let me get this straight, you are now, publicly admitting, that the son of God, Jesus Christ, had a beginning, in that he, was a created entity? as is stated in the Holy Bible, at Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22
“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. . . . Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labour pains . . . When he prepared the heavens I was there; . . . then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, . . . and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.”—Prov. 8:22-31.
Jewish commentators, objecting to any application of this passage to Jesus as the Messiah, have usually held that this is merely a literary personification of wisdom. Thus, W. Gunther Plaut, in his work Book of Proverbs—A Commentary, says that these verses apply to Wisdom “personified only in a figurative way.” This passage, however, cannot be speaking merely about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract. Why not? Because the “Wisdom” that is here depicted was “created” or “produced” (Hebrew, qanah) as the beginning of Jehovah’s way. The Scriptures show that Jehovah God himself has always existed. (Ps. 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17) Since he is eternal and he has always been wise, then his wisdom has always existed; it never was created or produced; it was not “brought forth as with labour pains.” (Job 9:2, 4; 12:9, 13; 28:20, 23; Rom. 11:33-36) Wisdom does not exist apart from a personality capable of possessing and reflecting it. Consequently, this “Wisdom” must be a personification picturing someone who was created “as the beginning of [God’s] way.”
In the past, commentators and translators who held to the Trinity doctrine argued that qa·nah; should here be rendered “possessed.” Qanah; can convey the sense of either “acquire (possess)” or “produce.” (Gen. 4:1; Deut. 32:6; Ps. 139:13; Neh. 5:16) But scholars acknowledge that the context here points to the rendering “produced” or “created,” since verses 24 and 25 speak of Wisdom as being “brought forth as with labour pains.” This rendering is borne out by the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Version and the Targums. So now even translations by trinitarians, such as the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, use the rendering “produced” or “created.”
so now Jaywill, it is perfectly clear, is it not?
Originally posted by jaywillJaywill, we have been through this discussion before. There are some who can say with certainty that they will be saved. Paul is one such person, and he can say that because he also said
[b]=====================================
Get it through your thick skull Robbie; its either you accept what Jaywill says or you are not a Christian and you are not saved.
======================================
Rajk999,
Perhaps you should get it through your thick sarcasm that it was Robbie who admitted that he did not have the assurance that ...[text shortened]... m. He took the lead to admit he was unsure.
So please do not sarcastically twist the facts.[/b]
"... I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. " .
Can you say that as well? If you can, then good for you. Maybe Robbie cant. I cant. So I guess both Robbie and myself have to keep trying to fight the good fight and stay on course, and maybe one day we can say with certainty that we will be saved.
I know you think that a person is saved the minute they claim to have accepted Christ but I (and Robbie) dont agree. Thats unscriptural and contrary to what Christ taught.
Christ taught,
1. belief and faith
2. Good works
3. Judgement when He returns
then comes salvation if we are found worthy.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie============================
let me get this straight, you are now, publicly admitting, that the son of God, Jesus Christ, had a beginning, in that he, was a created entity? as is stated in the Holy Bible, at Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22
“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. . . . Before the mountains t ...[text shortened]... use the rendering “produced” or “created.”
so now Jaywill, it is perfectly clear, is it not?
Jewish commentators,
==============================
You are re-aiming your argument towards "Jewish commentators".
If you want to take the debate to "Jewish commentators" go ahead. Let me know when you are returning to debate with me.
I already acknowledge that I accepted that this personification of Wisdom, I think, refers to Christ. I have no objection to that.
=======================
Since he is eternal and he has always been wise, then his wisdom has always existed; it never was created or produced; it was not “brought forth as with labour pains.” (Job 9:2, 4; 12:9, 13; 28:20, 23; Rom. 11:33-36) Wisdom does not exist apart from a personality capable of possessing and reflecting it. Consequently, this “Wisdom” must be a personification picturing someone who was created “as the beginning of [God’s] way.”
==============================
I happen not to be at home right now. And I will look more into this matter.
