Q: When did people start dating
events by the year Jesus was supposedly born?
A: Prior to this, people
generally dated events by the year of a king’s reign. Other people dated things
from the supposed year of Adam’s creation, September 1, 5509 B.C. According to
Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.49 (footnote), dating events from the
supposed year of Christ’s birth was started by Hippolytus of Rome in the 3rd
century. This was not universally accepted, as some Byzantine scribes did not do
so until the 14th century.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible
p.786 says that in Jesus' time Romans kept years in terms of "A.U.C." or years
from the founding of the city [of Rome]. Rome was founded in 753 B.C. On p.787
Asimov says that it was erroneously thought that Christ was born in 1 A.D. by
the astronomer Dionysius Exiguus of Rome. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible
p.49 says that dating things from the time of Christ’s birth was introduced by
Hippolytus of Rome in the 3rd century.
Q: In the NT, how did we get the
terms "Old and New Testaments"?
A: Tertullian was apparently the first
to coin these words, in Latin, in 207 A.D. in his work Against Marcion
Book 4 chapter 6.
Q: In the NT, why should we
believe the Trinity, since the word is not found in the Bible?
A: The
words "Old Testament", "New Testament", "atonement", and "Lord’s Supper" are not
found in the Bible either, but we believe in those concepts, too. It is best not
to quarrel about words, but to look at what is taught. If the concept of the
Trinity is taught in the Bible, we should believe it. If the concept of the
Trinity is against the Bible, we should not believe it. Agreed?
For what the
concept of the Trinity entails, see the discussion on Matthew 28:19.
Q: In the NT, where did we get
the term "Trinity"?
A: The first person we know of to coin the term
Trinity was bishop Theophilus of Antioch (168-181/188 A.D.) in his
Letter to Autolycus 2:15.
Tertullian (200-220 A.D.) was the
second we have record of using the term "Trinity", in his letter Against
Praxeus.
Novatian (210-280 A.D.) from Rome wrote a Treatise on
the Trinity.
Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193-217/220 A.D.) also
spoke of "the Holy Trinity" in Stromata 5:14.
Origen (230-254
A.D.) mentions the Trinity in de Principiis Book 1 3:7.
Conclusion: These five references, from Antioch, Rome, Rome again,
and Alexandria respectively, show that the term "Trinity" was widespread more
than a hundred years prior to the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D.
As a side
note, a "near miss" is that while Ignatius (died either 107 or 116 A.D.), the
disciple of John the apostle does not use the term "Trinity", he often calls
Jesus God. In the Second Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians chapter 9
says "An ye are prepared for the building of God the Father, and ye are raised
up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross; and ye are
drawn by the rope, which is the Holy Spirit; and your pulley is your faith, and
your love is the way which leadeth up on high to God" (Ante-Nicene
Fathers p.101)
Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D) in his
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew chapters 57-65, also gives a very good
explanation of the Trinity, and why we should worship Jesus, without actually
using the word Trinity.
Q: In the NT, how do we know the
books we have are the correct ones?
A: As General Introduction to the
Bible p.423-425 points out, every single New Testament book was referred to
prior to 150 A.D., with the possible exception of Philemon and 3 John.
Irenaeus (170-202 A.D.) made about 1,800 quotations and references
from the New Testament, (except possibly Philemon and 3 John) and his writings
show the books in his New Testament were the same as ours today.
Clement
of Alexandria (wrote 193-217/220 A.D.) made about 2,400 quotations and
references of every New Testament book except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and
possibly 3 John.
Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) made about 1,030 quotations
and references from the New Testament. His quotes include every book except
Philemon and 2 John, and possibly 3 John, which are the three shortest books in
the New Testament.
For the preceding, see General Introduction to the
Bible p.425-427 for more info.
Q: Were there any writings that
are thought to be from Jesus himself? I thought I had heard of some that the
church denounced.
A: The Book of Revelation is the "Revelation of Jesus
Christ" so some see that it is claimed to be (verbally) by Jesus, though of
course it was John the apostle that wrote it down. We have to agree with
Ephesians 4 that says "the church is build on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone." Christianity "goes to the
teaching of Jesus" through the prophets and the apostles (including Paul) that
Jesus selected.
Other than Revelation, in my studies I am not aware of any
ancient writings that claimed to be authored by Jesus himself. There are some
modern writings that claimed to be lost works of Jesus, but of course the early
church never denounced these, as they have not been written yet.
