MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01DAAD20.105CD910" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive. ------=_NextPart_01DAAD20.105CD910 Content-Location: file:///C:/7315DE0C/P088.html.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" The Original Doctrines of the Christian Faith (No. 088)

Ch= ristian Churches of God

No. 088



The Original Doctrines of the Christian Faith up= to the Quartodeciman

Schism of 154-192 CE

(Edition 1.5 20020810-2= 0240519)

The Trinity did not come into exist= ence until it was defined at the Council of Constantinople in 381. At Nicea in 325 the Trinity was not formulated. Only the foundation of the Binitarian structure was laid= down here. All the Catholic Church was Unitarian until the Modal structure enter= ed Rome from the worship of Attis in the beginning of the third century.

 = ;


Christian Churches of God

PO Box 369,  WODEN  ACT 2606,  AUSTRALIA


E-mail: secretary@ccg.org



(Copyright ©  2002, 2024  Wade Cox)


This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided= it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s = name and address and the copyright notice must be included.  No charge may be levied on recipie= nts of distributed copies.  Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breachi= ng copyright.


This paper is available from the World Wide Web page: h= ttp://www.logon.org and http://www.ccg.org



The Original Doctrines of the Chr= istian Faith


The view of the church in Rome in t= he middle of the second century was that Christ was the Great Angel of the OT = who gave the law to Moses. This view is contained in Justin Martyr's First Apology to the emperor in Ro= me on behalf of the Church at around 150-155 CE. The godhead went from this Unita= rian view throughout the Church in the second century to the Modalist structure of the pagans in the third and then the Bini= tarian views of Nicea and the return of the Unitarians= from 327 to the Trinitarian ascension in 381. The Modern Catholic position would have been denounced as heresy in the first and second century in Rome itsel= f, let alone in the more conservative areas under the schools of the apostles.=


The extant Creeds of mainstream Christianity are the result of the activities of the Fourth century. They a= re all attempts at placing the theology of Constantinople on an earlier footin= g.

The Nicene Creed is actually a reconstruction of the Canons of Constantinop= le in 381. The canons of Nicea were "lost&quo= t; and the creed was reconstructed to make it appear that the creed was of an earl= ier date.

The so-called Apostles Creed is of a similar invention. The legend that it = was written by the apostles on the day of Pentecost is a popular myth of the Mi= ddle Ages alleged to date back to the sixth century (cf. Pseudo Augustine in Mig= ne P. L., XXXIX, 2189 and Pirminius ibid. LXXXIX, = 1034; Catholic Encyclop= edia, Vol. 1, p. 629).

It is allegedly foreshadowed in a sermon given by Ambrose (Migne P.L., XVII, 671; Kattensbusch I, 81). That sermon takes not= ice that the creed was pieced together by twelve separate workmen. So the twelve workmen then became the twelve apostles.


Rufinus (ca 400) (Migne P.L., XXI, = 337) gives

a detailed account of the compositi= on of the creed, which account he professed to have received from earlier ages. He does not assign each article to an apostle stating that they were the work = of all taking place on Pentecost. He uses the term symbol here to identify this rule of faith.

The earliest known instance of this term was ca. 390 in a letter addressed = to Pope Siricius by the Council of Milan (Migne, P= .L., XVI, 1213; cf. CE, ibid.).

The term was Symbolum Apos= tolorum (Creed of the Apostles).

There is no record ever of an instance for such a creed or symbol prior to = the Council of Milan.

The conclusion is obvious. After Constantinople they were faced with the ta= sk of defining the new Trinitarian system and were seeking some symbol or docu= ment that they could reconstruct, which predated the reconstructions of the Coun= cil of Constantinople back to Nicea at 325. They th= en invented the so-called Apostles Creed to give the new theology of the Triune system some basis of acceptability.

The term "Symbolum" does not go back = beyond Cyprian and Firmilian writing in the third cent= ury. Firmilian speaks of a creed as the "symbol of the Trinity" including it as an integral part of the rite of baptism (Mign= e, P.L., III, 1165, 1143). Kattensbusch tries to t= race the use of words back to Tertullian (cf. II, p. 80, note and cf. CE ibid., = p. 630).

The concept of creed is held to have been seen in terms such as "regula fidei", "doctri= na", "traditio". These terms, regulation o= f the faith, doctrine, and tradition, in no way isolate the existence of the so-called Apostles Creed and there is no evidence of such a work. In fact t= he written statements of the faith are such that they would have regarded the fourth century creeds as heretical from the writings we have extant.

The greatest 19th century theologian Harnack says the Apostles Creed repres= ents only the baptismal confession of the church in Southern Gaul dating at the earliest from the last half of the fifth century (Das = apostolishe Glaubensbekenntniss, 1892, p. 3; cf. CE ibid.).= The Roman Catholic, Herbert Thurston, agrees with this statement but says that = it was not in Gaul, but in Rome that the creed received its final form (ibid; = cf. Burn, The Journal of Theological St= udies, July 1902).


Both of these hold that another and= older form of the creed termed R came to existence in the second century in Rome,= and Thurston tries to show this dates back to the apostolic age.

The early R form was as follows:

1. I believe in God the Father Almi= ghty;

2.=   And in Jesus Christ His only son our Lord;

3. Who was born of (de) the Holy Sp= irit and of (ex) the Virgin Mary;

4. Crucified under Pontius Pilate a= nd buried;

5. The Third Day he rose again from= the dead;

6. He ascended into heaven,<= /p>

7. Sitteth on the Right Hand of the Father;

8. Whence he shall come to judge th= e living and the dead,

9. And in the Holy Spirit;

10. The Holy Church;

11. The forgiveness of sins;=

12. The Resurrection of the Body.


This is the earliest creed we can p= roduce and it dates from the second century in Rome.

The T document (p. 5 below) is acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church to have achieved its final shape in Rome shortly before 700 CE (ibid.).

Thus the concept of the declaration of “Creator of heaven and earth” was added, as were the words, "descended into hell", "the communion of saints", "life everlasting", and the words "conceived", "suffered", "died" and "Catholic".

If there is an early document it is based on the concepts here and in the statements of Tertullian from where we can make some reconstructions.

There is no doubt that the later Apostle’s Creed is a forged document containing concepts that would have been rejected by the early church.


Elements of the Creed from Tertullian=

We can reconstruct the Old Roman Cr= eed from the writings of Tertullian ca. 200 and Thurston has done this in his origin= al work for the Catholic Encyclopaedia= of 1907, vol. 1, p. 630.


His three writings used for this pu= rpose are:


De Virg. Vel. (P.L, II 889).

(1) Belie= ving in one God Almighty, maker of the world.

(2) And H= is son Jesus Christ,

(3) Born = of the Virgin Mary (Mariam)

(4) Cruci= fied under Pontius Pilate,

(5) On th= e third day brought to life from the dead,

(6) Recei= ved in heaven,

(7) Sitti= ng now at the right hand of the Father,

(8) Will = come to judge the living and the dead:

(12) T= hrough resurrection of the flesh (see below).