============================
In the past, commentators and translators who held to the Trinity doctrine argued that qa·nah; should here be rendered “possessed.” Qanah; can convey the sense of either “acquire (possess)” or “produce.” (Gen. 4:1; Deut. 32:6; Ps. 139:13; Neh. 5:16) But scholars acknowledge that the context here points to the rendering “produced” or “created,” since verses 24 and 25 speak of Wisdom as being “brought forth as with labour pains.” This rendering is borne out by the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Version and the Targums. So now even translations by trinitarians, such as the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, use the rendering “produced” or “created.”
=========================
I will look more into that matter latter.
Rajk999,
============================
Jaywill, we have been through this discussion before. There are some who can say with certainty that they will be saved. Paul is one such person, and he can say that because he also said
"... I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. " .
=====================================
I appreciate you noticing and submitting this passage. However, this keeping of the faith of Paul is not his hanging on to eternal redemption. This is his keeping of the faith for the reward and not the gift.
Can you say that as well?
========================================[/b]
No I cannot say that. I have not yet come to the end of my course in life. See me when and if I realize that I am in my last days of my Christian life.
Excellent point Rajk999, excellent .... HOWEVER .... this keeping of the faith is not for not losing eternal redemption and eternal life as a GIFT of God. This keeping of the faith unto the end of the Christian course, is related to REWARD of the coming kingdom.
If you read First Corinthians chapter 3 you will see that Paul spoke of all of the believers being rewarded or losing a reward based upon their service to the Lord and how they "build" the church the house of God.
If you approach the New Testament with the concept that EVERY verse on faith, endurance, longsuffering, faithfulness, and keeping faith ONLY has to do with securing eternal redemption you will not understand it well.
We can talk more about this latter.
=============================
If you can, then good for you. Maybe Robbie cant. I cant. So I guess both Robbie and myself have to keep trying to fight the good fight and stay on course, and maybe one day we can say with certainty that we will be saved.
===============================
Obviously once a child is born, that child will have many trials in life through which they will have to endure.
In the spiritual life, once we are born again, there are also many daily trials of faith through which we need to "keep the faith" with endurance.
Being born is not an end in itself. It is a crucial first step in living. Being born again is not simply for itself. Once forgiven there are the trials of daily life and the need for endurance to serve the Lord through many difficulties.
John said "that you may KNOW that you have eternal life" in relation to eternal redemption and the GIFT of eternal life.
Paul said, he kept the faith and ran the full course for the reward in the kingdom. He was not concerned that he would lose eternal redemption. He was concerned that he would not walk in the works which God prepared for his Christian course so as to obtain a reward in the kingdom.
I wish that you would read the entire chapter of First Corinthians Three.
====================================
I know you think that a person is saved the minute they claim to have accepted Christ but I (and Robbie) dont agree. Thats unscriptural and contrary to what Christ taught.
Christ taught,
1. belief and faith
2. Good works
3. Judgement when He returns
=================================
I believe in all three of the above points.
But once a person is born he cannot be unborn. Birth is irreversable. And being born again is irreversable.
The issue is once one has received the new life, will he develop and grow in it to express Christ daily.
What does Romans 5:10 say ?
"For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, much more we shall be saved in His life, having been reconciled."
Step One - We who were enemies are RECONCILED to God through the death of His Son.
Step Two - Having BEEN RECONCILED we are to be "much more" saved in character, in living, in expression, and in daily walk in the whole realm of His indwelling life.
One is a Judicial reconcilation to God for eternity. The other is the organic salvation of the transformation of the soul and character.
Still the New Testament teaches that we should have the assurance of having received the gift of eternal life.
Rajk999's outline revisited:
========================
Christ taught,
1. belief and faith
2. Good works
3. Judgement when He returns
========================
1. Belief and Faith to be born again, to receive Christ initially. This is the irreverable GIFT of eternal life and eternal redemption.
2.) Good works - that is the works whch issue out of LIVING the indwelling Christ. His coming is not simply that you have a "ticket" to live forever. His coming is that He may dispense His life thoroughly into your actions, reactions, service, endurance.
