Expert: Clifford H. Readout, Jr. - 12/7/2008

Question
QUESTION: Dear Rev. Readout
There is a great controversy in christianity today about the nature of God. Some verses of scriptured make it appear that God is more than one person but one family(St. John 17 etc) while others make it appear that God is a unitary one(Isa44:6-80). What is your view on this important biblical matter? I await your reply through my submitted email address. The Lord bless you richly in His service.

ANSWER: Dear David,

The controversy about the “nature of God” in Christianity began when the philosophy of the Hellenistic Jew, Philo of Alexandria (Alexandria, Egypt, 220 BC – 50 AD) began to gain acceptance and influence among Christian writers in the late second century.  The controversy raged most when the doctrines of Tertullian (c. 160-220 AD) and later Arius (c. 250-336 AD) began gaining adherents among the leadership of the state-sponsored Roman church. It has never been concluded, but the prevailing authorities have issued determinations, often contradictory, against one side or the other, and always against the other sides that occasionally arose in the debates.

Investigating and determining the facts of the development of Christian doctrine is a challenging endeavor.  The surviving histories are all written by the “winners” of the controversies, and the state-sponsored Roman church had a habit of destroying anything it determined to be heretical, including the heretics themselves. So, discovering the actual teaching of those now considered to be unorthodox is limited to “adversarial testimony.”  In other words, if you disagree with me, it is unlikely that you will bother to preserve the details of what I teach and why I believe it to be truth, but rather only report on the greatest distinctions between our adversarial positions.  Even to this day, the beliefs of certain sects are almost always misrepresented by their opponents.  For example, Non-Trinitarians often claim that Trinitarians believe in three gods, and quote various sources to support that claim.  Of course, no orthodox Trinitarian would ever accept the accusation as true.  On the other hand, many Trinitarian apologists define the strict monotheists who deny the doctrine of the Trinity but claim both the absolute Oneness of the Godhead and the exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ as being “modalists,” “Jesus Only,” or some other defamatory label or falsification of their doctrine which they would equally deny.  Finding enough intellectual honesty on either side of the debate to facilitate a serious consideration of the Biblical arguments without rancor has proven difficult. So, honest historical investigation must pay serious attention to the adversarial testimony in the surviving documents, which were written by those whose political authority empowered them to overrule their adversaries.

Your specific question to me was a very personal one relative to my view on the controversy:
“What is your view on this important biblical matter?”
Generally, a question like that is an attempt to induce some statement from me which can be used to “justify” an offhand rejection of a Biblical exposition I have previously given on the subject.  Accordingly, I usually answer that no opinion is worth much, regardless of whose it is, or what it is. What matters is what the Bible actually reveals about the subject.  When “interpretations” of the text conflict, they must be resolved by the clearly understood application of other texts, without resort to philosophical inventions.  I believe that the Bible is consistent, and easily understood by rational beings through either the reading or hearing of it.

That being stated, I will offer you some expositions I have already prepared that deal with this question in greater detail than suits the limitations of the AllExperts.com mechanism.  I will not surrender my copyrights by posting these documents to a public site, but I would give you copies of them with your written agreement to honor my copyright.  This requires you to email me directly at readout@earthlink.net rather than via AllExperts.com, a small price to pay, I think.

I will give you a sample from one of the documents that relate to this question:

“Does the Doctrine of the Trinity Correctly Define the Godhead?”
© 2000 Clifford H. Readout, Jr.
Pages 1-5:
<begin quote>
The doctrine of the Trinity is a theological construct of relatively early Roman Christianity (c. 220-325 A.D.), based on Philo's philosophical definitions of the Logos (Word) in the prologue of the Gospel of John.  The doctrine has evolved through the centuries to be refined and recorded in the written doctrinal statements of the various denominations into a definition of the Godhead which states that God has eternally existed as three separate and distinct Persons, who are, always were, and always will be, co-equal, co-eternal, co-powerful, and co-present.  These three Persons are called "God the Father," and "God the Son," and "God the Holy Spirit."  God the Father is neither God the Son or God the Holy Spirit; God the Son is neither God the Father or God the Holy Spirit; and God the Holy Spirit is neither God the Father or God the Son, but all Three mystically share the same "substance."  It further states that "God the Son" was sent by "God the Father" to be the sacrifice to atone for human sins.  It resolves the Scriptural conflicts created by the doctrine by including some statement to the effect that the doctrine is not explainable by human reason, cannot be comprehended by human reason, but is not contrary to human reason, rather, it is a "divine mystery" which must be accepted by "faith."

The Doctrine of the Trinity is very close in idea to various pagan theologies dating back to ancient Babylonian idolatry, but finds its entry into Christianity through adoption of ideas contained in Greek philosophy.  (Philo, mentioned above, and others, notably Tertullian.)  The earliest record of Trinitarian terminology is found in the writings of Tertullian (c. 220 A.D.), who also wrote, in his "Against Praxeas," that the majority of Christians rejected his ideas as idolatry, holding instead to "the Monarchy," i.e. the doctrine that there is only One Person who is God, that He is a Spirit, and that He became flesh to be the Saviour.  The doctrine of the Trinity was codified by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to satisfy the demand of Emperor Constantine to reconcile the teachings of Arius and his followers, who denied the Deity of Christ, with the rest of Christianity which held firmly to the exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ.  The resulting compromise satisfied neither camp, but became the single issue which determined "orthodoxy" under the rule of Rome.

It is not simple to determine the understanding of "early Trinitarians."  First, it is difficult to determine just when there were "early Trinitarians."  We can determine when "modern" Trinitarianism came into being, but the designation "early" makes it subject to varying interpretations.  (This problem is explained in more detail in problem three, following).  Second, it is difficult to determine what anyone in the past understood about anything!  We can only look closely at the words they employed to write their doctrines, and try to determine what those words must have meant to them.  We can do this linguistic work with the help of the scholars.  But that brings us to the third problem: It is in the nature of believers to be anachronistic in their historical research, that is, people tend to read back into history their present day understanding, and attribute it to those they are looking back at, and interpreting their words accordingly.  (This simply demonstrates that the Bondage of Belief is the strongest bondage known to men.  It is possible to believe a lie, but you cannot know a lie.  Only truth can be known.  And it is only by knowing the truth that we can be freed from the Bondage of Belief.)  So, a Trinitarian will see in the historical accounts evidence of his own belief, and so will the Oneness believer.  Intellectual honesty is more rare among theologians than it should be!  However, it is not impossible to be intellectually honest, and to avoid anachronistic errors.  Fourth, there is the problem of the nature of historical evidence.  All histories either have developed, or will develop, through a three-fold process:
1) they begin as the biased account of the winner of a conflict;
2) they undergo revisionist alterations when that winner no longer dominates the process;
3) finally historians far removed from the time and events sort through the tainted records trying to determine what really happened.
Since history is generally written by the "winners," they often do not preserve any original records of the thinking of the "losers," except as "adversarial testimony."  In other words, all we know about many of the theologies now considered to be heretical comes from the negative comments written about them by those whose doctrine came to dominate as orthodoxy.  That makes it difficult to determine what the heretics really believed.  Nevertheless, adversarial testimony can sometimes do more to discredit the orthodoxy than it does the heresy.  Again, intellectual honesty is required to come to any sound conclusions.  Only the intellectually honest theological historian can render an honest judgment about another's conclusions, but he will be roundly condemned if his judgment does not confirm the beliefs of the others!