Adv. Prax. ii (P. L., II, 156).

(1) We be= lieve one only God;

(2) And t= he son of God Jesus Christ;

(3) Born = of the Virgin;

(4) Him s= uffered dead and buried;

(5) Broug= ht back to life;

(6) Taken= again into heaven;

(7) Sits = at the right hand of the Father;

(8) Will = come to judge the living and the dead;

(9) Who h= as sent from the Father the Holy [Spirit];

&= nbsp;

Praeser., De. xiii and xxxvi (P.L. II, 26,49).=

(1) I bel= ieve in one God maker of the world;

(2) The W= ord called His son Jesus Christ;

(3) By th= e Spirit and power of God the father made flesh in Mary’s [Mariam’s] wom= b, and born of her.

(4) Faste= ned to a cross;

(5) He ro= se the third day;

(6) Was c= aught up in heaven;

(7) Sat a= t the right hand of the Father;

(8) Will = come with glory to take the good into life eternal and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire;

(9) Sent = the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit;

(10) T= o govern believers (in this passage (9) and (10) precede (8) as noted by Thurston ibid.).

(12) R= estoration of the Flesh.


We can see from these two texts tha= t the R document was later supplanted by the existing form referred to as T.  Thurston denies that the ancient R document was really believed to be the original creed of the apostles; otherwise they would not have altered the form.


Importantly, they are distinct. The= R document and Tertullian, in existence up the end of the Second century, are absolutely Unitarian. Those early documents claim the pre-existence of Jesus Christ before the incarnation. This matter is examined in Cox, The Pre-Existence of Jesus = Christ (No. 243), (CCG, 1998).

&nb= sp;

There is an absolute emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh to judgment and eternal life.


The resurrection of Jesus Christ on= the third day was by the Father. He was conceived by the power of God, which is= the Holy Spirit. Thus the Spirit is a power and not a person.


The R document has point (11), name= ly the forgiveness of sins, which Tertull= ian omits in his writings no doubt from the mindset that later in his career mo= ved him into Montanist doctrines.


Tertullian has made reference to th= e fact that the Jews kept the Sabbaths, New Moons and festivals, and that they were beloved by God until the Jews perverted them. He mistakenly misconstrues the argument, nevertheless acknowledging that they were kept, and that the paga= ns were more faithful in their festivals than the Christians in theirs. (Tertullian, On Idolatry, ch. XIV, ANF,= vol. III, p. 70.)


The resurrection of the dead was to= the flesh and thus the existence of heaven and hell was denied. We can confirm these aspects by reference to the early writings below.


We know for a fact that the early c= hurch was never as vehement as in the insistence on the oneness of God, who was t= he Father, and in the denial of the existence of heaven and hell.


We know for a fact that the word Trinity did not exist in relation = to Christianity in the first two centuries. The closest we come to it is in the writings of Theophilius of Antioch who uses the term trias which is incorrectly rendered as Trinity in the Engl= ish translation of his works. This matter has been examined in the work Cox, Early Theology of the Godhe= ad (No. 127) (CCG, 1995, 1999).


Justin Martyr is a valuable referen= ce for the doctrines and the views of the church at the beginning of the Quartodec= iman Disputes, at the time of the ascension of Anicetus to the office of bishop = of Rome and the introduction of the pagan Easter system as a substitute for the Passover (see Cox, The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235))<= /span> (CCG, 1998), and The Quartodeciman Disputes (No. 277)= ) (CCG 1998).


Justin quite clearly identifies Chr= ist as the Angel of the Presence who gave the Law to Moses at Sinai (First Apology= , ch. LXIII, AN= F, Vol. 1, p. 184). He identifies Christ as the subordinate God of Israel appointed by the Father and mentioned in Psalm 45:6-7 (Second Apology, LXXX= VI, ibid, p. 242).


He also says in his Dialogue with Trypho LXXX:

= For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth of the resurrection], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abrah= am, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of= the dead, and that their souls when they die are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians…(ibid., ANF ibid., p. 239).


Justin in this= same text goes on to establish beyond doubt that the Resurrection will be of the dead saints with Christ:

= But I and others who are right minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel = and Isaiah and others declare (ibid).


There is no= doubt that Christians, who were the mainstream at this time, viewed the Gnostic doctrines of Heaven and Hell as godless and blasphemous doctrines (see also Cox, The Soul (No. 092) (CCG, 1995); The Resurrection of the Dea= d (No. 143) (CCG) <= span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'color:windowtext'>and also Heaven, Hell or the= First Resurrection of the Dead (No. 143A)).

&nb= sp;

The early true Christians believed = in a physical resurrection to eternal life and a millennial system, or Chiliad, = of a period of one thousand years, ruled from Jerusalem, and a Judgement at the = end of that system of all flesh.


From the writings of Irenaeus in ex= position of the Bible texts, we know that they also believed that the rule of the celestial system would be as saints resurrected to spiritual form and appoi= nted as elohim, with and as the Angel of God at thei= r head (Zech. 12:8; cf. Cox, The Elect as Elohim (No. 00= 1)) (CCG 1994, 1999). 

&nb= sp;

It was their view that the elect wo= uld assume duties as the council of the Elohim alongside Christ. It was the view that God was extending himself as Elohim for the singular Eloah and that the elect would become gods as God and with God. It was in this way that God was extending Himself and the Holy Spirit was the power used to that end (Cox, = Consubstantial with the Fat= her (No. 081)) (CCG, 1994, 1999)= and The Holy Spirit (No. 117)) (CCG, 1994, 2000).


The introduction of Sunday worship = into Rome was under the influence of the Mystery and Sun Cults (see S. Bacchiocc= hi, From Sabbath to Sunday, Pontifical Gregorian University Press Rome, 1975). This error was followed by a series= of innovations such as the introduction of Easter. When Easter was introduced = by Anicetus for political reasons, it was resisted by the church outside of Ro= me, whose spokesman was the disciple of John, namely Polycarp. When Bishop Vict= or, ca 192, forced its uniform acceptance in the Roman Church, Polycrates as successor to Polycarp, was unable to stem the flow of error and the Christi= an church divided in what was, notwithstanding the Montanist error, perhaps the first great Schism. It was done at the order of Victor who declared all who would not accept Easter in place of the Passover as anathema (Cox, (No. 277 op.cit).


So the first major schism was in 19= 2 with the Passover/Easter controversy when Easter was introduced to the church fr= om Rome by force. (cf. The Quartodeciman Disputes = (No. 277)). By 325 at the Council of Nicea there had seen so much pagan doctrine introduced through the worship of Att= is and the Easter system that another division occurred from the Council of Nicea.


Innovation grew upon innovation bas= ed on the Mystery cults and the political drives of the church leaders. By the Council of Constantinople the great error of the Trinity had occurred under= the Cappadocians and Augustine forced theology into the in= tradivine instrospection from which it has never recovere= d.


