Purity of Christianity

How do you know which and how much of present traditional Christian teachings and religious practices can actually be substantiated and verified in the ancient original language Hebrew and Greek texts of God's Word? If certain traditional doctrines and practices cannot be substantiated and verified out of the writings of the authors of the ancient texts, then who or what gives those subsequent "doctrinal" additions, or changes and deletions to what was written, any authority that they should be believed and/or practiced? Do mortal men dressed in colorful robes, with plaques on their walls which were given to them from other men from whom they purchased the knowledge of "God's Word", have any authority to "divinitize" the clever words and religious inventions of other mortals?

Apostle Paul said:

2 Cor. 11:13 (LIT) Because the ones like these are false apostles, luring workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.

2 Cor. 11:14 (LIT) And absolutely do not wonder!

Because the Satan himself transforms himself into a messenger of light!

2 Cor. 11:15 (LIT) Therefore [it is] absolutely no great thing if the ministers also of him transform themselves as [being] ministers of righteousness;

the end of whom shall be down the works of them!

What better method can you guess that the devil may use to attack God's Word, and His believers, than to disguise himself as a messenger of light, and to disguise his demon spirits as ministers of righteousness, and then open up a church on a corner and invite people in to hear "bible study"? "Coffee and donuts, are free"! Now he could throw in a few showbiz elements from Hollywood and Las Vegas to provide entertainment, and create a draw and illusion, and the next thing you know, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got ourselves a denomination!"

If the devil can get people to believe his lies are authentically God's Word, then he can get people to believe virtually anything but God's Word!

If the devil can get people to believe his lies are authentically God's Word, then he can make "God's Word" look like it is powerless to help anyone!

If the devil can get people to believe his lies are authentically God's Word, then he can cause people to believe that belief in God's Word produces no results in their lives!

The one true God honors His great and precious promises, and all of His words which He has given in His covenants. If what you are chock full of in your own head is supposedly knowledge of God's Word, but your attempts to believe it and rely upon it in your life produce no discernable results, then maybe what your head is chock full of is only religious-sounding counterfeits of the knowledge of God's Word, mortal-made and devil-made half truths, which are lies (2 Pet. 1:1-4; Col. 2:6-8; Eph. 4:14)!

This is exactly how the devil frustrates believers who are searching for God and His Word, through the devil using his half-truth lies to steer them into believing "God and His Word" have no discernable effects in someone's life. This is a method the devil uses to get people to believe that the one true God is a liar! That God is false! That Christianity is false! And this is how the devil tries to stop people from entering into a covenant relationship with the one true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is exactly what the devil did, working through the spiritual leaders of the sons of Israel in the time of Jesus' first presence on earth, to stop people from believing God's Word, and to stop people from believing upon the name of Jesus; and to stop people from receiving the new birth above in God's Spirit (John 3), baptism in His gift of holy Spirit (Acts 2:41). This is what belief in God's Word obtains for a believer!

Modern "Christianity" Teaches Believers To Be Spiritual Bystanders and Victims

Many so called "Christian" denominations don't teach believers how to manifest any and/or all of the nine powerful manifestations of their gift of God's holy Spirit Christ Jesus poured out into them when they believed upon his name, which apostle Paul preached and taught throughout all Asia, as recorded specifically in 1 Cor. 12:1-. That's the devil working! Of course he doesn't want believers to start learning and practicing the use of God's Spirit His Son has placed in them (Eph. 2:1-3; 2 Pet. 1:4), so that believers can learn that:

The new birth above in God's gift of holy Spirit places God, who is in Christ, in THEM (Col. 1:27)!

And so therefore:

Believers are greater than he, the devil, who is in the world (1 John 4:4)!

Believers can quench ALL the fiery darts of the devil (Eph. 6:16)!

Believers are more than conquerors through him who loved us (Rom. 8:37)!

Believers can do all things through Christ who strengthens them (Phil. 4:13)!

Believers are conquering the cosmos because they believe that Jesus is the Son of the God (1 John 5:4-5)!

If you have enough courage, bring this up and see how far you get with it in your denomination! You will at least be tacitly silenced through some sly communicative maneuver to control you; or you may get slammed to the mat hard, depending upon how much they believe they can ill-treat you without totally driving you out from under their control.

They may imply or say to you that you are not going along with the tenets of the "church". The church isn't the head over itself, Christ is the head over the church! Those who say that the "church" is over you, or you need to answer to the "church" are ego-maniacal control freaks trying to make themselves head over you! They have either forgotten, or are twisting the truth for their own purposes, that CHRIST JESUS is the head over the church (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22, 5:23; Col. 1:18), which is made up of individual believers, and so CHRIST JESUS is the head over each and every individual believer!

They may say "You're talking heretical! Straighten up!" And it will be implied or said that you should not bring it up again. This is the devil working!!! Apostle Paul scolded the believers in Corinth area for not rising up in their discipleship to Jesus Christ to start practicing and learning the manifestations of their gift of holy Spirit God placed in them (2 Cor. 13:5; 1 Cor. 12:1-). Does your "Christian" denomination ignore 1 Cor. 12:1-, and/or forbid talking about the knowledge of this subject matter? That's the devil working!

The devil desires to convince everyone that the power of the holy Spirit is dead in the church. And it is in devil-run organizations, dead in those who follow the devil's pseudo Christianity. Of course people follow out of ignorance. That's the problem, they're ignorant (Hos. 4:6), and staying that way!

How The Devil Worked In Jesus Time Is How He Still Works

Jesus Christ said:

Mat. 23:13 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) woe (ouai) to you (humin) writers (grammateis), and (kai) Pharisees (Pharisaioi), actors (hupokritai), because (hoti) you close (kleiete) the (tēn) Kingdom (basileian) of the (tōn) Heavens (ouranōn) in front (emprosthen) of the (tōn) mortals (anthrōpōn);

because (gar) you (humeis) absolutely do not enter into (ouk eiserchesthe) [it], but (de) absolutely not (ou) do you let go (aphiete) the ones (tous) entering into (eiserchomenous) [it] to enter in (eiselthein)!

Luke 11:52 (LIT/UBS4) Woe (ouai) to you (humin), the (tois) lawyers (nomikois), because (hoti) you lifted (ērate) the (tēn) key (kleida) of the (tēs) knowledge (gnōseōs);

you absolutely did not enter in (ouk eisēlthate) yourselves (autoi), and (kai) the ones (tous) entering in (eiserchomenous) you cut [them] out (ekōlusate)!”

"you lifted (stole) the key of the knowledge" - The religious leaders in Jesus' time on earth stole the truth of God's Word from the people, and they kept it hidden from the people; and they fed the people the half-truth lies of the devil in place of the truth! This is why Jesus told them that their father was the devil (John 8:40-44). To some degree or another, I believe this is still exactly what's going on in very many "Christian" denominations in the world today.

Virtually all of Christianity has eliminated the preaching and teaching of the subject matter of the greatness of the paternal new birth above in God's gift of holy Spirit in believers; that it is God's power in a believer, that it is literally the God the Father Himself in them, homesteading in and energizing in a believer (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; Eph. 2:22, 3:16); that it is He and His power in a believer which makes a believer much stronger than the devil and his demon spirit realm (Col. 1:27; 1 John 4:4; Eph. 6:16; Rom. 8:37; Phil. 4:13; 1 John 5:4-5)! This is a vital part of the victory over the devil for which God planned mortalkind to have through His son Jesus, and which Jesus won for us through his broken body and shed blood (1 Cor. 15:54)!

Church "leaders", threatening people with torture and death if they didn't verbally and publicly confess with their mouth that they believed the mortal-made, i.e. devil-made theological theory championed by Athanasius, compelled a radical change in Christianity, which occurred in the 4th century. According to recorded church history, sometime in the 4th century the "church" dumped all of the preaching and teaching of this vital knowledge of the God dwelling in a believer. They dumped the experiential knowledge necessary for a believer to grow up in his discipleship into the fulness of the maturity of Christ (Eph. 4:13). And at bloody spear point, and with threatenings of black-balling, excommunication, torture, and even death, church "leaders" replaced it with Tertullian's and Athanasius' pagan three-headed, triune godhead theory.

On account of this, much of what people are being spoon fed today in virtually all of Christianity, at least the main stream of it, is the pagan mortal-made three-headed god theory which Athanasius and others adapted from so many other ancient pagan religions. The ancient writers are no longer allowed to speak for themselves, in most all of Christianity. But Athanasius, through his mortal-made, i.e., devil-made three-headed god theory, defines for all of "Christianity" what those ancient writers meant, and/or should have written. He/they began overlaying the three-headed god theory over God's Word to pre-define for people what the ancient writers "actually" meant when they wrote down God's Word. Thusly they usurped, and still are usurping, the veracity and authority of the ancient writers through exalting themselves as the self-appointed proxy of those ancient writers, with the aid of their own hoodlums.

Subsequently, virtually all copies of ancient texts have been altered, and especially modern Bibles, of which much of them in certain theologically sensitive passages are twisted paraphrases and outright forgeries of what the ancient writers actually wrote. Virtually all bible "translations" are infected, in many places being no more than theologically-paraphrased half-truths, forcing the ancient writers to bow to and pay homage to Tertullian's and Athanasius' theological theory. But still, much of everything else is twisted just a little bit, but just enough to make it say something a little different than what the ancient writers actually wrote, just enough to state, imply, insinuate, and/or through the use of innuendo, to support Athanasius, and thereby steer the reader into wandering away from what the ancient writers of God's Word actually said. Yes, I believe most all of modern "Christianity" is based upon an allegiance to Tertullian's and Athanasius' theological theory, exalting their theological theory over God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and God's written Word!

Jesus said the religious leaders were liars and murderers, like their father the devil (John 8:39-44). Do you think the devil has not infiltrated your favorite denomination; which denomination bigotedly believes it contains the only true followers and believers in the name of Jesus Christ?

So WHERE Can True Christianity Still be Found?

