Terang Tuhan Bersinar Bagimu


images-1About the doctrine of the Trinity or Trinity believed Christians often become a stumbling block. Since the presence of Jesus, Judaism strongly rejected the deity of Jesus, Arius in the 4th century refused equated Jesus with God, and at the end of the 19th century teachings of anti-Trinitarian Arianism reappeared in the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not only extremely anti trinitarian, but also take it as gospel that influenced the gods of Babylon and Egypt, Plato, and even referred to as coming from the devil, and was developed by Christian arrangement in the 4th century. Is it true that the doctrine of the Trinity emerged only in the 4th century?

It seems that this issue is quite confusing because people were more votes from the point of prejudice. If we listen to the teachings of the Church from the beginning, the doctrine of one God (shema) which expresses itself in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, has actually been around since Old Testament though not expressed as a formula particular doctrine, after all, the term Trinity does not exist in the Bible well OT and NT. If so, why is this matter then developed and peaked in the 4th century as a doctrine called the Trinity?

When we study the Old Testament with an open heart, there is clearly emphasized the oneness of God, but for the most part can be seen the expression of other statements other than God the Father, for example, the angel of God, the word of God and the Spirit of God. In the New Testament statements about the One God are also still buzzed, but in line with the matter of the revelation of God in the Word (Logos) and Holy Spirit (Paraclete) more clearly revealed. Thus, even in the OT and NT are not encapsulated in the doctrine of the Trinity, the belief about the one true God who reveals himself became part of the profession of faith of believers since the beginning.

Practically the first church accept the trinity was without question, and they are in a baptism ceremony members of a new congregation always repeating the command of the Lord Jesus who told them to baptize in the name of ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit “(Matthew 28: 9), this includes recognition as expressed by Thomas namely ‘My Lord and my God “(John 20:28).

Around the first century, the influence of the outside began to question beliefs about the nature of God accepted without reservation by the first church. At that time there was a strong influence of mystical Gnostic belief that developed around the Mediterranean Sea. Gnostics taught that there are two origins that produce everything, that God created the spirit and Demi Urgos who created the material world. Here the power of God for the sake of power-urgos restricted it, and God never reveals himself. God the Son who became man, in gnostic considered included in the spirit world, created by God. This belief there is also the effect of the Christian world and seems to induce the flow of Arianism in the 4th century.

Actually, since the 2nd century there have been efforts to formulate the nature of God, for example within Theophilus of Antioch (ca.180) which mentions the term ‘triad’ and then Tertullian mention of the Trinity, but not in the formulation of a particular doctrine. The emergence of an attempt to formulate a matter of the trinity in the formulation of the Trinity was triggered by the presence of different ideas that were raised by Arius (ca.320), an elder of the church in Alexandria.

Arius argued that the Son of God is a creation and as the word (logos) he is not God and not an ordinary human. Word is the creation between God and man, he is less than the Father, but was appointed as a ‘foster child’ with the title ‘Son of God.’ The Word was created first and greatest of all creation, then the word it creates others. According to Arius there are times when the word does not exist, then created by God and are called ‘God’ as well.

In general, the majority of church fathers rejected the teachings of Arius were considered incompatible with the Bible. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria rejected the idea of Arius and for a debate among some church leaders, the king Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 to discuss the controversial teachings of Arius. The majority of the 300 participants were present at the council rejected the teachings of Arius and considered incompatible with the word of God and affirm the original beliefs about the divinity of Jesus is equal with God the Father.

Without the doctrine of the trinity was the majority church in the centuries that it believes there is plurality in the One God. However, because Constantine wanted to neutral, the aftermath was not followed up by him let alone his sympathetic to Arius. Moreover, at that time Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, a close friend who observes theology Arius and Origen in his quest for influence in Rome defamatory Athanasius so Athanasius several times to get in and out of prison. However, Athanasius remained steadfast faith and she continues to fight for the truth.

With the death of Alexander (328) Athanasius succeeded him, and he remains steadfast preservation of their faith once again in the Council of Constantinople (381), the teachings of all the divinity of Jesus re-affirmed and the triune God is defined as the doctrine of the Trinity, as a result Arianism decline until it disappeared in 650. From this history we know that the doctrine of the ‘trinity’ is not a growing belief in the 4th century produced by the Christian church, but in the face of the Arian heresy, the church felt the need to give a clear formulation of the trust that has existed since the beginning of Christianity.

Even Arianism was over, sporadically there are also small groups that believe in the oneness of God understand a kind of Arianism, they are usually referred to as a Unitarian. One of the unitarian group formed by John Thomas, who was born in London in 1805 and later immigrated to America in 1832 and joined the group Cambelit. Due to conflicting Christadelphian he founded his own school in 1838.

Christadelphian to Arianism, which does not recognize the Trinity because there is only God alone. Jesus believed not the Son of God, but as a manifestation of God’s spirit in man. No new Christ after Jesus was born, and Jesus is not God. The Holy Spirit is only a tool for power that comes out of God. The death of Jesus is only an expression of God’s love that is necessary in penance, atoning Jesus for our sins is not acceptable. Benjamin Wilson, a character, translate the Bible from the original verbatim and then a row of words was interpreted into sentences. This translation is called The Emphatic Diaglott (1864).