The Nicene Creed so called was form= ed in 381 from Constantinople because the canons were supposedly lost (see also Cox, = Binita= rianism and Trinitarianism (No. 076)) (CCG, 1994, 2000)).


The T Document referred to by Thurs= ton (loc. cit.) reads:

(1)  I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth;

(2)  And in Jesus Christ His only son our Lord;

(3)  Who was conceived by the Holy [Spirit], born of the Virgin Mary [Mariam];

(4)  Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried;

(5)  He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead;

(6)  He ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand= of God the Father Almighty;

(7)  From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

(8)  I believe in the Holy [Spirit],

(9)  The Holy Catholic Church, the communion= of saints:

(10) The forgiveness of sins,=

(11) The resurrection of the body, and

(12) Life everlasting


Thurston notes that the differences= , other than a detailed examination of the Latin text, are that the R document does= not contain the terms “Creator of heaven and earth,” “descend= ed into Hell,” “the communion of saints,” “life everlasting,” nor the words “conceived,” “suffered,” “died” and “Catholic.” Thur= ston considers that many of the words if not all, were known to Jerome in Palest= ine ca 380 (referring to Morin in Revue Benedictine, January, 1904, ibid.).


Thus the error is direct to the sou= rce of the Cappadocians in the period immediately prior to Constantinople in 381, = if we are to accept this view.


The formation of Islam was inevitab= le. By 632 CE, the groundwork was set for a division of theology and Monotheism th= at would gradually become so estranged that the greatest Holocaust in history = is shortly to burst upon us. The perpetrators are the Trinitarian, Hadithic and Talmudic Scholars, who have lied and distorted the history of religion for their own ends and killed everyone who spoke the truth about the original f= aith and tried to follow that faith once delivered to the saints.


Trinitarianism and Nicea

The major assumption of modern day Christianity is that God exists as three entities or hypostases. The three entities are described as the Father, Son= and Holy Spirit, whether or not they are described as persons. The three entities are said to form a Trinity.


Another equally false assumption is= that the early Church was Binitarian rather than Trinitarian. This is to say that Christ, while being subordinate, was nevertheless co-eternal. There were thus two true Gods existing side by sid= e as Father and Son. This is what is known anciently as the Dual Power Heresy. T= his contravenes the testimony of John (17:3 and 1Jn. 5:20) who holds that there= is only One True God and that Jesus Christ is His son. Also the writings of Pa= ul hold that only God is immortal from 1Timothy 6:16. The understanding of John and Paul and the other apostles was also held by the disciples of John and their heirs.


The assertion that God is confined = to three entities each being co-eternal and co-equal was not the understanding of the Apostolic and early Church. The concept of a Godhead of three beings preced= ed Christ by many centuries. There is no doubt that the triune god is found among the earliest civilisations and is kno= wn to extend east into Asia. These concepts entered Christianity largely throu= gh the Greeks and their influence on the Romans.


The First Reference to a Threefold Aspect of God in Christianity

The first instance of a reference t= o the Christian Godhead as three entities was by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 CE) who used the term trias of which the Latin trinitas is held to be a translation. The term was used where he spoke of the trias of God, His Word and His Wisdom (Theophilus to Autolycus. The ANF here translates the word trias as trinity). The next instance = of the use of the term is by Tertullian (D= e Pud, c. xxi, P.G., II, 1026). Tertullian was the = first to directly assert the essential unity of the three 'persons', but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, V= ol. II, p. 570). The nearest equivalent to the Nicene doctrine did not occur un= til proposed by the Roman Bishop Dionysius (CE 262) who was a Greek by birth. He was concerned to eliminate the process of reducing the three entities to separate Gods (Schaff, ibid.).


The assertion that God is an entity comprising two beings and a persona= as a spirit or power, which emanates from one or both is a later fourth, fi= fth and sixth century Trinitarian assertion. The assertion was made in modifica= tion of an original trias (above) and abandoned as inadequate. Both the triune cosmology and the Trin= ity, as it is now understood are biblically unsound.

The concept of the trinity may be d= efined in two ways as

1. "Three Persons who are equally pos= sessed of the divine nature". This is held to have been the dominant view sin= ce the Councils of Nicæa and Constantinople.=

2. The Son and the= Spirit as deriving from the Father who is the sole source of Godhead. This was the prevalent view of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Church generally up until= Nicæa (c. 325 CE) (see G.H. Joyce, The Catholic Encyc. (C.E.) article ‘Trinity’= ;, Vol. XV, p. 51).

&= nbsp;

The doctrine of the Trinity rests o= n a series of false assumptions made contrary to biblical evidence. The two maj= or false assumptions, which are evident from the quotes herein, are:

· that the te= rms translated God are confined to = one, two or three entities or hypostases; and

· that Christ= is God co-eternally and co-equally as God the Father is God.


Examining Co-Equality and Co-Eternality

Many of the Patristic writers denie= d the equality of the Son with the Father. Similarly their logic denies co-eternality. The relevant passages are as follows.


Our teacher of these things is Jesus C= hrist, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we = will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creat= or of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is therein, to which, as we m= ake it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (Apol. I, xiii)

And the first power after God the Fath= er and Lord of all is the Word [or logos], who is also the Son. (Apol. I, = xxxii)

It is wrong, therefore, to understand = the Spirit and the power of God, as anything else than the Word [or logos], who is also the firstborn = of God. (Apol. I, xxxiii)


Thus Justin thinks of the Logos as = an emanation of God, which is capable of individuation to embrace the concept = of the Spirit in general and Christ in particular.


The angels were also held to be con= formed to the image of God. From chapters 13, 16 and 61, Justin did not advocate t= he worship of angels.


Justin clearly identifies Christ as= the Angel of the Presence at Sinai who gave the law to Moses (First Apol. Ch. LXIII).


Justin was seemingly among the firs= t to record the introduction of Sunday worship (see Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 223ff.= ) yet he was still a subordinationist. He held peculiar antinomian views regarding the Sabbath and its application to the Jews as a peculiar punishment. These types of views were not supported by Christians at the time and Bacchiocchi holds that the Christian Church has never accepted such a false thesis (p. 225).  His dialogue with Trypho shows a dual keeping of the Sabbaths and Holy Days and it seems they did bo= th in Rome in the middle of the second century.


To hold that God established the circumcision and the Sabbath solely on account of the wickedness of the Jew= s as a distinguishing mark, to set them = off from other nations and us Christians so that the Jews only might suffer affliction (Dial. 16:1, 21:1; see also Bacchio= cchi, ibid.) makes God guilty of gross respect of persons and is contrary to the entire sentiment of the confessions of the Reformation. In spite of this er= ror, his view of the Godhead is still subordinationist. However, he introduces emanationist reasoning which seems to accompany this a= ntinomianist approach. As we have seen, Justin, however, still denied the doctrine of the Soul and heaven as non-Christian stemming from the mystery cults.


Irenæus says of God= :

For He commanded, and they were create= d; He spake and they were made. Whom therefore did He comma= nd? The Word, no doubt, by whom, He says, the heavens were established and all their power by the breath of His mouth [Ps. 33:6]. (Adv. haer. III, viii, 3)


Irenæus held that:<= /span>

It is clearly proved that neither the = prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him] Lord, except the = true and only God.... But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He = is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others = this very thing, existence; but the things, which have been made by Him (ibid.).=


Irenæus<= /span> extended the capacity to become God (theos or elohim) to the Logos here as distinct from the other things established (ibid.). He had already establis= hed the position of God and the Son and those of the adoption as theoi or = elohim an= d all sons of God from Book III, Chapter VI.


There is no doubt that Irenæus had a subordinationist view of the Godhead. The loyal Host are also included in= the council from the understanding in Revelation 4 & 5 – thus the loy= al Host are also the Ecclesia of God. There is no doubt that the term elohim or= theoi was= held to extend to the Church. This was the understanding of the first century Church both from John to Polycarp who taught Irenæus and on into the second and subsequent centuries.


Clement of Alexandria says in like manner:

For the Son is the power of God, as be= ing the Father's most ancient Word before the production of all things, and His Wis= dom. He is then properly called the Teacher of the beings formed by Him.<= /p>

Now the energy of the Lord has a refer= ence to the Almighty; and the Son is, so to speak, an energy of the Father. ("Strom.", VII, ii, P.G.,= IX, 410)


Clement, however, understood that t= he destiny of the elect was to become gods. He said when speaking of gnosis, which he held could be att= ained by man to some extent during his stay on earth:

But it reaches its climax after the de= ath of the body, when the soul of the [gnoostikos] is allowed to fly back to its original place, where after becoming a god, it can enjoy, in a complete and perpetual rest,= the contemplation of the highest divinity 'face to face', together with the oth= er [theoi] (S= .R.C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria A Stud= y In Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, Oxford, 1971, p. 142).

&= nbsp;

Thus here we see the combination of= the Greek gnosis combined with the = early doctrine that we would become theoi or elohim. There was no suggestion that Christ or the other= theoi wer= e equal to this highest divinity.


Hippolytus says and most significantly:

Now, that Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are the same, no = one is ignorant. But he makes his statement thus: "When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another's." For in t= his manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that the Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself; and that He is sty= led by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times. (Hippolytus repe= ats this opinion in his summary, Book X.) (Con. Noet, n. 14, "The Refutation of All Heresies", B= k. IX, Ch. V, ANF, Vol. V, pp. 127-128);


It is with this writer that we first develop the error that Christ was the only emanation of the Father. The oth= er elements of the heavenly Host are said to be creations of the Son and thus = do not share in the divine nature as does the Son. Now this is the basic error upon which the doctrine of the Trinity began to be built. The elohim as was demonstrated from the biblical context = are a multiple Host of which the Lamb is the High Priest. He is one of them as a fellow or comrade, even though all of the hierarchical structure was created by, or in him and for him (Col. 1:15).


The saints likewise become companio= ns to Christ from Hebrews 3:14 and hence brothers to the Host (Rev. 12:10) and co-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). The heavens, all things that were, referre= d to as being created by the Son, are the spiritual and physical structures. Thi= s is the intent of the references at John 1:3 regarding the creation and 1Corinthians 8:6 regarding the universe (or ta panta) and humans. Colossians 1:15-17 specifically allocates the creation of all things visible and invisible. The creation of thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, through = him and for him, cannot refer to the Council of the Elohim. The creation by Christ of the lordships (or kuriotetes) is not of the entities.


The New Catholic Encyclopedia (N.C.E.) article Trinity, Holy, Vol. XIV, McGraw Hi= ll, N.Y., 1967, p. 296 makes the most extraordinary assertion concerning the doctrine of Hippolytus.

Hippolytus in his refutation of Noetus (10) and the exaggerated identification of Chr= ist with the Father, insists that God was multiple from the beginning. <= /p>


This is simply false from a compari= son with the actual text of Hippolytus (C. <= span class=3DSpellE>Noetus 10) above.


Tertullian holds from Against (A= dv.) Praxeas that:

This one only God has also a Son, His = Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made...All are of one, = by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order= the three Persons- the Father, the = Son and the Holy [Spirit]: three however, not in condition but in degree; not in substance but in form; not in power but in aspect; yet of one substance, an= d of one condition, and of one power inasmuch as He is One God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, a= nd of the Son and of the Holy [Spirit]... (II);


Tertullian also says that the Fathe= r raised the Son from the dead (II). Thus Tertullian makes important distinctions in= the interrelationship of the three entities, which are aspects of the operation= of God in degree. The Son and the Spirit are processions from the Father and subordinate aspects of His manifestation. Tertullian gave the Trinity a numerical order and distribution (III). He also held that the Monarchy of G= od came from the Father (III). But that it was equally the Son's being held by both (III) being committed to the Son by the Father (IV).

&nb= sp;

Tertullian held that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. Tertullian holds (IV) that the Father and the Son are two separate persons. Thus, it might be asserted that true Bini= tarianism commences with Tertullian.


It has been seen from earlier devel= opment, and above, that the Bible and the early Church theologians were subordinationist and Unitarian. God the Father was the God and Father of the Messiah who was the firstborn of many brothers (Rom. 8:29). The Holy Spirit= is the mechanism by which all the Sons of God, the angels included, reach this position of unity with God. Christ was one of a multitude of the spiritual = Sons of God, but he was the only born (monogenes) (Son of) God, the first begotten (prototokos) of the heavenly Host as the high priest of the elohim.


This understanding began to be lost= through the syncretism of the early Church. The mystery cults had an effect on the theology and ritual of the early Church. Bacchiocchi (loc. cit.) traced the effect of the sun-cults on the transition from Sabbath to Sunday worship and the introduction of pagan festivals such as Christmas and Easter. The transition from the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover to the pagan Easter was quite extended.


Converts to Christianity from the mystery/sun cults increased pressure for the syncretisation and the de-Judification of the law and the festivals (see Bacchi= occhi, op. cit.), which were based on the lunar and not the solar calendar. This syncretic infusion built up to a climax in the Council of Nicæa. The biblical cosmology was based upon the sole and transcendent authority of Eloah. This had serious implications for the inviolate nature of the law. <= /span>


The alteration of the system could = only be logically validated if a process could be established which elevated Christ= to an equality with God and then gave authority to the Church to exercise such authority as might be construed as being conferred on the Church. The first inroad into the law was on the questions of the Passover and weekly Sabbath. The establishment of Sunday as a compulsory day of worship commenced with t= he Council of Elvira (c. 300).


It was no accident that Nicæa decided the issue of the Passover and the establishment of the pagan festiv= al of Easter. It was no accident that the next issue decided was the Sabbath question where, at the Council of Laodicea c. 366 (the date is uncertain), = the Council, at Canon 29, prohibited Sabbath keeping and established Sunday as = the official day of worship of the Church. Thus the stage was set for what was perceived as the removal of the so-called Judaising elements of the Christian faith.