Tertullian (c. 180-220 AD) wrote that most believers rejected his concept of a "trinity" because they believed that there was no division in the Godhead, nor any plurality of persons.  This would indicate that his own concept is very close to that held by most official Trinitarian doctrine today.  It is, however, very important to note that Tertullian's ideas were rejected as being idolatrous by the large majority of Christians of his day.  His "heresy" was not official doctrine until the codification of certain terminology at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, followed by "refinements" and additions in later councils, particularly Chalcedon in 451 AD.  But, it can be argued, with significant support from the historical records, that not even the bishops who formulated the doctrine at Nicea would have considered Tertullian's concept orthodox.  There was discussion and disagreement about terminology among them, but they were faced with an impossible task, i.e. to reconcile the Arian doctrine with that of the rest of Christianity. Their intent was to officially establish the Deity of Christ as orthodoxy, while answering the arguments of Arius against Christ being God.

One of the primary words chosen by the council was the Latin word "persono," the word translated into the English, "person."  However, the Latin word persono was a theatrical term, meaning "mask," and derived from the verb meaning "to speak through."  Roman drama was performed by one actor, regardless of how many characters were in the story.  The one actor would play all the parts.  He would signify which part he was playing by holding up a "persono," or mask which represented that particular character, and "speaking through" that mask the character's lines.  Then he would hold up the persono of the next character, and speak through it the next character's lines. And so on.  This makes it apparent that the word "person" was not intended to mean "individual center of consciousness" as it is commonly understood today.  Thus, it appears that Tertullian's concept of a plurality of individuals in the Godhead was not the intent of the language drafted at Nicea.  It wasn't until later councils incorporated other philosophical concepts, such as Philo's "logos" musings, that "persono" was morphed into meaning "individual" in the manner of modern Trinitarian doctrine.  Many Trinitarian historians have acknowledged this.  There are other words in the original Nicean Creed which opened a door to theological difficulties.  And the various camps of bishops there had several points of contention about such terms.  It happens that those of the bishops who would now be considered to have been Modalistic Monarchians (very close to modern Oneness theology), and who were the largest minority among the bishops at Nicea, left without consenting to the creed because of the possible misunderstandings allowed by some of the terminology.

All this indicates that "early Trinitarians" (assuming agreement with the modern definition) were originally a small and unorthodox (heretical) minority until after the Council of Nicea in 325 AD adopted the terminology which would give rise to definitions accepted today.  But, if we are to label all who could accept the original meaning of "persono" as "early Trinitarians," then it is manifest that their doctrine has little in common with modern Trinitarianism.  They were much closer to the Oneness view than to the Trinitarian.  This is made even more manifest when one discovers that the original Nicean deliberations almost totally excluded mention of the Holy Spirit.  The "Third Person" was written into the "Nicean Creed" by later councils.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been changed several times through the centuries since it was first codified by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.  Because of its mystical and contradictory terminology it has been given various definitions by various groups based on subjective objections raised by their leadership.

The doctrine of the Trinity was never a part of the thinking of any of the OT writers, at least as far as can be determined from the many documents recording their words.  No significant tenet of the doctrine exists in their prophecies.  Rather they are adamant in their insistence on the exclusive, indivisible, and absolute deity of Yahweh.

The NT writers promoted the idea that God is One, a Spirit, and He became flesh by means of the incarnation and virgin birth.  Historians of both the Church and Christian doctrine acknowledge this fact.  To the NT writers, Jesus Christ is the Almighty God manifest in flesh, not one of three persons in the Godhead.

Proponents of the doctrine of the Trinity, forced by the historical record to acknowledge these facts, strive to circumvent them through theological innovations, most drawn from philosophical musings:
1. The "primitive church" (led by the Apostles, whose understanding the Lord had opened, and who were to teach everyone else...see Luke 24:45, Matthew 28:20, etc.) was ignorant of the truth, God having chosen to reveal it progressively to succeeding generations.  Today, they say, we understand the most important doctrines far better than they did.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity exists as a divine mystery, which can neither be understood or explained by rationality, and must be accepted by "faith."  It is something which can only be believed, but not known.
3. The contradictions contained within the terminology of the doctrine of the Trinity are necessary to avoid certain heresies condemned throughout Christina history.  The doctrine offers no explanation of how the contradictions actually are not contradictory other than that they are part of the "divine mystery."

My conclusion is that the doctrine of the Trinity was not part of the understanding of the Apostles, and when its terminology was first formulated, it was not intended to convey the concepts of Tertullian, which are the foundation of the "official" doctrine of the Trinity.  I do not think there is any significant difference between Trinitarian doctrines then and now, but I also do not believe that the theologians of those days should be considered Trinitarians, either.

Interestingly enough, the adoption of the Doctrine of the Trinity marks an tremendous change in Christian history.  Prior to 325 A.D. Christians were persecuted by pagans, and others who rejected the exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ as God manifest in flesh.  Within fifty years of the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity, Trinitarian Christians were persecuting anyone who would not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.  It seems to me like something went wrong.

I think there are better, and more scriptural ways to define the Godhead than the doctrine of the Trinity. The following statements express a more scriptural confession of the doctrine of the Person, Identity, and Name of God:

*  God is One.  Deuteronomy 6:4;  Mark 12:29; et al.
*  God is a Spirit.  John 4:24;  Ephesians 4:4;  et al.
*  God (who is a Spirit) became a Man.  Exodus 15:2;  Isaiah 12:2;  Psalm 118:14 - 21;  John 1:1, 14;  2 Corinthians 3:17; et al.
*  The Man God became is identified by the Name “Jesus,” with various other titles added: “The Lord Jesus,” “Jesus Christ,” “The Lord Jesus Christ,” “Jesus of Nazareth,” etc.  Luke 1:31;  Matthew 1:21; Acts 8:16; 10:36; 11:17; 22:8; et al.
*  The Man God became was fully God in the Absolute sense through “the mystery of godliness,” which is the Incarnation.  Thus, the Man God became is “God with us,” “the Mighty God,” “the Everlasting Father,” and “the Almighty.”     1 Timothy 3:16; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6; Revelation 1:8; etc.
*  The Man God became was also fully Human in the Ultimate sense through the seed of the virgin woman of the lineage of Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David, yet totally without any sin nature because He was also God Incarnate.  Genesis 3:15; Genesis 49:10; 1 Kings 8:26 - 27; Acts 2:30; Romans 9:5; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 4:15; etc.
*  As a Man, He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man; learned obedience, suffered, died by crucifixion, was buried and rose again the third day.  Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8 - 9; 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 4; et al.
*  As a Man, the scriptures use the following titles to designate His Deity (Godhead) and Humanity:
       “The Son of God,” 1 John 4:15; 1 John 5:20; et al.
       “The Son of Man,” Matthew 12:8; John 5:27; et al.