What you
might be thinking of is a number of works that claimed to be by various apostles
and others that were frauds. The Gnostics in particular used the Gospel of
Thomas, except that they had different versions of it. In addition, here is a
partial list of other books that were frauds and the church rejected:
The
Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (its modern name)
The History of Joseph the
Carpenter
The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior
The Gospel of
Nicodemus
The Letter of Pontius Pilate concerning our Lord Jesus Christ
The Report of Pontius Pilate
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
Acts of
the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Acts of
Barnabas
The Acts of Philip
Acts of Andrew and Matthias
Acts of
Peter and Andrew
The Book of John concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary
The Passing of Mary
One of my "favorites" is the Acts of Peter. If I
recall correctly, Peter went to an inn and his room had many bedbugs, which
prevented him from sleeping, and he had to preach the next day. Thus he
commanded the bedbugs to leave the room, and they obliged. The next morning he
opened the door, and there was a line of bedbugs waiting to go back into the
room. Peter commanded them to go back into the bed, and they did.
One reason
we can be sure of the writings that were genuine, as well as the teachings and
character of Jesus, apart from the Bible, is the early Christians.
Clement
of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthians in 97/98 A.D. His basic message was
"why aren't you doing the things Paul told you to do 50 years ago." Clement's
letter is very insightful, and it is so good that a few Christians mistakenly
though it should be a part of Scripture. I have found no false things in the
letter except for one point. Clement apparently believes the legend of the
Arabian phoenix living for a 1,000 years, then burning itself to death, and then
rising from the ashes, to be true. Ignatius also wrote extensively, and he was a
disciple of the apostle John. Papias was another disciple of the apostle John
who wrote many volumes, unfortunately all of them have been lost. We only have
some excerpts preserved by Eusebius (325 A.D.) Polycarp was another disciple of
the apostle John, and he had a disciple, Irenaeus (170-202 A.D.), who wrote the
work Against Heresies documenting the over 30 differing schools of
Gnostics. He made about 1,800 quotations and references from every book the New
Testament, (except possibly Philemon and 3 John) and his writings show the books
in his New Testament were the same as ours today.
We have a third category
of literature, and that is more recent works that have succeeded in being though
genuine in the eyes of some. One such collection of works are called The
False Decretals. These were written right before the Reformation, probably
originating in Spain. They said things like Peter passed down the keys of Heaven
to a "Pope" after him. Another work is the Gospel of Barnabas which was
written by what was thought to be a disgruntled monk who converted to Islam. It
fails to recognize that the culture of Jesus' time was not the culture of Italy
in the Middle ages, with knights, shoelaces, and such. Furthermore, while it has
teaching that Christians consider heresy, it has teaching that orthodox Islam
would consider heresy too. Nonetheless, since it has Jesus prophesying Mohammed
coming after him, I have heard it is the #1 selling religious book in some
Muslim countries.
While the early post-apostolic church did not "write"
scripture, we are indebted to them for recognizing for us what was scripture.
Every single book in the New Testament was referred to by the early Church
fathers, prior to 150 A.D., with the possible exception of two very short books,
Philemon and 3 John.
Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193-217/220 A.D.) made
about 2,400 quotations and references of every New Testament book except
Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and possibly 3 John.
Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) made
about 1,030 quotations and references from the New Testament. His quotes include
every book except Philemon and 2 John, and possibly 3 John, which are the three
shortest books in the New Testament.
See A General Introduction to the
Bible and The Origin of the Bible for more info.
Q: I am bothered by an answer
that you gave in your Bible Query saying that Jesus is God and that is simply
not true. Jesus never claimed to be God. He is the son of God, the Messiah. It
is wrong for you to mislead others because you sacrifice their salvation. Please
read these scriptures and please change your answer.
John 14:1-4 shows a
difference between Father and Son.
In Luke 18:19 Jesus says himself that no
one is good but God alone when someone calls him good. He separated himself
again.
In Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 Christ himself says that no one knows
when the end will come only God and not even him.
In Matthew 23 8-10 Christ
himself makes the distinct difference between a teacher, a leader, and the
Father.
Matt 5:16 says that the Father is in Heaven.
Acts 4:12 says that
salvation is through Christ, but God gave Christ to us.
Hebrews 13:21, 1
Peter 2:19-25, 1 John 2:2-6 and 1 John 2:23 all divide God and Christ. God is
the Father, the Giver, the Creator. Christ is the Messiah, the Sacrifice, the
Son.