In 1872, Charles Taze Russell founded a group Bible study that draws on several Christadelphian doctrine and use Emphatic Diaglott translation as a reference and then the basis for their translation of ‘The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures’ (NW, 1950-1961). The group then calling itself the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931. Witness the revival of the spirit of anti-trinitarian Gnosticism and Arianism.

The flow of anti-trinitarian adherents of Arianism current strong and very aggressive in opposing the doctrine of the Trinity is a Jehovah’s Witness. In books and other literature them, we can easily see attitude contradict the Trinity, and that Jesus was called a work that is less than the Father, and the Holy Spirit is just the active force or the power of God. Even more than the teaching of the Trinity is considered as a creation of Satan (Because God That Really Is, p.105).

It seems that the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses have traumatic experiences the bitter with the church that is called the composition of Christians so that in modern times they express hatred as an emotion that produces speech sarcastic church called “babel Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Herald of Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom of God, p.51-52), therefore each of Jehovah’s Witnesses are required to disengage from the membership of the Christian church.

Christians are considered as “worshiping God rumpled, apparently odd and has three heads. … In fact nobody had never seen a human being with three heads “(For God That Really Is, p.106-107) called Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to human beings as the image of God. Trinity even tritheis associated with Horus-Osiris-Isis or Rameses II – Amon-Ra – Nut (both from Egypt), Istar-Sin-Samas (Babel), Trimurti (India), and an overview of the artist’s three-headed God. (Should You Believe in the Trinity ?, To P.2,10).

There is no denying that, in addition to the influence of Gnosticism and Arianism, Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Witnesses of Jehovah’s Witnesses, also unconsciously influenced by the concept of Buddhism when he was studying Eastern religions (Witnesses Herald kingdom of God, P.122). The concept of death the spirit and soul as divine power, and the rejection of eternal torment is typical of eastern religious mysticism of Zen Buddhism.

We need to critically read the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses in even seemingly scientific nature as citing multiple sources. In the book sale Witnesses entitled ‘Should You Trust in the Trinity?’, Stated that the doctrine of the Trinity is a pagan doctrine that influenced Egypt and Plato (P.3-12) and they quoted figures that the anti-Trinitarian churches (p.7 ) such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen Hypolitus. This would indicate ambiguous contradictory arguments.

From history we know that the formulation of the Trinity expressed both by the bishop in Egypt (Alexander & Athanasius) as well as by Europe (Irenaeus and generally the fathers of the church of Rome) to face Arius. Arius was the one (elder Alexandria) which emphasizes God’s trinity in which the latter considered to be lower than the first. Quotations as if spoken Irenaeus doubt, because together Alexander and Athanasius, Irenaeus actually emphasizing the unity of the Logos is God both in the creation and redemption of mankind. ‘

What is interesting, in fact examples of other figures mentioned were precisely those that marry the philosophy of Plato (Logos lower than God) with the Bible, especially Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and his pupil Origen, and they were opposed by Church leaders who want to liberate the Bible from Greek influence. At the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople, in addition to Arius, the idea of the figures example was resisted by the majority, even in 362 half Origen’s followers do not agree with him about the humiliation and separation Logos Logos of God, and then joined with Athanasius. In the year 399 Origen rejected the teachings of the church.

The examples above show that the argument is contradictory. In some ways the Trinitarian accused of influenced Plato, whereas in other respects it Platolah adherents were sampled to oppose Trinitarians (which incidentally against Plato).

Examples of manipulation of other facts in the book are greeting the audience the Council of Nicaea, called “The audience of approximately 300, a fraction of the total” (p.8), this gives the impression that the Trinitarians are a minority. In fact, a historical fact is that a majority said the number of bishops who are there at the time and the majority of which reject the idea of Arius. If 300 is considered a fraction means that time must have existed thousands of bishops around the Mediterranean!

The books and other literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses did not mention any figures ‘Arius’ which led to the holding of the council and that actually they follow his teachings.

Engineering Data book was also indicated in the argument on the verse John 1: 1 (Word was God) translated by Jehovah’s Witnesses to be ‘the Word was a god’. To support Bible translation quoted some excerpts matching (see “Should You Trust in the Trinity? ‘, P.27 and’ Scriptures Christian Greek translation of the New World ‘, P.414), whereas if we are careful, we know that the examples it is generally written by the followers of Unitarian Christadelphian and Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves, including The Emphatic Diaglott

and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures which is actually derived from the Diaglott. The Bible version of English used the majority of Christians like KJV, AV, RSV, NIV nor Douay (RK) all translate “The Word Was God ‘(not a god) as well as new translation in the Indonesian language” the word was God. “( LAI. Regarding this has been discussed in the article “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Bible ‘)

From an engineering book data we can see that the translation of the Bible in a linear fashion (Diaglott, which means that two languages) is also done with engineering. The striking thing is to enter the anti-trinitarian doctrine of Arianism in the translation of the Bible, something which in Greek is called ‘eisegesis’ (entering into) and not ‘exegesis’ (dig out). which then creates the creation of the ‘other’ when the word was not in the original manuscripts.

