to say to us, "Yes, indeed, I did lie...." Well, no one is holding their breath.

  9. Paris,

    Your faith in the goodness of your friends notwithstanding - I'm not knocking that - you didn't address my question.

  10. xHWA,

    Yes, I did answer you by showing that your entire premise is wrong. Not everyone is a liar and a hypocrite.

    I am sorry that those you fellowship with do not bring you to this blessed realization.

    Besides, your question was just argumentative to attempt distraction from the real issue that the author of this blog who so often accuses others of lying is himself a brazen liar.

  11. Thats an incredible conclusion you've reached on my behalf, Paris.
    I was heretofore completely unaware that my question had a premise - seeing as it was a question and not a statement, or that it was an argumentative attempt to distract from the real issue - since your issue seems to be hypocrisy, not to mention that your response regarding your fellows' honesty was an answer to my question regarding whether or not you think a sinner has any place speaking about another person's sins - I didn't even know I had asked about your fellows.

    I suppose I should thank you for being so circumspect.