You live out the Christ who has been imparted into you. Such living out and growing in Christ produces the works of Christ from you.
Such works will be rewarded. Such works do not secure for you the GIFT of eternal redemption eternal life.
3.) Judgment when He returns.
For the Christian judgment as to what will be their reward in His millennial kingdom. They have already been judged as to whether they are eternally saved.
THAT judgment took place on the cross of Jesus at Calvary. That matter is eternally decided. They will never perish in eternal perdition. They have been reconciled to God forever.
The judgment of Christians concerns how they GREW once they were reborn. And discipline for failing to grow is never, never the loss of the GIFT of eternal redemption.
Originally posted by jaywillthe Jewish commentators are just a little side order, we have bigger fish to fry than them 🙂
[b]============================
Jewish commentators,
==============================
You are re-aiming your argument towards "Jewish commentators".
If you want to take the debate to "Jewish commentators" go ahead. Let me know when you are returning to debate with me.
I already acknowledge that I accepted that this personification o ...[text shortened]... or “created.”
=========================[/b]
I will look more into that matter latter.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...and we do not justify worshipping created being as God, that's your forte...
the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, even after his subsequent resurrection is always subject to God, what is it about this that you do not understand? and we do not justify worshipping created being as God, that's your forte 🙂
The Bible teaches that we are to honor Christ as we honor God Himself. Christ said it is God's purpose "that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23). I don't have to justify worshipping a created being, because I know that Christ is God.
You, on the other hand, believe that Christ is not God; therefore you must justify why God would have you give the honor due only to Him to a created being instead.
If you leave this charge unanswered, I'm going to assume that you have no answer for it. It's not enough to merely blather on about how obviously right you are, and how obviously wrong I am, without fulling confronting any of the issues raised. It's easy enough to see through that kind of charade.
I forget where but in the Gospels Jesus tells the guy they brought through the roof to be healed your sins are forgiven.The Jews went nuts they were like does this Jesus also forgive sins? They knew or believed that this was God's prerogative alone to forgive sins. So Jesus took on a prerogative of God when he forgave the guy of sins. Also what did Jesus mean when he said before Abraham was I am ? How did he know what people were thinking before they saw him?
Manny
Originally posted by epiphinehasoh dear, are we resorting to a propaganda war, oh well, so be it, 🙂, its really funny and highly amusing, never the less, you stated earlier in the discussion that honour was to be given on equal terms, then used this, as you trinitarians are want to do, in an incredulous and grasping at straws type of fashion (pluck pluck pluckety pluck!) to somehow state that because honour was given to both God and the Christ, this made them equal. let me howl once again with laughter, HOWWWWLLLLLLLL,
[b]...and we do not justify worshipping created being as God, that's your forte...
The Bible teaches that we are to honor Christ as we honor God Himself. Christ said it is God's purpose "that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23). I don't have to justify worshipping a created being, because I know that Christ is God.
ronting any of the issues raised. It's easy enough to see through that kind of charade.[/b]
what is is about the Christ being subject to his Father, even after his resurrection that you do not understand, what is it about the Father honouring the son, and the son honouring his father that you do not understand? in fact, what is it about the Biblical meaning and usage of giving honour that you do not understand?
and let us be quite clear about this, for i will not stand for any more slanderous comments, each and every issue that you people have raised, has been fully addressed, whereas you on the other hand are to be fully found wanting in almost every respect, the fact of which i have already listed and presented to Jaywill, but as yet they answers are non existent or completely unsatisfactory!
In the fourth century C.E. clerics of the Roman Catholic Church formulated the Trinity doctrine, which claims that Jesus was equal to his Father and part of a triune deity. However, many careful Bible students have held that the Scriptures actually do not support this widely taught doctrine.
Volume 2 of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1976) considers this matter. It acknowledges that there are “a few New Testament texts that raise the question whether the Son of God is also called God.” But what is the overall picture found in the “New Testament,” or Christian Greek Scriptures?