In addition to the example of John 1: 1 (in 18 first verse of the Gospel of John chapter 1 No 6 of the word ‘Theos’ which is not preceded by the clothing ‘ho’ [dhi. John 1: 1 = ton], one [verse 1] addressed to Jesus and the other five [verses 6,12,13 and twice in 18] addressed to God. If consistent, then 5 times it showed that Jehovah God is ‘a god’ as well). Verse Colossians 1: 16-18 NW added in the translation of the word ‘other’ or ‘other’ that give the impression that Jesus creations

Examples of other engineering is the translation of the word ‘Kyrios’. In the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word ‘YHWH’ and ‘Adonai’, YHWH proper name of God, Adonai in the Old Testament used as a ‘proper name’ and ‘designations of God’, but on a limited basis also means ‘master’. The New Testament also uses the word ‘Kyrios’, but in the translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (NW) looks striking engineering. When the word ‘Kyrios’ in context with regard to God, then translated Jehovah, but when associated with Jesus’ translated’ Lord Jesus! ‘Example greeting Thomas who said, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28) translates to “my Lord and my God” (NW), while speech recognition is the first church in accordance with the psalmist’s words “O my God and my God” (Ps 35:32) which in Psalm addressed to YHWH.

Usually, Jesus humbled while temporary, are considered to be fixed (permanent), and verses that show Jesus as a ‘man’ that is used as an argument to show that Jesus was less than God. Examples cutting verse is released from the context of the interpretation that Jesus was “lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2: 9) with the comment “How could an omnipotent deity part-Father, Son, or holy spirit-can be lower than the angels? “(Should you Trust in the Trinity, P.15). In fact, verse full reads “but He, who for a short time made a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2: 9) and the preceding verse reads: “And when He brought with it his only first-born into the world, he said: “All God’s angels must worship him.” (Hebrews 1: 6). Even mentioned also by YHWH that Jesus is God up to two times (Hebrews 1: 8,9).

If the Bible does not mention Jesus as ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ of language translation according to the rules used by Christians (which translates theologians and original language) would have revealed it and we just show the verses which. Precisely because of Jehovah’s Witnesses incorporate doctrines in translation, then the Bible Jehovah’s Witnesses (NW, translated not by theologians and linguists original) is made such that the two offices of Christ was not given to him but made a ‘master’ and ‘a god . ‘


hqdefaultAjaran Trinitas atau Tritunggal yang dipercayai umat Kristen sering dijadikan batu sandungan. Sejak kehadiran Yesus, agama Yahudi menolak dengan tegas ke’tuhan’an maupun ke’alah’an Yesus, Arius pada abad ke-4 menolak menyetarakan Yesus dengan Allah, dan pada akhir abad ke-19 ajaran anti-trinitarian Arianisme muncul kembali dalam Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa yang bukan hanya sangat anti-trinitarian, namun juga menganggapnya sebagai ajaran yang dipengaruhi dewa-dewi Babel & Mesir, Plato, bahkan disebut sebagai berasal dari setan, dan dikembangkan oleh susunan Kristen pada abad ke-4. Benarkah bahwa ajaran Trinitas itu baru muncul di abad ke-4?

Kelihatannya soal ini cukup simpang siur karena orang-orang lebih menilainya dari sudut prasangka. Bila kita menyimak ajaran gereja sejak awalnya, ajaran mengenai Tuhan yang esa (shema) yang menyatakan diri dalam Bapa, Anak dan Roh Kudus, sebenarnya sudah ada sejak Perjanjian Lama sekalipun tidak diungkapkan sebagai suatu rumusan doktrin tertentu, lagipula istilah Trinitas tidak ada dalam Alkitab baik PL maupun PB. Kalau begitu, mengapa soal ini kemudian berkembang dan memuncak di abad ke-4 sebagai suatu doktrin yang disebut Trinitas?

Bila kita mempelajari Alkitab Perjanjian Lama dengan hati terbuka, memang disitu keesaan Allah jelas ditekankan, namun di banyak bagian dapat dilihat adanya ungkapan pernyataan lainnya selain Allah Bapa, misalnya Malaekat Allah, firman Allah dan juga Roh Allah. Dalam Perjanjian Baru pernyataan mengenai keesaaan Allah juga masih terus didengungkan, namun sejalan dengan itu soal penyataan Allah dalam firman (Logos) maupun Roh Kudus (Parakletos) makin jelas terungkap. Jadi, sekalipun dalam PL maupun PB tidak dirumuskan dalam bentuk doktrin Trinitas, keyakinan mengenai Tuhan yang Esa yang menyatakan diri itu menjadi bagian pengakuan iman umat percaya sejak awalnya.

Praktis jemaat pertama menerima ketritunggalan itu tanpa mempersoalkan dan mereka dalam upacara pembaptisan anggota jemaat yang baru selalu mengulang-ulang perintah Tuhan Yesus yang menyuruh mereka membaptis dalam nama ‘Bapa, Anak dan Roh Kudus’ (Mat.28:9), ini mencakup pengakuan seperti yang diutarakan oleh Thomas yaitu ‘Tuhanku dan Allahku’ (Yoh.20:28).

