Is Jeff A. Benner in the "Gunsights" of The LORD ?

Sodom and Gomorrah . . . also in the gunsights of The LORD.

Is Jeff A. Benner 

in the Gunsights of The LORD ?

A Re-post By Samson7Able

Mr. Benner has not killed anybody, so WHY would he be the targetof The LORD’S fierce anger ?

Was the CROSS a Latin church invention ? Check the Facts.

 

Was the CROSS a Latin church invention ?

The Hebrew Roots communities, the Netzarim, and  the Jehovah Witnesses all contend that the STAKE was the instrument of death, not the CROSS. 

 Let us look at the FACTS from SCRIPTURE to determine the TRUTH.  

From the Horns of the Unicorns

. . . His+ Cry from The Cross

 Psalm 22:21

 

Save ME+ from the lion’s mouth:

for THOU hast heard ME+

from the horns of the unicorns.

+  +  +

NETZARIM / Hebrew Roots Author , Andrew Roth, MISSED the REAL "RENEWED" COVENANT . . . in his book, the Aramaic-English New Testament

 The AENT Missed the REAL RENEWED COVENANT in Scriptures !

There was indeed a RENEWED COVENANT between The ELOHIM and the people of GOD . . . but Andrew Roth's Aramaic-English NEW TESTAMENT (AENT) failed to identify it.

Walking like Lepers Today ?

LYING PROSTRATE AT HIS+ FEET, he WORSHIPED HIM+ .

The lepers were some of the wisest men that lived . . .

The APOSTLE PAUL'S Words to the Galatians ... or ... Netzarim's Words ? Review of Galatians 1 verse 3, and alas, verse 4

SAINT PAUL
by Bartolomeo Montagna
Courtesy of
en.wikipedia.org

All Aramaic Text and translations for verses 3 and 4 in the text box are courtesy of Dukhrana.com, the free online SCHOLARLY lexicon ( and resource for other lexicons and helps ) available to all. 

The three English translations are from Etheridge in green type , Murdock in black, and Lamsa in purple. Latin is Vulgate, Clementine, and Greek text is the New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 from Pierpont and Robinson. 

The topmost verse is from the  British and Foreign Bible Society's text; the unpointed text is from the Khabouris Peshitta Text, both published on Dukhrana. They are reproduced here for comparison's sake. 

ܛܰܝܒ݁ܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܥܰܡܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܘܰܫܠܳܡܳܐ ܡܶܢ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܰܒ݂ܳܐ ܘܡܶܢ ܡܳܪܰܢ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܀ (analyze)

Galatians 1:3 - ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܥܡܟܘܢ ܘܫܠܡܐ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܐܒܐ ܘܡܢ ܡܪܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܀ (analyze)

Galatians 1:3 - Grace be with you and peace, from Aloha the Father, and from our Lord Jeshu Meshiha,

Galatians 1:3 - Grace be with you, and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus the Messiah;

Galatians 1:3 - Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our LORD Jesus Christ

Galatians 1:3 - Gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre, et Domino nostro Iesu Christo,

Galatians 1:3 - χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο θεου πατρος και κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου

The Netzarim publishing house version's rendition of verse 3 is accurate, although as is customarily done in this " golden, best, and historic" ( aka Amazon reviews) version,  " Y'SHUA the MASHIYACH "  is transliterated into English from HEBREW, not Aramaic. 

Liberties are also taken in the transliteration of GOD:  the Hebrew ELOHIM  is printed in the "English" translation instead of the Aramaic ALAHA, or ALOHA, as Dr. John Etheridge transliterates the Aramaic word for GOD.  

Notwithstanding that slightly odd practice of inserting a 3rd language into the translation between Aramaic and English, verse 3 is correct. 

Moving on now to Galatians 1, verse 4, which alas, has more confusion than clarity and worse errors than transliterating GOD and JESUS CHRIST from a 3rd language instead of the Aramaic text itself. 

So, printed here is the EXACT WORDING ,( including parantheses and words therein ) of Galatians 1, verse 4  in the English "translation" printed in the Netzarim publishing house's version of the New Covenant, mis-pg. edition, found on page 560 of that volume. 

