Saturday, November 24, 2012

WILLIAM WHISTON ON SIR ISAAC NEWTON AND THE TRINITY


WILLIAM WHISTON (circa. 1667-1752 C.E.): “...Sir I.N. [i.e. Isaac Newton] was one who early and throughly had examined the System and Records of Christianity, abating perhaps the Apostolical Constitutions, and Ignatius's larger Epistles, which seem to have been little looked into by him: as, till I published those Constitutions, and vindicated those larger Epistles, they were no more looked [1077.] into by the present Lord Chancellor in his early and accurate Enquiries into Primitive Christianity. In particular, Sir I.N. was one who had throughly examined the State of the Church in its most critical Juncture, the fourth Century. HE HAD EARLY AND THROUGHLY DISCOVERED THAT THE OLD CHRISTIAN FAITH, CONCERNING THE TRINITY IN PARTICULAR, WAS THEN CHANGED; THAT WHAT HAS BEEN LONG CALLED ARIANISM IS NO OTHER THAN OLD UNCORRUPT CHRISTIANITY; AND THAT ATHANASIUS WAS THE GRAND AND THE VERY WICKED INSTRUMENT OF THAT CHANGE. THIS WAS OCCASIONALLY KNOWN TO THOSE FEW WHO WERE INTIMATE WITH HIM ALL ALONG; from whom, notwithstanding his prodigiously fearful, cautious, and suspicious Temper, he could not always conceal so important a Discovery. Nor need I now crave the Readers Belief of my Testimony in this Case. Sir I.N. has left not a few undeniable Testimonials of it behind him, Witness his MSS. Dissertations upon two of the famous New Testament Texts concern'd in that Controversy. 1 Tim. iii. 15, and 1 John v. 7. both whose present Readings he took to be Athanasian Interpolations...” - (Section 1076-1077, “Account of Newton,” On Pages 1070-1082, In: “A COLLECTION OF AUTHENTICK RECORDS,” By William Whiston, London: 1728. © 2012 THE NEWTON PROJECT.)

Is there any truth to this claim? Is there any evidence to show he was not exagerating?

Here's just a couple of examples:

SIR ISAAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1727 C.E.): “...SON IS GOD – ( CREATED ) – AND A PERSON...” - (Ratione No. 6., Quoted on Page 159, “THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF DR. SAMUEL CLARKE (1675-1729): CONTEXT, SOURCES, AND CONTROVERSY.” By Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, Brill, 1997.)

SIR ISAAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1727 C.E.): “...Now the term Gk., ( ὁ Λόγος ) before St. John wrote, was generally used in ye sense of the Platonists, when APPLIED TO AN INTELLIGENT BEING, & YE ARIANS UNDERSTOOD IT IN YE SAME SENSE [SIC], & THEREFORE THEIRS IS THE TRUE SENSE OF ST. JOHN...” - (Yahuda MS. 14., Quoted on Page 159, “THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF DR. SAMUEL CLARKE (1675-1729): CONTEXT, SOURCES, AND CONTROVERSY.” By Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, Brill, 1997.)

Friday, November 23, 2012

SIR ISAAC NEWTON - JESUS WAS "...THE ANGEL OF GOD..."


SIR ISAAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1727 C.E.): “...THOUGH CREATED BY GOD IN TIME, CHRIST EXISTED BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN. AS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, HE WAS THE ANGEL OF GOD WHO APPEARED TO ABRAHAM, JACOB, AND MOSES AND GOVERNED ISRAEL IN THE DAYS OF JUDGES. After Israel rejected him and desired a king, the angel appeared no more but rather sent his messenger to the prophets...” - (Yahuda MS 15.5, f. 96. Quoted on Pages 819-827, Chapter 15, “Years Of Decline,” In: “NEVER AT REST: A BIOGRAPHY OF ISAAC NEWTON,” By Richard H. Westfall, Cambridge University Press: 1980.)

SIR ISAAC NEWTON -- CHRIST THE "...SON IS [...] CREATED..."


SIR ISAAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1727 C.E.): “...SON IS GOD – ( CREATED ) – AND A PERSON...” - (Ratione No: 6. Quoted on Page 159, “THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF DR. SAMUEL CLARKE (1675-1729): CONTEXT, SOURCES, AND CONTROVERSY.” By Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, Brill, 1997.)

SIR ISAAC NEWTON -- CHRIST WAS "...CREATED BY GOD..."


SIR ISAAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1727 C.E.): “...THOUGH – ( CREATED BY ) – GOD IN TIME, CHRIST EXISTED BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN...” - (Yahuda MS 15.5, f. 96. Quoted on Pages 819-827, Chapter 15, “Years Of Decline,” In: “NEVER AT REST: A BIOGRAPHY OF ISAAC NEWTON,” By Richard H. Westfall, Cambridge University Press: 1980.)