Sekitar abad pertama, pengaruh luar mulai mempersoalkan keyakinan soal hakekat Allah yang diterima tanpa reserve oleh jemaat pertama itu. Pada waktu itu ada pengaruh kuat kepercayaan mistik gnostik yang berkembang disekitar Laut Tengah. Gnostik mengajarkan bahwa ada dua asal yang menghasilkan segala sesuatu, yaitu Allah yang menciptakan roh dan Demi Urgos yang menciptakan dunia materi. Disini kekuatan Allah dibatasi kekuasaan demi-urgos itu, dan Allah tidak pernah menyatakan diri. Allah Anak yang kemudian menjadi manusia, dalam gnostik dianggap termasuk dalam dunia roh, yang diciptakan oleh Allah. Kepercayaan ini ada juga pengaruhnya di kalangan Kristen dan kelihatannya merangsang timbulnya aliran Arianisme pada abad ke-4.

Sebenarnya sejak abad ke-2 sudah ada usaha untuk merumuskan hakekat Allah, misalnya dalam diri Theofilus dari Antiokhia (ca.180) yang menyebut istilah ‘triad’ dan kemudian Tertulianus menyebut soal Trinitas namun belum dalam perumusan doktrin tertentu. Timbulnya usaha untuk merumuskan soal ketritunggalan itu dalam perumusan Trinitas sebenarnya dipicu oleh adanya gagasan berbeda yang dilontarkan oleh Arius (ca.320), seorang penatua gereja di Alexandria.

Arius mengemukakan bahwa Anak Allah adalah ciptaan dan sebagai firman (logos) ia bukanlah Allah dan juga bukan manusia biasa. Firman adalah ciptaan yang berada di antara Allah dan manusia, ia lebih rendah dari Bapa, namun diangkat sebagai ‘anak angkat’ dengan gelar ‘Anak Allah.’ Firman itu diciptakan pertama dan paling besar dari semua ciptaan, kemudian firman itu menciptakan yang lainnya. Menurut Arius ada saatnya dimana firman itu tidak ada, kemudian diciptakan oleh Allah dan disebut ‘Allah’ juga.

Pada umumnya mayoritas bapak gereja menolak ajaran Arius yang dianggap tidak sesuai dengan Alkitab.  Alexander, uskup Alexandria menolak pemikiran Arius dan karena menjadi perdebatan di kalangan beberapa pimpinan jemaat, raja Konstantin mengadakan Konsili Nicaea pada tahun 325 untuk membahas kontroversi ajaran Arius ini. Mayoritas yang hadir dari 300 peserta dalam konsili itu menolak ajaran Arius dan menganggapnya tidak sesuai dengan firman Tuhan dan meneguhkan kepercayaan semula mengenai ke’Allah’an Yesus yang setara dan sehakekat dengan Allah Bapa.

Tanpa adanya doktrin trinitas pun mayoritas jemaat pada abad-abad itu mengaminkan ada kejamakan dalam keesaan Allah. Namun karena Konstantin ingin netral, hasil Konsili tidak ditindak lanjuti olehnya apalagi anaknya bersimpati kepada Arius. Apalagi, kala itu Eusebius, uskup Konstantinopel, kawan dekat Arius dan yang berpegang teologi Origen dalam usahanya mencari pengaruh di Roma memfitnah Athanasius sehingga Athanasius beberapa kali harus masuk keluar penjara. Namun, iman Athanasius tetap teguh dan ia terus berjuang memperjuangkan kebenaran.

Dengan kematian Alexander (328) Athanasius menggantikannya, dan ia tetap teguh mempertahankan imannya dan sekali lagi dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381), ajaran ke’Allah’an Yesus kembali diteguhkan dan ketritunggalan Allah dirumuskan sebagai ajaran Trinitas, akibatnya Arianisme mengalami kemunduran hingga menghilang pada tahun 650. Dari sejarah ini kita mengetahui bahwa doktrin ‘tritunggal’ bukanlah kepercayaan yang berkembang pada abad ke-4 yang dihasilkan oleh gereja Kristen tetapi dalam menghadapi bidat Arius maka gereja merasa perlu memberikan perumusan yang jelas akan kepercayaan yang sudah ada sejak awal kekristenan itu.

Sekalipun Arianisme sudah usai, secara sporadis ada juga kelompok-kelompok kecil yang mempercayai faham keesaan Allah semacam Arianisme, mereka biasanya disebut sebagai Unitarian. Salah satu kelompok unitarian dibentuk oleh John Thomas yang lahir di London pada tahun 1805 dan kemudian berimigrasi ke Amerika pada tahun 1832 dan bergabung dengan kelompok Cambelit. Karena bentrok ia mendirikan sendiri aliran Christadelphian pada tahun 1838.

Christadelphian menganut Arianisme, yang tidak mengakui trinitas sebab yang ada hanya Allah saja. Yesus dipercayai bukan sebagai Anak Allah namun sebagai manifestasi roh Allah dalam diri manusia. Kristus baru ada setelah Yesus lahir, dan Yesus bukan Tuhan. Roh Kudus hanya alat kuasa yang keluar dari Allah. Kematian Yesus hanya merupakan ekspresi kasih Allah yang perlu dalam penebusan dosa, penebusan Yesus untuk menebus dosa manusia tidak diterima. Benyamin Wilson, seorang tokohnya, menerjemahkan Alkitab dari bahasa asli secara kata demi kata dan kemudian deretan kata itu ditafsirkan menjadi kalimat. Terjemahan ini disebut The Emphatic Diaglott (1864).