Following it will be the Aramaic texts from Dukhrana.com, the classical English translations from Etheridge, Murdock, and Lamsa.  

WHO GAVE HIS NEFESH  ( SOUL, SELF)  SO OUR SINS THAT ARE DELIVERED FROM THIS WORLD (THAT IS ) EVIL, AS  (ACCORDING TO)  THE WILL OF ELOHIM OUR FATHER, 

Galatians 1:4 - ܗܰܘ ܕ݁ܝܰܗ݈ܒ݂ ܢܰܦ݂ܫܶܗ ܚܠܳܦ݂ ܚܛܳܗܰܝܢ ܕ݁ܰܢܦ݂ܰܨܶܝܢ ܡܶܢ ܥܳܠܡܳܐ ܗܳܢܳܐ ܒ݁ܺܝܫܳܐ ܐܰܝܟ݂ ܨܶܒ݂ܝܳܢܶܗ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܰܒ݂ܽܘܢ ܀ (analyze) Galatians 1:4 - ܗܘ ܕܝܗܒ ܢܦܫܗ ܚܠܦ ܚܛܗܝܢ ܕܢܦܨܝܢ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܒܝܫܐ ܐܝܟ ܨܒܝܢܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܒܘܢ ܀ (analyze) Galatians 1:4 - who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from this evil world, according to the will of Aloha our Father: Galatians 1:4 - who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this evil world, agreeably to the pleasure of God our Father: Galatians 1:4 - Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God our Father: Galatians 1:4 - qui dedit semetipsum pro peccatis nostris, ut eriperet nos de præsenti sæculo nequam, secundum voluntatem Dei et Patris nostri, Galatians 1:4 - του δοντος εαυτον περι των αμαρτιων ημων οπως εξεληται ημας εκ του ενεστωτος αιωνος πονηρου κατα το θελημα του θεου και πατρος ημων

A quick look at this verse will reveal several discrepancies in the translation. First of all , notice the little word   ܚܠܳܦ݂ , a particle in the Aramaic languate, highlighted in YELLOW. "Chlap", in the Aramaic, a word that means :  for or instead. 

William Jennings' Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament, page 76, lists the meanings and example verses to be :  for, in behalf of , instead of,   in the place of .  In Luke 19:44 = for, because.

Jesse Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, pg. 144, lists meanings and states examples from verses and other writings in context:  for, instead, instead of , because, in the place of,  on account of. 

Dr. Kaufman at the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon ( CAL ) analyses the uses of "CHLap" in several different Aramaic dialects. ( See the last two posts for a listing of the dialect codes used by CAL. ) 

Abbreviations Help

CAL CODE HELP

Click on a headword to see a complete lexicon entry in another window

xlp p01 = xlp p --> xwlp p

ḥwlp (ḥŭlap̄) prep. for, in exchange for

  1 in place of, instead of OA, OA-East, PTA, CPA, Syr, LJLA. --(a) in exchange for OfA-Egypt, PTA, Syr, LJLA. --(b) as replacement for OA-East, Syr. (b.1) as successor to a ruler OA, OfA-Egypt, Syr, JBA. (b.2) ܗܘ ܚܠܦ ܡܫܝܚܐ : the Antichrist Syr. --(c) concerning (??) OfA-Iran.
  2 w. d_ as conj. . --(a) because, since, on account of JLAtg, PTA, Syr, LJLA. (a.1) in return for ... PTA, LJLA. (a.2) instead of Syr. 1 חולף ארום : instead of, in return for PTA.

---

N.B.: The Aramaic dialects which directly affect the Aramaic New Covenant include a portion of those 30 dialects analyzed by CAL.  The Aramaic dialects we are interested in would include: 

SYR = Syriac;  CPA = Christian Palestinian Aramaic; COM  = Common Aramaic; and GAL = Galilean. In some instances, we might include PTA = Palestinian Targumic Aramaic. 

Looking carefully and thoroughly at ALL the Lexicons available, we see a MAJOR problem with translating this little preposition, for ( in exchange for ), as a conjunction ( so that ) and assigning it a meaning never intended by the writer. 

The translation issue is this:  "Chlap"  in the Aramaic language is NEVER FOUND IN ANY Aramaic DIALECT to mean     "so that. " 

The significance of the above grammatical statement means that "OUR SINS"  can only be used as the OBJECT of the preposition "for" ( in the English understanding of the passage.)   

THUS, "OUR SINS" cannot be used as a subject in this verse, which "supposedly" follows a conjunction ( "so that" --- which is not there, according to Lexicons ),  in order to start another clause ( in the English understanding of this passage),  as  the Netzarim version would have us to believe, in error.   

( I do thank you for bearing with me in this unfinished post; storms rolled in and we lost Internet connection as I typed.)

NEXT POST:  A look at the verb " DELIVER"  as used in Galatians 1:4 and mis-translated in the Netzarim version. 

The Mysterious, Missing, and Mis-Matched ARAMAIC TEXT of Matthew 2:6

  

... Or ...

Where Did the real Aramaic TEXT Go?

Matthew 2:6 from the Netzarim's publishing house's "golden, best, and historic" version of the Peshitta-to-English translation of the New Covenant, in an exact quote:

"And you, Beth-Lekhem of Yehuda you will not be the least of Yehuda. From you, therefore, will go out a king who will shepherd among the kings, my people, Israel. "  Matthew 2:6, Mis-pag. Edition, page 4

What is wrong with this  New Covenant translation of this verse of Matthew 2:6 ?

Only One Thing...
one MAJOR thing:  

it does NOT match...

ANYTHING !

To begin with, it does not match the translations of: Drs. Etheridge, Murdock, Lamsa, the Dutch, Swedish, South African, or French versions, a multitude of English versions, the Greek versions (neither Nestle's nor Pierpont and Robinson's Byzantine Textform) and the Latin Vulgate. (These texts are available to check each New Covenant verse at the user-friendly Dukhrana website.)

Not only that, but ... the quoted verse of Matthew 2:6 does NOT even match ITS OWN PRINTED ARAMAIC TEXT in this interlinear !
. 

That is quite a sleight-of-hand foisted upon the innocent reader who trusts that the Aramaic text printed is the one being translated. [ N.B.: However, I have it upon good authority that there is one Aramaic TEXT published with this aberrant reading implanted somehow within the Interlinear text  itself and is so translated ! Sr. Judith Hannah ]
.

Furthermore, it does not match the Eastern Texts: The Khabouris C, Khabouris T, nor the Syriac MS 148 (Mingana) text, (which is freely available for anyone to check at the excellent Dukhrana website.)
.    

Now, NOT matching the Eastern Texts  may not seem a HUGE problem to some... except this Netzarim New Covenant's version's compiler / editor  takes great pride in SCRUPULOUSLY following the Eastern Texts, according to the words in the introduction and copious footnotes.
.

But then, not matching the Eastern Texts may ONLY be important in the eyes of man... since it certainly was NOT very important in the eyes of the Netzarim compilers, editors, proof-readers, co-translators and cohorts, and others in the publishing house  of this "golden, best, and historic" version of the HOLY WORD of The LORD.
.

To make matters worse, however, Matthew 2:6 will be familiar to readers of the New Covenant BECAUSE it is a quote of the prophetic Scripture regarding the anointed Kingship of YESHUA+ HA MASHIYACH+  from Micah 5:2 :

And you, Bethlehem Ephratha,

being least

among the thousands of Judah,

out of you

to ME

HE+ shall come forth

to become ONE+ RULING in Israel. 

And HIS+ forth comings have been

from of old,

from the days of Eternity.

