Simon Brown.

All articles and research about GOD, on my web sites and this blog are about the ONE TRUE Father GOD, who is the GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who’s personal covenant name is Yahweh.

As are all my articles and research about Jesus, are under His covenant name of the begotten Son’s personal name of Yeshua.

It is not my purpose to force you to agree or believe with what's on my websites, but rather to share my research.
As the record goes. I'm Just a soul who's intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood. I am Simon Brown. Amen.

Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! Matthew 11:15.
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
SON of God?
1 John 5:5.
NOT GOD OR A TRINITY, but as St john has said: but he that believeth that Jesus is the SON of God? 1 John 5:5.
And as Jesus has said: ETERNAL LIFE is believing His Father GOD is the only ONE TRUE GOD alone. John 17:3. Which is the FIRST commandment one MUST believe. Mark 12:29.


Dear friends, just to remind you, as I am a human being, I am capable of making mistakes. If you believe I am wrong, don't let it go, but please be kind and let me know. Thank you.

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.



Thursday, 29 December 2016

SHOCKING, See clear evidence on trinitarian forums and on various websites - how trinitarians are deceiving people to gain support for the trinity doctrine. "The Huleatt Manuscript".

The Huleatt Manuscript. Magdalen papyrus.
Click on image to enlarge.

What is the "The Huleatt Manuscript".
Magdalen papyrus?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The "Magdalen" papyrus was purchased in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 by Reverend Charles Bousfield Huleatt (1863–1908), who identified the Greek fragments as portions of the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 26:23 and 31) and presented them to Magdalen College, Oxford, where they are cataloged as P. Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} {\mathfrak {P}}64) and whence they have their name. When the fragments were finally published by Colin H. Roberts in 1953, illustrated with a photograph, the hand was characterized as "an early predecessor of the so-called 'Biblical Uncial'" which began to emerge towards the end of the 2nd century. The uncial style is epitomised by the later biblical Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Comparative paleographical analysis has remained the methodological key for dating the manuscript: the consensus is ca AD 200.

The fragments are written on both sides, indicating they came from a codex rather than a scroll. More fragments, published in 1956 by Ramon Roca-Puig, cataloged as P. Barc. Inv. 1 (Gregory-Aland {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} {\mathfrak {P}}67), were determined by Roca-Puig and Roberts to come from the same codex as the Magdalen fragments, a view which has remained the scholarly consensus.
----------------------------------------
The word (God) is NOT in the original manuscript, of:  "The Huleatt Manuscript" but has been added in to make people believe the church Fathers believed in the TRINITY.
Read on to SEE yet another clear TRINITY deception. 

On the Saturday of 13 August 2016, I published an article called: Why do most Trinitarians believe all the church Fathers believed in theTRINITY?

In the article I explained how Trinitarian teachers do not do their research very well, but instead just believe in what other Trinitarians say about the false information that is circulating on the Internet regarding what the church Fathers believed on the TRINITY.

Trinitarians often try to change my mind by twisting my arm by trying to make me believe the first church fathers all believed in the trinity, to justify the massive gap from when the time of Jesus and His disciples only ever taught the Father GOD is the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, until 300 years later, when the Trinity God was established as a doctrine, when the first Catholic Trinitarians created the concept of a “tritheism” (three Gods).

Trinitarians have since failed to twist my arm enough to convince me they are right that their GOD is THREE.

I often remind Trinitarians while they are trying to twist my arm with false facts, I am trying to prize open their eyes with REAL facts, because I care for them and have a greater advantage, making me different to them, because instead of watching films and eating popcorn, I study and research always seeking out the truth - discovering the truth is clearly and strongly declared in the Bible, that my GOD is one single being which makes Him the ONE TRUE GREAT GOD, who conceived and sent a LITERAL SON to save my soul, which is of course, what Jesus clearly taught is the REQUIREMENT one must BELIEVE for salvation, who is different to their Catholic Trinity God.

When one does their research to discover the truth, we easily discover the opposite, that most of the church Fathers certainly did not believe in the TRINITY.
As it is perfectly said in:
But rather were henotheists who believed in one Absolute (Supreme) God, the Father and Creator, while still holding that others are called God or gods, including the Son, angels, and even glorified members of the Church.

From my previous research, although I was fairly confident with certain articles on the church Fathers and the Trinity, which I had already seen, this week I decided to dig even deeper, and see if there were any more hidden secrets.

The MASSIVE deceptions in this sad enormously confused world, should always encourage us to keep seeking out the truth, remember what Jesus taught when He said SEEK AND WE WILL FIND.

Never believe a single source without searching and researching what others have to say including the opposite side.

Hopefully I have learnt my lesson.
I do not desire to be deceived anymore.
That’s why I seek and search day and night to be sure.
Now I am confident I was in the wrong gang for sure.
From what I have learnt, I now love my GOD even more.
As GOD and His SON act as ONE, when we know the truth, GOD and His SON live in us and we also become as ONE.

St Paul taught us to: examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

And the Berean Jews were perfect examples of what we should do with great eagerness by examining the Scriptures every day to see what is true.

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Acts 17:11.

Now on my search I discovered there are web sites that take us directly to the  Ante-Nicene Fathers, which are the Writings of the early Church fathers from the beginning of Christianity to the time of the creation of the Nicene Creed. Includes Polycarp, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Ignatius, Origen, Clement and more.
See link below.

Could we get any closer to the Writings of the early Church fathers than reading their actual writings? I think the answer is obvious, of course not. And that’s how to get closer to the truth.

Now please do remember to never believe what one person has to say, understanding the treasures are never on the surface, but the REAL ones are often buried deep.

Just as Jesus used an image or a story to illustrate a truth or a lesson, told to us hidden in parables, like buried treasure waiting to be discovered, for those who dug deep they would discover and understand his secrets.

In a similar way, God rewards those who dig deep, because we prove to Him we have a true desire to love and know Him and learn the truth.

As I was searching I came across a hard core Trinitarian web site: Earliest Christians taught Trinity!
(50 - 600 AD)
Uninspired records of how early Christians worshipped and what doctrine they believed!

As I said, I believe we should always read both sides of the case. So I read this well known Trinitarian site to discover they had listed many of the early Church fathers showing that they had all believed in the Trinity.
See photo below.
http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm


When I read what was on this Trinity web site, alarm bells rang in my ears.
I looked at the first person they claimed to believe in the Trinity, and noticed it saying 50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript.
See a copy of the actual web site below.
http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
                                         Click on image to enlarge.


When I saw this I was very suspicious, because no where have I read that the Trinity was believed or taught by anyone so near to the time of Christ. So I did a simple search, to only find countless articles proving this information is completely false.

What we easily see is a perfect example of how Trinitarian forums on various web sites today are teachings false facts and not teaching the truth, but are deceiving mainly people of their own faith including people who are on the fence seeking the truth.

Not only does the Huleatt Manuscript date much later than 50 AD, as is stated on this Trinity web site, but it is said and written on many sites to be much later than 50 AD, and probably dates to the late second century AD.

But this Trinitarian dishonesty gets worse.
As you will see below, there is a dishonest Trinitarian who has added in the word (God) to the Huleatt Manuscript, which is deceiving people into believing that the person who wrote this believes Jesus was God.
As we see below.
<<50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).>>

And yet as we clearly SEE, the word (God) is not in any of the fragments or the fragment 3 of Matthew 26:10.
The Huleatt Manuscript.The Magdalen Papyrus

http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
Click on image to enlarge.

What does the Bible say?
Matthew 26:10
It is sad and shocking to see so much deception is taught by certain Trinitarians who reveal how desperate they are to twist and promote a false religion.
At this sage I haven’t researched the rest of the article, but will do so shortly and will no doubt find more false info and facts deceiving many.

In fact this is a similar deception to what has been added in 1 Timothy 3:16, in the King James Version of the Bible.
1 Timothy 3:16.

Again, the word (God) is NOT in the original manuscript, but has been added in to make people believe Jesus is GOD.
1 Timothy 3:16. Greek.

1 Timothy 3:16, says in the better translations, (HE) meaning Jesus was manifested in the flesh. But instead in the King James Version, the (HE) meaning Jesus has been replaced with the word (God).

Notice it says (God) was manifested in the flesh. Yet another deception to make us believe Jesus is God.

I have added an article below.

I am Simon Brown. I wish you a blessed New Year, and hope at least in the coming Year, I have encouraged you to seek out the truth, 
Simon Brown. Real Discoveries.blog.

and you find, as your destination depends on what you discover and believe.




The Huleatt Manuscript Mar 31, 2014 at 2:22am 
Quote  Post Options
Post by ResLight on Mar 31, 2014 at 2:22am
Web site here http://reslight.boards.net/thread/576#ixzz4UDyS3D28

One of the ways trinitarians try to gain support for the trinity doctrine is by quoting various writings attributed to have been written sometime before the fourth century. One such is what is being referred to as "The Huleatt Manuscript". Evidently, "The Huleatt Manuscipt" is actually three fragments that are usually referred to as Papyrus 64. These fragments are also called the "Magadaline Papyrus". 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus

The statement that is being spread is quoted below:


<<50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).>>


If one does a search with Google for "Huleatt Manuscript", one will find this quote appearing over and over, usually by trinitarians in forums and on various websites, etc. According to this "quotation", Matthew 26:10 would have Matthew writing, "God, aware of this", instead of "Jesus, knowing this" (World English). Thus, the trinitarian claim this is proof that first century Christians recognized that Jesus is God Almighty.


Like several other documents, trinitarians have endeavored to date these fragments as being in the first century. More than likely, however, these fragments were actually written about the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century.

www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm

The problem is, however, that the Greek word for "God" does not actually appear in the P64 fragments. What is being quoted is evidently Carsten Peter Thiede's reconstruction of what he thought it to be saying, wherein Thiede (believing that Jesus is God Almighty) simply supplied the word "God" in his reconstruction of the sentence.

See "Fragment Three" at:
http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/MagdalenEN.htm

Thus, in reality, there is no testimony from the so-called "Huleatt Manuscript" that offers any proof that Matthew referred to Jesus as "God". 
Read more: http://reslight.boards.net/thread/576#ixzz4UEfkF5bQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Date

64 was originally given a 3rd-century date by Charles Huleatt, the one who donated the Manuscript to Magdalen College, and then papyrologist A. S. Hunt studied the manuscript and dated it to the early 4th century. But in reaction to what he thought was far too late a dating for the manuscript, Colin Roberts published the manuscript and gave it a dating of ca. 200, which was confirmed by three other leading papyrologists: Harold Bell, T. C. Skeat and E. G. Turner,[1] and this has been the general accepted date of 64 since.
But in late 1994, considerable publicity surrounded Carsten Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen papyrus to the middle of the 1st century (37 to 70 A.D.), optimistically interpreted by journalists. His official article appeared in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik the following year. The text for the layman was cowritten with Matthew d'Ancona and presented as The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996. (also published as: Eyewitness to Jesus, 1996, New York: Doubleday). Thiede's re-dating has generally been viewed with skepticism by established Biblical scholars. (For example, Peter M. Head in Tyndale Bulletin 46, 1995.)[2]
Philip Comfort and David Barret in their book Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts argue for a more general date of 150–175 for the manuscript, and also for 4 and 67, which they argue came from the same codex. 4 was used as stuffing for the binding of “a codex of Philo, written in the later third century and found in a jar which had been walled up in a house at Coptos [in 250].”[3] If 4 was part of this codex, then the codex may have been written roughly 100 years prior or earlier.[4]Comfort and Barret also show that this 4/64/67 has affinities with a number of the late 2nd century papyri.[5]
Comfort and Barret "tend to claim an earlier date for many manuscripts included in their volume than might be allowed by other palaeographers."[6] The Novum Testamentum Graece, a standard reference for the Greek witnesses, lists 4 and 64/67separately, giving the former a date of the 3rd century, while the latter is assigned ca. 200.[7] Most recently Charlesworth has concluded 'that 64+67 and 4, though written by the same scribe, are not from the same ... codex.'[8]

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Colin Roberts, An Early Papyrus pp. 233-237
  2. Jump up^ Head, Peter M. "The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64): A Response to C.P. Thiede", (1995) Tyndale Bulletin 46. Retrieved on 25 October 2013
  3. Jump up^ Colin Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt pp. 8
  4. Jump up^ Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2001), pp. 50–53
  5. Jump up^ i.e. P. Oxy. 224, 661, 2334, 2404 2750, P. Ryl. 16, 547, and P. Vindob G 29784
  6. Jump up^ Robinson, Maurice A. Review "Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, eds. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts" (2001) TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism v. 8
  7. Jump up^ Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece (1997). Barbara and Kurt Aland, eds. NA27 Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. pp. 684, 687
  8. Jump up^ Charlesworth (2007), p. 604

References

Images

External links


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Newton correct?
Isaac Newton. The Trinity is false.

---------------------------------------------
 Why do most Trinitarians believe all the church Fathers believed in the TRINITY?