Pada tahun 1872 Charles Taze Russel mendirikan kelompok penyelidikan Alkitab yang mengacu pada beberapa ajaran Christadelphian dan menggunakan terjemahan Emphatic Diaglott sebagai acuan dan kemudian dasar untuk terjemahan mereka ‘The New World Translation of the Holy Scripture’ (NW, 1950-1961). Kelompok ini kemudian menamakan dirinya Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa sejak 1931. SSY merupakan kebangunan kembali semangat anti-trinitarian Gnostik dan Arianisme.

Aliran penganut anti-trinitarian Arianisme yang kuat saat ini dan sangat agresif dalam menentang ajaran Trinitas adalah Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa. Dalam buku-buku dan literatur SSY lainnya, kita dengan mudah menjumpai sikap yang menentang Trinitas, dan bahwa Yesus disebut Ciptaan yang lebih rendah dari Bapa, dan bahwa Roh Kudus adalah sekedar tenaga aktif atau kekuatan dari Allah. Bahkan lebih dari itu pengajaran Trinitas dianggap sebagai ciptaan Setan (Karena Allah Itu Benar Adanya, h.105).

Kelihatannya SSY pendiri SSY mempunyai pengalaman traumatis yang pahit dengan gereja yang disebutnya susunan Kristen sehingga pada masa modern ini masih mengungkapkan rasa kebencian sebagai luapan emosi yang menghasilkan ucapan yang sarkastis seperti gereja disebut “babel Besar, ibu dari wanita-wanita pelacur dan dari kekejian bumi” (Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa Pemberita Kerajaan Allah, h.51-52), karena itu setiap SSY diharuskan melepaskan diri dari keanggotaan gereja Kristen.

Umat Kristen dianggap sebagai “memuja Allah yang kusut, yang rupanya ganjil serta mempunyai tiga kepala. … sesungguhnya seorangpun belum pernah melihat seorang mahluk manusia berkepala tiga” (Karena Allah Itu Benar Adanya, h.106-107) disebut SSY merujuk manusia sebagai gambar Allah. Trinitas bahkan diasosiasikan dengan tritheis Horus-Osiris-Isis atau Rameses II – Amon-Ra – Nut (keduanya dari Mesir), Istar-Sin-Samas (Babel), Trimurti (India), dan gambaran artis tentang Allah berkepala tiga.  (Haruskah Anda Percaya Kepada Tritunggal?, h.2,10).

Tidak dapat disangkal, bahwa selain adanya pengaruh Gnostik dan Arianisme, Charles Taze Russel, pendiri SSY, juga tanpa sadar dipengaruhi konsep Buddhisme ketika ia belajar agama-agama Timur (Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa Pemberita Kerajaan Allah, h.122). Konsepnya mengenai kematian roh dan roh sebagai kekuatan ilahi, dan ditolaknya siksaan kekal adalah khas ajaran mistik agama timur Zen Buddhisme.

Kita perlu kritis dalam membaca literatur SSY sekalipun kelihatannya bersifat ilmiah karena mengutip banyak sumber. Dalam buku promosi SSY berjudul ‘Haruskah Anda Percaya Kepada Tritunggal?’, dikemukakan bahwa ajaran Tritunggal adalah ajaran kafir yang dipengaruhi Mesir dan Plato (h.3-12) dan SSY mengutip pernyataan tokoh-tokoh gereja yang anti-trinitarian (h.7) seperti Justin Martir, Ireneus, Clement dari Alexandria, Tertulianus, Hypolitus dan Origen. Ini justru menunjukkan argumentasi kontradiktif yang rancu.

Dari sejarah kita mengetahui bahwa perumusan Trinitas dikemukakan baik oleh uskup di Mesir (Alexander & Athanasius) juga oleh Eropah (Irenius dan umumnya bapak-bapak gereja Roma) untuk menghadapi Arius. Berbeda dengan mitologi Babel dan Mesir yang men’tiga’kan Tuhan, tokoh-tokoh ini justru menekankan ke’Tunggal’an Allah. Justru Ariuslah (penatua Alexandria) yang menekankan ke’tiga’an itu dimana yang kedua dianggap lebih rendah dari yang pertama. Kutipan seakan-akan diucapkan Irenius diragukan, karena bersama-sama Alexander dan Athanasius, Irenius sebenarnya menekankan ‘keesaan Logos adalah Allah baik dalam penciptaan maupun penebusan manusia.’

Yang menarik, faktanya contoh tokoh lainnya yang disebutkan itu justru mereka yang mengawinkan filsafat Plato (Logos lebih rendah dari Allah) dengan Alkitab, terutama Justin Martir, Clement dari Alexandria dan muridnya Origen, dan mereka ditentang oleh tokoh-tokoh Gereja yang ingin membebaskan Alkitab dari pengaruh Yunani. Pada Konsili Nicaea dan Konstantinopel, selain Arius, ide tokoh-tokoh contoh itu ditentang oleh mayoritas, bahkan pada tahun 362 setengah pengikut Origen tidak setuju dengannya mengenai perendahan Logos dan pemisahan Logos dari Allah, dan kemudian bergabung dengan Athanasius. Pada tahun 399 ajaran Origen ditolak gereja.