First Century Church

The original Catholic Church believ= ed:

1. In one True God who had nothing = coeval within Himself and from him all the sons of God, including Jesus Christ, we= re generated.

2. In the Resurrection of the Dead = and the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ from Jerusalem.

3. It had two sacraments of the chu= rch.

4. It kept the Bible Sabbaths, New = Moons and Feasts according to the Temple Calendar.

5. It believed that the saints were= those of the church who died and were awaiting the First Resurrection at the end = of this age and the beginning of the millennium at the return of Christ.

6. It believed no one had ascended = into heaven save Christ who came down from heaven.

7. It believed that Christ was the = being who gave the Law to Moses at Sinai and who brought Israel out of Egypt.

8. It understood Christ was born of= a virgin who was a woman who had a series of children after that event, and a= s a saint awaits the resurrection of the dead.


The Holy Days were not eliminated a= s we see from the conduct of the Disciples in Acts. Acts 20:6 shows that they kept Unleavened Bread. After Unleavened Bread they sailed from Philippi. So we h= ave established that Paul and the Philippian Church were keeping the feasts. Ac= ts 20:7 says on the “mia ton Sabbaton” which is literally the “First of the Sabbaths” and Bullinger ho= lds this to be the first perfect Sabbath of the Omer count, and not Sunday. Thu= s, they also kept the Wave Sheaf and the lead up to Pentecost, which we know t= hey kept from Acts 2:1. They kept Pentecost or they would not have received the Holy Spirit. The phrase “Day of Pentecost was fully come,” means that they also kept the Sabbath the day before as part of this two-day fest= ival.


We know they kept the Day of Atonem= ent and the Feasts of the Seventh Month from the text in Acts 27:9, which refers to= the fast of Atonement. We cannot understand the plan of salvation without the H= oly Days of God. Christ was the Passover and the Wave Sheaf. He commanded us to keep the Lord’s Supper on the night he was betrayed, which is on the evening of 14 Abib.


Colossians 2:16 shows the Church was keeping all of the Sabbaths and New Moons and Holy Days. It says let no man judge you as to how you keep them, not ignore them. Acts shows clearly the entire Church was keeping the feasts and the Sabbaths and here, the New Moons. We have kept them for over 1,974 years. The Gospels are littered with references to the keeping of all the feasts by Christ and= the apostles. Not one reference exists that says they were not to be kept. Paul kept them and that can be interpreted from his writings (Acts 12:3; 20:6). 1Corinthians 5:7-8 explains how we are to keep the Feast of Unleavened Brea= d.


There is not one reference transferring the Sabbath, or telling the Church not to keep the Sabbaths, New Moons, and Feasts, and that includes Colossians 2:16. Paul set up an alms collection on the First Day of the week because it could not be done on the Sabbath. That is the only reference to meeting on Sunday. Even the day rendered as “First day of the week” is actually “first of the Sabbaths” in the Greek.


The New Testament plainly shows the= y did keep the food laws, and they did keep the Sacred Calendar, and they did keep the Passover. In fact, the Quartodeciman Disputes split the church in 192 a= nd the Sabbath-keeping Churches have been apart from the Roman Church ever sin= ce that date. Look at the paper The Quartodeciman Disputes = (No. 277).


The text in= Acts 15:24 is a forgery inserted into the Receptus with the express purpose of undermining the Law of God among the faithful. The Companion Bible KJV has a note to the effect that the words: “Saying you must be circumcised and keep the law” are not in the ancient texts, and are not in other Bibl= es that deal with or are based on the ancient texts.


In 1Corinth= ians 5:6-8 Paul was speaking of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover, which = is part of it, commencing on the Preparation Day of 14 Abib. He also instituted the formal Lord’s Supper on the first meal of the evening of 14 Abib = at the first Chagigah meal, which commenced the day of Preparation for the Passover the following evening, which Passover Christ was.


If one does not keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread, one does not understand the purpose of the removal of sin through the sacrifice of Christ. Paul and the other apostles and the early church kept all the feasts. The separation came in 192 when the Roman bishop tried to enforce the Easter heresy and forced the split of the church. See = Cox, The Quartodeciman Disputes = (No. 277). See also Cox, The Passover (No. 098)<= /span>; The Old and the New Leaven= (No. 106a); and The Wave Sheaf Offering (N= o. 106b).



The Christian Church was divided into two groups, the Unitarians and the Trinitarians from the fourth century councils. In the first two centuries, everyone was a Unitarian believing Christ was the Great Angel of the Old Testament. Trinitarians did not exist in Christianity. They were pagans in = Rome worshipping Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva the Immaculate Virgin.


The Binitarian= system of the worship of the god Attis entered Christianity from Rome and a= lso of Adonis from the east. It was adopted as Modalism in the third century and became Binitarianism at Nicaea in 325 in the Fo= urth century. After the Trinity was adopted from Constantinople in 381, the faith split again. It split over the introduction of Easter in the Second century (cf. Cox, The Quartodeciman Disputes (No. 277); = and The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235).


The Unitarians were at war with the Trinitarians for some centuries. Look at the paper The Unitarian/Trinitarian W= ars (No. 268). The Unitarians were also Sabbath-keepers. They we= re erroneously termed Arians. The family of Muhammad was of this Sabbatarian lineage.


In the fourth century, the Abyssini= an Church sent their archbishop Mueses to China via India. He established the Christians in China, who were Unitarian Sabbath-keeping. Many of these peop= le also formed among the trade alliances of the Arabs who became Muslims. These became known as the Hue Hue. The details are in= the paper General Distributi= on of the Sabbath-keeping Churches (No. 122). The Sabbatarians are still in China and there are about a million of them. Many have developed a heretical Sabellianism and now differ from the original doctrines. Some of them consider Jesus is God and Father.


At the Reformation, the Unitarian C= hurch split into two branches. One was a radical Unitarian element, which came in from the Protestant groups and kept Sunday from their Catholic days. The ot= her element came from the pre-Reformation Waldensian Church, and they were Sabbatarians. Their descendants are in Europe to this day. The problems can= be seen in the papers: The Role of the Fourth Commandment in the Historical Sabbath-keeping Churches of God (No. 170)= ; and Socinianism, Arianism and Unitarianism (No. 185).


This radical Unitarian system denie= s the pre-existence of Christ and, in historical terms, is a relatively recent innovation. Islam also developed this idea fairly early. It is not the orig= inal Unitarian, or even Islamic doctrine, nor is it that of biblical Judaism regarding the Messiah. The history of what happened to the Church in Transylvania is found in the work by Rabbi Samuel Kohn, The Sabbatarians in Transylvania, CCG Publishing, USA, 1998. Lo= ok also at the paper The Pre-Existence = of Jesus Christ (No. 243) for other details and the creed of the Goths.