In Ex 20:3, Dt 6:4-5, Dt 32:39 God says that you should no other Gods
except Him. It is a sin to make Christ a God or call Christ God. God is God
alone and Christ is the Messiah. He is the lamb of God. He is God's son who was
created in order to set an example of what a perfect person should be. Human
kind needed a flesh example of perfection and love. Jesus is that example. He
was a perfect human with divine knowledge and God lived within him. When he said
that the Father and I are one he said that was because he dwelled in God and God
dwelled in us. It was in perfect union with God and he was sent to us to let us
know that we could be in perfect union with God also. He never claimed to be the
heavenly Father and it is a great sin to mislead others into thinking so. There
are many scriptures that makes a huge division between God and Christ yet I
cannot recall reading one scripture anywhere that Christ said that he was God.
A: I appreciate your frank message. I certainly do not want to mislead
others about their salvation. Hopefully we will be "bothered" where we are in
falsehood, and find rest when we agree in the truth. You brought up so many
points in your short message. I would like to take your 11 points one at a time,
so that we can see where can agree or disagree with each other.
1. We
must have no other gods, as you mentioned, as Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy
6:4-5; 32:39 command. Romans 1:23,25 says that one of the sins of godless people
was that they worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator. We
should not worship or serve as a God any angel or other created being. Assuming
Jesus was not God, and someone called Jesus God, do you agree that this would be
a very serious sin?
2. Thomas the disciple called Jesus God in John
20:28. Thomas even went further than that. John 20:28 actually says that Thomas
said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus replied to Thomas, "Because you have
seen men, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have
believed." Jesus has no hint of rebuke toward Thomas. Indeed, the only remotely
negative thing Jesus said is that those who have not seen Jesus in person and
believe (this about Jesus) are more blessed than those who have seen Jesus and
believe this. Now either
a) Thomas was wrong, and he sinned by calling Jesus
God, and perhaps Jesus sinned by accepting this and not rebuking Thomas, or
b) Thomas was right, and Jesus was right to affirm what Thomas said.
Do
you agree that Thomas must have been right here?
3. Distinct but not
Separate: Some things can be separate, with no commonality. Some things can
be distinct, with some things different and some things common. For example, the
three leaves of a clover are distinct, in that they are three lobes. Yet they
are not separate, because they are joined in the middle. (This illustration
first came from Patrick of Ireland, a really exemplary believer who lived about
400 A.D.) Anyway, I agree that many of the verses you bring up do show a
difference between the Father and the Son. Proving the Father and Son are two
distinct persons does not mean they are totally separate. At the very least,
they share a name, for we are baptized in the name (not names) of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19.
The Christian writer Ambrose of Milan
(c.378 A.D.) in his work, Of the Holy Spirit Book 1 chapter 13, wrote
more on the sharing of the divine names. See The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers 2nd Series p.110-111 for more info.
a) They have the same
nature (Philippians 2:5)
b) They are the same honor (John 5:23)
c) The Father and Jesus "own" all in common. Jn 16:15;17:10.
d) On earth the Father lived in Jesus. Jn 10:38;14:10-11.
e) On earth Jesus was in the Father. Jn 10:38;14:11
f) If
you really know Jesus, then you know the Father and have seen the Father. Jn
14:7-9
g) No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. Jn
14:6;6:45;~8:24;Ac3:12
h) Both are rightfully worshipped (Hebrews
1:6)
i) Both are rightfully called God (John 1:1; 20:28, Hebrews
1:8,9)
j) Both are prayed to (Acts 7:7:59-60)
k)
Everything in the world was created through both of them (John 1:3, 10,
Colossians 1:16)
l) The fullness of deity is in Jesus (Colossians
1:19).
m) They are one in spirit, love, and purpose. To truly obey
one is to obey the other.
So do you agree that they are distinct, but they
do have some things in common where they are not separate?
4.
Oneness Pentecostalism is wrong: The previous point is important, because
there is a heresy called Modalism, of which Oneness Pentecostalism is one modern
form, which teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in every way.
The verses of Jesus' baptism, as well as the verses you brought up (John 14:1-4,
Matt 5:16, 1 John 2:23, etc.) prove that Oneness Pentecostalism is wrong. I
think we can agree on that.
5. Christ our Teacher does not
disprove the Trinity: I disagree somewhat with your conclusion on Matthew
23:8-10, because since Christ is our Teacher, does that mean we are to refuse to
learn anything from the Holy Spirit or what God the Father has revealed in
nature of God's word? Of course we can agree that is not the case. However, I
think you were trying to strengthen your point that there is a difference
between the Father and the Son, and I already agree with that.
6.
Salvation is a work of God! By the way, from Acts 4:12 and 1 John 2:2-6, is
our salvation a work of man or a work of God? Our salvation is a gift from God.