This dictionary states:
“Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6).
In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). He is the mediator, but not the originator, of salvation (2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:15), the lamb of God who bears the sins of the world (Jn. 1:36). After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) and invested with the honour of the heavenly Kyrios, Lord (Phil. 2:9 f.). But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely coordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him. (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). This is true also of his position as eternal high priest in the heavenly sanctuary according to Heb. (Heb. 9:24; 10:12 f.; cf. Ps. 110:1). He represents us before God (cf. also Rom. 8:34). If in Rev. 1:13 ff. the appearance of the heavenly son of man is described with features from the picture of the ‘Ancient of Days’ (God) of Dan. 7, this is not to say that Christ is equal with God. In Rev. a distinction is always made between God and the ‘Lamb’.”
Surely the overall view of the Scriptures points to the fact that Jesus was not God as the Trinity doctrine claims.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit is not difficult for me to admit that i am wrong, but it is generally always the case with you trinitarians, that rather than actually look at what the general consensus of scripture is, you will doggedly cling to your perceptions and interpretations in an effort to substantiate your wild claims. you come to the scriptures with a pre conception, and determined to prove that it is there, will actually try every manner at your disposal to substantiate it, this lacks humility and is clearly wrong, for you are not letting the scriptures speak for themselves.
it is not difficult for me to admit that i am wrong, but it is generally always the case with you trinitarians, that rather than actually look at what the general consensus of scripture is, you will doggedly cling to your perceptions and interpretations in an effort to substantiate your wild claims. you come to the scriptures with a pre conception, ...[text shortened]...
Christ had a beginning, get over it my friend, i mean it, its undeniable and clearly stated.
Do you have an actual argument? Why should anyone pay any heed to your unsubstantiated opinions?
look at you, my goodness, you have went from Ephraim to being given the rights of firstborn, even though he was not actually born first, as were others and slyly and underhandedly tried to assert that this has any bearing whatsoever to the Christ being pre-eminent in position rather than the BEGINNING of Gods creation, its despicable, truly despicable!
I've merely disproved your contention that every instance of "firstborn" throughout scripture is to be understood literally. I gave you undeniable proof that you were wrong to make such a claim. How does this make me "sly" and "underhanded"?
BTW, your over-dramatic display of righteous indignation is more than a bit suspicious. Who are you trying to impress? I'm certainly not impressed.
Quite being so prickly and let's have a real debate, preferably without the character assassinations.
in the context of the psalms, there is a reference which has the two in the same context, first-born and a position of eminence, look how you grasped it as if it was incontrovertible proof, that by their mere juxtaposition, it was undeniable proof that collossians 1:15 should be translated as pre-eminent, and you wonder why we howl with laughter.
My only aim was to weaken your position, which I have.
Nowhere have I ventured to claim that it is undeniable that "firstborn" in Col. 1:15 should be translated as preeminent. You have inferred (incorrectly) that I might take that position.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am sorry this does not merit a response, i thought about it and immediately dismissed it, post something with content that we can discuss, not these half baked perceptions that you are want to dish up.
it is not difficult for me to admit that i am wrong, but it is generally always the case with you trinitarians, that rather than actually look at what the general consensus of scripture is, you will doggedly cling to your perceptions and interpretations in an effort to substantiate your wild claims. you come to the scriptures with a pre conception, a ated as preeminent. You have inferred (incorrectly) that I might take that position.[/b]
as for impressing anyone, i am simply not interested, i have better things to do than feed peoples egos, including my own.
perhaps you will now explain why giving honour and glory to both the son and the father make them equal, as you originally asserted?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTrinity doctrine, I hope you are aware, also teaches that there is a definite distinction between God and the Lamb. It is awfully futile, therefore, to seek to substantiate your claim that Christ is not God by underscoring that distinction.
oh dear, are we resorting to a propaganda war, oh well, so be it, 🙂, its really funny and highly amusing, never the less, you stated earlier in the discussion that honour was to be given on equal terms, then used this, as you trinitarians are want to do, in an incredulous and grasping at straws type of fashion (pluck pluck pluckety pluck!) to someho ...[text shortened]... view of the Scriptures points to the fact that Jesus was not God as the Trinity doctrine claims.
I'm glad that you brought up Phil. 2:6 as referenced in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, which you quoted from: "Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being." Trinity doctrine asserts this, too: Christ's oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being, i.e., The Son and the Father are indeed two separate Persons, yet one in substance.
Before The Son of God humbled himself in order to become a man, in likeness of human flesh, He was "in the form of God." What does it mean to be "in the form of God" exactly? Can you answer that? How can a person be "in the form of God" and not also be God?
"Being in the form of God, [The Son] did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:6-8).
Do any of the angels exist "in the form of God" ? Who else can be "in the form of God" except God?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieperhaps you will now explain why giving honour and glory to both the son and the father make them equal, as you originally asserted?
I am sorry this does not merit a response, i thought about it and immediately dismissed it, post something with content that we can discuss, not these half baked perceptions that you are want to dish up.
as for impressing anyone, i am simply not interested, i have better things to do than feed peoples egos, including my own.
perhaps you will no ...[text shortened]... ing honour and glory to both the son and the father make them equal, as you originally asserted?
If Christ is not God, what justification might you have for honoring him as God? Further, why would God the Father allow one of his creatures to receive the glory which belongs only to Him? If Christ is not God, then the Father has commanded us to commit idolatry by honoring as God someone other than Himself.
It doesn't add up, Robbie. How do you respond?
Originally posted by epiphinehashere is an article that i recently read, it echoes my own sentiments on the trinity and sheds light on why we cannot, nor will not except this idea, of substance.
Trinity doctrine, I hope you are aware, also teaches that there is a definite distinction between God and the Lamb. It is awfully futile, therefore, to seek to substantiate your claim that Christ is not God by underscoring that distinction.
I'm glad that you brought up Phil. 2:6 as referenced in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theol s exist "in the form of God" ? Who else can be "in the form of God" except God?
WHY NEWTON REJECTED THE TRINITY
Through his scientific studies Newton came to have a high regard for the ‘Book of Nature’ and saw in it the evidence of design by God, the great Author. He also believed that the Bible was the revelation of God, and that it was always in harmony with the testimony of creation.9
The Bible was Newton’s touchstone for testing teachings and doctrine. In discussing the creeds of the Church, Newton made this position very clear. On the basis of the eighth of the Thirty-nine Articles dealing with the Nicene, Athanasius’ and Apostles’ Creeds, he said of the Church of England:
“She doth not require us to receive them by authority of General Councils, and much less by authority of Convocations, but only because they are taken out of the Scriptures. And therefore are we authorised by the Church to compare them with the Scriptures, and see how and in what sense they can be deduced from thence? And when we cannot see the Deduction we are not to rely upon the Authority of the Councils and Synods.”
His conclusion was even more emphatic:
“Even General Councils have erred and may err in matters of faith, and what they decree as necessary to salvation is of no strength or authority unless they can be shown to be taken from the holy Scripture.”10
Newton’s principal reason for rejecting the Trinity was that when he sought to verify the statements of the creeds and the councils he found no support in Scripture for the doctrine.
In weighing this evidence, Newton firmly held that reasoning should be used. He argued that nothing created by God was without purpose and reason, and Bible teachings would be sustained by similar application of logic and reason. Speaking of the apostle John’s writings, Newton said: “I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense; and therefore take that sense to be his which is the best.”11 So, as a second reason for rejecting the Trinity teaching, Newton declared: “Homoousion [the doctrine that the Son is of the same substance as the Father] is unintelligible.’Twas not understood in the Council of Nice, nor ever since. What cannot be understood is no object of belief.”12
Dealing with this same aspect of the Trinity is a Newton manuscript entitled “Queries Regarding the Word Homoousios.” It reveals a third reason for his denial of the Trinity. This teaching was not part of early Christianity. Queries twelve to fourteen all highlight the doctrine’s lack of original first-century character:
“Query 12. Whether the opinion of the equality of the three substances was not first set on foot in the reign of Julian the Apostate [361-363 C.E.], by Athanasius, Hilary, etc.?