Up until the last few decades, all = the Sabbath-keeping Churches were non-Trinitarians. The Seventh Day Adventists became Trinitarians, formally as late as 1978. The Worldwide Church of God = in 1993/4 and the Church of God (SD) at Denver became Bin= itarian in 1995. The other US conference became ditheist.


The other Churches of God range from Trinitarian, to Binitarians, to Ditheists. One,= the Christian Churches of God, is original Unitarian holding the first century beliefs. The Unitarians Universalists are what is termed radical Unitarians= , as are the Churches of God General Conference in Georgia.


The Elect as Elohim

The ultimate destiny of the elect i= s to exist as Elohim or theoi under the power and wi= thin the spirit of Almighty God. This position was held by Christ (Jn. 10:34-35;= Ps. 82:6) and was the original understanding of the church. In the Bible, words applied to the Deity are also applied to humans. Eloah (or Elahh) is applied to God Almighty and is always singular =3D The One True God. The= word Elohim (SHD 430) is plural and used for divine representatives as well as to judges or rulers showing that the term extended to humans as well as the angelic beings. The name carried the authority conferred on it by God.


The Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugarit and Nag Hammadi texts have shed important light on what was actually understood to = be the meaning of the biblical texts at the time of Christ. The Bible refers t= o a council of the Elohim or Elim and the term extended way beyond a duality or trinity. The Bene Elim is identified as the sons of The God, as are the Bene Elyon the sons of the Most High. Psalm 89:6-8 mentions the saints or holy o= nes (qesdosim) who are God’s celestial attend= ants and the term is extended to include the human faithful (Heb. 8:5). <= /p>


The governing council of ancient Is= rael was a reflection of the heavenly system. This pattern was understood throughout= the Bible. It was God’s stated intention in His covenant that He would wr= ite His law on the hearts and minds of people so that they would know Him (Heb. 8:10-11). The Old Testament demonstrates the subordinate relationship of the Elohim, and also identifies the Angel of YHVH in a progressive manner. He is also identified as the Angel or Messenger of the Presence of God (Isa. 63:9= ).


In fact there are instances of mult= iple supernatural beings appearing and being referred to as YHVH. For instance in Genesis 19 when three appeared to Abraham, there was no distinction between them. The destruction of Sodom was done by Elohim (Gen. 19:24,29). Here the title Yahovah or YHVH is applied in a hierarchi= cal structure from God Most High or Eloah, YHVH of Hosts to the Elohim of Israe= l, a subordinate god to the two angels who in turn were subordinate to that Eloh= im. The term is one of delegated authority from Eloah. The angel of YHVH appear= ed many times in the Old Testament; he had many interchangeable titles. He was= the Elohim of the Patriarchs (Ex. 3:6); he was Peniel, the Face of God (Gen. 32:24-30); the commander of the armies of God (Jos. 5:15); the angel of redemption (Gen. 48:16). It was he who led Israel out of Egypt as the angel= in the cloud (Ex. 13:21; Ex. 14:19) and gave the law to Moses and established = the seventy elders of Israel (Ex. 24:9-18).


He is the angel or messenger of YHV= H, The Most High God who no man has seen or heard (Jn. 5:37; 6:46). He is the subordinate God or Elohi of Israel appointed by his God, Eloah above his partners (Ps. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:5-13). This angel or YHVH spoke face to face w= ith Moses (Ex. 33:11). He was the presence or face of God. This angel is the wo= rd or oracle of God as the memra and understood to= be the Messiah (Zech. 3:1-9). This angel has the power of judgement and is the righteous judge of the testaments and the elohim (Ps. 82:1). He is the Branch of Jeremiah 23:5 and Isaiah 11:1.


The Aaronic priesthood extended and= changed to the eternal priesthood of Melchisedek (Ps.110; Heb. 7:24). Christ is High Priest and the called of God are the priesthood (1Pet. 2:4,9; Rev. 1:6; 20:= 6).


Eloah, The Most High God, has a son= whose inheritance is Israel. He is the Elohi of Israel, but not the object of pra= yer or sacrifice. This elohim was anointed by his G= od and has a throne of the elohim (Ps. 45:6-7); stands= in the assembly of The El and judges those on earth (Ps. 82:8). The destiny of= the elect is to become elohim like the angel of YHV= H at their head (Zech. 12:8). This being at the head of the house of Israel is Messiah, the Son of God born as a man, Jesus Christ.


The New Testament confirms an angel= gave the law at Sinai (Acts 7:53) and identifies Christ as the angel of the Old Testament. This demonstrates conclusively his subordination and obedience to God the Father. The singular word Eloah is applied to God the Father and ne= ver used to refer to Christ. The generic term used to refer to the extended ord= er of the Host operating under the authority of The Father is Elohim. The Elohim act as both a council among the Host and in control of mankind. It was the accepted understanding in the first century = that the Elohim rank extended to mankind as they were adopted into the family of God, as heirs with Christ (Gal. 4:1-7). In the New Testament the Greek word= Theoi is translated from the Hebrew Elohim.


The allocation of the nations accor= ding to the number of the sons of God or the Elohim/eliym demonstrates further the extended = order (Deut 32:8-9). This was understood to be seventy as the full council of the Elohim. The Sanhedrin or council of elders of Israel established at Sinai w= as a prototype of this; plus two, being God (the Father) and Christ the Yahoveh of Israel. Israel will become the key nation = at the restoration at Christ’s return to rule the earth. It is evident that a significant number of the Elohim rebelled against God (Dan. 10:13; Deut. 32:18-19; Rev. 12:7 9).


These fallen Host are to be replace= d from the ranks of the elect beginning at the first resurrection. The rank of elohim is a delegated authority by appointment of God= . It is a plural word applied to the angelic host and those in the priesthood and judges, specifically Moses. It was to demonstrate that the elohim rank and the oneness of God and His nature would extend to embrace mankind. Eloah is singular and only applies to God (the Father), without whom there would be no elohim. This concept forms the basi= s of the first commandment.


The YHVH of Israel is a separate and subordinate being, The Messiah, the high priest of the house or temple of G= od. The council of elohim he heads as high priest is mirrored in the temple of Zion as an example and shadow of the celestial structure (Heb. 8:5). The priesthood of the temple consisted of twenty-four divisions of priests and a central high priest. This is reflected in the co= uncil of elders of Revelation 4:5. This group numbered thirty entities including = the four cherubim or living creatures. Thus thirty pieces of silver (also the p= rice of a slave) was required for the betrayal of Christ (Mat. 27:3-9; Zech. 11:12-13) as it was an offence against the entire Godhead. The elders are charged with monitoring the prayers of the saints (Rev 5:8). Christ, the hi= gh priest, was the only one found worthy to open the scroll of the plan of God= and ransom all to God. The ransom of humanity is seen as part of the end time restoration, which occurs at the second coming of Christ, as king of Israel= .


Trinitarianism limits the extension= of the capacity to be elohim to three beings and deny = it to the elect and the heavenly host. Also by elevating our intermediary elohim, Christ (one of the council), to the level and= equal to Eloah, God the Father, the early Church would have seen itself as being = in breach of the first commandment. This is the sin of Satan who claimed to be= El of the council of the elohim (Ezek. 28:2). The concept of how God is one is totally misunderstood in Trinitarianism. The u= nity of God, necessary to Monotheism, is of an extended order dwelling in unity under a central will in agreement and spiritual interaction through the spi= rit and power of God (1Cor. 2:4-14) which through Christ is towards God (2Cor. 3:3-4).


The early C= hurch saw that God is the rock from which all others are quarried, the rock of Israel= and their salvation, (Deut. 32:15). Our God is our rock (1Sam. 2:2), an everlas= ting rock (Isa. 51:1-2). The Messiah is hewn from this rock (Dan. 2:34,45) to su= bjugate the world empires. God, not Peter or Christ is the rock or foundation on wh= ich Christ builds the church (Math. 16:18). Messiah is the chief cornerstone of= the temple; the elect are the living stones of this spiritual temple, and Naos = or holy of holies, the repository of the Holy Spirit. Christ will construct the temple so that God may be all in all (Eph. 4:6). When Christ subdues all things, then Christ himself will be subject to God, who puts all things und= er Christ that God may be all in all.


Revelation 12:10 holds that the ang= els are brethren to the elect. Christ states that the elect are to be equal to ange= ls (Lk. 20:36), which is part of them as a rank or order. Christ confesses us = before his brethren in the Host: “Ye are gods and all are the sons of the Mo= st High” (Ps. 82:6).


We are all to become sons of God as co-heirs with Christ and thus Elohim. What a future! To become Elohim is the destiny God has prepared for those who love Him! (cf. 1Cor. 2:9-10). It is written, “I said ye are gods” and “Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:34-35).





Ante Nicene Fathers, Vols. 1-10, T = &T Clark, Eerdmans, 1993 print.

Bacchiocchi, S., From Sabbath to Sunday, Pontifical Gregorian University Press R= ome, 1975.

Burn, The Journal of Theological Studies, July 1902).

Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vols. 1-12, 1907-1912.

Cox, W. E.,

·       The Elect as Elohim (No. 00= 1) (CCG 1994, 1999).

·       Binita= rianism and Trinitarianism (No. 076) (CCG, 1994, = 2000).

·       Consubstantial with the Fat= her (No. 081) (CCG, 1994, 1999).

·       The Soul (No. 092) (CCG, 1995);

·       The Holy Spirit (No. 117) (CCG, 1994, 2000).

·       Early Theology of the Godhe= ad (No. 127)

      (CCG, 1995,= 1999).

·       The Resurrection of the Dea= d (No. 143) (CCG, 1994).

·       The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235) (CCG, 1998).

·       The Pre-Existence of Jesus = Christ (No. 243), (CCG, 1998).

·       The Quartodeciman Disputes = (No. 277) (CCG 1998)= .

Migne, = P. L., III, 1143 1165; XVI, 1213; XVIII, 671; XXI, 337; XXXIX, 2189 LXXXIX, 1034.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> 




------=_NextPart_01DAAD20.105CD910 Content-Location: file:///C:/7315DE0C/P088.html_files/themedata.thmx Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-officetheme UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQDp3g+//wAAABwCAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbKyRy07DMBBF 90j8g+UtSpyyQAgl6YLHjseifMDImSQWydiyp1X790zSVEKoIBZsLNkz954743K9Hwe1w5icp0qv 8kIrJOsbR12l3zdP2a1WiYEaGDxhpQ+Y9Lq+vCg3h4BJiZpSpXvmcGdMsj2OkHIfkKTS+jgCyzV2 JoD9gA7NdVHcGOuJkTjjyUPX5QO2sB1YPe7l+Zgk4pC0uj82TqxKQwiDs8CS1Oyo+UbJFkIuyrkn 9S6kK4mhzVnCVPkZsOheZTXRNajeIPILjBLDsAyJX89nIBkt5r87nons29ZZbLzdjrKOfDZezE7B /xRg9T/oE9PMf1t/AgAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYACAAAACEApdan58AAAAA2AQAACwAAAF9yZWxzLy5y ZWxzhI/PasMwDIfvhb2D0X1R0sMYJXYvpZBDL6N9AOEof2giG9sb69tPxwYKuwiEpO/3qT3+rov5 4ZTnIBaaqgbD4kM/y2jhdj2/f4LJhaSnJQhbeHCGo3vbtV+8UNGjPM0xG6VItjCVEg+I2U+8Uq5C ZNHJENJKRds0YiR/p5FxX9cfmJ4Z4DZM0/UWUtc3YK6PqMn/s8MwzJ5PwX+vLOVFBG43lExp5GKh qC/jU72QqGWq1B7Qtbj51v0BAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQBreZYWgwAAAIoAAAAcAAAAdGhl bWUvdGhlbWUvdGhlbWVNYW5hZ2VyLnhtbAzMTQrDIBBA4X2hd5DZN2O7KEVissuuu/YAQ5waQceg 0p/b1+XjgzfO3xTVm0sNWSycBw2KZc0uiLfwfCynG6jaSBzFLGzhxxXm6XgYybSNE99JyHNRfSPV kIWttd0g1rUr1SHvLN1euSRqPYtHV+jT9yniResrJgoCOP0BAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQCU qVKGlAcAAMcgAAAWAAAAdGhlbWUvdGhlbWUvdGhlbWUxLnhtbOxZX4sbyRF/D+Q7DPMua2YkjaTF 8qG/3rN3bWPJDvfYK7Vm2tszPUy3di2Og+B7yksgcHfkIQd5y0MIOchBjrzkwxhsksuHSHXPaNQt tbx/MMGE3X3RtH5V/Zuq6qpS9f3PXifUucA5Jyztuf49z3VwOmcLkkY998VsUuu4DhcoXSDKUtxz 15i7nz345S/uoyMR4wQ7IJ/yI9RzYyGyo3qdz2EZ8Xsswyl8t2R5ggQ85lF9kaNL0JvQeuB5YT1B JHWdFCWg9ulySebYmUmV7oON8jGFx1RwuTCn+VSqxoaEwi7OfYngaz6kuXOBaM+FfRbscoZfC9eh iAv4oud66s+tP7hfR0elEBUHZDW5ifor5UqBxXmg9syjs2pTbxx0mn6lXwGo2MeNO/K/0qcAaD6H Ny246Dr9Vuh1ghKrgYqPFt3dtt8w8Zr+xh5nvxsOgqahX4EK/c09vDfpjkctA69ABb61h+97waDb MPAKVODDPXxz3G8HYwOvQDEl6fk+Omx3OmGJriBLRo+t8G4Yeu1RCd+iIBqq6JJbLFkqDsVagl6x fAIACaRIkNQR6wwv0RyiuJ8Jxp0R4RlFa9fJUMo4LHuB70PoNb2g+lcWR0cYadKSFzDhe0uSj8Pn OclEz30EWl0N8u6nn96++fHtm7+//frrt2/+6pyQKBaFKkPuGKWRLvfzn373n+9/7fz7b3/8+Ztv 7Xiu49//5Tfv//HPD6mHo7Y1xbvvfnj/4w/vfv/bf/35G4v2fo7OdPiMJJg7T/Cl85wl8ILKFCZ/ fJbfTGIWI6JL9NOIoxTJXSz6xyI20E/WiCILboBNO77MIdXYgA9XrwzC0zhfCWLR+DhODOApY3TA cqsVHsu9NDPPVmlk3zxf6bjnCF3Y9h6i1PDyeJVBjiU2lcMYGzSfUZQKFOEUC0d+x84xtrzdF4QY dj0l85xxthTOF8QZIGI1yYycGdG0FTomCfhlbSMI/jZsc/rSGTBqe+sRvjCRcDYQtZCfYWqY8SFa CZTYVM5QQnWDnyAR20hO1/lcx425AE9HmDJnvMCc22Se5vC+mtMfI8huVref0nViInNBzm06TxBj OnLEzocxSjIbdkrSWMd+zs8hRJHzjAkb/JSZJ0Q+gx9QetDdLwk23H11NngBWU6ntA0Q+c0qt/jy IWZG/E7XdImwLdX088RIsf2cWKNjsIqM0D7BmKJLtMDYefG5hcGAZYbNt6QfxZBVjrEtsB4hM1bl c4o59EqyudnPkyeEGyE7xRE7wOd0vZN41ihNUH5I8xPwum7z8VkOh9FC4Smdn+vAJwR6QIgXq1Ge ctChBfdBrc9iZBQw+czt8brODf9d54zBuXxl0LjGuQQZfGMZSOy6zAdtM0PU2GAbMDNEnBNbugUR w/1bEVlcldjKKrc0D+3WDdAdGU1PQtIrOqD/XecD/cW7P3xvCcGP0+3YFRup6oZ9zqFUcrzT3RzC 7fY0Q5YvyKff0ozQKn2GoYrs56u7juauo3H/7zuaQ+f5ro851G3c9TEu9Bd3fUw5Wvk4fcy2dYGu Ro4XijGPGvokB2c+S0LpVKwpPuFq7MPh18xiAotSTs07cTUDzGL4KMscbGDgohwpGSdn4ldExNMY ZTAb8l2pJOKl6og7GeMwMlLLVt0ST1fJKVsUo041W/KKysqR2K57LRg6FeswphIFOmyXi5KfmqcC X8U2UmPWDQEpexMS2mYmiYaFRHuzeAUJOTX7OCy6FhYdqX7jqj1TALXKK/Bz24Ef6T231ZSEYEbO 59CaL6SfCldvvKuc+TE9fciYRgTAWLF4ExjKV57uSq4HX0++XRFq1/C0QUI5pQgrk4SyjGrweAw/ gsvolKvXoXFTX3e3LjXoSVOo/SC+tzTanQ+xuK2vQW43N9BUzxQ0dS57bthoQcjMUdZzlzAyho9J BrHD5S8uRCO4d5mLvDjwt8ksWc7FCPG4MLhKOoV7EiJw7lCS9Fz5+pUbaKpyiOLmB5AQPllyXUgr nxo5cLrpZLxc4rnQ3a6tSEsXj5Dhi1xh/VaJ3x4sJdkK3D2NF5fOGV3lzxGEWKvtSwMuCIebA7+w 5oLAVViVyLbxt1OYyuSv30WpGCrWEc1iVFYUPZkXcFVPKjrqqbKB9lS+MxhUM0lZCM8iWWB1oxrV tCpdBYeDVfdqIWk5LWlua6aRVWTVtGcxY4dNGdix5e2KvMZqY2LIaXqFL1L3bsrtbnLdTp9QVQkw eGW/25V+jdp2M4OaZLyfhmXOLlfN2rF5wSuoXadIaFk/3KjdsVtVI6zbweKtKj/I7UYtLC03faWy tLoz16+12dkrSB4j6HJXVHDlSpjr5gi6sqnqSYq0AUfktSiPBnxyVjnpuV96rX5zGLSGNa/TGtea jaZX67T6jVq/1Wr445bvjQbBV1BYRJz4reK+fgLXF3Rd3tqr9b2b+2RzQ3NvzpI6UzfzdUVc3dz7 weGbe4dA0vkyGPvNoB8Ma8ORH9aawSisddqNfm0YhKOgDyk9nPS/cp0LBfYHo9Fk0gpq4RBwTa/f qvUHjWEt7IwHwcQfN0cegMvM+Rr6b7DpxhbwUfF68F8AAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQAN0ZCf tgAAABsBAAAnAAAAdGhlbWUvdGhlbWUvX3JlbHMvdGhlbWVNYW5hZ2VyLnhtbC5yZWxzhI9NCsIw FIT3gncIb2/TuhCRJt2I0K3UA4TkNQ02PyRR7O0NriwILodhvplpu5edyRNjMt4xaKoaCDrplXGa wW247I5AUhZOidk7ZLBggo5vN+0VZ5FLKE0mJFIoLjGYcg4nSpOc0IpU+YCuOKOPVuQio6ZByLvQ SPd1faDxmwF8xSS9YhB71QAZllCa/7P9OBqJZy8fFl3+UUFz2YUFKKLGzOAjm6pMBMpburrE3wAA AP//AwBQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA6d4Pv/8AAAAcAgAAEwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW0NvbnRl bnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQCl1qfnwAAAADYBAAALAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAB AABfcmVscy8ucmVsc1BLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQBreZYWgwAAAIoAAAAcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABkC AAB0aGVtZS90aGVtZS90aGVtZU1hbmFnZXIueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAJSpUoaUBwAAxyAA ABYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1gIAAHRoZW1lL3RoZW1lL3RoZW1lMS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA DdGQn7YAAAAbAQAAJwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACeCgAAdGhlbWUvdGhlbWUvX3JlbHMvdGhlbWVNYW5h Z2VyLnhtbC5yZWxzUEsFBgAAAAAFAAUAXQEAAJkLAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_01DAAD20.105CD910 Content-Location: file:///C:/7315DE0C/P088.html_files/colorschememapping.xml Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/xml ------=_NextPart_01DAAD20.105CD910 Content-Location: file:///C:/7315DE0C/P088.html_files/header.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

Page page 14            =             &nb= sp;   The Original Doctrines of the Christian Faith

The Original Doctri= nes of the Christian Faith    =             &nb= sp;            Page 13





------=_NextPart_01DAAD20.105CD910 Content-Location: file:///C:/7315DE0C/P088.html_files/filelist.xml Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" ------=_NextPart_01DAAD20.105CD910--