It would be a work of man, since Jesus was a man, if Jesus was merely a man.
7. Jesus and God: I think I sufficiently showed that while the Father
and Jesus are different, that is not a problem. However, this does not yet
answer the distinction between Jesus and God that Hebrews 13:20-21 and other
verses show. (I do not think 1 Peter 2:19-25 shows this, but other verses do, so
this is a moot point.). Remember that the term "elohim" (God/god) has at least
four different meanings in the Bible. Jesus acknowledged there was more than one
meaning in John 10:34-39, where He quotes Psalm 82:6. Here are the meanings in
the Bible:
Those who are called gods, even idols. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6;
Genesis 31:30,33
The Father. Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:2-3,17, Hebrews 1:9
(2nd occurrence) etc.
Jesus. Hebrews 1:9 (1st occurrence); John 1:1,19:
Hosea 1:7; Isaiah 7:14; 1 John 5:11,12 vs. 21; Colossians 2:9 & Matthew 1:23
The Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9-16; Luke 1:35; 1 John 4:12,13,15-16; 1
Corinthians 3:16 vs. 1 Corinthians 6:19; Acts 5:4
8. Verses showing Jesus
is God: You say you cannot recall one scripture where Jesus said that He was
God. Besides Thomas saying so in John 20:28, the writer of Hebrews saying so in
Hebrews 1:8,9, and John the apostle called Jesus God in the end of John 1:1.
Jesus Himself claimed to be God in John 8:58. Jesus answered, "before Abraham
was born, I am!". The word "I am," was the divine name of God. Now the Jews
either understood Jesus' communication correctly when they picked up stones to
stone Him, or else the misunderstood Jesus' communication. Do you agree?
9. Only God is good: In Luke 18:19, since the man threw around the
word good so casually, and did not recognize Jesus as God, Jesus questioned why
He was throwing that word "good" around so freely. You yourself mentioned that
Jesus was an example of perfection and love, and a perfect human. Since Jesus
was good, and Luke 18:19 was not a denial that Jesus was good, Luke 18:19 was
not a denial that Jesus was God either. Do you agree?
10. Jesus, on
earth, did not know when He would return. In Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36,
you observe that not even Jesus knew the time when He would return. That is true
of Jesus, - on earth. Philippians 2:7-8 said that Jesus voluntarily emptied
Himself when He came to earth. On earth, Jesus did not utilize His own power or
knowledge, but depended on God the Father. Jesus even prayed that His glory
would be restored to Him in John 17:5.
11. The early Christians taught
that Jesus was God too. It is wrong to mislead others about the truth (or
falsehood) of Jesus' divinity. You would think that such an important thing
would be made clear by the apostles. Jesus being God is not just "some novel
thing" modern people thought up. Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, in
his letter to Polycarp (ch.3) writes about the Lord's second coming: "Look for
Him that is above the times, Him who has no times, Him who is invisible, Him who
for our sakes became visible, Him who is impalpable [beyond touch], Him who is
impassable [beyond passion], Him who for our sakes suffered, Him who endured
everything in every form for our sakes." So Ignatius understood that God the Son
was the visible, temporal appearance of the invisible, timeless God the Father.
In Ephesians 7 Ignatius talks of Christ as God Incarnate. He goes on to
say that Jesus was "sprung from Mary as well as God first subject to suffering
then beyond it"
Likewise Hippolytus (225-236 A.D.) also wrote about this.
Here is what He said in Against the Heresy of One Noetus chapter 14. says
"If, then the Word was with God and was also God what follows? I shall not
indeed speak of two Gods but of one; of two Persons however and of a third
economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed
is One but there are two Persons because there is also the Son; and then there
is the third the Holy Spirit."
Do you agree that apart from the Bible, the
teaching that Jesus is God was given as early as the disciples of the apostles?
Finally, if I am not mistaken, I think I answered every single point
you brought up. Please let me know if I missed anything, or if you thought my
logic was wrong on any points. I agree with you that it would be a sin to call
Christ God, if Christ was not actually God. However, do you agree it would be a
sin to say Christ is not God if in fact Christ was God?
Q: How can the Father, Son, and
Spirit all be God, since the Old Testament so strongly emphasized there is only
One God?