Query 13. Whether the worship of the Holy Ghost was not first set on foot presently after the Council of Sardica? [343 C.E.]
Query 14. Whether the Council of Sardica was not the first Council which declared for the doctrine of the Consubstantial Trinity?”13
In another manuscript, now preserved in Jerusalem, Newton summed up the only answer to such questions. “We are commanded by the Apostle (2 Timothy 1:13) to hold fast the form of sound words. Contending for a language which was not handed down from the Prophets and Apostles is a breach of the command and they that break it are also guilty of the disturbances and schisms occasioned thereby. It is not enough to say that an article of faith may be deduced from scripture. It must be exprest in the very form of sound words in which it was delivered by the Apostles.” 14
So on the basis of Scripture, reason and the authentic teaching of early Christianity, Newton found that he could not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. He believed strongly in the supreme sovereignty of Jehovah God, and the proper position of Jesus Christ, neither derogating him as the Son of God nor elevating him to the position occupied by his Father.15 In discussing with John Locke the passage of Daniel 7:9, he wrote, “Whence are you certain that ye Ancient of Days is Christ? Does Christ anywhere sit upon ye Throne?”16 His own conclusion here is obvious, and the clarity of his thought regarding the relationship of the Father with the Son is always evident in Newton’s writings. So elsewhere he makes the point that prayer can be made to “God in the name of the Lamb, but not to the Lamb in the name of God.”17
Perhaps the best summary of Isaac Newton’s Scriptural arguments for his repudiation of the Trinity is found in fourteen ‘Argumenta,’ written in Latin, giving Bible citations for many of them. Numbers four to seven are particularly interesting:
“4. Because God begot the Son at some time, he had not existence from eternity. Proverbs 8:23, 25.
5. Because the Father is greater than the Son. John 14:28.
6. Because the Son did not know his last hour. Mark 13:32, Matt. 24:36, Rev. 1:1, 5:3.
7. Because the Son received all things from the Father.”18
A perusal of Newton’s religious writings cannot fail to impress the reader with their thoroughness, and a realization of his long and deep meditation, his scholarly ability and grasp of the original Bible languages. His conclusions regarding the Trinity therefore merit our respect and consideration, even though he did not feel constrained to make them public during his lifetime.
Today, when much more evidence is available than Newton had access to, we too should make investigation of our beliefs as he did, always seeking to reason first on the evidence of God’s Word. This will build in us a strong faith fully in harmony with the teaching of original Christianity.
1. The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 ed., Vol. 16, p. 420.
2. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1973 ed., Vol. 14, p. 308.
3. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, edited by H. W. Turnbull, F.R.S., Cambridge 1961, Vol. 1, p. XVII.
4. An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Sir Isaac Newton, Edition of 1830, London, p. 60.
5. Ibid., p. 95.
6. Our Unitarian Heritage, by Earl M. Wilbur, Boston 1925, pp. 289-294.
7. History of English Nonconformity, by Henry W. Clark, London 1913, Vol. II, p. 157.
8. Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke and Newton, by H. McLachlan, Manchester 1941, pp. 146, 147.
9. The Religion of Isaac Newton, by F. E. Manuel, Oxford 1974, p. 48.
10. Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts, selected and edited by H. McLachlan, Liverpool 1950, pp. 37, 38.
11. An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, p. 61.
12. Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts, p. 17.
13. Ibid., pp. 45, 46
14. The Religion of Isaac Newton, pp. 54, 55. Yahuda Ms. 15.1.fol.11r.
15. The Religion of Isaac Newton, p. 61.
16. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, Vol. III, Letter 362.
17. The Religion of Isaac Newton, p. 61, Yahuda Ms. 15.4.fol.67v.
18. Isaac Newton, A Biography, p. 642.