~ ~ ~ Jay P. Green's Hebrew-English Interlinear

If, however, the learned translators, compilers, co-translators, and cohorts had ANY QUESTION at all about the correct Aramaic translation of  Matthew 2:6, they could have checked the original verse in Micah 5:2 with: 

• The Hebrew Masoretic text
• The 2 Jewish Scriptures on-line (see above)
•  Justin Martyr, Ante-Nicene Fathers , Vol 1, The First Apology of Justin, chapter 34, page 174; and Dialogue withTrypho, chapter 78, page237 ( Justin's version was not the Masoretic nor the Septuagint. Maybe he used the Syriac ? )
•  Tertullian, ANF, Vol 3, An Answer to the Jews, page 169.
• Origen, ANF, Vol 4, De Principiis, Book 4, chapter I, page 353.
• Cyprian, ANF, Vol 5, Treatises of Cyprian, Second Book, section 12, page 52.

. 

... before they printed an erroneous translation of that verse of HOLY SCRIPTURE, a prophetic one regarding YESHUA+ HA MASHIYACH+....
.

... before they printed an erroneous translation based upon a manuscript,  different from  the Eastern Manuscript printed in the Netzarim  publishing house's Interlinear itself... which it was supposed to be translating.

. 

Unfortunately for their readers, this group of editors, proof-readers, compilers,  co-translators, and cohorts allowed this incorrect translation to occur because, perhaps ... : 

• not one of them have access to the Eastern Khabouris Texts, even on-line ?
• or... they do not hold a high regard for the sacredness and infallibility of the Eastern TEXTS ?
• or... none of them check the Eastern TEXTS carefully enough to catch their discrepancies and differences from the Eastern TEXTS ?
• or... none of them remembered Micah 5:2 correctly ?
• or... none have access to the Masoretic TEXT or other Jewish Scriptures of Micah 5:2 ?
• or... if all of the above is INCORRECT...

. 

...then not one of them

[ i.e., the editors, compilers, proof-readers,

translators, co-translators, and cohorts in this publishing house ]

evidenced INTEGRITY 

in handling the HOLY WORD of GOD.

.

Does ANYONE know

where this erroneous manuscript [with the mis-placed text of B'MALKE, the plural form for "among the kings" , i.e,  B'MALKE should be word #8 instead of between words #15 and 16 !] is to be found... since it is not among the Eastern Texts, the Western Texts, the Gwilliam, the New York 1886 Peshitta, nor the Old Syriac Curetonian manuscripts ?

.

Someone does!
. 
Somebody knows
WHERE
that manuscript
IS
with the changed
 Aramaic TEXT itself.... 
which led to this erroneous translation.
.  

Even more crucial... 
. 

SOMEONE+ ELSE knows

• who changed the Aramaic TEXT,
•   when  the Aramaic TEXT was changed,
•     where  the Aramaic TEXT was changed, and
• WHY  the Aramaic TEXT was changed. 

.

After all ...

HE WHO planted the ear,

shall HE not hear?

HE Who formed the eye,

shall HE not see?

Psalm 94:9 
.

SOMEONE+ ELSE

...frighteningly enough ... 

also knows how many are being 

led astray by this error.
.

Hear what the "golden, best, and historic" translation of 2 Corinthians 4:2 itself says about such actions:  

"But we have renounced the concealments of dishonor, and we walk not in craftiness, nor do we treat the WORD of ALAHA ( GOD ) deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth we exhibit ourselves to all the consciences of men before ALAHA ( GOD )."

.

The problem, you see , is not with the translating;

it is a problem with ETHICS

 ...with honesty... with integrity in the inner man 

...with fair weights and measures,

so to speak.

.

.

Torah is important for it speaks rightly against our human condition, a condition full of deceit and guile, the old man Adam in each of us.
. 

Not one of us is able to live above secret deceits until we are born from above by the Second ADAM+, YESHUA+ HA MASHIYACH+.
. 

When we become New Creatures in YESHUA+, then the old man --- and his deceitful and guileful nature -- is changed !
. 
.
We now want to walk in the Light because HE+ is in the Light and we denounce the hidden works of darkness of our hearts. 
 .
.

If we sin after we have become a New Creature in CHRIST, though, we do have an advocate with Our FATHER in Heaven, in YESHUA+ , HIS Eternal SON+, HIS Eternal WORD+,  WHO+ is faithful to forgive us our sins... if we repent. Hear the Words of Life+ :

 But
If

we walk

in the Light,

as HE+ is in the Light,

we have fellowship one with another

and The BLOOD of YESHUA+ 

HIS SON+ 

cleanses us from

ALL

unrighteousness.

I John 1:7

Drawings courtesy of The ORDER of the GOOD SHEPHERD+

YESHUA+ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life;

no one comes to The FATHER.... except through HIM+.

John 14:6

Sincerely,
Yours for Integrity+ in the Inner Man,

Sister Judith Hannah  + + +

The Schism of Novatian, the Heretic

WHAT !?!

Was this the Novatian (d. 257 AD), a distinguished Presbyter (elder) in the early church at Rome, who wrote so clearly about the Paraclete ?

Yes.

That very man, Novatian, was declared a heretic by the unified Primitive Christian Church. 

Why ?

Novatian's writings are some of the clearest statements of faith in the Ante-Nicene writings. They are in line with the Christian doctrines of the Early, Pre-Nicene Church. Novatian was an excellent apologist for Christianity. It was NOT BECAUSE his doctrines were different from Early Christian doctrines that he was pronounced a heretic in the time of total Christian unity.  

So what... ? 

Novatian was a heretic for what he did:

start his own church. 

He broke away from the unified church and established his own.

They viewed him with horror for splitting the Body of CHRIST. How did he do this heinous thing ?

• He re-baptized believers.
• He sent out his own apostles from city to city.
• He did their "own" communion.
• He appointed himself bishop or overseer.
• He rejected the duly ordained bishop... ordained by 16 godly co-bishops.

Novatian who was an elder in the church at Rome was a disciplinarian. He followed the Letter of the Law in the New Covenant. Yet, his doctrines or teaching were orthodox with Early Christianity.... but his spirit was not. 

Thus, he decided ON HIS OWN that those  believers who denied CHRIST ... and who had repented... should not be allowed back into The Church... based on the Letter of the Law in the New Covenant.  

The ONE, unified Christian Church disagreed with him.

Since he was an elder, he wanted to become the Overseer and enforce his decision... but the other Overseers did not agree with Novatian. They said CHRIST had shown Peter mercy when he lapsed and denied CHRIST. The church should show mercy also if the ones who denied CHRIST were repentant.

Novatian refused to recognize their authority and created his own church, creating the schism. 

Thus, even though his DOCTRINES WERE CORRECT,   his discipline was seen as too harsh and out-of-line with the Ancient Church. Because he disagreed with the Church, he would not  submit to the ordained authority. So, he established his own... a totally un-lawful thing to do.  He and his followers were cast out.

[Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, Cyprian's writings, pgs. 321, 333, 380 and the Treatise Against Novatian  by an unknown bishop, pgs. 657, 658, according to summaries in David Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs  , page 476-478, Hendrickson Publishers 1998. See Scroll Publishing at www.scrollpublishing.com]

+  +  +

Although we have seen that Paraqlita  or Paraclete was used by the ancient Pre-Nicene, Pre-Peshitta Christian writers to mean HOLY SPIRIT or Advocate and not "Redeemer+," there is a more important issue at hand for those in the publishing house of the Netzarim and those in the  Hebrew Roots camp, in general.  

That issue is
SCHISMATICS = heretics.

(more to come)

Paraqlita Again: Comments from CLEMENT and TERTULLIAN

Pre-Nicene Writers circa 200 AD describe the PARAQLITA found in John's Gospels and First Epistle as HOLY SPIRIT... contradistinct from The REDEEMER+, Y'SHUA+ HA MASCHIYACH.

The erroneous translation sponsored and supported by the Netzarim - Hebrew Roots camp --- called by some as the "golden, historic, and best" Aramaic-English translation --- is indeed a notable historic debacle... perhaps being the worst possible translation available. The befuddled labeling of "Paraqlita" as the "REDEEMER+" is just one of many confusions in that translation.

Here is how Christian Apologists wrote about Paraclete, around the year 200 A.D.... and keep in mind, the Christian world was unified until after the Council of Nicea (c. 325 AD)... including the Aramaic-speaking (and writing) Brethren, such as Ephraem the Syrian. ( See blog entitled: Paraqlita... Paraclete... Paraqleeta , 12-26-2011).

CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA (c. 150-200 )

ANF VOL 2 pg 571 FRAGMENTS, “First Epistle of Peter” translated by Cassiodorus

 

Clement of Alexandria was the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. His most famous pupil was Origen. Clement was considered a "most learn-ed" one in the book of the Hebrews and Greeks. [ David Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pg. 168: see References at end of blog.]

The old things which were done by the prophets and escape the observation of most, are now revealed to you by the evangelists.

“For to you,” he [ the Apostle Peter ] says, “they are manifested by the Holy Spirit, who was sent;” [ 1 Peter 1:12 ] that is the Paraclete, of whom the Lord said, “If I+ go not away, He will not come.”  [John 16:7]

“Unto whom,” it is said, “the angels desire to look;” not the apostate angels, as most suspect, but, what is a divine truth, angels who desire to obtain the advantage of that perfection.

“By precious blood,” he says, “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”

Here he touches on the ancient Levitical and sacerdotal celebrations;

but means a soul pure through righteousness which is offered to God.

“Verily foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Inasmuch as He was foreknown before every creature, because He was Christ.

Chapter III Comments on the First Epistle of John Pg 575

Chapter 2:1. “And if any man sin,” he says, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.” For so the Lord is an advocate with the Father for us. So also is there, an advocate, whom, after His+ assumption, HE+ vouchsafed to send.

Pg 576

Verse 22. “A liar” and “an antichrist, who denieth that Jesus is the

Christ.” For Jesus, Savior and Redeemer+, is also Christ the King.

<(((><

And now, PARACLETE ( PARAQLITA) from Tertullian, c. 210:

TERTULLIAN ANF vol 3 , Part 2, chapter 8 and 9 , pg. 603-604,

“Against Praxeas”

Septimius Tertullian (c. 160-240) , presbyter in the Church at Carthage, North Africa, wrote numerous  apologies, works against hereitcs, and exhortations to other Christians. ( pg. 639, Bercot's Dictionary. See References. ) 

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, “I am in the Father;” and is always with God, according to what is written, “And the Word was with God;” and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since “I and the Father are one.”

This will be the prolation [i.e., extension, never disconnected from the source, /  SrJH], taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him.

For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are probolai>, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed.

I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring.

Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God.

Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son — two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones.

Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three.

Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun.

Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties.

In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy.

CHAPTER 9

THE CATHOLIC [ i.e. universal, not Roman / SrJH ] RULE OF FAITH EXPOUNDED IN SOME OF ITS POINTS. ESPECIALLY IN THE UNCONFUSED DISTINCTION OF THE SEVERAL PERSONS OF THE BLESSED TRINITY

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said.

Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other.

This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the SON+, and the Spirit.

I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that HE+ is different, but by distinction; because THE FATHER is not the same as the SON+, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being.

For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.”

Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.

Happily the Lord Himself+ employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead);

for HE+ says, “I+ will pray the Father, and HE shall send you another Comforter.... even the Spirit of truth,”  [John 14:16, 17] thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself+, even as we say that the SON+ is also distinct from THE FATHER; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the SON+, by reason of the order observed in the Economy.

Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?

For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate.

“Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.”

<(((><

>>> REFERENCES for Quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF)

NOTE: Material is from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volumes 1-10,  American Edition ( a reprint of Christian Literature Publishing Co. 1886), 2nd printing 1995, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA. ISBN 1-56563-087-4

Some supplemental information and dates are from: David W. Bercot, editor, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998. ISBN 978-1-56563-870-9

Digital Copy from: The Master Christian Library Version 8 CD-ROM 2000 Ages Softward, Rio, WI  www.ageslibrary.com

NOTE: This Digital Copy of the ANF does NOT contain any Introductory Notes from the translators and editors, no footnotes, and no elucidations and comments at the end of the books, although these helpful items are contained in the hard copy listed above.

~  ~  ~

NOTE: Comments in green are from the Order of the GOOD SHEPHERD+; extra words in black are in the text from the editors. Color added to pronouns, etc., for clarity.