First of all, let me say that the complete description of the
relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not only something God
has not revealed to us yet, but if He had completely revealed it, probably would
be beyond our understanding. Imagine for a second that there were beings living
in a two dimensional world, and you could communicate with them. How would you
describe yourself? For starters, you might say that you were something they
could understand, but not completely understand. For example, you would poke
four of your fingers into their world, and say those four circles they saw
actually are connected. The skeptics on that two-dimensional world could travel
around each of the four circles, and since the fingers did not connect according
to their understanding, conclude you were lying. On the opposite extreme, others
could say that since they were connected, the distinctness of the four fingers
was an illusion, and you really did not have any distinct fingers. Others might
want to have a picture you, so they would draw strange pictures of four circles,
or else four connected circles. You would tell them not to bother with the
pictures, as they would not be even close to an adequate representation of you.
We may not be able to comprehend everything about the Triune God, but
fortunately we do not have to try. We only have to learn what the Lord has
revealed: There is only One God, we are only to worship, glorify, pray to, God,
not any creatures that God created. Yet Bible shows both angels and men
worshipping, glorifying, and praying to Jesus is worshipped in a proper way.
Here is a diagram that might help. Draw a circle in the center, labeled
"God". Draw three circles around that circle, labeled as "The Father" on top,
and "The Son" and "The Spirit" on each side. Connect each of the outer circles
with the center circle using three lines. Label each line "is". Connect each
outer circle with the other outer circles, and label the three lines "is not".
As mentioned in my previous email, sometimes when the word "God" is used in
the Bible, it refers to God the Father. As you point out, when Jesus prayed to
God, and in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was NOT praying to Himself. I find
it somewhat humorous that I am reading your letter about this right now, because
just two days ago I was writing a short article mentioning the false teaching
Oneness Pentecostalism, where I make the very same point you are making. The
word "God" does mean "God the Father" in many places in the Bible, including the
phrase "your God" in Hebrews 1:9, as well as the phrase "when God" in Hebrews
1:6.
However, the word "God" means "God the Son" in many places too. Let's
look at Hebrews 1:8-9 again. Hebrews 1: says "But about the son he says, Your
throne, O God,…".
I do not think people just began worshipping Christ out of
any error, because the sinless angels themselves worshipped the Lamb (Jesus) in
Revelation 5:12, saying "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and
wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" Also, John the
Apostle had a disciple, Ignatius. Ignatius left some writings, and he emphasized
apparently what he had been taught, that Jesus was God.
Now in your previous
letter, you stated that Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 6:4-5, 32:39 prove that we
should worship no other gods. In your latest letter, you have trouble struggling
to get past the point in the Old Testament that there was only One God. Well,
please don't get past that. Hang on to that truth! Yet, even the Old Testament
hints that this is not the end of the story. Psalm 110:1 (the Old Testament
verse most often quoted in the New Testament) says "The LORD says to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." (NIV)
Who is this "Son", this "second one" we should also call Lord? Of course, this
is Jesus.
I suspect that the point at which you are confused is this: when
the words "God" and "Lord" are used in the Bible, of the True God and true Lord,
does the Bible always use these in the same way, or are these words like "judge"
and "perfect" that have a couple of different meanings depending on the context.
As long as you think "God" (when not referring to idols) always has the same
meaning, and "Lord" always has the same meaning, you will be confused when you
read certain verses. I suggest that "God" and "Lord" have different meanings
depending on the verse.
Now we come to a paradox. Since there is only One
God to be worshipped, and angels and men properly worshipped Jesus, how can that
be? The only answer that addresses all of the "Jesus-glorifying verses" is that
Jesus is One True God worthy of worship.
A closely-related issue is the
Bible saying that for us there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5). Yet is our Lord
Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 12:3; John 20:25,28), or is our
Lord the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17), or is our Lord the Father (Hebrews 7:21, 1 Peter
1:25, etc.)
1 Corinthians 7:35 says we are to have undivided devotion to the
Lord. Does this mean we are to be devoted to Jesus, and forget about God the
Father? - Of course not. The only answer is that God the Father is our "One
Lord", but Jesus Christ and the Spirit also are part of our "One Lord".
Here
is another paradox in the Bible. Since Jesus is the One True God, yet Jesus
prayed to "His God", who is the God that is worthy of our worship? There are
four possibilities:
Only the Father. This cannot be correct, or else the
angels were wrong to glorify Jesus, Stephen was wrong to pray to Jesus, Thomas
was wrong to call Jesus 'My Lord and My God' and Jesus was wrong not to correct
Him.
Only Jesus. This cannot be correct, or else Jesus praying to God [The
Father] and calling Him God would be wrong.
Both are God and there are at
least two gods. This cannot be correct, for God intended the Old Testament to
emphasize to us that there is only One True God.
Both are God, and there is
only One True God. This answer is the most difficult to accept, because there is
no exact analogy on earth. Your analogy of you and your parents is OK up to a
point, but I do not like that as it makes "God" sort of a family surname, and I
believe the Three are One in a much closer way than that. Yet not having a
perfect analogy to God on earth, does not disqualify this answer as being
correct. In fact, no other answer that I have seen not just "explains away all
the Bible verses" but rather includes all the Bible verses. The concept of the
Trinity emphasizes the distinctness of the Three, it also emphasizes the
inseparability of the Three, and yet it also emphasizes there is only One God.
There is one thing you can say for idol gods. These "little guys",
pretenders with petty whims and all-too-human foibles, are much simpler for the
natural man to understand than the Holy, Almighty God who fills the heavens and
the earth. I do think that over time many people have veered away from what God
has revealed about Himself in the Bible. Here is another diagram for you. Draw a
triangle, and label the three points as "One God", "Three Persons", "Equal
Nature". Now outside the triangle, on the line outside of "One God", write the
opposite heresy "polytheism". Likewise outside the triangle on the line opposite
"Three Persons" write "Oneness heresies". Finally on the line opposite of "equal
nature" write "Ebionites". The Ebionites were an early heresy that tried to
combine the Jewish customs with Christianity. They recognized Jesus as the
Messiah, did not recognize him as God.
Now one issue that needs to be
brought up is: given that they are inseparable in some ways, and distinct in
other ways, how are they inseparable, and how are they distinct?
They are
one in love, purpose and obedience. In other words, you cannot obey one while
disobeying another.
They are one in name, as we discussed.
They are one
in nature. Neither the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit are created beings. Similar
to the fact that I can create objects, but my children came from me and my wife,
the Son was begotten of the Father, not created by Him.
Is the Father
greater than the Son? We have to answer that question in three different
contexts.
Nature and Honor: The Father and the Son are co-equal.
Philippians 2:6 shows they have the same nature. John 5:23 "that all may honor
the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not
honor the Father who sent him."
On earth, Jesus was less than the
Father. Jesus voluntarily emptied Himself of much of His glory (Philippians 2:7
John 17:5). Jesus learned obedience (Hebrews 5:8), got tired (John 4:6), did not
know everything such as the hour of His return (Matthew 24:36), etc.
Even
in Heaven, the Father has a greater role than the Son. For example, in
marriage the husband and wife are equal and have equal value, but they have
different roles, and the husband has the role of the leader the wife should
obey. Also in a family the parent has a different role than a child. Thus even
in Heaven, as the Father is the head of a son, God is the head of Christ. (Yes,
god here refers to God the Father). (1 Corinthians 11:3) God the Father is also
called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ in Ephesians 1:17. We have not said much
about the Spirit so far, but the Holy Spirit has a role of interceding to the
Father for us (Romans 8:26-27), and not the Father interceding to the Spirit.
By the way, someone else once asked if the Threeness of God is only a
temporary thing. After Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire, will distinction
between the Father, Son, and Spirit go away? The answer is that the distinctions
within the Trinity are permanent, because Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ is
the same yesterday and today and forever." (NIV)
Now I feel that what God
has revealed about the Trinity is clear to me, but the point is that it be clear
to you. One thing that might help is to make sure you practice the truth you
know. Since the angels sang and praised Jesus in Revelation 5:9,10; 5:12; 7:10;
11:15), spend time singing to Jesus, praising Him. Since the angels worshipped
Jesus in Hebrews 1:6, the Magi worshipped Jesus in Matthew 2:11, the disciples
worshipped Him in Matthew 14:33, women worshipped Jesus in Matthew 28:9, and the
blind man worshipped Jesus in John 9:38, you should worship Him too. So worship
Jesus as angels and others do, praise Him in song, pray to Jesus (Stephen did in
Acts 7:59), and ask God to help you see and understand all the God has revealed
in His wonderful Word.
Q: In the NT, how many verses
and words are there?
A: According to Wick Allison in That’s In the
Bible? - The Ultimate Learn-As-You-Play Bible Quiz Book, (Dell Trade 1994)
p.18, the King James Version New Testament has 7,959 verses and 198,000 words in
English. Note that the King James Version has two verses that are not in most
Greek manuscripts.
Q: In the NT, what is the degree
of uncertainty in the readings?
A: Aland et al (3rd edition), Aland
et al (4th edition), and Green have different opinions on some words.
Aland et al (3rd edition) shows manuscript variations in 1,333 places,
puts the variations in 4 categories. "A" means "virtually certain", "B" means
"some degree of doubt", "C" means "considerable degree of doubt", and "D" means
a "very high degree of doubt". "The apparently large number of C decisions is
due to the circumstances that many readings in the A and B classes have had no
variants included in the apparatus, because they were not important for the
purposes of this edition. By far the greatest proportion of the text represents
what may be called an A degree of certainty." (p.xiii) Assuming I counted
correctly, in the third edition there are 121 (9%) A, 468 (35%) B, 603 (45%) C,
and 141 (11%) D in the entire New Testament. The probability of a variation
being a particular letter seems fairly uniform among the books, except that
Revelation has 71 of the 92 listed variations as C.
Q: In the NT, what is a summary
of the manuscript variations?
A: We are about 97.3% certain of each New
Testament word. (Other people might have slightly different numbers if they
exclude some variations as certainly incorrect.) Here is a book-by-book summary.
See the end of the discussion on each book for the details.
|
Book of the New
Testament |
Total verses |
Total words in Greek |
Greek words in question |
Percent accuracy |
100 - % accuracy |
|
Matthew |
1,071 |
18,111 |
510 |
97.2 % |
2.8 % |
|
Mark (exc.16:9-20) |
661/ 678 |
11,051 |
392 |
96.5 % |
3.5 % |
|
-- Mark 16:9-20 |
--- |
--- |
Additional 166 |
(-1.5%) |
+ 1.5 % |
|
Luke |
1,151 |
19,581 |
532 |
97.3 % |
2.7 % |
|
John (exc.7:53-8:11) |
879 |
15,436 |
322 |
97.9 % |
2.1 % |
|
-- John 7:53-8:11 |
--- |
--- |
Additional 168 |
(-1.1) % |
+ 1.1 % |
|
Acts |
1007 |
18,460 |
478 |
97.4 % |
2.6 % |
|
Romans |
433 |
7,030 |
198 |
97.2 % |
2.8 % |
|
order: Rom 16:25-27 |
--- |
--- |
additional 53 |
(-0.8%) |
+0.8% |
|
1 Corinthians |
437 |
6,799 |
99 |
98.5 % |
1.5 % |
|
2 Corinthians |
257 |
1,495 |
50 |
96.9 % |
3.1 % |
|
Galatians |
149 |
2,233 |
35 |
98.4 % |
1.6 % |
|
Ephesians |
155 |
2,385 |
43 |
98.2 % |
1.8 % |
|
Philippians |
104 |
1,621 |
34 |
97.9 % |
2.1 % |
|
Colossians |
95 |
1,570 |
33 |
97.9 % |
2.1 % |
|
1 Thessalonians |
89 |
1,477 |
26 |
98.2 % |
1.8 % |
|
2 Thessalonians |
47 |
826 |
12 |
98.5 % |
1.5 % |
|
1 Timothy |
113 |
1,592 |
26 |
98.6 % |
1.4 % |
|
2 Timothy |
83 |
1,336 |
13 |
99.0 % |
1.0 % |
|
Titus |
46 |
657 |
5 |
99.2 % |
0.8 % |
|
Philemon |
25 |
329 |
6 |
98.2 % |
1.8 % |
|
Hebrews |
303 |
4,888 |
82 |
98.3 % |
1.7 % |
|
James |
108 |
1,735 |
27 |
98.4 % |
1.6 % |
|
1 Peter |
105 |
1,648 |
46 |
97.2 % |
2.7 % |
|
2 Peter |
61 |
937 |
35 |
96.3 % |
3.7 % |
|
1 John(excl. 1Jn5:8) |
104 |
2,103 |
24 |
98.9 % |
1.1 % |
|
2 John |
13 |
245 |
7 |
97.1 % |
2.9 % |
|
3 John |
14 |
219 |
3 |
98.6 % |
1.4 % |
|
Jude |
25 |
459 |
7 |
98.5 % |
1.5 % |
|
Revelation |
404 |
9,667 |
127 |
98.7 % |
1.3 % |
|
Totals |
7,956 |
133,892 |
3,561 |
97.3 % |
2.7 % |
Q: What are characteristics of
the typographical errors in the New Testament?
A: The following table
was calculated from the manuscript variations listed at the end of each book.