JOHN MILTON ON THE ONE GOD OF THE BIBLE



JOHN MILTON (circa. 1608-1674 C.E.): “...Let us then discard reason in sacred matters, and follow the doctrine of Holy Scripture exclusively.[12] Accordingly, no one need expect that I should here premise a long metaphysical discussion, and introduce all that commonly received drama of the personalities in the Godhead: since it is most evident, in the first place, from numberless passages of Scripture, that there is in reality but one true independent and supreme God;[13] and as he is called one, (inasmuch as human reason and the common language of mankind, and THE JEWS, THE PEOPLE OF GOD, HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED HIM AS ONE PERSON ONLY, THAT IS, ONE IN A NUMERICAL SENSE) let us have recourse to the sacred writings in order to know who this one true and supreme God is. This knowledge ought to be derived in the first instance from the gospel, since the clearest doctrine respecting the one God must necessarily be that copious and explanatory revelation concerning him which was delivered by Christ himself to his apostles, and by the apostles to their followers. Nor is it to be supposed that the gospel would be ambiguous or obscure on this subject; for it was not given for the purpose of promulgating new and incredible doctrines respecting the nature of God, [116.] hitherto utterly unheard of by his own people, but to announce salvation to the Gentiles through Messiah the Son of God, according to the promise of the God of Abraham. 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,' John i. 18. Let us therefore consult the Son in the first place respecting God. According to the testimony of the Son, delivered in the clearest terms, the Father is that one true God, by whom are all things. Being asked by one of the scribes, Mark xii. 28, 29, 32, which was the first commandment of all, he answered from Deut. vi. 4. 'the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;' OR AS IT IS IN HEBREW, 'JEHOVAH OUR GOD IS ONE JEHOVAH.' The scribe assented; 'there is one God, and there is none other one but he;' and in the following verse Christ expresses his approbation of this answer. Nothing can be more clear than that it was the opinion of the scribe, as well of the other Jews, that by the unity of God is intended his oneness of person. That this God was no other than God the Father, is proved from John viii. 41, 54. 'we have one Father, even God. It is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say that he is your God.' iv. 21. 'neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.' Christ therefore agrees with the whole people of God, that the Father is that one and only God. For who can believe that the very first of the commandments would have been so obscure, and so ill understood by the Church through such a succession of ages, that two other [117.] persons, equally entitled to worship, should have remained wholly unknown to the people of God, and debarred of divine honours even to that very day? especially as God, where he is teaching his own people respecting the nature of their worship under the gospel, FOREWARNS THEM THAT THEY WOULD HAVE FOR THEIR GOD THE ONE JEHOVAH WHOM THEY HAD ALWAYS SERVED, AND DAVID, THAT IS CHRIST, FOR THEIR KING AND LORD. JER. XXX. 9. 'THEY SHALL SERVE JEHOVAH THEIR GOD, AND DAVID THEIR KING, WHOM I WILL RAISE UP UNTO THEM.' In this passage Christ, such as God willed that he should be known or served by his people under the gospel, is expressly distinguished from the one God Jehovah, both by nature and title. Christ himself therefore, the Son of God, teaches us nothing in the gospel respecting the one God but what the law had before taught, and everywhere clearly asserts him to be his Father. John xvii, 3. 'this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' xx. 17. 'I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God:' IF THEREFORE THE FATHER BE THE GOD OF CHRIST, AND THE SAME BE OUR GOD, AND IF THERE BE NONE OTHER GOD BUT ONE, THERE CAN BE NO GOD BESIDE THE FATHER...” - (Book 1, Chapter 5, Section 115-117, “Of The Creation,” In: Volume 1, “A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, COMPILED FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ALONE,” By John Milton, Boston: 1825.)
[FOOTNOTE 12]: Down, reason, then; at least vain reasonings, down. Sampson Agonistes, 322.
[FOOTNOTE 13]: Seem I to thee sufficiently possess'd, Of happiness or not? who am alone
From all eternity; for none I know, Second to me or like, equal much less. Paradise Lost, VIII. 404.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

SIR ISAAC NEWTON ON – “RELATIVITY” -- THE RELATIVITY BETWEEN THE WORSHIP OF JESUS AND THE WORSHIP OF THE FATHER!

 

SIR ISAAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1727 C.E.): “...We must believe that he is exalted to the right hand of God, Acts 2, OR IS – ( NEXT IN ) – DIGNITY – ( TO ) – GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, the first begotten the heir of all things and Lord over all the creation – ( NEXT ) – ( UNDER ) – GOD, and we must give him suitable worship... The worship which we are directed in scripture to give to Jesus respects his death and exaltation to the right hand of God AND IS GIVEN TO HIM – ( AS ) – OUR LORD AND KING – AND TENDS – ( TO ) – THE GLORY – ( OF ) GOD THE FATHER. Should we give the father that worship which is due to the Son we should be Partripassians, and SHOULD WE GIVE THE SON ALL THAT WORSHIP WHICH IS DUE TO THE FATHER WE SHOULD MAKE TWO CREATORS AND BE GUILTY OF POLYTHEISM and in both cases we should practically deny the father and the Son. ...” - (Yahuda MS 15.3, ff. 45-6., quoted on Pages 819-827, Chapter 15, “Years Of Decline,” In: “NEVER AT REST: A BIOGRAPHY OF ISAAC NEWTON,” By Richard H. Westfall, Cambridge University Press: 1980.)

JOHN MILTON ON CLOSSIANS 1:15

 

JOHN MILTON (circa. 1608-1674 C.E.): “...This point also will be easily explained by reference to Scripture. For when the Son is said to be 'the first born of every creature,' and 'the beginning of the creation of God,' NOTHING CAN BE MORE EVIDENT THAN THAT GOD OF HIS OWN WILL – ( CREATED ), – OR GENERATED, OR PRODUCED THE SON BEFORE ALL THINGS, endued with the divine nature, as in the fulness of time he miraculously begat him in his human nature of the Virgin Mary...” - (Book 1, Chapter 5, Section 112, “Of The Creation,” In: Volume 1, “A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, COMPILED FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ALONE,” By John Milton, Boston: 1825.)

JOHN MILTON ON REVELATION 3:14

 

JOHN MILTON (circa. 1608-1674 C.E.): “...It is however sometimes attempted to be proved from Rev. iii. 14. that the Son was the joint, or even the principal cause of the creation with the Father; 'the beginning of the creation of God;' where the word beginning is interpreted [231.] in an active sense, on the authority of Aristotle.[4] But in the first place, the Hebrew language, whence the expression is taken, nowhere admits of this sense, but rather requires a contrary usage, as Gen. xlix. 3. 'Reuben, thou art..... the beginning of my strength.' Secondly, there are two passages in St. Paul referring to Christ himself, which clearly prove that the word beginning is here used in a passive signification, Col. i. 15, 18. 'the first born of every creature, ..... the beginning, the first born from the dead,' —where the position of the Greek accent,[5] and the passive verbal πρωτότοκος, show that the Son of God was the first born of every creature precisely in the same sense as the Son of Man was the first born of Mary, πρωτότοκος, Matt. i. 25. The other passage is Rom. viii. 29. 'first born among many brethren;' that is, in a passive signification. Lastly, it should be remarked, that he is not called simply 'the beginning of the creation,' BUT – '( OF ) – THE CREATION – ( OF ) – GOD;' WHICH CAN MEAN NOTHING ELSE THAN THE FIRST OF THOSE THINGS WHICH GOD CREATED; HOW THEREFORE CAN HE BE HIMSELF GOD?...” - (Book 1, Chapter 7, Section 230-231, “Of The Creation,” In: Volume 1, “A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, COMPILED FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ALONE,” By John Milton, Boston: 1825.)
[FOOTNOTE 4]: See Aristotle's Metaphys. iv. 1. Milton alludes to the same interpretation in his logical work. 'Hinc causa proprie dicta, principium quoque nominator a Cic. I. de Nat. Deorum, sed frequentius apud Græcos.' Artis Logicæ plenior Institutio, &c. Prose Works, VI. 205.
[FOOTNOTE 5]: In allusion to the opinion of Isidore Pelusiota, Erasmus, and others (with whom Michaelis agrees, Annotat. ad Paraphr. ad Col. i. 15.) that it should not be read πρωτότοκος, primogenitus, but πρωτοτόκος, primus genitor.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

VICTORINUS OF PETAVIUM SAYS JESUS WAS "...THE FIRST TO HAVE BEEN MADE OF CREATION..."!

LATIN TEXT: “...Primus factus creaturae est, secundus hominis vel humani generis, ut ait apostolus...” - (8, 11, 10-11 Haussleiter, “DE FABRICA MUNDI,” Or “ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD,” Quoted on Pages 76-77, “The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy 318-381,” By Richard Patrick Crosland Hanson, R. P. Hanson 2005.)

VICTORINUS OF PETAVIUM (circa. died 303 C.E.): “...HE IS MADE FIRST OF THE CREATION and second of man or of the human race...” - (Page 76-77, “DE FABRICA MUNDI,” Or “ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD,” Quoted in “The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy 318-381,” By Richard Patrick Crosland Hanson, R. P. Hanson 2005.)
[FOOTNOTE]: Mentioned as being martyred in Diocletians persecution by Jerome “De Viris Illustribus,” LXXIV.

Heres my alternate translation of the passage:

LATIN TEXT: “...Primus factus creaturae est, secundus hominis vel humani generis, ut ait apostolus...” - (8, 11, 10-11 Haussleiter, “DE FABRICA MUNDI,” Or “ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD,” Quoted on Pages 76-77, “The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy 318-381,” By Richard Patrick Crosland Hanson, R. P. Hanson 2005.)

Ltn., ( primus ) = adjective, singular, masculine, nominative
Ltn., ( factus ) = participle, singular, perfect, passive, masculine, nominative
Ltn., ( creaturae ) = noun, singular, feminine, genitive

VICTORINUS OF PETAVIUM (circa. died 304 C.E.): “...HE IS THE FIRST TO HAVE BEEN MADE OF CREATION, secondly of man or of human generation...” - (“DE FABRICA MUNDI,” Or “ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD,” Literal translation by Matt13weedhacker 4/11/12.)

VICTORINUS OF PETAVIUM (circa. died 304 C.E.): “...HE IS THE FIRST ONE THAT HAS BEEN MADE OF CREATION, second of man or of human birth...” - (“DE FABRICA MUNDI,” Or “ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD,” Literal translation by Matt13weedhacker 4/11/12.)

EXAMPLES OF Gk., ( προσκυνέω ) PROSKUNEŌ “...WORSHIP / OBEISANCE / HOMAGE...” AS A --- ( CUSTOM ) --- TOWARDS MEN, KINGS, PEOPLE OF RANK IN NON-BIBLICAL LITERATURE!

GREEK TEXT: “...Ἐντυγχάνοντες [1.] δ᾽ ἀλλήλοισι ἐν τῇσι ὁδοῖσι, τῷδε ἄν τις διαγνοίη εἰ ὅμοιοί εἰσὶ οἱ συντυγχάνοντες: ἀντὶ γὰρ τοῦ προσαγορεύειν ἀλλήλους φιλέουσι τοῖσι στόμασι: ἢν δὲ ᾖ οὕτερος ὑποδεέστερος ὀλίγῳ, τὰς παρειὰς φιλέονται: ἢν δὲ πολλῷ ᾖ οὕτερος ἀγεννέστερος, προσπίπτων προσκυνέει τὸν ἕτερον. [2.] τιμῶσι δὲ ἐκ πάντων τοὺς ἄγχιστα ἑωυτῶν οἰκέοντας μετά γε ἑωυτούς, δευτέρα δὲ τοὺς δευτέρους: μετὰ δὲ κατὰ λόγον προβαίνοντες τιμῶσι: ἥκιστα δὲ τοὺς ἑωυτῶν ἑκαστάτω οἰκημένους ἐν τιμῇ ἄγονται, νομίζοντες ἑωυτοὺς εἶναι ἀνθρώπων μακρῷ τὰ πάντα ἀρίστους, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους κατὰ λόγον τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀντέχεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ ἑκαστάτω οἰκέοντας ἀπὸ ἑωυτῶν κακίστους εἶναι. [3.] ἐπὶ δὲ Μήδων ἀρχὸν τῶν καὶ ἦρχε τὰ ἔθνεα ἀλλήλων, συναπάντων μὲν Μῆδοι καὶ τῶν ἄγχιστα οἰκεόντων σφίσι, οὗτοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ὁμούρων, οἳ δὲ μάλα τῶν ἐχομένων, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ λόγον καὶ οἱ Πέρσαι τιμῶσι: προέβαινε γὰρ δὴ τὸ ἔθνος ἄρχον τε καὶ ἐπιτροπεῦον...” - (Hdt. 1.134[.1-3], “Herodotus, with an English translation,” by A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.)

HERODOTUS (circa. 484-425 B.C.E.): “...When [1.] one man meets another on the road, it is easy to see if the two are equals; for, if they are, they kiss each other on the lips without speaking; IF THE DIFFERENCE IN RANK IS SMALL, THE CHEEK IS KISSED; IF IT IS GREAT, THE HUMBLER BOWS AND DOES OBEISANCE TO THE OTHER. [2.] They honor most of all those who live nearest them, next those who are next nearest, and so going ever onwards they assign honor by this rule: those who dwell farthest off they hold least honorable of all; for they think that they are themselves in all regards by far the best of all men, that the rest have only a proportionate claim to merit, until those who live farthest away have least merit of all. [3.] Under the rule of the Medes, one tribe would even govern another; the Medes held sway over all alike and especially over those who lived nearest to them; these ruled their neighbors, and the neighbors in turn those who came next to them, on the same scheme by which the Persians assign honor; for the nation kept advancing its rule and dominion.{1}...” - (Hdt. 1.134[.1-3], “Herodotus, with an English translation,” by A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.)

GREEK TEXT: “...Ταῦτα μὲν Ὑδάρνεα ἀμείψαντο. ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ ὡς ἀνέβησαν ἐς Σοῦσα καὶ βασιλέι ἐς ὄψιν ἦλθον, πρῶτα μὲν τῶν δορυφόρων κελευόντων καὶ ἀνάγκην σφι προσφερόντων προσκυνέειν βασιλέα προσπίπτοντας, οὐκ ἔφασαν ὠθεόμενοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν ποιήσειν ταῦτα οὐδαμά: οὔτε γὰρ σφίσι ἐν νόμῳ εἶναι ἄνθρωπον προσκυνέειν οὔτε κατὰ ταῦτα ἥκειν. ὡς δὲ ἀπεμαχέσαντο τοῦτο, δεύτερά σφι λέγουσι τάδε καὶ λόγου τοιοῦδε ἐχόμενα [2.] ‘ὦ βασιλεῦ Μήδων, ἔπεμψαν ἡμέας Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἀντὶ τῶν ἐν Σπάρτῃ ἀπολομένων κηρύκων ποινὴν ἐκείνων τίσοντας,’ λέγουσι δὲ αὐτοῖσι ταῦτα Ξέρξης ὑπὸ μεγαλοφροσύνης οὐκ ἔφη ὅμοιος ἔσεσθαι Λακεδαιμονίοισι: κείνους μὲν γὰρ συγχέαι τὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων νόμιμα ἀποκτείναντας κήρυκας, αὐτὸς δὲ τὰ ἐκείνοισι ἐπιπλήσσει ταῦτα οὐ ποιήσειν, οὐδὲ ἀνταποκτείνας ἐκείνους ἀπολύσειν Λακεδαιμονίους τῆς αἰτίης...” - (Hdt. 7.136[.1-2], “Herodotus, with an English translation,” by A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.)

HERODOTUS (circa. 484-425 B.C.E.): “...This was their answer to Hydarnes. FROM THERE THEY CAME TO SUSA, INTO THE KING'S PRESENCE, AND WHEN THE GUARDS COMMANDED AND WOULD HAVE COMPELLED THEM TO FALL DOWN AND BOW TO THE KING, they said they would never do that. This they would refuse even if they were thrust down headlong, FOR IT WAS NOT THEIR CUSTOM, SAID THEY, TO BOW TO MORTAL MEN, nor was that the purpose of their coming. Having averted that, they next said, [2.] “The Lacedaemonians have sent us, O king of the Medes, in requital for the slaying of your heralds at Sparta, to make atonement for their death,” and more to that effect. To this Xerxes, with great magnanimity, replied that he would not imitate the Lacedaemonians. “You,” said he, “made havoc of all human law by slaying heralds, but I will not do that for which I censure you, nor by putting you in turn to death will I set the Lacedaemonians free from this guilt...” - (Hdt. 7.136[.1-2], Herodotus, with an English translation by A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.)

GREEK TEXT: “...Ὀρέστης: ποῦ 'στιν οὗτος ὃς πέφευγεν ἐκ δόμων τοὐμὸν ξίφος; Φρύξ: προσκυνῶ σ᾽, ἄναξ, νόμοισι βαρβάροισι προσπίτνων. Ὀρέστης: οὐκ ἐν Ἰλίῳ τάδ᾽ ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν Ἀργείᾳ χθονί. Φρύξ: πανταχοῦ ζῆν ἡδὺ μᾶλλον ἢ θανεῖν τοῖς σώφροσιν...” - (Eur. Orest. 1506-1507, “Euripides. Euripidis Fabulae,” vol. 3. Gilbert Murray. Oxford. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1913.)

EURIPIDES (circa. 480-406 B.C.E.): “...Orestes: “Where is the one who fled from the palace to escape my sword?” Phrygian: falling at the feet of Orestes, “BEFORE YOU I PROSTRATE MYSELF, LORD, and supplicate you in my foreign way.” Orestes: “We are not in Ilium, but the land of Argos.” Phrygian: “Everywhere, the wise find life sweeter than death...” - (Eur. Orest. 1506-1507, Euripides. The Complete Greek Drama, edited by Whitney J. Oates and Eugene O'Neill, Jr. in two volumes. 2. Orestes, translated by E. P. Coleridge. New York. Random House. 1938.)

GREEK TEXT: “...Θουκυδίδης μὲν οὖν καὶ Χάρων ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς ἱστοροῦσι τεθνηκότος Ξέρξου πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεμιστοκλεῖ γενέσθαι τὴν ἔντευξιν: Ἔφορος δὲ καὶ Δείνων καὶ Κλείταρχος καὶ Ἡρακλείδης, ἔτι δ᾽ ἄλλοι πλείονες, πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφικέσθαι τὸν Ξέρξην. τοῖς δὲ χρονικοῖς δοκεῖ μᾶλλον ὁ Θουκυδίδης συμφέρεσθαι, καίπερ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀτρέμα συνταττομένοις. [2.] ὁ δ᾽ οὖν Θεμιστοκλῆς γενόμενος παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ δεινὸν ἐντυγχάνει πρῶτον Ἀρταβάνῳ τῷ χιλιάρχῳ λέγων, Ἕλλην μὲν εἶναι, βούλεσθαι δ᾽ ἐντυχεῖν βασιλεῖ περὶ μεγίστων πραγμάτων καὶ πρὸς ἃ τυγχάνει μάλιστα σπουδάζων ἐκεῖνος. ὁ δέ φησιν: ‘ὦ ξένε, νόμοι διαφέρουσιν ἀνθρώπων: ἄλλα δ᾽ ἄλλοις καλά: καλὸν δὲ πᾶσι τὰ οἰκεῖα κοσμεῖν καὶ σώζειν. [3.] ὑμᾶς μὲν οὖν ἐλευθερίαν μάλιστα θαυμάζειν καὶ ἰσότητα λόγος: ἡμῖν δὲ πολλῶν νόμων καὶ καλῶν ὄντων κάλλιστος οὗτός ἐστι, τιμᾶν βασιλέα, καὶ προσκυνεῖν ὡς εἰκόνα θεοῦ τοῦ τὰ πάντα σώζοντος. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπαινῶν τὰ ἡμέτερα προσκυνήσεις, ἔστι σοι καὶ θεάσασθαι βασιλέα καὶ προσειπεῖν: εἰ δ᾽ ἄλλο τι φρονεῖς, ἀγγέλοις ἑτέροις χρήσῃ πρὸς αὐτόν. βασιλεῖ γὰρ οὐ πάτριον ἀνδρὸς ἀκροᾶσθαι μὴ προσκυνήσαντος.’ [4.] ταῦτα ὁ Θεμιστοκλῆς ἀκούσας λέγει πρὸς αὐτόν: ‘ἀλλ᾽ ἔγωγε τὴν βασιλέως, ὦ Ἀρτάβανε, φήμην καὶ δύναμιν αὐξήσων ἀφῖγμαι, καὶ αὐτός τε πείσομαι τοῖς ὑμετέροις νόμοις, ἐπεὶ θεῷ τῷ μεγαλύνοντι Πέρσας οὕτω δοκεῖ, καὶ δι᾽ ἐμὲ πλείονες τῶν νῦν βασιλέα προσκυνήσουσιν. ὥστε τοῦτο μηδὲν ἐμποδὼν ἔστω τοῖς λόγοις, οὓς βούλομαι πρὸς ἐκεῖνον εἰπεῖν.’ [5.] ‘τίνα δ᾽,’ εἶπεν ὁ Ἀρτάβανος, ‘Ἑλλήνων ἀφῖχθαί σε φῶμεν; οὐ γὰρ ἰδιώτῃ τὴν γνώμην ἔοικας.’ καὶ ὁ Θεμιστοκλῆς: ‘τοῦτ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἄν,’ ἔφη, ‘πύθοιτό τις, Ἀρτάβανε, πρότερος βασιλέως.’ οὕτω μὲν ὁ Φανίας φησίν. ὁ δ᾽ Ἐρατοσθένης ἐν τοῖς Περὶ πλούτου προσιστόρησε, διὰ γυναικὸς Ἐρετρικῆς, ἣν ὁ χιλίαρχος εἶχε, τῷ Θεμιστοκλεῖ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔντευξιν γενέσθαι καὶ σύστασιν...” - (Plut. Them. 27[:1-5], Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. with an English Translation by. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1914. 2.)

PLUTARCH / LUCIUS MESTRIUS PLUTARCHUS (circa. 46-120 C.E.): “...Now Thucydides{1} and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom Themistocles had his interview; but Ephorus and Dinon and Clitarchus and Heracleides and yet more besides have it that it was Xerxes to whom he came. With the chronological data Thucydides seems to me more in accord, although these are by no means securely established. [2.] Be that as it may, Themistocles, thus at the threshold of the dreadful ordeal, had audience first with Artabanus the Chiliarch, or Grand Vizier, and said that he was a Hellene, and that he desired to have an audience with the King on matters which were of the highest importance and for which the monarch entertained the most lively concern. Whereupon the Chiliarch replied: ‘O STRANGER, MEN'S CUSTOMS DIFFER; DIFFERENT PEOPLE HONOR DIFFERENT PRACTICES; BUT ALL HONOR THE EXALTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THEIR OWN PECULIAR WAYS. [3.] NOW YOU HELLENES ARE SAID TO ADMIRE LIBERTY AND EQUALITY ABOVE ALL THINGS; BUT IN OUR EYES, AMONG MANY FAIR CUSTOMS, THIS IS THE FAIREST OF ALL, TO HONOR THE KING, AND TO PAY OBEISANCE TO HIM AS THE IMAGE OF THAT GOD WHO IS THE PRESERVER OF ALL THINGS. IF, THEN, THOU APPROVEST OUR PRACTICE AND WILT PAY OBEISANCE, IT IS IN THY POWER TO BEHOLD AND ADDRESS THE KING; but if thou art otherwise minded, it will be needful for thee to employ messengers to him in thy stead, FOR IT IS NOT A CUSTOM OF THIS COUNTRY THAT THE KING GIVE EAR TO A MAN WHO HAS NOT PAID HIM OBEISANCE.’ [4.] When Themistocles heard this, he said to him: ‘Nay, but I am come, Artabanus, to augment the King's fame and power, AND I WILL NOT ONLY MYSELF OBSERVE YOUR CUSTOMS, SINCE SUCH IS THE PLEASURE OF THE GOD WHO EXALTS THE PERSIANS, BUT I WILL INDUCE MORE MEN THAN DO SO NOW TO PAY OBEISANCE TO THE KING. Therefore let this matter by no means stand in the way of the words I wish to speak to him.’ [5.] ‘And what Hellene,’ said Artabanus, ‘shall I say thou art who hast thus come? Verily, thou dost not seem to be a man of ordinary understanding.’ And Themistocles said: ‘This, Artabanus, no one may learn before the King.’ So indeed Phanias says, and Eratosthenes, in his book ‘On Wealth,’ adds the statement that it was through a woman of Eretria, whom the Chiliarch had to wife, that Themistocles obtained interview and conference with him...” - (Plut. Them. 27[:1-5], Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. with an English Translation by. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1914. 2.)
[FOOTNOTE 1]: 1 Thuc. 1.137.

GREEK TEXT: “...ἔπειτα ὅτε Ξέρξης ὕστερον ἀγείρας τὴν ἀναρίθμητον στρατιὰν ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα, καὶ τότε ἐνίκων οἱ ἡμέτεροι πρόγονοι τοὺς τούτων προγόνους καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν. ὧν ἔστι μὲν τεκμήρια ὁρᾶν τὰ τρόπαια, μέγιστον δὲ μαρτύριον ἡ ἐλευθερία τῶν πόλεων ἐν αἷς ὑμεῖς ἐγένεσθε καὶ ἐτράφητε: οὐδένα γὰρ ἄνθρωπον δεσπότην ἀλλὰ τοὺς θεοὺς προσκυνεῖτε...” - (Xen. Anab. 3.2.13, Xenophon. Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. 3. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1904, Reprint 1961.)

XENOPHON (circa. 430-354 B.C.E.): “...Again, when Xerxes at a later time gathered together that countless{1} host and came against Greece, then too our forefathers were victorious, both by land and by sea,{2} over the forefathers of our enemies. As tokens of these victories we may, indeed, still behold the trophies, but the strongest witness to them is the freedom of the states in which you were born and bred; FOR TO NO HUMAN CREATURE DO YOU PAY HOMAGE AS MASTER, BUT TO THE GODS ALONE...” - (Xen. Anab. 3.2.13, Xenophon. Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 3. Carleton L. Brownson. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; William Heinemann, Ltd., London. 1922.)
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Herodotus (Hdt. 7.185) puts the whole number of fighting men in Xerxes' armament at 2,641,610.
[FOOTNOTE 2]: By sea at Salamis (480 B.C.) and by land at Plataea (479 B.C.).

Friday, November 2, 2012

REVELATION 3:14 "...CREATION ( OF ) THE GOD..." COMPARED WITH JOHN 5:30 "...FROM ( OF ) MY OWN SELF..."

Could the Son be a “...Creator...” or the “...Origin...” or “...Originator...” (Revelation 3:14 Biased Tri{3}nitarian Versions) of what is referred to as: “...( of ) the creation ( of ) the [definite] God...”?

In view of the following scripture?

The Son, about himself, declares:

GREEK TEXT: “...Οὐ δύναμαι ἐγὼ ποιεῖν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐδέν· καθὼς ἀκούω κρίνω, καὶ ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ δικαία ἐστίν, ὅτι οὐ ζητῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με...” - (Chapter 5:30, “ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ” From: “Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th revised edition, Edited by Barbara Aland and others, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart © 2012.)

Gk., ( οὐ ) = particle – nominative
Gk., ( δύναμαι ) = present middle or passive deponent indicative - first person singular
Gk., ( ἐγὼ ) = personal pronoun - first person nominative singular
Gk., ( ποιεῖν ) = verb - present active infinitive
Gk., ( ἀπ’ ) = preposition
Gk., ( ἐμαυτοῦ ) = reflexive pronoun - first person genitive singular masculine
Gk., ( οὐδὲν ) = adjective - accusative singular neuter

INTERLINEAR:

Gk., ( οὐ δύναμαι ἐγὼ ποιεῖν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐδὲν )

(Matt13weedhacker) “...Not I-being-able I-am to-be-doing from ( of )-my-own-self not-but-one-thing...”

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

(Matt13weedhacker) “...I am not being able to be doing not one single thing from ( of ) my own self...”

PARAPHRASE:

(Matt13weedhacker) “...I am not able at all, to be doing a single thing ( that originates from of ) myself...”

(Matt13weedhacker) “...I am not able, to be doing a single thing at all ( that originates from ) myself...”

INTERLINEAR VERSIONS:

(Diaglott-NT) “...Not am able I to do ( of ) myself nothing...”

LITERAL VERSIONS:

(ALT) “...I am not able to be doing anything ( of ) Myself...”

(ANT+) “...Not have (ability) to make ( from ) myself no [thing]...”

(LITV-TSP) “...I am able to do nothing ( from ) Myself...”

STANDARD VERSIONS:

(KJV 1611) “...I can ( of ) mine own self do nothing....”

(ISV) “...I can do nothing ( on my own ) accord...”

(CLV) “...I can not do anything ( of ) Myself...”

(DRP (Gospels)) “...I ( from ) myself am not able to do a thing...”

(EB) “...I, cannot be doing, ( of ) myself, a single thing...”
(RNT) “...I cannot ( of ) myself do anything...”

(AUV-NT) “...I cannot do anything ( by my own ) [authority]...”

(Moffatt NT) “...I can do nothing ( of ) my own accord...”

(Knox NT) “...I cannot do anything ( of ) my own impulse...”

PARAPHRASE VERSIONS:

(GNB) “...I can do nothing ( on my own ) authority...”

(MRC) “...I do not have the power to do anything ( of ) Myself...”

COPTIC VERSIONS:

(CNT-ND-(eng)) “...It is not possible that I should do anything ( of ) myself...”

(CNT-SD-(eng)) “...It is not possible for me indeed to do anything ( of ) myself...”

SYRIAC VERSIONS:

(Etheridge) “...I CANNOT of the will ( of ) myself do any thing...”

(Murdock) “...I can do nothing ( of ) my own pleasure...”

EXPANDED MEANING/SENSE VERSIONS:

(JMNT) “I, Myself, am continually unable (I habitually have no power or ability) to be doing anything ( from ) Myself...”

REVELATION 3:14 "...CREATION ( OF ) THE GOD..." COMPARED WITH JOHN 5:19 "...( OF ) MYSELF..."

Could the Son be a “...Creator...” or the “...Origin...” or “...Originator...” (Revelation 3:14 Biased Tri{3}nitarian Versions) of what is referred to as: “...( of ) the creation ( of ) the [definite] God...”?

In view of the following scripture?

The Son, about himself, declares:

GREEK TEXT: “...Ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα· ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ...” - (Chapter 5:19, “ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ” From: “Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th revised edition, Edited by Barbara Aland and others, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart © 2012.)

Gk., ( οὐ ) = particle - nominative
Gk., ( δύναται ) = verb - present middle or passive deponent indicative - third person singular
Gk., ( ὁ ) = definite article - nominative singular masculine
Gk., ( υἱὸς ) = noun - nominative singular masculine
Gk., ( ποιεῖν ) = verb - present active infinitive
Gk., ( ἀφ’ ) = preposition
Gk., ( ἑαυτοῦ ) = reflexive pronoun - third person genitive singular masculine
Gk., ( οὐδὲν ) = adjective - accusative singular neuter

INTERLINEAR:

Gk., ( οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν )

(Matt13weedhacker) “...Not he-is-being-able the Son to-be-doing from ( of )-himself not-but-one-thing...”

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

(Matt13weedhacker) “...He is not able, the Son, to be doing anything from ( of ) himself...”

PARAPHRASE:

(Matt13weedhacker) “...He is not able, the Son, to do anything ( that originates from ) himself...”

(Matt13weedhacker) “...He is not able, the Son, to do anything ( originating from of ) himself...”

(Matt13weedhacker) “...He does not have [the] ability, the Son, to do anything ( that originates from ) himself...”

INTERLINEAR VERSIONS:

(Diaglott-NT) “...not is able the son to do ( of ) himself nothing...”

LITERAL VERSIONS:

(Young's Literal Translation) “...The Son is not able to do anything ( of ) himself...”

(ANT+) “...not has (ability) The Son to make ( from ) himself no [thing]...”

(Analytical Literal Translation) “...the Son is not able to be doing anything ( of ) Himself...”

(LITV-TSP) “...the Son is not able to do anything ( from ) Himself...”

STANDARD VERSIONS:

(KJV 1611) “...The Son can do nothing ( of ) himself...”

(EB) “...The Son cannot be doing, ( of ) himself, a single thing...”

(Moffatt NT) “...the Son can do nothing ( of ) his own accord...”

(Knox NT) “...The Son cannot do anything ( of ) his own impulse...”

(GSNT) “...the Son cannot do anything ( of ) his own accord...”

PARAPHRASE VERSIONS:

(Phillips-NT) “...the Son can do nothing ( of ) his own accord...”

EXPANDED SENSE/MEANING VERSIONS:

(JMNT) “...the Son continues unable to do anything ( from ) Himself (or: the Son, ( from ) Himself, habitually has no power to be doing anything)...”

COPTIC VERSIONS:

(CNT-ND-(eng)) “...it is not possible that the Son should do anything ( of ) himself...”

(CNT-SD-(eng)) “...It is not possible for the Son to do anything ( of ) himself...”

SYRIAC VERSIONS:

(Etheridge) “...The Son cannot do any thing from the will ( of ) himself...”

(Lamsa NT) “...the Son can do nothing ( of ) his own accord...”

(Murdock) “...The Son can do nothing, ( of ) his own pleasure...”