Contoh-contoh di atas menunjukkan argumentasi yang bersifat kontradiktif. Di satu segi penganut Trinitas dituduh dipengaruhi Plato, padahal di segi lain justru penganut Platolah yang dijadikan contoh untuk menentang penganut Trinitas (yang notabene menentang Plato).

Contoh manipulasi fakta lainnya dalam buku itu adalah ucapan mengenai hadirin Konsili Nicaea yang disebut “Yang hadir kira-kira 300, sebagian kecil dari jumlah keseluruhan” (h.8), ini memberi kesan bahwa penganut Trinitas adalah minoritas. Padahal, fakta sejarah menyebutkan jumlah itu adalah mayoritas uskup yang ada pada saat itu dan mayoritas dari jumlah itu menolak gagasan Arius. Kalau 300 dianggap sebagian kecil berarti saat itu mestinya sudah ada ribuan uskup di sekitar laut Tengah!

Buku itu dan literatur SSY lainnya sama sekali tidak menyebut adanya tokoh ‘Arius’ yang menyebabkan diadakannya Konsili itu dan yang justru mereka anut ajarannya.

Rekayasa data buku itu juga ditunjukkan dalam argumentasi mengenai ayat Yohanes 1:1 (Firman itu adalah Allah) yang diterjemahkan oleh SSY menjadi ‘Firman itu adalah suatu allah’. Untuk mendukungnya dikutip beberapa kutipan terjemahan Alkitab yang senada (lihat ‘Haruskah Anda Percaya Kepada Tritunggal?’, h.27 dan ‘Kitab-Kitab Yunani Kristen terjemahan Dunia Baru’, h.414), padahal bila kita teliti kita mengetahui bahwa contoh-contoh itu umumnya ditulis oleh pengikut Unitarian, Christadelphian dan SSY sendiri, termasuk The Emphatic Diaglott

dan New World Translation of the Holy Scripture yang notabene turunan dari Diaglott. Alkitab versi bahasa Inggeris yang digunakan mayoritas umat Kristen seperti KJV, AV, RSV, NIV maupun Douay (RK) semua menerjemahkan “The Word Was God’ (bukan a god) demikian juga terjemahan baru dalam bahasa Indonesia “firman itu adalah Allah.” (LAI. Mengenai ini sudah dibahas dalam artikel ‘Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa dan Alkitab’)

Dari rekayasa data buku itu kita dapat melihat bahwa penerjemahan Alkitab secara linear (Diaglott, yang artinya dua bahasa) juga dilakukan dengan rekayasa. Yang mencolok adalah memasukkan ajaran anti-trinitarian Arianisme dalam  penerjemahan Alkitab tersebut, sesuatu yang dalam bahasa Yunani disebut ‘eisegese’ (memasukkan kedalam) dan bukan ‘exegese’ (menggali keluar). yang kemudian menciptakan ciptaan ‘yang lain’ padahal kata itu tidak ada dalam naskah aslinya.

Selain contoh ayat Yoh.1:1 (dalam 18 ayat pertama Injil Yohanes fasal 1 ada 6 kata ‘Theos’ yang tidak didahului oleh kata sandang ‘ho’ [dhi. Yoh.1:1 = ton], satu [ayat 1] ditujukan kepada Yesus dan lima lainnya [ayat 6,12,13 dan dua kali dalam 18] ditujukan kepada Allah. Bila konsekwen, maka 5 kali itu menunjukkan bahwa Allah Yehuwa adalah ‘a god’ juga). Ayat Kol.1:16-18 dalam terjemahan NW ditambahkan kata ‘other’ atau ‘yang lain’ sehingga menimbulkan kesan bahwa Yesus ciptaan

Contoh rekayasa lainnya adalah penerjemahan kata ‘Kurios’. Dalam Septuaginta kata itu terjemahan kata Ibrani ‘YHWH’ dan ‘Adonai’, YHWH nama diri Tuhan, Adonai dalam Perjanjian Lama digunakan sebagai ‘nama diri’ dan ’sebutan Tuhan’ tetapi secara terbatas juga berarti ‘tuan’. Perjanjian Baru juga menggunakan kata ‘Kurios’, namun dalam terjemahan SSY (NW) terlihat rekayasa yang mencolok. Bila kata ‘Kurios’ dalam konteksnya berkaitan dengan Allah, maka diterjemahkan Yehuwa, namun bila dikaitkan dengan Yesus diterjemahkan ‘Tuan Yesus!’ Contohnya ucapan Thomas yang mengatakan “Ya Tuhanku dan Allahku” (Yoh.20:28) diterjemahkan menjadi “Tuanku dan Allahku” (NW), padahal ucapan ini adalah pengakuan jemaat pertama yang sesuai dengan ucapan pemazmur “ya Allahku dan Tuhanku” (Mzm.35:32) yang dalam Mazmur ditujukan kepada YHWH.