The One True and Almighty God became a Man called The Lord Jesus Christ.  The Lord Jesus Christ is both the One and Only Lord God Almighty and the Human Messiah, called “the Son,” who gave His life to redeem us.  Elohim (God) hath made that same Yeshua’ (Jesus) whom ye crucified both Yahweh (Lord) and Messiah (Christ).  The Lord Jesus Christ is not part God and part Man.  He is not part of God.  He is fully, completely, and exclusively God in the Absolute sense, and also fully, completely, and absolutely Human in the Ultimate sense.  In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.  He is not a “second person” in the Godhead.  There is no other God or “Divine Person” than He.  Beside Him there is no Saviour.  Acts 2:36; Colossians 2:8 - 10; et al.

It is fully as serious an error to detract from or deny His Perfect and Ultimate Humanity as it is to lessen or dilute His Absolute and Exclusive Deity.  He is both fully Human and fully God.  This is one factor of His Uniqueness and Incomparability.  There is none like Him!
<end quote>

The preamble to your specific question said:
“Some verses of scriptured make it appear that God is more than one person but one family(St. John 17 etc) while others make it appear that God is a unitary one(Isa44:6-80).”

I appreciate that you chose to write “make it appear” rather than something more insistent.  It suggests that you understand that appearances are perceived through subjective eyes, which may not see the objective Truth.  This controversial issue is fundamental to any Christianity, and deserves more than a prejudiced surface examination.

I suppose there are some who might want to apply the word “family” (based on Ephesians 3:15, no doubt) to the “nature of God.”  Doing so insists that such “relational” terms must never be interpreted as metaphorical, and that is refuted easily enough, if the inquirer has any intellectual honesty at all. One of the challenges in this doctrinal issue is to determine when and how metaphor is used.  For example, does an infinite spiritual being have a literal “right hand” location?

Please take advantage of my offer to receive a more in depth theological examination of this primary issue.  I look forward to discussing it with you.

Yours for Truth,

CR


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Rev. Readout. Thanks for such a deep exposition. I will ask a follow up question and then on to another matter.
What would be your response to those, the Jesus only group of believers who also declare that the absolute oness of God must be accepted by faith, for this is what every religion says. Now to my next point. How do we know that the 66 books of the bible are the only books that are inspired. I have read in the bible about the books of Jasher, Judith, Nathan etc. Were the books inspired, and why do we not have them today? Where the book of Jasher is concerned, is it the same book of which the bible makes reference, for I went through that book and a certain prophecy which the bible says is recorded in that book, the present day book of Jasher does not have it. Could it be that that book of Jasher I went through is not the true book of Jasher. Many thanks again as I await your reply. The Lord bless you and your ministry continually.

Answer
Dear David,

This lengthy answer will have two general sections in it. The first is intended to answer your first question, and the second is intended to answer the other four questions.

I. Your first question was:
“What would be your response to those, the Jesus only group of believers who also declare that the absolute oness of God must be accepted by faith, for this is what every religion says.”
1. I am not aware of any organized group of Oneness believers who have made such a claim.  That does not mean that no such group exists, only that I have not encountered them. I have met individuals from many theological belief systems who have embraced that folly, but usually because it was taught to them by their unenlightened teachers.
2. Any individual who contends that there is some doctrinal truth that cannot be established through objective evidence and methods is wrong.  There is only one fact demonstrated by those who have to resort to the “it must be accepted by faith” defense: They have no vital illumination of truth to share.  This is my response regardless of the theology of the group.  It is absolutely as possible for people to believe the truth without knowing it as it is for people to believe a lie.  Freedom does not come from believing (by the un-Biblical, common definition of the word), but from knowing, and if God has chosen to allow one man to know something, He will also share it with any one else who wants to know it.
3. I disagree that “every religion says” that, mine doesn’t.

Here are some lengthy quotations from documents I would have sent you had you written me directly.  Please remember, I reserve all publication and distribution rights to this material under the relevant international copyright laws.  These excerpts are provided only for review purposes and may not be duplicated without my prior written consent.

Christianity, and Christian doctrine, has *objective* authority and does not depend on any *subjective*, “must be accepted by faith” mysticism.

The Foundations of Life Bible Study Series, Lesson One: “The Revelation of God from Eternity to Eternity,” © 1995 Clifford H. Readout, Jr.,  Page 7:
<begin quote>
Theology is that field of study which examines the concept expressed by the word “God.”  It is the attempt to apply, insofar as possible, the principles of scientific investigation to that dimension of human thought and experience which is not entirely suited to such investigation.  It is the attempt to apply the most precise human reasoning to uncover and explain the reality of mankind’s loftiest notions.
Theology seems to be a uniquely Christian endeavour.  Modern Judaism focuses on the study of man and the application of religion in practical living.  Other religions abandon theology altogether in favor of entirely subjective belief systems.  Christianity alone seeks to expose the reality and details of “God” objectively, by gathering evidence and trying to decipher it in accordance with a more rational and “scientific” method.

Christianity’s primary claim, that God was manifest in the flesh, and offered proof of His person, identity, and plan, demands that theology be its highest academic priority and ultimate endeavour.  Christianity alone claims quantifiable, evidentiary proof of its beliefs.  It alone is totally dependent on the identity of a historical person.  In this it is removed from the religions of men, which are all systems of subjective beliefs, dependent only upon the believer.  Christianity, in contrast, is totally dependent upon the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, and Who claimed to be God.  Christianity’s theology, then, differs from that of other religions by its objectivity, and is not merely the recording of theory and subjective belief.
This is not to say that theology is altogether objective and without that dimension that does not lend itself to scientific investigation.  Therein lies one of the primary difficulties of the study of “God.”  The Object of the study is larger than the capacities of the student, and encompasses more than the totality of the student’s universe.  The very conception of “God” contains also the presumption of an added dimension of supernatural, and with it, the possibilities of spiritual revelation and illumination.
<end quote>

The Foundations of Life Bible Study Series, Lesson One: “The Revelation of God from Eternity to Eternity,” © 1995 Clifford H. Readout, Jr.,  Pages 54-59:
<begin quote>
The Bondage of Belief:
No form of bondage is so terrible as The Bondage of Belief.  Nothing can hold a human being in more horrible captivity than his own beliefs.
The Bondage of Belief is so powerful that it can drive people to deny Truth.  It causes people to deny the evidence that something else is true, that what they believe is not true.  
The Bondage of Belief is so powerful that it can drive people to violate the very principles of their belief in order to protect it from the encroachment of Truth!
The Bondage of Belief is so powerful that people held by it may be willing to suffer and even die for their beliefs, but they are more likely to be willing to inflict suffering and death on those who do not share their belief.  They may be the “broad-minded” preachers of Tolerance, yet tend to be violent in word and/or deed against the “narrow-minded bigots” who do not also preach Tolerance.  The Bondage of Belief can be so violent that it results in the murder of those who oppose it.  In fact, the more important the Truth that opposed the Belief, the more violent the Bondage of Belief will be.
But, as powerful as it is, the Bondage of Belief is not as powerful as the Freedom of Knowing.  The Bondage of Belief can create persecutors, but the Knowledge of the Truth can empower martyrs.  The Bondage of Belief darkens the heart, but the Knowledge of the Truth shines Light into the soul.
Romans 1:21  “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
Ephesians 4:18  “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:”
John 1:9  “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
1 John 2:8  “Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.”
History records many classic examples of the working of the Bondage of Belief.
Galileo was victimized by men ruled by the Bondage of Belief.
It was not so long ago that learned men believed the Earth to be the immovable center of the Universe.  This belief was predominant among scientists and scholars of Scripture as well.  The evidence for this belief was obvious.  They had the scientific observation of sunrises and sunsets.  They also had Scripture which spoke of the rising of the Sun and the going down of the same.
Psalm 50:1-6  “The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.  Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.  Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.  He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.  Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.  And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.”
Psalm 113:3-6  “From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the LORD’S name is to be praised. The LORD is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens.  Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,  Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!”
Isaiah 45:5-7  “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:  That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Isaiah 59:19  “So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.”
Malachi 1:11  “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.”
Theirs was the commonly held belief. They believed it strongly, sincerely, even violently.  (The tendency toward violence against those who oppose your belief may indicate that you are not so sure that you are right or even suspect you may be wrong.  It certainly demonstrates that your belief is not reinforced by knowledge.)
When Galileo Galilei, an Italian astronomer, came bearing proof that this belief was error and not truth, they rejected the evidence and tried him for heresy.  As far as they were concerned, Galileo’s teaching was blasphemy against “Truth.”  Their belief was so strong and unshakable that they persecuted Galileo, confiscated his property, and banished him into exile for opposing it.  This they did in the name of Science, Christianity, The Bible, and the titles of their gods, because of the power of their belief!  But strong, sincere, and even violent belief in something does not make that something true.  Surely those men believed.  They were convinced that they knew, but they merely believed.  The terrible thing is that they believed a lie!  Thus, when Galileo came with knowledge, trying to illuminate the darkness of their belief (their assumption, if you will) they punished him.  Galileo even claimed the authority of Scripture in support of his scientific observations.  But they were so firmly held in the Bondage of Belief that even the Scripture wouldn’t convince them!
The heavens are a tabernacle for the Sun, not for the Earth!  The Sun occupies the center position.
Psalm 19:4  “Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.  In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,”
The Earth was hung upon nothing!
Job 26:7  “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
The concept of “shadow of turning” demands a “stationary” light source illuminating a rotating sphere!
James 1:17  “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”
Michael Servetus was victimized by men ruled by the Bondage of Belief.
In 1553, John Calvin, who many still claim to have been a great Christian reformer, demanded the death penalty for one who would not agree with Calvin’s doctrine of the Godhead.  Michael Servetus stood against Calvin’s belief that God was divided into three separate, distinct, co-equal, co-eternal, co-existing persons, each with distinct personality.  He refused to accept the inherent contradictions in the idea of the eternality of a begotten Son.  He upheld the eternal and indivisible Oneness of God forever, and that the fulness of the Godhead was bodily manifested in Our Lord Jesus Christ.  John Calvin was held so firmly in the Bondage of Belief that he demanded and saw fulfilled the illegal execution of Michael Servetus.  Calvin had him burned to death at the stake.
Servetus’ last words were, “Jesus Christ, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me.”  Rather than vengefulness toward his murderers, he called upon his God.  Where was the Christianity of John Calvin and his minions?  Where was Christian compassion and peaceableness?  Their belief was so strong that they murdered for it!  They were in the Bondage of Belief, not knowing The Truth, but believing a lie.
The Bondage of Belief is so strong today that many normally rational people still hold Calvin to have been a great Christian hero of the faith, in spite of the fact that he was a murderer!  (No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.)  When the error entered into the Christian doctrine of the Godhead, Christianity degenerated from being the Persecuted into being the Persecutors!  Do you know how this came about?  Unfortunately, the Bondage of Belief often results in violence that actually betrays the very principles that belief is supposed to endorse!
James 3:17-18  “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.  And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”
The disciple Stephen was victimized by men ruled by the Bondage of Belief.
So also were the High Priest and leaders of the synagogues driven to violence by the Bondage of Belief.  The disciple Stephen, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, speaking with great wisdom and the Christian spirit, with a heavenly countenance, preached the Truth of Israel’s history of denying The God of Heaven that resulted in their murder of the just One.  This cut the hearers to the heart and threatened their belief!  The Bondage of Belief was so powerful that they gnashed on him with their teeth, cast him outside the walls of Jerusalem, stoned him, and put him to death.  Stephen’s last words were, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.”  Acts 7:60.  Thus, a follower of Jesus Christ was martyred by those held in the Bondage of Belief!
Even our Lord Jesus Himself was victimized by men ruled by the Bondage of Belief.
Indeed, Jesus Christ is The Example!  He was The Truth, and Truth is always the first victim of the Bondage of Belief.
1 Peter 2:19-21  “For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.  For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently?  but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.  For even hereunto were ye called:  because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:”
Matthew 10:24-25  “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.  It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord.  If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?”
The Lord Jesus Christ stirred up the violence hidden in believing a lie simply by telling men the Truth, that He was/is the Incarnation of Jehovah God!
John 5:18  “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”
John 8:58-59  “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.  Then took they up stones to cast at him:  but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”
John 10:24-39  “Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt?  If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.  Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not:  the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.  But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.  I and my Father are one.  Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.  Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?  If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.  But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works:  that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.  Therefore they sought again to take him:  but he escaped out of their hand,”
The Tragedy of the Bondage of Belief is that men seldom discover they are held by it.  Believing a lie keeps one from knowing the Truth!
John 9:39-41  “And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.  And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?  Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin:  but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”
John 15:18-25  “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own:  but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.  Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord.  If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.  But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.  If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin:  but now they have no cloak for their sin.  He that hateth me hateth my Father also.  If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin:  but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.  But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.”
The Bondage of Belief even allows men to justify the very evil they do because of it.  As in the horror of the Crusades, they that believe the lie still cry out, “In this sign conquer!”  Eventually, the murder of “heretics” becomes acceptable to those claiming to follow the One  “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:  Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness:  by whose stripes ye were healed.”  1 Peter 2:22-24.
Listen to the language and see the works of the Bondage of Belief:
John 19:6-7  “When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.  Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him:  for I find no fault in him.  The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”
Acts 2:23  “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:”
Acts 3:13-15  “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.  But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”
Acts 4:10-12  “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.  This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.  Neither is there salvation in any other:  for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Acts 5:27-33  “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council:  and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name?  and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.  Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.  And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.  When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.”
Among the last words spoken by Jesus Christ before He died were these:  “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”  Luke 23:34.
So it was then, and has been since, and will be in days to come, that the most religious men, because of the Bondage of Belief in a lie, will condemn the innocent who knows the Truth.  This they do and justify doing.
<end quote>

Allow me to add a few more personal comments concerning “The Bondage of Belief”.

I know of no greater bondage than the bondage of belief.  Beliefs without objective substantiation are worthless.

It occurs to me that “Belief,” both “believing a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11) and “belief of the truth” (2Thessalonians 2:13), is most certainly always personal and experiential. But, the fact that not all belief is “of the truth” forces me to consider that there must be some means of validating belief. Those who believe it a righteous thing to murder those who disagree with them and those who believe to do so is sinful cannot both be correct. If there is no eternal and absolute truth which either validates or overthrows belief, then nothing can be “true” in any meaningful sense, neither can anything be “false” in any meaningful sense.

John 8:30-37 records an interesting exchange; “As he spake these words, many believed on him.  31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.  33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?  34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.  35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.  36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.  37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.”

When I was a boy I had an occasion which motivated my father to give me a week long crash course in memorizing the multiplication tables. We worked hard at it, me necessarily blindfolded and threatened with suitable disciplinary action if I did not pay attention, my father diligently drilling me with multiplication questions, and neither of us satisfied until I could satisfactorily answer each challenge with the right number. On the day of the test which would determine my progress into the next grade, I was the first student finished. The test was the easiest I have ever taken, and I learned that nothing is as comforting in an examination as having learned the answers ahead of time. On the day the test papers were returned I was appalled to discover that my teacher had made a mistake in grading mine. She had marked one of my answers to be incorrect. Of course, I knew better than that, having learned the multiplication tables thoroughly, and to my own father’s superior satisfaction. I went to the teacher and pointed out her simple error. She blatantly refused to acknowledge her error, insisting that seven times six did not equal forty-five. Of course, I “knew” I’d gotten it right, and there were a few moments of argument about it, which ended with her sending me to the blackboard to demonstrate how seven times six equaled forty-five. I was confident that I could show her, but had a problem making seven sets of six ones count up to more than forty-two. I counted them twice and came to know the truth. I also learned that it is possible to believe a lie, but that you cannot know something that is not true. Since then, knowing has always been better than believing, for me.

I have applied that childhood illumination to my adult life’s search for understanding. Much of the meaningless has been dispelled from my life, replaced by things of value to me and many others. Subjective experience may be validated by objective reality, but objective reality does not depend on personal experience to validate it. Only knowing the truth, the objective and external fact, frees one from the bondage of belief.

Thus, I postulate for other seekers that Truth is most certainly “eternal and absolute,” and ought to become “personal and experiential,” but mere “belief” is a most tenuous, and usually erroneous, foundation. It is the goal of all spiritual service to translate for others the eternal and absolute into the personal and experiential.

The Foundations of Life Bible Study Series, Lesson Two, “The Timetable and the Tomb: Tradition or Truth?” © 1991 Clifford H. Readout, Jr., Pages 1-3:
<begin quote>
Christianity is totally dependent on the identity of a historical person.  In this it is removed from the religions of men.  Those religions are all systems of subjective beliefs, dependent only upon the believer.  Christianity, in contrast, is totally dependent upon the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ.

The historical evidence of the life and death of Jesus Christ is overwhelming.  No student of history can rationally deny that He lived and died nearly two thousand years ago.  However, many people do question the truth of the claims He made, and that were made by those who knew Him, and came to know Him well, concerning his identity.  The Jews, for the most part, rejected Him because of the identity He claimed.  The gentiles who were exposed to his gospel, for the most part, forsook all other gods for Him.  The identity of Jesus Christ is the issue upon which Christianity is either established or exposed.  Paul expressed it this way:

1 Corinthians 2:2. “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

Notice that Paul did not write in this context, “Jesus Christ crucified,” but rather “Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”  Paul identified the “and him” a few verses later as “the Lord of glory,” and also “the Lord from heaven.”  The emphasis is totally upon the identity of the man Christ Jesus.  To Paul the issue of the validity of Christianity was simply settled in the fact that, to him, Jesus Christ is the Lord of glory.  But the real issue is not who men, even the great Apostle Paul, believe Jesus Christ to be.  Men can believe lies.  Men can make claims based on assumption and ignorance.  Men can declare error to be truth.  The focus of any serious investigation into the validity of Christianity must be who Jesus Christ really is.  For if men believe Him to be something or someone He is not, they have believed an untruth, a lie.  Such believing  merely makes another subjective religion and not Biblical Christianity.

This study must limit its investigation to the claims Jesus Himself made concerning his identity.  Understand, please, that the claims made by his chosen apostles are not in question.  The reliability of The Bible and the evidence of its Divine inspiration are above reproach.  Only those who chose to believe otherwise, subjectively, in spite of the facts, dispute this point. To get to the heart of the issue, then, the investigation must be limited to Christ's personal claims and their proof.

If his claims can be proven false He must properly be declared a madman at best or a charlatan, a horrible, deceiving liar at worst.  Then Christianity would be forced to take its place on the slag heap of vain religions.  But if his claims can be proven true, reasonable men must accept Him for who He claimed to be and adopt Christianity as the one valid and reliable system of understanding Truth.

Resurrection is not the primary issue here, either.  Resurrection touches the issue only when the focus is upon the identity of the One that arose from the dead!  1 Corinthians 15:17. “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”

The resurrection becomes part of the issue only because Jesus made it the proof of the identity He claimed!  Resurrection would never have become an issue if Jesus had not made the truth of his claims dependent upon the proof of his resurrection from the dead.  It is not likely that men would have made such an uncontrollable and impossible event the proof of their claims!  Jesus forced it upon them!  By so doing He challenged all other systems of belief and put them to the test!  He chose the one event that would be totally beyond his control, unless He was who He claimed to be, to be the only sign of the truth of his claim!  There is no resemblance to anything subjective here!

As difficult a proof as that may have seemed to be, Jesus was even more precise and specific.  He also promised an exacting timetable for His resurrection.  Not only would He rise from the dead, but this resurrection had to come on a precise and specific schedule!

The Claims of Christ

Before examining that schedule, though, the claims He made that were to be proven by that resurrection schedule should be considered.  These are found in Matthew 12:1-45.  Jesus made eight claims in this passage that concern his identity.
1.  Matthew 12:6:  That He is One greater than the Temple!  Please consider this claim with a view to Matthew 23:16-22!
2.  Matthew 12:7:  That He is “the guiltless!”  Please consider this claim with a view to Romans 3:9-10, 23!
3.  Matthew 12:8:  That He is the LORD of the Sabbath!  Please consider this claim with a view to Genesis 2:1 —3 and Exodus 20:8-11!
4.  Matthew 12:9-13:  That He is the One who owns men as righteously as a shepherd owns sheep!  Please consider this claim with a view to Ezekiel 18:4 and Romans 14:8!
5.  Matthew 12:14-21:  That He is the promised Christ!  This is only one of his identity claims!  Please consider this claim with a view to Exodus 15:2 and Isaiah 12:1-3!
6.  Matthew 12:22-37:  That He is the One who judges devils and men!  Please consider this claim with a view to Genesis 18:25 and Hebrews 12:23!
7.  Matthew 12:38-41:  That He is greater than Jonah, who converted Ninevah’s gentiles with the Word of the LORD!  Please consider this claim with a view to John 13:16 and John 15:20!
8.  Matthew 12:42-45:  That He is greater than Solomon, whose kingdom was the most glorious ever known on earth!  Please consider this claim with a view to 2 Chronicles 1:1, 7-12!

In summary, Jesus Christ claimed to be the God of Israel incarnate to save the souls of men!  And it was this claim that drew the challenge for proof.  It is this claim that must be validated or exposed.  Here are the challenges and His response:

Matthew 16:1, 4. “The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would show them a sign from heaven.  :4  A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.”

Luke 11:16, 29—30. “And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.  :29  And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.  For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.”

Matthew 12:38—41. “Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.  But He answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.  The men of Ninevah shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.”  

To establish the identity of Jesus Christ and, hence, to validate Christianity, the exact fulfillment of this sign must be confirmed.  It must be exact, for if Jesus truly is the LORD of the Sabbath, then He is precise in his choice of signs.
<end quote>

“Another Jesus: The Fallacy of the Doctrine of Heavenly Flesh”, © 2004 Vonnelle Kelly, from the Foreword, (which I wrote, and copyrighted myself, but granting her full privileges to reproduce):
<begin quote [with minor modifications to suit this discussion]>
The […] heresy exposed by this book’s ministry is guilty of all three of the primary errors of idolatry.
1. It defines God as being less than He has revealed Himself to be, by claiming that God can be corrupted.
2. It defines God as being different from who and what He has revealed Himself to be, by claiming that the Christ who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3) would be corrupted by sin.
3. And, it defines the creature as being greater than it is in relationship to or comparison with who and what God has revealed Himself to be, by making an assumed human taint or “sin nature” powerful enough to corrupt the Holiness of God.

Romans 1:21-23 “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” [Emphasis mine.]

The God of the Bible is not only holy, but He is uncorruptible. If it were not so, we could have no hope at all, for His creation became contaminated, first by the sin of Lucifer, then that of the angels which followed him, then of Adam, and then all the rest of us. If God could be defiled, He would be defiled by contact with anything. Any manifestation of God would have been corrupted by the very first contact with any part of the corrupted creation. The same potent corrupting agency would defile “heavenly flesh” as easily as it would the Logos! The only logical conclusion of this fallacious premise is that there could have been no Incarnation at all, neither any form of contact with His creation. This erroneous idea is the foundation of many ancient schools of philosophy, and certainly of those Paul warned us about. And it is the foundation of that false doctrine which would lead us to the “Another Jesus.”

Colossians 2:8-9 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. :9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

Limited accounts of three particular witnessing encounters may be beneficial to further push your thought processes forward into the book you are now holding in your hands.

1. A certain man was proclaiming the greatness of “God.” At the opportune moment I asked a simple question, “Which ‘God’ are you talking about?”
The question evoked a puzzled, “What?” that gave me an opportunity to explain.
“The minds of men have conceived of and named over three million gods, so far. Several contradictory religions claim that there is only ‘One God,’ and that theirs is the only true God. So, which ‘God’ are you talking about?” He had great difficulty devising a meaningful answer, so I said, “I feel sorry for you.”
“Why would you feel sorry for me?” he asked.
“Because you merely believe in a ‘god’ when you could actually know the true God!” He came to realize that it is possible to believe a lie, and that only truth can be known. This “new thought” liberated him from the bondage of belief.

2. A certain man objected to the definition of God I was showing him in the Scriptures, insisting that the Godhead is a “divine mystery” which cannot be explained by reason, that God is far too vast to be known or understood by the finite minds of men. I resisted the temptation to argue the technicalities, and simply said, “I feel sorry for you.”
“Why would you feel sorry for me?” he asked.
“Because your god is so very limited compared to mine.” Naturally, he objected that his god is infinite, eternal, and almighty. “But my God can do something your god cannot do! My God is able to make Himself known and understood to the finite minds of men!” This “new thought” ended the argument.

3. A certain man asked about the coming judgment he had heard about. I answered by quoting several of the relevant Scriptures. He was very distressed by the obvious conclusions forced by the texts and protested, “Well, my God is not like that!” My reaction was an immediate, “I feel sorry for you.”
“Why would you feel sorry for me?” he asked.
“Because you have a god subject to your own definitions. My God has defined Himself, and I have the privilege to change myself and my thinking to accommodate His self-definition.” This “new thought” stunned him to silence. His definition of “God” was subjective, and mine objective. Any “God” defined by subjective “revelation” is the creation of the subject, and all created gods are idols.

True Christianity is revelatory. The minds of men require illumination to see its Truth. Its principles and even its practice can be seen and understood without illumination, but the deeper comprehension, that which brings Life, is all mystery to the unenlightened. But it is easy to claim illumination. The blind will follow a blind man who claims to see, for they are rarely able to refute the claim.

Giving credence to subjective “revelation” forces the acceptance of every claim of illumination, even those that are contradictory to other “illuminations.” There must be some objective authority to confirm the validity of religious “revelation.” It is possible to believe a lie. Those who believe it a righteous thing to murder those who disagree with them and those who believe that to do so is sinful cannot both be correct. One opinion is just as meaningless as another, unless it is based on a demonstrably objective authority. Who, or what, decides which is correct? The only solution to this confusion is an objective revelation, one independent and separate from our own biases and preferences. A true God ought to be able to provide creation with an objective revelation, one not dependent on the interpretations of the observers. For true Christianity, The Bible is this objective source for the revelation of God. To us, it is the objective Word of God, and not to be interpreted by any subjective illuminations.
The Bible has proven itself to be the divinely inspired record of God’s self-definition. It has been preserved through the generations by the greatness of His authority, even overruling the greatest authorities in the world who have tried to destroy it. It is not mysterious. It is not confusing. It is revelatory, but with revelation that requires no subjective interpretation to be known and understood. All spiritual illumination must be in perfect harmony with its plain revelation. We have been warned not to add to it, or take away from it.

How, then, can we change the mind of one who has no higher authority than his own subjective “revelation”? How can we change the mind of one who believes his private illumination gives him authority to deny the plain meaning of Scripture, to apply interpretations that reverse the clear meaning of the words used in the texts? Perhaps it is impossible. But, if it is possible, it will be done only by shining the light of truth upon the error that has blinded the minds of those who have believed a lie. One can dispose of each “another Jesus” created by the subjective revelations of deceived men only through knowing the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
<end quote>


II. Your next four questions may be lumped into two underlying questions, one concerning the exclusion of other books from the Canon of Scripture, and one concerning various non-Canonical books, particularly the “book of Jasher”.
“How do we know that the 66 books of the bible are the only books that are inspired.”
“Were the books inspired, and why do we not have them today?”
“Where the book of Jasher is concerned, is it the same book of which the bible makes reference, for I went through that book and a certain prophecy which the bible says is recorded in that book, the present day book of Jasher does not have it. “
“Could it be that that book of Jasher I went through is not the true book of Jasher.”

I will offer four sets of comments to answer these questions in some detail, but allow me to briefly dismiss the last two of them:
“Where the book of Jasher is concerned, is it the same book of which the bible makes reference…?”
Obviously not.

“Could it be that that book of Jasher I went through is not the true book of Jasher.”
It more than “could be.” It most certainly is not the book mentioned in the Bible.  The oldest existing manuscripts that bear the Hebrew name translated “the book of Jasher” are Rabbinical commentaries dating to the twelfth century.  You can research these yourself, online.

Several other books exist which have been given the title, “The Book of Jasher,” and claim to be the one mentioned in the Bible.  The most common one (c.1751) states that the Law was given to Moses, not by God, but by Jethro.  And, it is the “best” of all of the books that carry the name.  It’s author (an anti-religious British Abbott!) and publisher were revealed as frauds.  It has most recently been republished by the Rosicrucian Order, a cult with Gnostic tendencies dating to medieval Germany.

The earlier two questions deserve more serious attention:
“How do we know that the 66 books of the bible are the only books that are inspired.”
“Were the books inspired, and why do we not have them today?”

I offer four sets of comments to answer these questions:

1. What about the Canon of Scripture:
I recommend F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture; also the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia should have an interesting section on the development of the Bible.  The texts generally accepted as being authoritative scripture (Divinely inspired texts) were collected over a period of time, and not decided by one council.  However, there have been several "councils" which endorsed the collections of texts which were accepted by the majority of Christians as having been divinely inspired.  It was not that these councils determined which books were inspired, but collected those most generally accepted by prior generations as being "God-breathed."  Again, F. F. Bruce's book will give you much information.

If the autographs (original writings, "signed" by the writers, hence "autographs') exist, and it is extremely unlikely that they do, they would be in some private collection somewhere, most likely in the vaults of the Vatican Library, unseen for generations.  It is more likely that they were destroyed during the many years of persecutions.  The preservation of their contents is due to the diligent copying that was done by the recipients and believers.  Manuscript copies of practically the entire Bible exist, some dating back to the second century, so dating the collection of the canon to the fifth century (when the earliest of the apocryphal books began to be added by the Roman Catholic church) is inaccurate.  It is obvious that some collection of the documents considered to be “authoritative” or “inspired” had begun much earlier, and was more than the effort of a few clerics.

The formal collection of the manuscripts was not a subjective process.  Those involved did not choose what manuscripts were to be deemed "scripture," but rather collected all of those manuscripts to have been traditionally esteemed by the majority of Christians as being divinely inspired.  Having studied the accepted Canon, the various apocryphal writings, and the later writing of the "Church Fathers," I concur with their choices, for whatever my conclusions are worth.

The apocryphal books are not mentioned, or quoted, in the writings of any church leaders who arose after their probable creation dates.  Most of the other books whose inclusion in the canon has been challenged, are quoted in documents not challenged.  This indicates that the apocryphal books were not documents known by Christians of their day to be worth preserving and disseminating.  The fact that they were neither accepted nor propagated by the early church is the most powerful (and irrefutable,) argument against them.

In addition, after reading the apocryphal books and comparing them with the books of the canon, it becomes apparent that they do not bear the signs of inspiration that are the hallmark of the books of the canon.  Their texts are of a noticeably inferior literary quality.  They are not consistent within themselves, nor are they consistent with the canonical documents.  They do, however offer some support for certain Roman Catholic doctrines and practices which are not supported in the Scriptures.  This also helps to date some of those apocryphal writings to a much later date than the some “authorities” would have us to believe.

The best choices for inclusion in the canon were those documents most avidly preserved and copied, in the face of the severest persecution and opposition, by those who were most closely associated with Jesus Christ.  The apocryphal books were not among them, and apparently never were.  They do not "measure up" to the quality of the other books of the New Testament in any category of investigation, especially not in historicity and spirituality.

There are promises, attributed to God, contained in the canonical writings in which He guarantees the preservation of His word to all generations.  He is faithful, so His Word exists in some form available to seekers.  In spite of the tremendous efforts of religious and secular authorities to destroy the canonical books, they have survived from generation to generation.  Unless God has abandoned His promise, we ought to have some confidence that the Word has been preserved.  Theologically it is more likely that God has prevailed over those who would destroy/corrupt His Word.

Manuscript evidence is abundant that the Textus Receptus (Stephanus text of 1550) is an accurate record of 75% of existing manuscripts, and Nestle's text compiles most of the other 25%.  As a student of biblical literature, it seems to me that the TR is the most likely text to have been an accurate compilation of the Word of God as He has preserved it for believers today.  Of all the English translations, only the KJV follows the TR.  I do not know how translations in other languages fare by comparison.  In spite of the translational difficulties involved the underlying text of the KJV seems to be the mot reliable of all.

2. What about additions to the Canon?
Hebrews 1:1-2  “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”
The text establishes that “in these last days” God has given a much more direct communication than the “divers manners” He used “at sundry times... in times past.”  It also indicates that His communication came to a broader audience, directly to “us” rather than only to “the fathers by the prophets.”  There isn’t anything there to eliminate the continuing use of prophets to communicate, and we do have a reliable testimony that God used such prophets to bring communications after the Book of Hebrews was written.  The truest force of this text is that it is the Sonship through which God communicates to us today.  That is, that God became Savior, as Jesus Christ, and it is through this manifestation of Himself that He chooses to relate to men.  It is no longer possible to relate to Him as anyone other than Jesus Christ, because He has now revealed Himself to men as Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ speaks His Word to us by living it out before our eyes.
Romans 16:27  “To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.”
Colossians 2:6-10  “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:”

There are texts which advise us not to add to or take away from the words God speaks to His people.  They do not say that God will not speak yet again, only that man is not to change what God says.  They also assure us that anything further that God says will not detract from or change either the meaning of the force of things He has already spoken.  He does not change His mind.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.  6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

But at the end of the days of the original Apostles of Jesus Christ another warning was given in the written record of John’s prophetic visions.  It *seems* to go further than the earlier warnings about adding to and taking away from the Word of God, *indicating* that it *might* be the last of all the written Word of God.
Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This does not mean that God no longer communicates with men.  In fact we have textual evidence that God intends to communicate more personally with individuals through the preaching of His Word.
1 Corinthians 1:21  “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”
Romans 10:8  “But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;”

That all being said, since the compilation of the canon, no documents have been produced which bear the same qualifications for inclusion.  We have no reason to believe that God is adding to His written Word since the death of the Apostle John.

Allow me another personal comment.  Some sects (even “mainline” denominations) have a vested interest in allowing further (and more authoritative) communications from “God”.  Their organization teaches that the original Apostles did not understand the truth, and that the "primitive" church of the New Testament was ignorant of the true doctrine of Christ. (Luke 24:45  "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," is a good argument against that!) They must teach this because they have, in some measures, changed the doctrine and practice of the first church so drastically.  They must justify their deviation somehow.

3. What about possible manuscript errors?
There are manuscripts which demonstrate errors, but how can we determine they are errors? They are noticeable because there are so many ancient manuscripts which are consistently identical, that the deviant is easily detected!  In fact there is better evidence for the inspiration of the Bible than there is that Shakespeare wrote the plays and sonnets which bear his name.

Manuscripts can be divided into two classes, Majority and Minority.  Seventy-five percent of all manuscripts of the Bible (in the original languages) are in harmony with each other, without the supposed "alterations" and "errors of man" which you are using to support your beliefs.  The other twenty-five percent of manuscripts agree with the Majority manuscripts for the most part, but there are some differences, and almost all of them are quite minor.  The variations can also be demonstrated as alterations made by copyists, and the lack of respect given to those copies in their day is evident.  Students of the process recognize that these manuscripts were, in the main, rejected, or practice copies.

2 Peter 1:16 - 2:2  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.  17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.  19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:  20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.  2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.  2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

We ought to let the text interpret itself.  Words do have plain meanings, after all, and God has the ability to say what He means.

This leads me to comment on the importance of one’s approach to the Bible.  The reason I have had some small measure of success in my investigations of the Bible was my decision to approach it as though it were inerrant.  I looked for solutions within the problem text, and from other passages, and found many solutions which astounded me, and caused me to accept the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.  However, if one rejects the possibility of inerrancy, all he needs to find is a problem for which the answer is less than obvious, and he validates his premise in his own mind.

The methodology used in “translating” the text chosen as the source authority can also be a hindrance.  Translation is a matter of endeavoring to bring each and every word over from one language into another, without losing the meaning;  i.e., an approach which honors each word in the original as having been divinely inspired.  This is incredibly difficult, but not impossible.  The other approach is a matter of paraphrasing the original, using as much of the original wording as convenient, without confusing the meaning, as determined by the "translators."  This approach denies the divine inspiration of the individual words, in favor of a more or less divine inspiration of the meaning of the phrases.  It seems to me the first approach to be a much better method, and less subject to the private interpretation of the translators.

Christianity has a few distinctives, uniquely its own, which put it on a higher intellectual plane than other religions.  While these distinctives have largely been compromised in the theologies and practices of most modern Christianity they do remain for a minority of Christians, perhaps best called a “remnant”.

One is the uniqueness of the Bible’s identification of Jesus Christ as the One (and Only) God manifested in flesh to be Saviour.  This Truth has been compromised and obscured by Trinitarian theology.  If one judges the Bible by Trinitarian theology, it is manifest that the Bible cannot be inerrant.  But if one judges popular doctrine by the actual text of the Bible, it is not the Bible which receives the criticism, but the Christianity which has adopted the popular doctrine.

This points to a central factor in the question of Inerrancy: who decides the standard of judgment of what is error and what is not?  Does the fact that a human being does not understand how something can be prove that it cannot be?  Does one’s lack of understanding preclude someone else from understanding?  Certainly not.

Another distinctive, and the one which pertains most directly to your questions, is that Christianity is the only theology which bases itself entirely upon the objective, rather than the subjective.  The Inerrancy of the Scripture is a primary component in this objectivity.  T the documentary hypothesis school has attempted to compromise the doctrine of inerrancy, and depends on manifestly inferior and corrupted documents to create new translations, versions, and paraphrases. That segment of the Christian community which is founded more on the mysticism of belief than on the facts of faith must also compromise the doctrine of inerrancy.  Hebrews 11:1 define faith as substance and evidence, but most of modern Christianity defines it as the hoped for and the unseen.  Substance and evidence are not un-measurable intangibles, not subjective beliefs, but rather verifiable facts and truth.  The Bible presents the challenge, and offers the evidence to prove its claim.  If The Biblical claim about Jesus Christ can be proven false, then Christianity can be relegated to share the stigma of being merely another subjective religion. (By the way, James 2:21-23 defines “believing God” as “faith [evidence and substance] combined with works of obedience,” rather than the commonly accepted definition of mere “mental assent”.)

It was my study of the Bible’s evidence concerning the specific claims of Jesus Christ which convinced me to accept the inerrancy of the Bible.

4. What about the other “books” mentioned in the Bible?
In addition to references to books included in the Canon of Scripture, many other books are mentioned in the Bible, the manuscripts of which have not been preserved with sacred precision, if at all.

Numbers 21:14  the book of the wars of the LORD
Joshua 10:13  the book of Jasher
2Samuel 1:18  the book of Jasher
1Kings 11:41  the book of the acts of Solomon
1Chronicles 29:29  the book of Samuel the seer
1Chronicles 29:29  the book of Nathan the prophet
1Chronicles 29:29  the book of Gad the seer,
2Chronicles 9:29  the book of Nathan the prophet
2Chronicles 9:29  [written in] the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite
2Chronicles 9:29  [written in]  the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat
2Chronicles 12:15  the book of Shemaiah the prophet
2Chronicles 12:15  [the book of] of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies
2Chronicles 20:34  the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel.
2Chronicles 24:27  [the story of] the book of the kings
Jeremiah 32:12  the book of the purchase
Nehemiah 12:23  the book of the chronicles
It is doubtful that Nehemiah 12:23’s “the book of the chronicles [annals, or history]” refers to either of the books we now know as 1 and 2 Chronicles, since neither of them contain the lists mentioned in Nehemiah.

There are references to writings in books for the Chaldean and Persian kings:
Ezra 4:15  the book of the records of thy fathers
Ezra 4:15  the book of the records
Esther 2:23  the book of the chronicles before the king.
Esther 6:1  the book of records of the chronicles
Esther 9:32  the book.
Esther 10:2  the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?

Paul called the pagan Epimendes a “prophet” and quoted from his “Poem to Zeus,” but this was not to establish either the author’s spiritual credentials or the document’s divine inspiration, but merely as secondary evidence from a well-known secular source.  It seems more reasonable to consider the references to these other books to be of the same nature, rather than to adopt a position that God allowed portions of His Word to be lost.  If one happens to accept the Biblical doctrine that God promised to preserve His Word, even every jot and tittle, to all generations, then we do not have to give those un-preserved books much attention.

The fact that the scribes who so meticulously honored and copied the sacred manuscripts did not bother to retain the other books is significant.  The fact that those books were not accepted, quoted, or propagated by either The Lord Jesus Christ or the early church is a most powerful argument against them being considered divinely inspired Scripture.  Paul’s quoting from Epimendes’ “Poem to Zeus” (in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12) certainly did not elevate that pagan ode to the status of Scripture.  So also, the mention of the other non-Canonical writings does not confer upon them sacred status.

Concerning the book of Jasher, specifically:
The fact that “Jasher” means “Upright” would allow us to consider “the book of Jasher” to refer to the various books of the interpretation of the law, or even of  using “Jasher” as a reference to the Lord Himself, and thus reference the sacred texts themselves and not a separate book.

You should remember that book titles have not been subject to some kind of a divine “one-use” or copyright infringement law. The production of a book that bears a referenced title does  not prove that it is the same book that was referenced.  There are scam artists in the world, who produce such things, both for financial profit and for more nefarious reasons, and this has been going on for thousands of years.  Even the Apostle Paul warned against one being propagated among Christians in his ministry. Someone had written a letter full of false doctrine, claiming it was written by Paul!
2 Thessalonians 2:1-2  “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,  2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter **as from us***, as that the day of Christ is at hand.”
[**emphasis mine.]

I have subjected the Bible to as critical an examination as I have been able to devise, using several methodologies, including overt (but un-prejudicial) skepticism, textual analysis and even mathematical probability theory.  After almost four decades I unhesitatingly tell you that I have been fully persuaded that it is not cunningly devised fables, but the MOST SURE word of prophecy ever given, more sure even than the very voice of God speaking on the Mount of Transfiguration.  It is the objective source authority for Christian doctrine, history and practice, and not to be abused with subjective, private interpretation.  You can trust the Bible, without the apocryphal and other non-canonical books.

That is all I am going to write about this subject for a long time. It is enough. I hope it helps you in some measure.

I have a question for you. What are you going to do with the answers I have taken so much time and effort to provide?

Yours for Truth,

CR