The following table shows differences primarily due to typos, spelling,
grammar, and word changes. Note the relatively high number of single word
changes.
|
Section of the
New Testament |
Total words in Greek |
Total words in question |
Percent accuracy |
Places with the number of words in
question |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10+ |
|
Matthew |
18,111 |
510 |
97.2 % |
135 |
29 |
15 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
11 |
|
Mark |
11,051 |
558 |
96.5-1.5% |
87 |
45 |
17 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
4 |
|
Luke |
19,581 |
532 |
97.3 % |
95 |
35 |
10 |
10 |
13 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
John |
15,436 |
490 |
97.9-1.1% |
119 |
35 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
Acts |
18,460 |
478 |
97.4 % |
142 |
35 |
9 |
9 |
2 |
7 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
|
Paul’s writings |
29,350 |
595 |
98.0 % |
314 |
46 |
10 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
Other NT |
12,234 |
217 |
98.2 % |
152 |
20 |
15 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Revelation |
9,667 |
114 |
98.4 % |
90 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Totals |
133,892 |
3,566 |
|
1135 |
255 |
84 |
48 |
31 |
17 |
12 |
9 |
11 |
38 |
Conclusion: Over half
of the variations are places with only one to three word variations.
The
following table shows differences primarily due to style and phrasing.
It is
interesting that the percentage of words subject to typographical errors is very
similar in the 1, 2, and 3 word variations. Mark, has slightly more
typographical errors, which would tend to confirm the generally held view that
Mark was the earliest Gospel written.
As for the other errors, 0.25% of the
total New Testament variations (334 words) are just in two passages: Mark
16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. An additional 0.04% are due to the placement of
Romans 16:25-27.
This table excludes Mk 16:9-20 and Jn 7:53-8:11
|
Section of the
New Testament |
Total words in Greek |
Total words in question |
Places with
7 | 8-9 |10+ words in question |
% inaccuracy from 7| 8-9 |10+ word
variations |
Total
Words |
Total % variations
100 - % acc. |
|
Matthew |
18,111 |
510 |
2 | 4 | 11 |
0.1 | 0.2 | 1.0 % |
232 |
1.3 % |
|
Mark |
11,051 |
558 |
1 | 6 | 4 |
0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 % |
56 |
0.5 % |
|
Luke |
19,581 |
532 |
2 | 5 | 6 |
0.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 % |
127 |
0.9 % |
|
John |
15,436 |
490 |
1 | 0 | 4 |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 % |
51 |
0.3 % |
|
Acts |
18,462 |
478 |
3 | 3 | 7 |
0.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 % |
128 |
0.1 % |
|
Paul’s writings |
29,350 |
589 |
1 | 2 | 5 |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 % |
133 |
0.1 % |
|
Other NT |
21,901 |
331 |
2 | 0 | 1 |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 % |
40 |
0.1 % |
|
Totals |
133,892 |
3,566 |
12 | 20 | 38 |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 % |
747 |
0.6 % |
Romans 14:23 (53
words) is simply a question of order of the verses.
Let’s define a
"subsection of the New Testament" as a portion of around 10,000 words or more
that was written at roughly the same time. If you sort the subsections of the
New Testament by percent accuracy, (ignoring the three largest errors: the end
of Mark, the story of the adulteress, and the location of 53 words in Romans)
you get an interesting result.
Subsection |
Percent Accuracy |
Date Written
(Conservative) |
Date Written
(Liberal) |
Date of the earliest
preserved fragment |
Mark |
96.5 % |
50/62-70 A.D. |
64-70 A.D. |
|
Matthew |
97.2 % |
50-80 A.D. |
80-100 A.D. |
|
Luke |
97.3 % |
58-90 A.D. |
80-100 A.D. |
100 A.D. |
Acts |
97.4 % |
50-80 A.D. |
80-100 A.D. |
|
Late Paul (Rom, 1, 2 Tim, Tt, Phm) |
97.8 % |
55-67 A.D. |
|
|
John |
97.9 % |
50-95 A.D. |
80-110 A.D. |
125 A.D. |
Other NT (not counting Rev.) |
97.9 % |
62-98 A.D. |
|
1 Clement (97/98 A.D.) quotes Hebrews |
Early Paul (1 Cor – 2 Thess.) |
98.3 % |
50-63 A.D. |
|
1 Clement (97/98 A.D.) mentions Paul |
Revelation |
98.7 % |
95-110 A.D. |
|
|
With the
exception of "early Paul" letters, the order follows the dates when we think
each book was written. Now the differences between some numbers, such as 97.2%
to 97.4% are too close to be statistically significant. Thus, this does not
answer the question of whether Matthew or Luke was written first. 1 Clement,
written in 97/98 A.D. quotes from Hebrews, so we know that at least that part of
"Other NT" was written before then. While "Early Paul" was written early, the
letters probably did not get wide distribution until the time all four gospels
were written. Also, Paul apparently quotes Luke, so the gospel of Luke likely
was written before Paul.