Biasanya, Yesus selagi direndahkan yang bersifat sementara, dianggap bersifat tetap (permanen), dan ayat-ayat yang menunjukkan Yesus sebagai ‘manusia’ itulah yang dipakai sebagai argumentasi untuk menunjukkan bahwa Yesus lebih rendah dari Allah. Contoh pemotongan ayat yang dilepaskan dari konteks adalah penafsiran bahwa Yesus “lebih rendah dari malaikat-malaikat” (Ibr.2:9) dengan komentar “Bagaimana mungkin suatu bagian keilahian yang mahakuasa-Bapa, Anak, atau roh kudus-dapat lebih rendah daripada malaikat-malaikat?” (Haruskah Anda Percaya Kepada Tritunggal, h.15).

Padahal, ayat lengkapnya berbunyi “tetapi Dia, yang untuk waktu yang singkat dibuat sedikit lebih rendah dari pada malaikat-malaikat” (Ibr.2:9) dan ayat sebelumnya berbunyi: “Dan ketika Ia membawa pula AnakNya yang sulung ke dunia, ia berkata: “Semua malaikat Allah harus menyembah Dia.” (Ibr.1:6). Bahkan disebutkan pula oleh YHWH bahwa Yesus adalah Allah sampai dua kali (Ibr.1:8,9).

Bila memang Alkitab tidak menyebutkan Yesus sebagai ‘Tuhan’ dan ‘Allah’ tentu penerjemahan sesuai kaidah bahasa yang digunakan umat Kristen (yang diterjemahkan para ahli teologi dan bahasa asli) tentu akan mengungkapkan hal itu dan kita tinggal menunjukkan ayat-ayat yang mana. Justru karena SSY memasukkan doktrinnya ke dalam penerjemahan, maka dalam Alkitab SSY (NW, yang diterjemahkan bukan oleh ahli teologia dan ahli bahasa asli) dibuat sedemikian rupa sehingga kedua jabatan Kristus itu tidak diberikan kepadanya melainkan dijadikan sekedar ‘tuan’ dan ‘suatu allah.’



Parallelism is the adjustment that exists between some words from a poem sentence. A full parallelism is called a row. Each line contains 2, sometimes 3, 4 or more (rarely) clause poetry. Paragraph 2 clause that has called bicolon; 3 clause called tricolon. Poetry sentence with one clause also exists and is called monocola.

When we read these lines of Hebrew poetry carefully, we will see that the clause relating to the meaning of the main clause. But, uniquely clause always bring more thoughts contained in the main clause.

Parallelism has similarities and differences between children sentence in a row. The equations make us read the two sentences at a time. And variations contained in the second clause causing growing understanding of the psalm.

Parallelism Semantics (related to the meaning of words):

  1. Parallelism Synonyms:

Wearing synonyms. Thoughts in the second clause is synonymous with mind in the first clause. The second sentence child / children next sentence repeat or strengthen the mind in the first row.

I will divide them among the children of Jacob

and scatter them among the children of Israel. (Genesis 49: 7b)

The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands; (Psalm 19: 2)

  1. antithetic parallelism:

Wearing antonym (a word that means the opposite with a different words: thin / fat, gentle / bearish). The same thought expressed from two different perspectives and often contradictory.

Clause second or subsequent child in contrast to the mind in the first sentence. The statement in the first sentence of children confirmed by his opponent in the second row.

he wise shall inherit glory

but fools will receive scorn. (Proverbs 3:35)

Against the pure thou holy applicable,

the person who hooked you apply devious. (Psalm 18:27)

  1. Synthetic Parallelism:

Thoughts on the child continued and developed the first sentence in the second row. So the content in the second or subsequent clause added to the first sentence children to provide further information or making it perfect.

So now my head was erect,

overcome the enemy around me. (Psalm 18:27)

Rescuer-savior will rise to the top of Mount Zion

to judge the mount of Esau;

then the LORD’s will be the owner of the kingdom. (Obadiah 21)

  1. Coat Parallelism (Emblematik):

This parallelism is clearly making an analogy. In this parallelism used a word comparisons (eg similar) for integrating two minds of two different living world. Said comparison is used to provide illumination for a teaching theology or teachings that are educational.

Like birds fluttering swallows fly,

So a curse without cause does not come to rest. (Proverbs 26: 2)

As the deer longs for flowing streams,

so my soul longs for you, O God. (Psalm 42: 2)

  1. Parallelism Repetitive (Stairs / Reaching Climax):

Most of the children repeated the first sentence in the clause following clauses and supplemented with new elements so as to reach a climax.

Ascribe to the LORD, O mighty ones,

ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.

Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His name;

worship the LORD in the splendor of His holiness. (Psalm 29: 1-3, NIV)

Let us sing for joy to the Lord,

cheering on the rock of our salvation.

Let us draw his face with thanksgiving,

cheering for Him with the singing of psalms.

For the LORD is a great God,

and a great King above all gods. (Psalm 95: 1-3)

  1. Parallelism Pivot Pattern:

Having a compound word or phrase that is located in the middle of a sentence, and called the sentence shaft. The word must be read with the words A and B. sentences

In the presence of the Lord, (A)

O earth tremble,

in the presence of the God of Jacob. (B)

(Psalm 114: 7, following the translation of Dr. Longman)

The phrase “O earth trembled”, should be read with the words A and B with the sentence:

In the presence of the Lord, O earth trembled.

In the presence of the God of Jacob, O earth trembled.