Virtually all English Bibles are Athanasian / Trinitarian-based "translations." In virtually all of those Bibles they often put in marginal notes to show the reader what are actual quotes of what the ancient writers wrote in the ancient texts. This implies that a massively paraphrased (by who?) Bible is the norm, and only on very special occasions is the reader allowed to see what the ancient writer actually wrote, as if it is too improper, to difficult, or impossible for translators to simply quote the ancient writers all of the time, and use that as a Bible. Wow! What a great idea, to make a Bible which simply quotes the ancient writers all of the time, with no paraphrasing whatsoever! I believe this is exactly how God's Word can still be found in the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts of God's Word, and read in English.

But through overlaying the Athanasian-based Trinitarian theology over God's Word and filtering out much of what the ancient writers have written, to replace what they've written with Trinitarian ideas, concepts and para-phraseology, most all of Christianity now preaches and teaches that one cannot be saved in the name of Jesus alone! Notice anything wrong with that? Athanasius taught, and still teaches through his modern spiritual thugs, those who teach the triune godhead thing, that Jesus' broken body and shed blood ABSOLUTELY DID NOT pay 100% of the price for the sin of mankind. This Athanasian addendum to Christ's sacrifice came along about three hundred and twenty years after Jesus died; about three hundred and twenty years after three thousand people were saved on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41)! Oh, wait a minute! How can about about three thousand people be saved about three hundred and twenty years before the Athanasian three-headed triune god thing was invented for people to believe in for their salvation?

Suddenly the new Athanasian / Trinitarian addendum to Jesus' broken body and shed blood is their claim that one must believe that Jesus was God in order to be saved. I guess someone had better tell those three thousand people who were saved on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), and all those who were saved throughout all of Paul and Peter's itineraries and witnessing recorded throughout the book of Acts, that the salvation of all of those people didn't really happen, and it was all a dry run, according to Athanasius personal theology and the Trinitarians who adopted it. They preach and teach that a person can be saved only if they believe in the three-headed god invention of Athanasius, that Jesus was God; which makes the mortal man Jesus to not only be equal, but identical to the God his Father, which is simply idolatry.

By the way, in virtually ALL of Athanasian-based / Trinitarian theology-based three-headed god organizations, they never tell their followers that they are preaching and teaching the personal theology of a man who live about seventeen hundred years ago, Athanasius. They simply allow everyone to assume that they, the "spiritual leaders" of the church, are preaching and teaching exactly what the ancient writers of God's Word wrote. Isn't that interesting?

Isn't Having Three Gods Idolatry?

Can a person receive any of God's covenant promises in Jesus' shed blood through participating in idolatry? Jesus said that he was his Father's son, and that his Father was his God (John 20:17)! How can the God have a god if He is already the God? The terms father and son, and the idea of paternity throughout the holy scriptures, and in any language, are all rendered meaningless, and have all been replaced through Athanasian theological filtering of the ancient writers. Wouldn't anyone like to first read for themselves what the ancient writers wrote, before it all gets twisted, bent, added to, changed, and deleted from, according to some other man's theological opinions, theological opinions of a man who lived in the 4th century?

Wait a minute. You automatically acquiesce to the innuendo, and swallow it hook, line and sinker, that you're not smart enough to come up with your own opinions and beliefs from reading for yourself exactly what the ancient writers wrote, if you read a Bible which simply quoted them, all of the time, no paraphrases al all? Maybe the mountain of confusion you're running into from reading an Athanasian theology-based Bible might not be there if you were simply reading a quote of what the ancient writers actually wrote?

As anyone may well guess, since the first century and the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, much mortal-made Athanasian-based theological theory and practice has been invented, and has been injected into Christianity, for almost two millenniums now. The "house" that Athanasius built keeps getting added onto more and more! I find much present popular theology cannot be substantiated and verified in the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts of God's Word. So then how does anyone sitting in a pew listening to a preacher know if what they are hearing preached and/or taught is actually God's authentic Word which He gave to us through His prophets and apostles, and His son Jesus Christ?

For me, I found that it was impossible to determine whether I was listening to what the ancient writers actually wrote in the existing texts, versus endless mortal-made denominational bigoted theological opinions, ideas, and private interpretations unless I became thoroughly familiar with the ancient texts myself, familiar with what the ancient writers actually wrote in those Hebrew and Greek texts. Presently my ongoing Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT) of the Greek UBS4 eclectic text is a quote of the text. My LIT is literally a quote, in English, of the ancient text which has been affirmed by the seven popular scholars of textual criticism. Their criticisms of the accuracy of the ancient Greek texts can be found in detail in the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry. Please notice I said my LIT is a quote of the UBS4 text, which is believed through consensus among scholars to be as close as we can get to what was actually written by the ancient writers of those texts. I use no paraphrases, but produce a formally equivalent word for word style English translation.

I believe, because I've seen them with my own eyes, that most English translations are saturated with mortal-made, opinionated, theologically-biased paraphrases of what the ancient authors and writers wrote. Most Bibles are not wholly translations, but a mixture of what the ancient authors and writers wrote, AND with a large percentage of mortal-made theological bias paraphrased/forged into key verses and passages. Groups or "cartels" of denominationally-based theologians, whose theological opinions are in somewhat agreement, come together and sponsor/pay Bible publishing houses to publish their theologically-biased and paraphrased "translations" into bibles. Their theological opinions and self-approved private interpretations are paraphrased into their translations in ways which make them appear to be the authentic words of the ancient writers. But they absolutely not give even a hint or clue to the readers as to which words and paraphrases are their own; as to which words and paraphrases they have added, changed, or deleted from those of the ancient writers!

The Big Illusion

I believe most all of my brothers and sisters in Christ are generally ignorant of the fact that virtually all English translations, i.e., bibles, are not 100% quotes of the ancient authors and writers. But key points of doctrine in the texts are paraphrased, i.e., word-smithed into what the sponsoring theological cartels desire them to say. And so those certain verses and passages, which are many, are replaced with words and paraphrases of mortal-made theological theories. But the so-called Christian cartels of theological "experts" who theology-fix, like price-fixing, who remain mostly hidden and anonymous, call their bibles translations; because those theological experts hiding behind the curtain of anonymity desire you to believe that their theologically opinionated words and paraphrases are infallible, and therefore are authentically God's Word, even when their English translations vary substantially from what the ancient writers wrote and recorded in the ancient texts. In their theologically paraphrased English "translations", which are virtually all English translations, they simply overrule the ancient writers with their own modern, infallible theologically-biased opinions, and allow you to assume that you are reading what the ancient authors wrote!

Allowing exactly what the ancient authors and writers wrote to be viewed in a REAL translation, one which quotes the ancient authors and writers in every theologically sensitive passage, in every detail, is absolutely not practiced! How dishonest and deceitful is it to pass off theological theories which are paraphrased into a "translation" as if those mortal-made paraphrased theories were actually what the ancient authors and writers said and wrote!? I call that post-history revision. To deliberately alter what the ancient writers of God's Word wrote, how disrespectful and dishonest is that? I believe it's ego-maniacal and devilish!!!

Since God's Word is Truth (John 17:17), and many translators and virtually all translation cartels are sneaking in their mortal-made theological theories, and/or those of Athanasius (c. 293 – 2 May 373), into their English "translations" in place of exactly what the ancient authors said and wrote, then isn't that lying to supposedly tell the truth? Jesus Christ identified lying like that as being "fruit" from the "tree" of the knowledge of good and evil, which "tree" is the devil; who always mixes in his lies along with truth to form deadly amalgamations which lure people in to believe him (Gen. 2:16-17, 3:1-24). Doing post-history revision, i.e., lying to tell the truth, that "fruit" has the potent, rotten stink of the devil (John 8:44)! You don't see anything wrong with lying to tell the truth? How blind can someone be (Mat. 7:15-23)? Apostle John taught that the source of ANY falsehood is absolutely not from out of the Truth (1 John 2:21)! So then how about the ones doing habitual, systemic, and systematic forging of mortal-made theologies into the English "translations"? The source of their motivation is absolutely NOT out of the truth, if apostle John is speaking truth himself!

I believe the "tree" of life was the Word of God before it became flesh and dwelled among us, which Word became Jesus Christ (1 John 5:11-12). Jesus referred to people as "trees" (Mat. 7:15-23) as do several other writers throughout God's Word. Referring figuratively to a living being of some kind as a "tree" is a very ancient metaphor for both earthly soul-based, and heavenly spirit-based beings.

Examples of Mortal-Made (?) Theological Theories Getting The Last Word In Their "Translations"

Long before theological cartels competed among one another to capture the minds, beliefs, and pocketbooks of the masses to read and believe their theological opinions, through the mass marketing and selling of their "translations", the ancient Greek texts all over the world were being altered as well, for almost 1,700 years, for the same reasons, on account of theological cartels competing for people to adopt and believe their theological theories.

Here are six examples from the KJV demonstrating various methods through which both the KJV translation has been corrupted, and how a handful of late Greek texts have been forged with the mortal-made Athanasian Trinitarian theology from which the infamous Comma Johanneum has flowed into the KJV.

The following examples use my Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT), which is a quote of the UBS4 eclectic Greek text, the standardized Greek text used by virtually all seminaries of virtually all Christian denominations. My translation quotes the ancient writers, word for word. And where the common figure of ellipsis is used by the ancient writers, especially apostle Paul, I place in these brackets, [ ], what I believe is the ellipsis flowing from the immediately preceding context. The words in these brackets, (), are the actual morphological spellings of the actual words in the UBS4 Greek text. Please see my translation pages for an in-depth discussion of my translation methodology (formal equivalence), and a comprehensive review of the application of the details of formal equivalence methodology to the various grammatical structures in the ancient Greek texts.

1. The infamous Comma Johanneum:

Virtually all biblical scholars are familiar with the infamous Comma Johanneum included in 1 John 5:7-8 in some bibles, which is widely believed to have been an insertion into an ancient Greek text through the process of copying the text, of what was originally a marginal note on the edge of the text. This particular forging of a mortal-made theological private interpretation into a Greek text is believed to have occurred sometime in the 16th century.

The following is only a partial list of all of the popular translations whose translators / translation committees determined that the Comma Johanneum is much too blatant of a Trinitarian-based/biased forging of an ancient Greek manuscript to appear plausible, and therefore left the translation of it out of their bibles: NIV, NASV, ESV, CEV, 1901 ASV, HCSB, RSV, NAB - Roman Catholic, NWT, NKJV.

The words below in bright green make up the actual Trinitarian Comma Johanneum. The words are virtually unanimously believed by the scholarly community to have been forged into only eight post 16th century Greek manuscripts. I'm showing you verses 5-8 so you can see a little context into which the Comma Johanneum was forged, which appears in verses 7-8.

1 John 5:5 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) who (tis) is (estin) the one (ho) conquering (nikōn) the (ton) cosmos (kosmon) if (ei) not (mē) the one (ho) believing (pisteuōn) that (hoti) Jesus (Iēsous) is (estin) the (ho) son (huios) of the (tou) God (theou)?

"...the son of the God" - Please notice that apostle John said, "..the son of the God." I believe that if apostle John had a Trinitarian mind set, and believed that Jesus Christ was God, then he would have said, "...if not the one believing that Jesus is God?". But he absolutely did not say that! Why do you suppose he said exactly what he said?

1 John 5:6 (LIT/UBS4) This one (houtos) is (estin) the one (ho) having come (elthōn) through (di’) water (hudatos) and (kai) blood (haimatos), Jesus (Iēsous) Christ (Christos).

[He came] absolutely not (ouk) in (en) the (tō) water (hudati) only (monon), BUT (all’), in (en) the (tō) water (hudati) and (kai) in (en) the (tō) blood (haimati)!

And (kai) the (to) Spirit (pneuma) is (estin) the one (to) witnessing (marturoun), (because (hoti) the (to) Spirit (pneuma) is (estin) the (hē) Truth (alētheia)),

1 John 5:7 (LIT/UBS4) that (hoti) there are (eisin) three (treis):

the ones (hoi) witnessing (marturountes) [are] in (en) the (tō) heaven (ourano):

the (ho) Father (patēr), the (ho) Word (logos), and (kai) the (to) holy (hagion) Spirit (pneuma).

And (kai) these (outoi) which (hoi) three (treis), are (eisin) one (hen).

1 John 5:8 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) there are (eisin) three (treis) who (hoi) [are] witnessing (marturountes) in (en) the (tē) land (gē), the (to) Spirit (pneuma), and (kai) the (to) water (hudōr), and (kai) the (to) blood (haima).

And (kai) the (hoi) three (treis) are (eisin) into (eis) the (to) one (hen) [witness].

The following translation is a translation of what I believe apostle John's letter authentically said before the Trinitarian forging of the Comma Johanneum into his letter in a Greek text:

1 John 5:5 (LIT/UBS4) But who is the one conquering the cosmos if not the one believing that Jesus is the son of the God?

1 John 5:6 (LIT/UBS4) This one is the one having come through water and blood, Jesus Christ.

[He came] absolutely not in the water only, BUT, in the water and in the blood!

And the Spirit is the one witnessing, (because the Spirit is the Truth),

1 John 5:7-8 (LIT/UBS4) that there are three:

the Spirit, and the water, and the blood.

And the three are into the one [witness].

There are many scholars who in light of the overwhelming textual evidence, who in good conscience, cannot accept the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum. One such scholar is Daniel B. Wallace Ph.D. of Dallas Theological Seminary.

"Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.

His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. Dr. Wallace is also the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts." - (bible.org, http://bible.org/user/2)

Here is a partial quote of Wallace concerning the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum:

"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 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th 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 AD 1215 (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.² 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 furor 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),³ 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,⁴ 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 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 = 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 16th 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 Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

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.⁵ 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." - end of quote (bible.org, http://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8 )

2. In Php. 2:5-6 the KJV translators deliberately forge their English translation semantically to support the mortal-made Athanasian theology-based theory that Jesus Christ is a "person" of a "3-in-1 godhead", and therefore, God himself, through the use of creative word-smithing.

Php. 2:5 (KJV) Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:

Php. 2:6 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Here, the Athanasian theology-based translators have forged their English translation to clearly state that Jesus Christ thought it was okay for him to consider himself, and for others to consider him, as being equal with his Father, the highest God, of whom apostle John quotes Jesus as saying, in John 20:17, is his Father and his God. I guess the KJV translators didn't know of John 20:17, or they simply ignored it.

Here’s a verbatim quote of the most widely accepted Greek text, the UBS4 eclectic text. See if you can spot the difference in meaning in verse 6 between this verbatim literal translation and verse 6 in most all Trinitarian translated English Bibles, like the KJV:

Php. 2:5 (LIT/UBS4) [Have] this (touto) thinking (phroneite) in (en) you (humin), which (ho) [was] in (en) Christ (christō) Jesus (Iēsou) also (kai);

Php. 2:6 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos), being a subordinate one (huparchōn) in (en) a form (morphē) of God (theou), was absolutely not (ouch) led (hēgēsato) to the (to) [thinking] to be (einai) equal (isa) to God (theō), [thinking equality not] a thing [to be] snatched (harpagmon)!

who being a subordinate one – Christ Jesus was subordinate to whom? His Father and his God (John 20:17; 6:38, 8:29)! If he was subordinate then he wasn’t co-equal! Subordinate means subordinate, not co-equal. The KJV translators completely ignored the word huparchōn in the Greek text they used, the Textus Receptus from Erasmus. Huparchōn, being in the nominative case, literally means being a subordinate one. Apostle Paul's use of this verb describes Christ Jesus as being a subordinate one to the God, to his Father, who elsewhere in the holy scriptures is referred to as the highest God; highest (Gk. hupsistos; Mark 5:7, 11:10; Luke 1:32, 35, 76, 6:35, 8:28; Acts 7:48, 16:17; Heb. 7:1).

Before Jesus’ birth the prophesy of a messenger of the God was that Jesus would be the son of the Highest, and absolutely not the highest himself (Luke 1:32)! There can’t be two Highest gods, or else the word highest is meaningless.

If Jesus Christ, and apostles John, Paul, Mark and Luke (maybe more) all agree that Jesus Christ was and still is subordinate to his Father, who is the most high God, that Jesus was and still is being a subordinate one (Gk. huparchōn), that is certainly not the same as being co-equal in godliness to his Father and God, the most high God! So, either they are all liars, or Athanasius and his theological followers are all liars.

I believe Athanasius' mortal-made "3-in1 godhead" theological theory is polytheistic, which "godhead" structure is virtually identical to common pagan triune god structures. Are we to ignore the Greek triad of Zeus, Athena, and Apollo, the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, and the Egyptian triad of Isis, Horus, and Sub as bearing no resemblance to Athanasius' 3-in-1 "godhead"? But now throw in Mariam, the mother of Jesus down the flesh, who is believed by 3-in-1 godhead-based "Christianity" to be the mother of God, and to me there is now no distinguishable difference between this Trinitarian-based "godhead" and pagan idolatry, with the exception that the inclusion of Mariam now constitutes a 4-in-1 "godhead"!

Jesus said that the God was his Father, and his Father is his God (John 20:17). Jesus said he has a god! Jesus doesn’t sound like he is describing himself as being co-equal to his God, to his Father, who the ancient writers state over and over is the highest God!

The Trinitarian KJV translators, and/or translation committee semantically took private interpretive advantage of Php. 2:6, having ignored the word huparchōn in the Greek text, and in their English translation have word-smithed it to say that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to the God, who is the highest God, to substantiate the mortal-made polytheistic “co-equal” invention of Athanasius. Plain and simple here's what that kind of forging of the text comes down to, lying! In their KJV translation the translators/translation committee lie to their readers through substituting their own private interpretation in place of what apostle Paul actually wrote. Plain and simple, that's lying!

The Greek text says Jesus was absolutely not lead in his mind, i.e., Jesus never thought to steal/snatch equality with his Father, the highest God! That’s exactly what the Greek text says! Jesus Christ's thinking was to absolutely not go around portraying himself to be a god, especially the highest God, his heavenly Father!

What the KJV translation states in this verse is still what most all Trinitarians believe and preach, the ones who adhere to the mortal-made Athanasian polytheistic "trinity" theology. But in more recent Trinitarian-based translations they have somewhat scaled back the magnitude of forgings of their theology into their English translations, since the Comma Johanneum is not used much any more, and Php. 2:6 is not as mutilated, but still somewhat mutilated.

With the coming of personal computers and the availability of more people to have access to the ancient Greek texts themselves, on their own screens, along with the vast amount of Bible study resources which have been published, I'm beginning to see a pull-back in English translations of many somewhat blatant Trinitarian forgings in their various English translations, which forgings were done previously and apparently in an effort to support the mortal-made Athanasian theology-based theory of Jesus being God. I believe there are becoming more and more Biblical scholars who are now not simply accepting and believing what they have been and are being told in seminary school to think and believe, but who are reading the ancient texts more for themselves, and who are critically thinking for themselves more and more, as to exactly what can and cannot be verified and substantiated out of the ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts.

In Php. 2:6 do you see that emphatic particle of negation, ouch? It’s very emphatic, all by itself. The Greek particle mē, simply meaning “no”, is the regular strength particle of negation. Ou, of which ouch is a form, is like mē on steroids, meaning “absolutely not, no way, no how!” Jesus was ABSOLUTELY NOT led in his mind, ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, NO HOW, to steal/snatch equality with his Father, the highest God. Jesus had no problem whatsoever allowing his Father to be the one, true, highest God!

Php. 2:7 (LIT/UBS4) BUT (alla), having taken (lobōn) a form (morphēn) of a slave (doulou) in (en) a likeness (homoiōmati) of mortals (anthrōpōn), he emptied (ekenōsen) himself (heauton)!

And (kai) having caused himself to become (genomenos) [a slave], he having found (heuretheis) [himself in] a scheme (schēmati) as (hōs) a mortal (anthrōpos),

Php. 2:8 (LIT/UBS4) he humbled (etapeinōsen) himself (heauton), having caused himself to become (genomenos) attentive (hupēkoos) until (mechri) death (thanatou), but (de) death (thanatou) of a stake (staurou)!

Php. 2:9 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) through which (dio) the (ho) God (theos) put [him] high above (huperupsōsen auton);

and (kai) graciously entailed (echarisato) to him (autō) the (to) name (onoma), the (to) [name] over (huper) every (pan) name (onoma),

Php. 2:10 (LIT/UBS4) in order that (hina) in (en) the (tō) name (onomati) of ‘Jesus’ (Iēsou) every (pan) knee (gonu) may bend (kampsē);

of [every knee] over heavenly things (epouraniōn), and (kai) of [every knee] over lands (epigeiōn), and (kai) of [every knee] down under grounds (katachthoniōn);

Php. 2:11 (LIT/UBS4) and (kai) every (pasa) tongue (glōssa) may confess out (exomologēsētai) that (hoti) [the] Lord (kurios) [of him] [is] Jesus (Iēsous) Christ (christos), into (eis) glory (doxan) of God (theou), of [the] Father (patros).

According to the ancient Greek texts, the thinking which was in Jesus Christ was ABSOLUTELY NOT to snatch equality with his heavenly Father! Jesus never believed he was co-equal with his heavenly Father. That’s the same thinking that apostle Paul teaches should be in us as well; we are to think what Jesus Christ thought, that we are absolutely not equal, but subordinate to the highest God, our heavenly Father! And we are to believe what Jesus Christ believed, which was that he was ABSOLUTELY NOT equal, but subordinate to his Father and his God, who is the highest God and the heavenly Father of both Jesus Christ and all those who believe upon the name of Jesus Christ!

John 5:19 (LIT/UBS4) Therefore the Jesus judged away and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the son can absolutely not inherently power himself (ou dunatai) to do absolutely not one thing (ouden) from himself, if perhaps not he looks at what the Father [is] doing!

Because perhaps which things that one may be doing, these things the son also, likewise is doing!

John 10:38 (LIT/UBS4) But if I do, and perhaps you do not believe me, believe the works, in order that you may experientially know, and you may keep on experientially knowing that the Father [is] IN (en) me, and I in (en) the Father.”

John 14:10 (LIT/UBS4) Do you absolutely not (ou) believe that I [am] in (en) the Father, and the Father is IN (en) me?

The words which I speak to you I speak absolutely not (ou) from myself, but the Father staying (menōn) IN (en) me does the works of Him!

John 14:28 (LIT/UBS4) You heard that I enunciated to you, ‘I am getting underway, and I am coming toward you.’

If you were loving me, perhaps you would have rejoiced that I am going toward the Father;

because the Father is one greater [than] me.

I believe the forgery of Php. 2:6 comes out of the Trinitarian theology to portray Jesus Christ as a co-equal “person” of a pagan 3-in-1 godhead. I just showed you in John 5:19, and in John 14:28 where Jesus very emphatically states that his Father, the God, is greater than he, and that it was the Father IN Jesus doing the works. And the Greek text in Phil. 2:6 is in complete agreement with what Jesus said in these other records. It is only the forged English translations like the KJV which make Jesus equal with his Father, the God, the Highest God, in that verse, to contradict what Jesus said in John 5:18-19 and in John 14:28, and to contradict what apostle Paul said in his letter to the believers in Philippi in Php. 2:6.

3. In John 7:28 of the KJV translation, and in many other translations, this verse is word-smithed, semantically sculpted, to make it sound as though Jesus Christ is in reference to himself as the God.

John 7:28 (KJV) Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, "Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of Myself, but he that sent Me is true, Whom ye know not."

The demon-possessed minds of the Pharisees (John 8:44) were always erroneously concluding that Jesus Christ was making himself out to be equal with the God, through Jesus claiming that the God was his Father (John 5:17-18, 2:16, 3:35). But because the devil, Satan, was their father, their minds were always full of lies about Jesus Christ (John 8:44, 55), and full of thoughts of murdering him (John 5:18, 7:1, 8:37; Acts 9:23-24).

Although the demon-possessed and corrupted minds of the Judean religious leaders believed that Jesus claimed to be equal with his Father, the God, the example in God's Word of their infected mental state is absolutely not a good basis for us to believe the same lie they did. In fact, Jesus always spoke just the opposite of the Judean lie about him, saying that his Father, who is the Father, the one who sent him, was always greater than himself (John 10:29, 13:16, 14:28); and that he could do absolutely not one thing if not for the Father dwelling IN him (John 5:19, 10:28, 32), who was giving him the things to say (John 14:10), and who was working THROUGH him, instrumentally (John John 1:3, 10, 10:32; Acts 1:2, *2:22 by (Gk. dia)=through; Eph. 3:9; *2 Cor. 5:18-19), doing the signs, miracles and wonders (John 14:10).

From a study of the approximately 645 usages of the Greek preposition dia in the ancient texts, of when and where it is used spatially and instrumentally by the ancient NT writers, in the vast majority of its usages virtually all translators translate it as "by", instead of "through", thereby covering up and obliterating much of its explicit instrumentality from coming through into English. For example: in virtually every passage where a writer states implicitly in the context that the God the Father is doing something through (Gk. dia) Jesus Christ, translators steeped in Athanasius' mortal-made theology (who already believe that Jesus Christ is God) translate dia as "by", causing their English translations to say that Jesus himself is doing something, is doing a sign, miracle or wonder, rather than translating dia as "through", thusly preserving the writer's implication that the God the Father is IN and working THROUGH His son Jesus, using Jesus Christ instrumentally, as all of the NT writers state, and as Jesus himself constantly stated.

This verse, John 7:28, in the context of the Pharisees trying to murder Jesus because they erroneously think and believe that Jesus makes himself out to be equal to the God, who Jesus says is his Father, is one of those verses where Jesus is stating that he is not equal to his Father, who is the God, the true one, the one who sent him. But not only that, Jesus is stating in the verse that he is not the God, the true one, the one who sent him. But in this verse, as in many, many others, the KJV translators desire to not only make Jesus equal to the God the Father, but to make Jesus God Himself.

Before I explain to you in detail how the Athanasian theology-based KJV translators semantically destroyed what apostle John wrote in John 7:28, here's a literal translation from my LIT which quotes exactly what apostle John wrote:

John 7:28 (LIT/UBS4) Therefore (oun), the (ho) Jesus (Iēsous) cried out (ekraxen) in (en) the (tō) temple (hierō) teaching (didaskōn), and (kai) saying (legōn), “Both me (kame) you have seen (oidate), and (kai) from where (pothen) I am (eimi) you have seen (oidate).

And (kai) from (ap’) myself (emautou) I have absolutely not come (ouk elēlutha)!

BUT (all’), the one (ho) having sent (pempsas) me (me) is (estin) a true one (alēthinos), whom (hon) you (humeis) have absolutely not seen (ouk oidate)!

John 17:3 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) this (hautē) is (estin) the (hē) ageless (aiōnios) life (zōē), that (hina) they may keep on knowing (ginōskōsin) you (se), the (ton) only (monon) true (alēthinon) God (theon), and (kai) [they may keep on knowing] whom (hon) you sent (apesteilas), Jesus (Iēsoun) Christ (christon).

Please notice that Jesus Christ, as quoted by apostle John in John 17:3, absolutely does not refer to himself as a god of some kind, and absolutely not to himself as the one true God, whom Jesus has enunciated is his Father.

John 20:17b (LIT/UBS4) But (de) cause yourself to go (poreuou) toward (pros) the (tous) brothers (adelphous) of me (mou) and (kai) enunciate (eipe) to them (autois), ‘I am going up (anabainō) toward (pros) the (ton) Father (patera) of me (mou) and (kai) Father (patera) of you (humōn), and (kai) God (theon) of me (mou) and (kai) God (theon) of you (humōn)’.”

In the KJV translation in John 7:28 please note how the translators capitalize pronouns, capitalizing their usage of the pronoun me twice, as "Me", and the pronoun myself as "Myself". In the KJV, and in many other mortal-made trinity theory-based English translations, the capitalization of pronouns is a subtle way of stating to the reader that the translators believe that the subject to whom the pronouns refer back is the God. I believe the extra biblical, the non-scriptural visual mechanism of capitalizing pronouns, is used to subtly instill in the minds of readers that Jesus Christ is the God. In the ancient Greek texts there is no capitalization whatsoever used by the ancient writers. Therefore, with the exception of capitalizing apparent proper nouns, the obviously apparent names and titles of people and places, all other capitalization is simply private interpretation, which interpretation should be justifiably left up to the reader to determine for himself.

The KJV translation does not preserve John's use of the preposition apo, from, but instead has fudged the English translation to say only "of Myself", which translation of emautou is acceptable since "of" is implicit in the genitive case of emautou. But the Greek texts say, "from myself". What Jesus Christ is stating, exactly and explicitly, is that he absolutely did not (Please notice Jesus' use of the emphatic particle of negation, ouk) send himself from himself, BUT, (Please notice Jesus' use of the coordinating conjunction of emphatic antithesis, all', alla) that another, another other than himself, sent him, who in verse 17 he has already identified as the (tou) God (theou), his Father. Jesus Christ, using two very emphatic words, ouk and all', states very emphatically that he absolutely did not (ouk) send himself from himself, BUT (all'), the one other than himself who did send him is the God.

The determination that Jesus Christ should be sent, where he should be sent, when he should be sent, and perhaps etc., didn't come from Jesus Christ himself. He determined none of these things about him being sent. Someone else did, who is his Father, who is "a true one", who is "the only true God" (John 7:28, 17:3)! Through this Jesus clearly states that he is absolutely not the God! These are the dots which many have trouble connecting, especially Athanasius in the 4th century. If you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is a liar in these three verses, and all of the other ancient writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. are liars as well, and Athanasius spoke the truth, that Jesus Christ is God himself, being part of a pagan triune "godhead" thing, that's your prerogative.

There is absolutely not any "3-in-1", or "1st", or "2nd", or "3rd person of the Trinity", or "godhead" terminology and nomenclature to be found anywhere in any of the ancient Greek texts, including apostle John's. All of that nomenclature and associated terminology appears in only Trinitarian-based, privately interpreted English translations of the Greek texts. So I can understand the Trinitarian translator's issues with allowing the preposition apo, from, to appear in their English translations; because it suggests that if Jesus Christ is God, as a member of a "godhead" (as the 4th century Athanasian Trinitarian creed declares) then Jesus is saying that he did not send Himself from Himself, i.e., from his "godhead", meaning Jesus is not the highest God.

The translator's removal of apo, from, and their capitalization of the pronouns Me and Myself in the verse implies/states to the reader that Jesus Christ is the highest God. Further more, Jesus has already stated that he himself has a god, who is his Father (John 20:17; Mat. 27:46; Mark 15:34; Rev. 3:12), the highest God (Luke 1:32). Instead of tearing out of the Bible the passages of all of these ancient writers who clearly distinguish between the highest God and His son Jesus Christ, maybe the Athanasian theology-based translators should simply stop capitalizing pronouns in their "translations", through which they forge their own personal theology into their translations, through which they do a post-history revision of what the ancient writers wrote, and through which they lie to the readers by allowing the readers to believe that their capitalization of pronouns are actually what the ancient writers wrote!

Translating the text honestly, through quoting the writer as I show above, shows that the writer, apostle John, absolutely did not write his letter from a Trinitarian mindset, which theological theory was not invented until about 350 years later, in the 4th century CE; and that apostle John did not consider Jesus Christ to be a "person" of a "3-in-1 godhead"; but that Jesus was simply another being altogether, the son of the highest God, and that Jesus' Father who is the highest God (Luke 1:32), and who Jesus said is his god, and who Jesus said is greater than himself (John 10:29, 14:28), sent him (John 5:30, 37)!

All throughout the texts Jesus constantly declares that this being who is greater than himself is his Father, the highest God, which is what the prophecies declare (Luke 1:32, 30-35); and Jesus says he is His son, the son of his Father, the highest God, who Jesus said is greater than himself, and is his God (John 14:28; 20:17). So now the 4th century mortal-made Trinitarian theological theory has yet another serious problem, because Jesus, whom they say is God, says he has a God himself (John 14:28, 20:17, who is his Father, the highest God.

Jesus Christ says his Father is his God, and that he is the son of his Father, the highest God! That Jesus Christ says that his Father is his God, and that his Father, who is the highest God, is greater than himself, stands in dramatic contradiction to the co-equal, 3-in-1 godhead assertion proposed by Athanasius in the 4th century mortal-made theory of the Trinity. Was Athanasius simply ignorant of what was said in the ancient texts? Or did Athanasius know what the ancient texts actually said, but ignored them anyway because he was ego-maniacal over his theological theories in his own head? Either option, or any option which totally ignores the accuracy of what was written by the ancient writers, is totally unacceptable if attainment of the God's Truth through the preservation of the writings of the ancient prophets and apostles is truly the goal of an individual's discipleship to Jesus Christ.

Through the 17th century KJV theological cartel's forging of their English translation to say "of Myself" they make the text say that Jesus is referring to himself as a "God person" of a "3-in-1 godhead" of the Trinitarian theology, which theology was invented in the 4th century, centuries AFTER the apostle John completed writing his gospel record. In essence, through the selective word-smithing of English "translations", those Trinitarian theology-based cartels are attempting to do a post history revision of what apostle John wrote, attempting to make John's writing appear like apostle John thought, spoke and wrote in terms of, and being mindful of some kind of a Trinitarian theology. There is absolutely no evidence in the substantiated ancient Greek texts to support that assertion.

In John 7:28 Jesus said he absolutely did not send himself from (apo) himself, i.e., from himself being the highest God. BUT (all'), that the True One, who is the highest God, Jesus' Father, sent him. Jesus distinguishes himself as absolutely not being the highest God, the True One, but a separate and distinct being, not "person", who is a distinct and unique being apart from the True One, from the highest God, who Jesus says is his Father, and his God (John 20:17)! The Trinitarian theological cartel has approved the bending, sculpting and forging of the KJV translation here, and hundreds of other places, to allow it to obfuscate Jesus' clear statement that he is not the highest God, his Father, and he was absolutely not the highest God, the True One, his Father, sending Himself in a form as a "person" of himself!

How dishonest is their (the translators and translation committee) word-smithing and sculpting of the ancient text in their KJV "translation"? The word "of" is added into the English translation; the word "from" in the Greek text is deleted from the English translation; and the words "me" and "myself" are changed to be capitalized; all in an attempt to push and drive forward a mortal-made 3-in-1 godhead theological theory invented in the 4th century by a man named Athanasius. This kind of forging of the English translations is done in literally hundreds of verses, if not over one thousand occurrences in any given Trinitarian-based English translation, which is most all English translations.

4. In Acts 7:59 the KJV, and other translations (KJV 1611, NKJV, BBE), forge the word "God" into their English translations.

Acts 7:59 (KJV) And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

But here's a literal translation from my LIT which shows exactly what Luke wrote:

Acts 7:59 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) they kept on stoning (elithoboloun) the (ton) Stephen (stephanon), he calling aloud upon (epikaloumenon), and (kai) saying (legonta), “Lord (kurie) Jesus (Iēsou), receive (dexai) the (to) Spirit (pneuma) of me (sou)!”

The KJV says, "... calling upon God, and saying, 'Lord Jesus receive my spirit." The KJV translation cartel forged the word "God" into their English "translation" to make Jesus Christ appear to be the God, according to Athanasius' "3-in-1 godhead" theological theory. It's obvious to me that the KJV theological cartel's deliberate insertion/addition of the word God into their English translation is a lie, since the Greek word for God does not appear in the Greek text. The KJV translation cartel lies again, here, and many, many other places in their KJV "translation", to push and drive forward their adoption of the mortal-made theological theory of Athanasius.

The KJV translation cartel directly forge and obfuscate the text from allowing it to say that Stephen was simply calling aloud upon the Lord Jesus, whom Luke in his text has absolutely not designated as the highest God, or the Father, but the son of the highest God. Luke, as do ALL of the writers of the ancient texts, distinguishes Jesus Christ as the son of the highest God, which highest God the ancient Greek texts say is Jesus' Father. Athanasius' mortal-made Trinitarian theory, which he invented in the 4th century, tries to obliterate the Father and son relationship from representing and communicating its important scriptural efficacy now, in our day and time; which efficacy in this dispensation of the grace of the God is the God the Father's gift of holy Spirit in us who believe upon the name of Jesus, God's son; which belief and subsequent gift makes us sons as well! The efficacy of the Father and son relationship portrayed in the four gospel books is carried forward into this subsequent age, into a believer's baptism in the God the Father's gift of holy Spirit in all those who believe upon Jesus' name, which efficacy is the new birth above which Jesus began to teach Nicodemus in John 3.

I have seen that in much of the teaching in institutions which have adopted Athanasius' "3-in-1 godhead", the Trinity, that it is either tacitly implied or blatantly stated that the terms used by the ancient writers, "Father" and "son", when used in reference to the Father, the highest God, and His son Jesus Christ, do not actually literally mean Father and son in terms of a parent giving birth to an offspring. But the Athanasian/Trinitarian theological framework overlaid upon God's Word dictates that they are used only as metaphors for the word "godhead", which its proponents prefer everyone to read INTO the text whenever they may see either of those two words used in an English translation in reference to God the Father, and/or to His son Jesus Christ. In those religious institutions, through much repetition in teaching, people's minds are conditioned to "see" the 3-in-1 godhead in the text when they hear or read certain words in it, and, for example, literally replace the meaning of the word Father, or the word son, with the word godhead; and literally replace the name Jesus with the title God.

In Athanasian-theory based institutions mental conditioning is started at a very young age to instill into people's minds Athanasian theological theory-based word and thought associations; to instill the recollection of certain aspects of the Athanasian theological 3-in-1 godhead theory into association with words and phrases in their "translations", such as birth = incarnation, son of God = God the son, Father = person, son = person, Holy Spirit = person; the word holy is predefined as part of a two-word title of an invented person, "Holy Spirit", as opposed to simply being an adjective which is used by the ancient writers to modify a noun. This is how they take the God, the Father, who is a Spirit (John 4:24), and reinvent Him into an additional, separate and distinct entity other than Himself, reinventing Him into a "Holy Spirit" person. The ancient writers all define the gift of holy Spirit as the God the Father Himself, being in and working through believers (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 3:16-17, 6:19, 12:27; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21, 5:30; ), as He worked in and through His son Jesus Christ (John 10:38, 14:10, 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-19).

From my point of view, the 4th century mortal-made theory of a "3-in-1 godhead" has been lifted up to be exalted over and above God's Word; because out of its mortal-made theological concepts come mortal-made precepts, mortal-made injunctions about how an individual is to mentally process the knowledge and truths given in the ancient texts. The mortal-made "3-in-1 godhead" theory of the Trinity condescendingly presupposes to force the subject matter and truths in God's Word to fit into it's own framework of pre-defined definitions and understandings. It's theological framework of pre-designed ideas, and pre-defined concepts is erected around and overlaid over God's Word to become the pre-eminent source of knowledge and understanding to any who may wish to inquire into God's Word.

Through the overlaying of the mortal-made Trinitarian theology upon God's Word a process of mental conditioning, or thought-conditioning is initiated and maintained on the children of Trinitarian parents, from before the time when their children are mature enough to begin learning a spoken language; so that their mental thought process of association and substitution of the literal meanings of the words "father" and 'son" with the theologically-derived "3-in-1 godhead" theory becomes ingrained into them from their childhood to become knee-jerk reaction. This is done with virtually all the theological points of the 4th century mortal-made Trinitarian theory, so that the various Athanasian-based creed points, and any other related theological and theoretical points invented over the centuries, since the writing of the new covenant texts, become inveterate in those children over the course of their growth from children into adults. This effectively hinders them from understanding God's Word from the inside out through rigorous hands-on study, as is intended by the Father to develop fellowship between them.

Trinitarians view God's Word through a pre-made theological filter which is overlaid upon God's Word to predefine the meanings of passages and verses in the texts for them, as if people would be, or are, too lazy, and/or ignorant, and/or anemic to be able to study God's Word for themselves and come up with their own beliefs on their own with God's gift of holy Spirit working in them, teaching them, communicating and guiding them as is intended (John 6:45, Heb. 10:16-17, 1 Thes. 4:9), as was prophesied (Isa. 54:13-15, Jer. 31:31-34). Thusly the mortal-made Trinitarian theology invented in the 4th century isolates people from God's Word, and their vitally important one-on-one hands-on fellowship with it, thereby destroying believer's spiritual growth through the lack of that intimate fellowship with God's Word which is cut off.

Through this forced imposition of the Trinitarian will upon God's Word "misunderstandings" of the Truth of God's Word are filtered out, which spiritual truths the holy Spirit, the highest God working in a believer, intends to teach to believers through one on one fellowship together over and around God's Word. The imposition of the mortal-made Trinitarian theory presupposes that all believers would rather be taught by other mortal's theories and opinions rather than by God's Spirit actually working in a believer. The ego-maniacal arrogance of those who impose the mortal-made Trinitarian theological theories is that they can teach believers God's Word better than the highest God, who is the holy Spirit Himself!

Now days, since this mortal-made theological framework has been an imposition for so long, it is now arrogantly considered to be orthodox, as if no individual has the God-given right to read and study the ancient texts for himself, and come to his own conclusions and beliefs from his own first-hand, hands-on studies with God's Spirit working in him to fellowship with and teach him (John 6:45; 1 John 1:3).

Next I'll show another of the many fudgings of the word God into the KJV "translation", and show how the mortal-made term godhead, from the Trinitarian invented nomenclature, is fudged into the text, in an apparent attempt to do a post-history revision of what apostle John thought, spoke and wrote, as if he did so out of a Trinitarian mind-set, which he absolutely did not!

5. In Acts 20:28 the KJV translation passes along the forging of the word "God" into some Greek texts, into their English translation.

Acts 20:28 (KJV) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with His own blood.

Unfortunately most all the scholars of textual criticism, and that field of study itself, didn't come along until well after the publishing of the 1611 edition of the KJV. However, the translation committees, and the translators of the more modern KJV translations now have no excuse to be ignorant of the developments over the last three hundred years in the field of textual criticism. But they are now, still, engaged in passing on in their translations well known theologically-based textual forgeries into some of the Greek texts, for the sake of... what?

Here's a LIT quote of Acts 20:28 according to the very well respected scholars of textual criticism, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, whose examination of many of the ancient Greek texts led them to believe that theou, appearing in some texts, was an error of some kind replacing the word kurion, which they believed was authentic to Luke's autograph.

Acts 20:28 (LIT/UBS4) Pay attention (prosechete) to yourselves (heautois), and (kai) to everyone (panti) [in] the (tō) little flock (poimniō), in (en) which (hō) the (to) Spirit (pneums), the (to) holy one (hagion), has put (etheto) you (humas) [as] overseers (episkopous);

to feed (poimainein) the (tēn) assembly (ekklesian) of the (tou) Lord (kurion), which (hēn) he acquired (periepoiēsato) through (dia) the (tou) blood (haimatos), the (tou) [blood] of his own (idiou).

The KJV says, "... to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.", choosing to go with the word God in their "translation", which word does appear in some Greek texts. But the wording "Lord" appears in other Greek texts, which texts are considered to be the authentic text of the author Luke, by those four popular textual critics. Whether the appearance of theos in Acts 20:28 in some of the Greek texts is authentic to Luke's actual authorship can easily be confirmed by Luke's other book, the gospel of Luke, and by other passages in the holy scriptures which, to the reader, may or may not substantiate its authenticity.

In Luke 22:20 Jesus Christ said that it was his blood which he shed over his disciples, and not the blood of the most high God, his Father's blood which he shed. The writer Matthew, in Mat. 26:28 quotes Jesus Christ as saying that it was his blood, not his Father's blood, that was shed for the letting go of the penalty for our sins. The writer Mark says the same thing (Mark 14:24). In Rom. 3:24-25 apostle Paul says that the God (ho theos) planned our redemption to be in Christ Jesus, a reconciler, through our belief in the blood of him.

In 1 Cor. 10:15 apostle Paul says, regarding communion,

1 Cor. 10:15 (LIT/UBS4) The (to) cup (potērion) of the (tēs) eulogy (eulogias) which (ho) we eulogize (eulogoumen), is it (estin) absolutely not (ouchi) [the] fellowship (koinōnia) of the (tou) blood (haimatos) of the (tou) Christ (Christou)!?"

All of the writers of the new covenant texts make a distinction that it was not the blood of the highest God, the Father of Jesus Christ, but it was the blood of the highest God's son, Jesus Christ, which was shed for us. For what good reason should this distinction be ignored? Should this distinction be ignored to help one's conscience elevate Jesus to the status of being another highest God, equal to the highest God, his Father, which breaks the first commandment (Ex. 20:3; Deut. 5:7), and which is idolatry? Is that a good reason?

Our heavenly Father, the highest God (Luke 1:32, 35, 76, 6:35), says of Himself, there is no other God beside Him (2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Ch. 17:20; Isa. 44:8, 45:5, 64:4)! In these scripture references I list for you, the highest God said repeatedly, "...there is no other god beside Me!"

IF at those times when the highest God said there is/was no other god beside Him, then what about the Word,

which became flesh and dwelled among us (John 1:14);
which was toward (Gk. pros) the God (John 1:1, 2);
who was out of the things above (John 8:23);
who was the beginning one (John 8:25);
who was alongside (Gk. para) of the God (John 17:5);
who was being a subordinate one in a form of a god (Phil. 2:6);
who was the first produced one of all of creation (Col. 1:15);
who was the beginning one (archē) of the creation of the God (Rev. 3:14);
who became known as Jesus Christ?

Why didn't the God, who was and is the highest God, consider the Word to be a god on His level, equal to Him? Why didn't the highest God recognize the Word as at least a god of some kind, as being part of a "3-in-1 godhead" of some kind? The highest God said repeatedly, "THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BESIDE ME!" Both apostles, John and Paul, state that the Word which/who became Jesus Christ, was the beginning one of the creation of the God, [the] one first produced of all of creation (Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14). According to all of these scripture references, and many more I'm not listing here for the sake of brevity, my logical conclusion is that the Word, which became flesh and dwelled among us as Jesus Christ, was the beginning one, the first produced living being, the thing the God produced first of all of His creation.

Going on from here, in the immediate, local and remote contexts which identify the Word and it's transformation into Jesus Christ, as I've listed above, the scriptures state that the God then used the Word instrumentally to complete all of the creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17); and then to use Jesus Christ to redeem mortalkind from the penalty of their sin, and to deliver mortalkind entirely out of their sin nature, and propensity to sin (Col. 1:18-22, and elsewhere, you find them).

In ALL of the old covenant records, what happened to those among the children of Israel who practiced idolatry? Did the highest God remove His hand of protection from being over them? Did He answer their prayers? Did He heal them? No! The Athanasius mortal-made, pagan, polytheistic, theological theory of the "3-in-1 godhead" elevates Jesus to be equal to the highest God, Jesus' Father. Jesus Christ ALWAYS refused elevation to the level of His Father (Php. 2:5-6), equality with his Father (John 14:28) and the kind of adoration and worship reserved for His Father alone (Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9)!

Further more, contrary to the Trinitarian theological assertion that the God (or is it 1/3 of the God?) shed His blood, there is absolutely no evidence in the ancient texts that spirit-based beings, and absolutely not the holy Spirit, the highest God, Jesus' Father, has blood to shed, as mortals have blood and can bleed. But the textual evidence in one of several records, what Jesus Christ said recorded in Luke 24:37-39, substantiates the opposite of the Trinitarian assertion that "God bled" for us.

The Apostle John clearly states that:

John 4:24 (LIT/UBS4) The (ho) God (theos) [is] a Spirit (pneuma);

Luke, who is the author of Acts, in his gospel quotes Jesus Christ, after his resurrection while showing himself alive to his remaining disciples, as emphatically stating that a spirit-based being absolutely does not have flesh and bones as they saw Jesus had.

Luke 24:37 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) having been terrified (ptoēthentes), and (kai) having caused themselves to become (genomenoi) ones in fear (emphoboi), they were concluding (edokoun) to observe (theōrein) a spirit (pneuma).

Luke 24:38 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) he enunciated (eipen) to them (autois), “Why (ti) are you (este) troubled (tetaragmenoi)?

And (kai) through (dia) what (ti) [reason] do dialogues (dialogismoi) go up (tetaragmenoi) in (en) the (tē) heart (kardia) of you (humōn)?

Luke 24:39 (LIT/UBS4) See (idete) the (tas) hands (cheiras) of me (mou), and (kai) the (tous) feet (podas) of me (mou), that (hoti) I (egō) am (eimi) myself (autos)?

Feel (psēlaphēsate) me (me) and (kai) see (idete) that (hoti) a spirit (pneuma) absolutely does not have (ouk echei) flesh (sarka) and (kai) bones (ostea) down as (kathōs) you observe (theōreite) me (eme) having (echonta)!”

Jesus emphatically stated to his disciples, immediately after his resurrection, that he had flesh and bones, emphatically stating that a spirit-based being does not have flesh and bones as he had; emphatically stating that he was not a spirit-based being, i.e., a spirit of any kind. Blood is specific to mortal beings with flesh and bones. In fact, blood is manufactured in the marrow of the bones.

The God, the Father, is a spirit-based being, and is the Spirit, i.e., the holy Spirit, according to Jesus Christ (Mat. 12:28), and apostle Matthew (Mat. 3:16), and apostle John (John 4:24; 1 John 3:24, 4:13), and apostle Paul (Rom. 8:9, 14; 15:19; 1 Cor. 2:11, 3:16; Eph. 4:30; 1 John 4:2), and apostle Peter (1 Pet. 4:6). The God, the Father, the holy Spirit, absolutely does not have flesh and bones, and therefore could not have shed His blood for the little flock. And so then, with further consideration of scriptural evidence, of what apostle Paul says, that flesh and blood absolutely can not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50), why should be led into thinking that the highest God, Jesus' Father, who is a Spirit according to apostle John, is a being of flesh and bones, having blood of some kind?

This is some of the overwhelming scriptural evidence which indicates to me that the Greek texts of Acts 20:28 containing tou theou, of the God, instead of tou kuriou, of the Lord, has been corrupted by deliberate forgery by Athanasian-worshipping theologists, similar to how Athanasian theologists forged the Comma Johanneum into a few ancient Greek texts as well. The problem I see over and over is that Athanasian theologists have a head full of Athanasian theology, but their comprehensive knowledge of the details of God's Word written by all of the ancient writers of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts, and how that Word fits together from the inside out, wouldn't fill a thimble.

They simply quote theologically corrupted English translations, which virtually all are made by Athanasian-worshipping theologists, and couldn't care less about going back to the ancient texts, and learning anything about textual criticism and the historical facts about how many of them have been altered since about 350 AD to support various mortal-made theological theories, especially the Athanasian/trinity of gods theology, many of which have come and gone by now.

In addition, I believe apostle Paul's reference in Acts 20:28 to the little flock is a reference to the one body of Christ, a reference to those who have been born above in God's gift of holy Spirit.

Building upon the forgery of the word God into their English "translation", the KJV translation committee uses capitalization of the two first person pronouns he and his, implicit in the verb periepoiēsato and the adjective idiou respectively, to indicate that they wish the reader to associate them with the word God, which Greek textual forgery they carry over into their English "translation".

Capitalization of pronouns is a very favorite method used by Trinitarians to explicitly forge references to the God into their translations, to state that the nouns to which they refer back represent God himself. Thusly they repetitively, and very extensively, use capitalization of pronouns throughout all of the new covenant books of the Bible in their English translation to indicate to the reader that they have read the God into the text in all of those occurrences, and so should the reader, in compliance with their mortal-made "3-in-1 Godhead" Athanasian theology.

Thusly they are engaged in doing post-history revisions to the writings of all of those ancient writers, to make their writings look to the bible reader like they thought, spoke and wrote in terms of an Athanasian/Trinitarian theology, which at the time of the writings of those ancient authors, the mortal-made Trinitarian theology had not yet invented, and would not be invented for yet another 300+ years!

It's a known fact that five of the seven very well known and highly respected scholars of textual criticism, Griesbach (1805), Lachmann (1842-1850), Tischendorf (eighth edition, 1865-1872) and Tregelles (1857-1872) all agree that at some point in history, after the 4th century invention of the Trinitarian theology, a handful of the extant ancient Greek texts had the word "God" forged into them to replace the word "Lord" which is in all of the Greek texts which are believed to have much more authenticity. The KJV Trinitarian translators and translation cartel simply allow a well known Trinitarian forging of an ancient Greek text, which forging occurred hundreds of years ago, to conveniently flow through into their KJV English translation.

Then the theological cartel approves the use of the capitalization of the pronouns, "He" and His, which are not explicitly stated in the texts, to assist in driving forward the mortal-made Trinitarian theological theory that the one doing the acquiring of the assembly through the shedding of his own blood is the God Himself, as opposed to the God the Father's son, Jesus Christ, who according to 1 Tim. 2:5 is not the one God, but the one mediator of God and mortals (Gk., anthrōpōn), the mortal (Gk., anthrōpos), Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5).

Now you can see what the KJV theological cartel did with Acts 20:28:

allowed the use of the word "God" in the text instead of the more preferable "Lord";
and then changed the pronoun "he", implicit in the verb periepoiēsato, to be capitalized as "He";
and then changed the genitive of possession pronoun "his", implicit in the adjective idiou, to be capitalized as "His", using capitalization of those pronouns to imply that those pronouns refer back to the God,
ignore all the clear verses in the rest of the holy scriptures about whose blood was shed, as having no bearing on the translation of Acts 20:28.

This kind of forging of the English translations, the adding, changing and deletion of words, and the theologically opinionated capitalization of English pronouns (although in the Greek texts of God's Word there is and never was any capitalization of words), and many more kinds of subtle and blatant forgings, is all in an attempt to push and drive forward the mortal-made Trinitarian theological theory. And these kinds of forgings of the text were done in Acts 20:28, to forge the KJV and most all other English "translations" to say that the one doing the acquiring of the assembly through the shedding of his own blood is the God Himself, as opposed to the God the Father's son, Jesus Christ, as is clearly stated over and over in all of the Greek texts believed to be authentic.

6. In Rom. 1:20 the KJV translation forges the mortal-made Trinitarian theological concept and terminology of a "godhead" into their English translation:

Rom. 1:20 (KJV) For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Here's a literal quote of what the text actually says:

Rom. 1:20 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) the (ta) unseeable things (aorata) of Him (autou) from (apo) [the] creation (ktiseōs) of [the] cosmos (kosmou) are staring down (kathoratai), both (te) the (hē) everlasting (aidios) inherent power (dunamis) of Him (autou), and (kai) Godliness (theiotēs), being perceived (nooumena) [by] the (tois) things made (poiēmasin), into (eis) the (to) [impiety and unrighteousness] of them (autous) to be (einai) without an apology (anapologētous).

The KJV "translation" says, "and Godhead" instead of "and Godliness" as is stated in the Greek texts. But, according to the ancient texts, the subject of the context is about men knowing the gospel of Christ (v. 16), and about having belief in it unto receiving righteousness (v. 17). The context is about mortalkind knowing the truth (v. 18), the revealed Word of the God to mortalkind, which truth is the gospel of Christ. The point of the verse is not about the teaching of a "godhead" of some kind, but that the truth of God's Word, the gospel of Christ, HAS BEEN REVEALED, through Jesus Christ. Just as the power and godliness of the creator can be perceived [by] the things He has made, so to He has made Jesus Christ, through whom not only the power and godliness of the God can be perceived, but through whom the power and godliness of the God can be apprehended by mortalkind!!!

This is why God-rejecters and God-haters have no grounds upon which to apologize for their misunderstanding; because the things the God almighty has made are staring at them constantly, at all times, and from all angles! We are all constantly surrounded by the creation of the God, since we all must live within it to continue to exist! And the God's witness to Himself, His son Jesus Christ, has appeared and was seen by mortals, and they have witnessed to their having seen and handled him (1 John 1:1; Luke 24:39; John 20:27).

In John 20:26-29 Thomas finally came to the realization and understanding of what Jesus preached and taught them about the Father being IN him; that it was the Father IN him telling him what to say and do, and actually doing the signs, miracles and wonders THROUGH Jesus, using His son Jesus instrumentally (See John 8:16, 29, 10:38, 14:10-11; Col. 1:19-20). Thomas finally realized that Jesus' Father, the highest God, a spirit-based being, was living and abiding IN His son Jesus Christ, who was a soul-based being, a mortal man of flesh and blood. The heavenly Father and His son Jesus Christ were two separate and distinct beings, working together as one in unity of purpose; each having their own separate and distinct natures but cohabitating together in a symbiotic union, together in Jesus Christ's physical body, similar to as our heavenly Father came to home-down IN us when we received our new birth above in His gift of holy Spirit! (See John 14:16-20; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:16-18; 1 Pet. 1:23; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; Eph. 4:6; Php. 2:13; 1 John 2:27, 4:4; Mat. 10:16-20). Thomas finally realized this great truth, perhaps before most other disciples realized it, and Thomas addressed Jesus, saying, "The Lord of me, and the God of me!"

In Rom. 1:20, some translations translate theiotēs as divine nature, which translation is not only erroneous but very deceiving as well. The specific concept of God's nature of being is not referenced in Rom. 1:20, but rather it is in the context of apostle Paul explaining WHY he is evangelizing (v16-17), which is to explain and make known the virtuous character and righteousness of the God the Father toward us, in offering to mortalkind salvation, about which impious and unrighteous ones are absolutely not thankful to Him (v21), and therefore have no apology which they can offer for themselves (v20).

Apostle Paul's reference to the content of his evangelism is to explain that everything in the cosmos, including all things here upon earth, have been put here for us, to support us and to give us life, put here for our wonder and enjoyment! The mere existence of these things proves the existence of the God's inherent power and godliness; His godliness being witnessed to by the inherent power He must have in order to have formed, made and created everything (including us!) in the cosmos in which we live, which is staring down at us from all around us! Translating theiotēs as "Godhead" or "divine nature" is simply forging one's preconceived mortal-made Athanasian-based theology into and English translation. Apostle Paul wrote theiotēs, which means godliness, no more or no less.

In the Greek texts the word for nature, as used in describing the nature of something, is the word phusei, which word does not appear in Rom. 1:20 in substantiation of a "Godhead" or "divine nature". The Greek word theiotēs simply means godliness, no more and no less. From the 14 contextual usages of phusei throughout the new covenant writings we can see the meaning it had to apostles Paul, James and Peter; which meaning describes the inherent characteristics of something. The word phusei itself is a broad term which relies heavily upon the context in which it is used to help define its meaning.

1. In Rom. 1:26 phusei is used once by Paul to describe a physical characteristic inherent in a soul-based female's physical body.

2. In Rom. 2:14 phusei is used once by Paul to describe a socio-cultural characteristic inherent in other ethnic groups than Israel, which characteristic is to use their own self-determination as to what is right and wrong, to choose their own standards for law, which standards are not based upon the Mosaic law.

3. In Rom. 2:27 phusei is used once by Paul to describe a physical characteristic inherent in a soul-based male's physical penis, which characteristic is that it is by nature uncircumcised.

4. In Rom. 11:21, 24 phusei is used four times by Paul to describe a physical characteristic inherent in "branches" of both wild and cultivated trees, which characteristic is that they are easily broken off, cut away, or grafted in to other trees for horticultural reasons.

5. In 1 Cor. 11:14 phusei is used once by Paul to describe a common socio-cultural characteristic inherent in all ethnic groups, which characteristic is that hair is worn differently between males and females.

6. In Gal. 2:15 phusei is used once by Paul to describe a socio-cultural characteristic inherent in those of Israel, which characteristic is that they profess to hold and abide by the Mosaic law.

7. In Gal. 4:8 phusei is used once by Paul to describe a paternal characteristic not inherent in the ones/things to which the Galatian believers, prior to their conversion, put themselves into slavery, which characteristic of paternity, Fatherhood, was not inherent in those ones/things.

8. In Eph. 2:3 phusei is used once by Paul to describe a characteristic inherent in the thoughts and minds of the children of anger, which characteristic is to do the thoughts and lusts of the flesh. This made the Ephesian believers, prior to their conversion, like all those who have not yet repented, as figurative "children" of God's anger.

9. In James 3:7 phusei is used twice by James to describe a characteristic inherent in each of several different kinds of animals, which characteristics of each animal is that it can be tamed, with the only exception being the tongues of mortals, which are very difficult for mortals to tame.

10. In 2 Pet. 1:3-4 phusei is used once by Peter to describe the characteristic of the God the Father, which characteristic is the work of inherent power which the God the Father did in those who believe upon the precious name of His son Jesus, which work is gifting those with the baptism in His gift of holy Spirit, giving those the new birth above in His Spirit, His "spore (Gk. sporas)", thusly making them His paternal sons (1 Pet. 1:23) having His spirit-based nature (Rom. 8:8-11).

2 Pet. 1:3 (LIT/UBS4) as the Godly (Gk. theias) work of inherent power (Gk. dunameōs) of Him He has gifted to us all things which [are] toward life and piety, through the experiential knowledge of the one having called us aloud to His own glory and virtue;

2 Pet. 1:4 (LIT/UBS4) through which things He has gifted to us the great and highly esteemed promises, in order that through these you may become common sharers of Godly (Gk. theias) nature (Gk. phuseōs), having fled from [the] disintegration in the cosmos, [which is] in lust.

Of all of the promises our heavenly father has given to us, I believe the greatest is what Jesus Christ referred to as The Promise of the Father, the Father's promise to give to us, to all those who believe upon the name of His son Jesus, a new birth above in His gift of holy Spirit (Jer. 31:31-34; Eze. 36:25-27; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 1:4, 2:33; Heb. 10:16-17).

1 Pet. 1:23 and Rom. 8:8-11 are very strong references to our heavenly Father's paternity and Fatherhood of His children to whom He has given His very own spirit-based nature, His son Jesus Christ having birthed them above in his Father's gift of holy Spirit. See 1 Cor. 15:35- for Paul's teaching on soul-based (Gk. psuchikon) and spirit-based (Gk. pneumatikon) bodies.

According to Athanasius' mortal-made theological theory, and various parts of other's mortal-made theological theories which have subsequently become glued onto it as time has passed, it attributes special, almost fetish-like attention to a "divine nature" which they suppose Jesus Christ to have had in his earthly walk, while totally ignoring the heavenly Father's spirit-based, Godly nature he gives to all those who believe upon the name of His son Jesus Christ, through the their new birth above in His gift of holy Spirit (Mat. 3:11; John 3; Rom. 8:1-). They totally ignore and deny that the God, the Father, who is Spirit, a spirit-based being, was IN the soul-based mortal man Jesus Christ as a cohabitant in his physical body; two distinct and separate kinds of beings co-dwelling in Jesus Christ's physical body in a symbiotic union, as Jesus Christ stated and taught/teaches over and over (John 5:19, 10:38; 14:10), as did/does apostle Paul (2 Cor. 5:19). This is exactly how our heavenly Father lives in us now (1 Cor. 6:19), as it was prophesied to be (2 Cor. 6:16)! The mortal-made Athanasian-based theological theory of the Trinity is antichrist because it denies this truth!

The truth is, that just as the God the Father came into His son Jesus Christ to dwell in him, He has come into all those born above in His gift of holy Spirit, to dwell in them!!! That's the greatness and the bull's eye of the evangelism of Jesus Christ, of the Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18) with the Word of Reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19)!

Godhead and divine nature are clearly terms from the mortal-made Athanasian theology-based Trinitarian nomenclature and its associated terminology, which began to be invented as late as the 4th century and later. "Translating" them into an English translation is absolutely not being true to what apostle Paul said and wrote. Godhead is a term invented about 300 years after Paul wrote his letter to the believers in Rome, and it appears in the Athanasian Creed, in which Athanasius declares his own theology in part:

"And the catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; The glory equal, the majesty co-eternal...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God,,,And in this trinity none is afore, or after another: none is greater, or less than another...So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must think of the Trinity."

Several things about this terrible KJV translation of this verse, and the Athanasian Creed disturb me:

1) First of all, the Greek word in the text which the KJV renders in English as "Godhead" absolutely does not mean Godhead in the Greek language. In the Greek the word is a nominative case, feminine gender, singular in number noun, which is used to describe a quality of theos, simply meaning godliness. The Athanasian-introduced concept of affixing the word "head" onto the word "God" to form the word "Godhead" to describe a collective position of a "3-in-1" plurality of leadership, is strictly a theologically-biased and derived private interpretation, and has no business being forged into an English translation, as if it is the actual authoritative meaning of the word theiotēs, which it is not. And then this KJV post-history revision of Paul's letter is passed off as an authoritative writing of apostle Paul himself. How deceitful is that?

2) The Trinity is to be worshiped? Isn't Athanasius simply building a theological memorial to himself, through which Athanasius himself is to be memorialized and worshipped, worshipped as one who invented a mortal-made theology which exalts itself above God's Word? Isn't that idolatry, to say the least?

Exactly where in the holy scriptures, give me book, chapter and verse, do the ancient writers say that a "Trinity", or a "3-in-1 God", or a "Godhead" is to be worshipped? Certainly not in Rom. 1:20. Absolutely no where in the writings of the ancient Greek texts is it written about, or discussed, or taught that mortalkind is to worship a Trinity, a 3-in-1 Godhead, or Jesus Christ, or the holy Spirit. Jesus Christ taught his disciples and apostles to pray to and worship his Father, who is his God, who is the highest God, and who is the True One (John 7:28-29, 20:17). Apostle Paul taught that the one (heis) God is simply the Father, all by Himself (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5)! James taught also that the God is simply one (heis) individual being (James 2:19). The Trinitarian concept of "a person", or of "persons" is no where to be found in the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible.

Absolutely nowhere in the ancient texts of God's Word is the word for the cardinal number 1, one (heis), ever redefined as a 3-in-1 group of some kind. Throughout all of God's Word one (heis) always means 1, two (duo) always means 2, three (treis) always means 3, and so on. God's use of numbers is always just that simple and straight forward.

3) In order to be saved one must believe the mortal-made Trinitarian theory which was invented in the 4th century? As I have shown elsewhere in my studies, as stated by two other prominent Trinitarian scholars, nowhere in the history of the Christian Church up through the first sixty years of the second century did any of the post-apostolic writers say anything about a Trinity. Which makes me wonder how the 3,000 or so people received salvation on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2:41, about 350 years before the invention of the Trinitarian theory? And how did the Romans and Corinthians and all the other believers in the first century, from Paul's three itineraries throughout all of Asia, as recorded in Luke's book of Acts, receive salvation if the Trinitarian theory didn't yet exist?

To me, from considering both sides of the issue, from both the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian camps, it seems to be much more than simply circumstantial that so much mortal-made Trinitarian-based theological dogma (not to mention much other theological dogma, see Misquoting Jesus, and The orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart D. Ehrman) is forged into later Greek texts and English translations coming AFTER its invention and introduction in the 4th century. Subsequently the mortal-made Trinitarian-based theological theory has been pushed to become not only accepted as orthodox Christianity, and to replace the Arian-based theology which was universally accepted as orthodox Christianity from the time of Christ up until the 4th century when the mortal-made Trinitarian theology was introduced and people were compelled to embrace it or else. But the worship of Athanasius' mortal-made Trinity theory has been, and is now, exalted above, up and over the holy scriptures of God's Word (Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:8)!

Here I've introduced to you only six examples of both subtle and blatant, but deceitful forgings of theological bias into an English translation, the KJV, as well as prior forgings of Greek texts as well. But throughout my translation experience of the Greek new covenant texts, I've noticed literally hundreds, if not over a thousand subtle but deceitful alterations to virtually all English translations, and to various post fourth century Greek texts as well, alterations made after the adoption of the mortal-made (Athanasius) Trinitarian theological theory.

I consider those "Christian" beliefs and teachings which are driven by theologically-biased translational paraphrases, which beliefs and teachings cannot be verified and substantiated in the ancient texts, as having no authority whatsoever from our heavenly Father and His son Jesus Christ, not too mention how deceitful they are, as are the ones doing them. I find most all theologically-driven translational paraphrases as designed to support Athanasius' mortal-made ostentatious religiosity. And each "Christian" denomination seems to have its own particular heap of it, supported by their own Athanasius-serving/worshipping theologians hiding behind a curtain of anonymity.

My personal ministry and this web site is devoted to exposing mortal-made, and/or devil-made, whichever they may be, doctrines as just that, theologically-biased dishonest forgeries deceitfully "translated" into Bibles, which ultimately confuse and dumb-down the greatness of God's Word as He revealed it to the ancient writers (2 Pet. 1:20-21).