  1. Parallelism chiasm (Introvert):

So named because the Greek letter “Chi” in the form of two crossed lines (a big X). When made diagram, a line will form an X chiasm:

Have mercy on me, O God,

According to your Unfailing love;

According to Your great compassion

blot out my transgressions. (Psalm 51: 1, NIV)

In His hand are the depths of the earth,

and the mountain peaks belong to Him. (Psalm 95: 4, NIV)

Chiasm can also be found at a higher level structure in the psalms. For example, Psalm 2, which consists of 4 stanzas composed as chiasm. Stanza I (verses 1-3) and last (verses 10-12) associated with the kings of the world and the actions that occur in the world. Stanza II (verses 4-6) and III (verses 7-9) to tell what happened in heaven.

Most of the examples that we saw earlier is a complete parallelism (complete parallelism). That is, every part of the child first sentence parallel with each section contained in the second clause.

Sometimes children second sentence does not use some of the words of the clause first, with the understanding that the first part of the clause which is not used in the clause be read a second. Usually that is not used is the verb.

You have put me in the grave at the bottom,

in darkness, in the deep water. (Psalm 88: 7)

The verb does not exist in the second clause, but we understand that the definition of the second clause:

(You have put me) in the darkness, in the deep water.

Such means of poetry called an ellipsis. The point is to unite more closely two clauses, and to disclose something briefly.



In addition to parallelism, means of Hebrew poetry that stands out is imageri. The poetry of the Old Testament is rich with the images (picture / painting). For example in the book of psalms God is described in many ways: he is a shield, castle, rock, dark clouds, a shepherd, a hero, an archer, the chariot driver, king, etc.

Thus, if we do not understand the workings imageri, we will lose a lot of news psalms and other passages in the form of poetry. Imageri speak through painting words with a comparison.

Sometimes these comparisons directly and called Simile. A simile is a comparison that made it became clear by using the word like. Example :

As the deer longs for flowing streams,

so my soul longs for you, O God. (Psalm 88: 7)

O Lord, my God, in You I take refuge;

save and deliver me from all them that persecute me,

lest like a lion pouncing on me

and dragged me, with no one to deliver. (Psalm 7: 2-3)

Imageri second type is a metaphor, which is a comparison that is not directly, without using the word like. A metaphor to communicate a clearer image than a simile because metaphor provides indirect comparison and described the comparison is closer. example:

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. (Psalm 23)

How can an image function?

An image comparing the two the same thing in several points of view, but also has the inequality in the other perspective. This inequality overawe and make us pay attention. Then we will pay attention to the existing equation and draw lessons from it.

For example, read Psalm 127: 3-5.

There, the boys are like a bow in the hands of a hero. To understand this simile we must ask: In what way the boys are like an arrow? We also have to ask: In what ways different boys with arrows?

We begin to answer the obvious thing we know: the psalmist did not compare the physical form of the children with arrows. There is no literal or physical relationship between the boys with arrows. Here’s the difference.

But how can they be the same? How it compares with the darts can explain the psalmist mean that boys are grateful for their father?

The answer: Arrows belonged to a soldier. The arrow is a weapon that helps soldiers in the war. Likewise, the boys can be a source of strength for a father when he fought in this world; her children would support him.

The suggestions in investigating imageri:

Identify existing comparison.

Think carefully existing comparison. In what ways are they similar and in what ways they are not the same?

Remember that imageri Hebrew poetry comes from the ancient cultures of Israel and not the modern culture.

So we have to learn the cultural background to be able to interpret correctly. For this purpose we can use references both as a tool.

In addition to parallelism and imageri, ancient poet Jews “beautify” and develop their creations poems by various other means somewhat less important because rarely are. Among the most interesting and the most prominent and important enough to understand the psalm is Inclusio, ie a repetition of the opening and closing of a poem. Example :

Psalm 8, in the opening paragraph and closing paragraph, namely paragraph 2 and 10:

O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name, in all the earth!

Psalm 106, opened and closed with Hallelluyah hebrew word, which translates to Praise the Lord!

A Inclusio create a psalm to have unity, and more importantly, determining the mood of the entire psalm. In Psalm 8, Inclusio evokes a reverence for God.

Hebrew has the emotional character so that abstract ideas can be conveyed with concrete terms, a beautiful and lively. This is evident from a direct call to inanimate objects with feeling (ie. Zech 11: 1-2). Or using words that are anthropomorphism or anthropopathisms to God (eg, Ps 10:12). It can even deliver the words that seem cruel (ex. Ps 137: 9).

Therefore, we must be careful. Do not do exegesis (find the original meaning) by trying to find special meaning in every word or phrase, which is not intended author. As an example:

“God our unwavering fortress”.

This does not mean God is a kind of fortifications or buildings / walls are impenetrable, but rather it is a way of thinking about God.

“In sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51).

The psalmist did not trying to build doctrine that contains the sin, or that his mother was a sinner, or “original sin” applies to children who have not been born, etc.

She is using hyperbole to express strongly and clearly that he was a sinner.

“For You …, weave me in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139).

There is a connecting word “weave” with a tangle of human DNA.

Such an idea is unacceptable, because actually it is a metaphor used to describe how God psalmist personally involved in the creation process itself.

%d blogger menyukai ini: