A brief survery of Sir Isaac Newton's views on Religion

[BroJones]

Here is a paper I have written over the past several months. Enjoy. (Comments welcomed)
I see that the painting of Newton did not make it, nor the timeline of Newton in History...


A Brief Survey of Sir Isaac Newton’s Views on Religion
Based on an invited Hyrum B. Summerhays Lecture on Science and Religion
By Steven E. Jones, Emeritus Professor of Physics


Newton was certainly one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. He laid out the Three Laws of motion in his extraordinary Principia Mathematica. He discovered the Law of Universal Gravitation, the famous inverse-distance-squared law. He wrote much about light and optics after performing his own original experiments on light. He invented Calculus. He rejected the authority of the Greek philosopher Aristotle and promoted experiment-based science.

















Newton at age 47. Portrait by Kneller, 1689.


But did you know that Newton was also a devout Christian who wrote extensively about Christianity? We learn from his writings that he studied the Bible deeply along with writings of early Christian Church leaders. Notably, Newton concluded that the Trinity dogma—the notion of a Triune god —was false doctrine and therefore he refused the rites of the Anglican Church, a most unpopular position which almost cost him his position at Cambridge University.

Newton also believed that a general apostasy from Christ’s doctrines occurred early on in the history of the Christian church, and he wrote in his notes that a restoration of the Lord’s church would come at some future time. We will examine some of Newton’s copious notes on religion. The bulk of these writings emerged only after 1936 when they were sold at auction, having been generally kept from the public up to that time.

Introductory “Quiz”

I have a quick Physics quiz to get us thinking along Newtonian lines. Imagine a puck on an air table held by a string so that it travels in a circular path. Some of you have played “air hockey” so you have an idea of how pucks behave on a “frictionless” table. This puck has a string attached to a central peg so the puck is going in a circle on an air table.




All of a sudden, at point P at the bottom the string breaks. Approximately which way will the puck go? Please cast your “vote.” Path number one, two, three or four… you choose.

Perhaps this hint from Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher, will help. Aristotle famously taught about objects in motion: “Movement in a straight line certainly does not belong to it naturally…” [Aristotle, De Caelo I.2-3.]

Instead, Aristotle taught that objects would tend to move in circles—not straight lines [Aristotle, De Caelo].

So, when you cut the string you remove the force pulling inward on the puck. So which way does the puck go?
I see that we have answers across the board here (based on a show of hands in the audience). Not too many of you are sure, I think. But we don’t do science by voting…
Indeed, how do we find out answers?
Newton urged people to use experiments to answer questions such as this, not just logic and common sense. And certainly an appeal to authority (such as Aristotle) would not do. [Newton, Principia] When we actually perform the experiment, we find that the moving puck follows path #2. It does NOT travel outward or in a circle.

Newton generalized the results of many such experiments in his famous three Laws of motion. Newton’s first law of motion can be expressed this way: an object at rest will remain at rest and if in motion it will naturally move in a straight line at constant velocity. Straight-line motion is what we expect, unless there are unbalanced outside forces acting on the object (not the case when the string is cut). [Newton, Principia] But this contradicts Aristotle! Sorry, experiments are more important than declarations of authority figures. Experiments are the basis of the scientific method.

Let’s see, the puck was moving in the direction of 2 when the string broke so Newton says it will just keep going in that direction. That is correct -- that’s what you determine by actual experiments. I’ve done such experiments and Newton was correct, and Aristotle was wrong. We answer questions with experiments rather than relying on some “authority” such as Aristotle.

Anyone at all can do real hands-on experiments. You get the same result, whether you are Mormon or Muslim, Baptist or Buddhist. The experimental method works in repeatable fashion, independent of one’s beliefs. Repeatability is the core strength of the scientific method.

During the Dark Ages, people would often answer questions ipse dixit—Latin—which means “He himself said it”—in other words, Aristotle said it. If Aristotle said it, that was the end of the discussion for many. Newton, rejecting the argument from authority, said it is certainly not the end of the discussion to quote an authority. Rather, he promoted the use of actual experiments to find out what is going on, leading to the modern scientific method. [Newton, Principia] This approach to answering questions, using experiments rather than debates or logic or authoritative statements, provided a foundation for the Renaissance, a re-awakening of science and culture that quickly emerged from the Dark Ages.

We have similar important issues today. For example – is “man-caused global warming” a real effect? We can get the answer by repeated, careful experiments and measurements rather than by dogmatic or political statements. What causes the earth to undergo warming and cooling cycles? Sometimes it is not easy to devise the needed experiments, but if we are clever and patiently rely on experiments to determine physical forces rather than being harried by political forces, we can solve such puzzles.

Is the earth spinning, for certain? Or is all motion relative -- how can we find out? (Hopefully, you are now thinking – with experiments!) In this case, experiments unequivocally demonstrate the earth is spinning on its axis. Let me broach another example: we all saw the enormous dust clouds produced as the Twin Towers fell to the earth on 9/11/2001, a terrible tragedy. Scientists showed that the dust was highly alkaline and loaded with asbestos – highly dangerous -- but statements from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the time contravened the scientists’ warnings and told the public that the dust was innocuous. [Heilpern, 2003] How do we find out? More and more experiments showed that the WTC dust was in fact toxic and dangerous. [Heilpern, 2003] Such experimental results may not be well known yet, but they may yet prove significant to our society. We can ask the questions and do the science and find out.

Sometimes there is a personal cost to our research. The whistleblower who called attention to the misleading EPA statements (Nikki Tinsley), lost her job at the EPA for following her conscience and speaking out. Similarly, Newton almost lost his University position for following his conscience, based on his research, as we shall see.

The thoughtful scientist requires analysis based on experiments and evidence – it is not a matter of popular opinion or what some authority figure states. Questions important to society can be addressed by the scientific method, using experiments, then published in refereed journals. The system of review by knowledgeable peers was worked out during Newton’s lifetime at the Royal Academy of Sciences. It is generally considered a major step in a nascent field of science when results are finally published in established peer-reviewed venues and journals. The scientific method has served us well for about 350 years.

Newton in historical context
The following timeline places Newton in historical context with other notables.















Aristotle and Plato lived about 400 years before Christ and their impact on western culture has been considerable. Newton was certainly much influenced by Jesus Christ and the early Christian writers listed in the timeline above, for he quoted them abundantly in his writings. He took exception with several of the later Christian writers, after about 200 AD, listed in the timeline. Copernicus, Tico Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo appeared on the scene just before Newton and paved the way for his research. Newton was born on the same day in 1642 that Galileo Galilei passed away and he used many of Galileo’s findings in developing his famous laws of motion. [Newton, Principia] Isaac Newton died in 1727.

A meshing of science and faith in God for Newton
Newton was both a scientist and a believer in God. He wrote Optics, a study of light and a very important book in the history of science. In this scientific treatise, he paused to ask:
“Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain? Whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world?”
“Was the eye contrived without skill in optics? And the ear without knowledge of sounds?”
Then, in case the reader is not getting his point, he states plainly:
“This most beautiful system of the sun and planets and comets...” [i.e., this beautiful solar system] could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” [Newton, Optics]
In his famous Principia, Newton wrote:
"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all.... The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect... and from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being;... He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present... " (Newton, Principia, Bk3, pp. 543-546)
Newton also wrote:
“When I wrote my Treatise about our System, I had an Eye upon such Principles as might work with considering Men, for the belief of a Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” [Newton, Letter to Richard Bentley, 1716; Yeates p. 70]
In other words, he hoped his scientific writings would lead people to think about and believe in God.
“In human affairs the father of a family or house is frequently taken for the common father of a kindred. Here the whole creation is considered as one kindred or family so named from God the common Father of all.” [Newton, Microfilm MS 8385, Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library.]

Thus, for Newton, there was a natural meshing of science and belief in God.
In the Book of Mormon, Alma speaks of performing an individual “experiment” (he uses the same term later used by Newton) in order to learn about religious principles:
“…awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith…
“Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place that a seed may be planted in our heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves – It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me…
“And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.” Alma 32: 27-33.

Now compare this advice of Alma regarding an “experiment” on the word of God, with this advice from Newton regarding the scriptures:
“Search the scriptures thy self & that by frequent [reading] and constant meditation upon what thou readest & earnest prayer to God to enlighten thine understanding – if thou desirest to find the truth. Which if thou shalt at length attain thou wilt value above all other treasures in the world by reason of the assurance & vigor it will add to thy faith, & steady satisfaction to thy mind which he only can know how to estimate who shall experience it.”
[Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University.]

It seems evident that Newton is sharing his own experience of studying and meditating on the scriptures and the assurance and satisfaction the word of God brought to him just as Alma shares his experience based on planting the word of God in his heart.

Newton’s key to correctly understanding scripture
With the foundation that Newton had obtained by reading the Bible and earnest meditation and prayer, how did he proceed to resolve other questions about religion? There were so many differing interpretations of scripture – how could one make progress in finding out the meaning intended in the Bible?

Newton answers:
“The first Principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable conclusions, opinions or conjectures or on human sanctions, but on the express words of Christ & his Apostles; & we are to hold fast the form of sound words. 2 Tim. 1.13 And further, it is not enough that a Proposition be ... in the express words of Scripture: it must also appear to have been taught in the days of the Apostles.”
And again:
“The first Principles of the Christian religion depend, not on disputable conclusions … Every …sentence in scripture is not a fundamental Article. It must be delivered in the express words of the first teachers & appear to have been an article taught from the beginning.”
[“The Newton Project,” http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts ... 003_n.html]

So here is Newton’s “experimental” approach in understanding the Bible – read what the “first teachers” taught along with the “express words of Christ and the Apostles”. The novel element is to consider the direct writings of the “first teachers”, the earliest bishops and leaders in the Christian Church, as a companion to the scriptures.

At the University, Newton had the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Mathetes and others of the earliest Christian leaders – and he read their words in the original Latin and Greek. Newton quotes frequently from these earliest leaders in the nascent Christian Church, and in his notes he sorts out doctrines which they taught from notions which appeared later in history. [Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University.]

In 1661, Newton was admitted to Trinity College in Cambridge, England. At that time, the college’s teachings were based largely on the teachings of Aristotle and other philosophers, but Newton preferred to study the experimentalists Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler, and he came to challenge Aristotle’s teachings. Shortly after he obtained his degree in April, 1665, the University closed down due to a pandemic known as the Great Plague. This gave Newton two years “off”, and he applied himself to studies of optics, gravitation and mathematics at his home in Woolsthorpe, England. [White, 1997]

In 1669, Newton was named to the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics, an elevated position at Trinity College in the Cambridge University system. Already at age 26 his talents and contributions were recognized. In Newton’s day, any Fellow of Cambridge or Oxford had to be an ordained priest in the Anglican Church. (The Church of England or Anglican Church was the prevailing church in England at the time.) And the head of the college at Cambridge was strict about this rule and demanded that Newton accept the rites of the Anglican Church, becoming a priest in that church. [White, 1997]

Newton replied that he would study this matter and reply. We’ve established from his writings that he was very conscientious, and he said (effectively) “I’m going to have to study this out before responding.” So then he immersed himself in the scriptures and other ancient texts including the earliest Christian writers. He wrote copiously in notebooks regarding his religious studies. He filled his notebooks with scriptural quotes, from both the Old and New Testament as well as from the earliest Christian writers. [White, 1997]

I’ve spent considerable time reading and pondering these early Christian writers as Newton did. Fortunately many of these early Christian writings have been translated into English (since 1860). Ignatius was a bishop in Rome and he wrote in Latin and other early Bishops wrote letters in Greek. But Newton in his notebooks freely quoted in Latin and Greek which he read fluently. [Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University]

Newton’s notes on religion at Cambridge University UK
My wife and I and daughter Danelle were allowed into the library at Cambridge University in June 2001, and were allowed to access the religious notes of Isaac Newton. As a full Professor of Physics, I was allowed access to Newton’s writings with my two “helpers.” And so for a long time the three of us pored over the interesting writings in Newton’s own hand (available on microfilm). I found that Newton would write out a quote in Greek from an early Christian writer, and then at the end he’ll say in English, “Nothing could be clearer than that!” [Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University.]

It turns out the Cambridge University library would not let us take pens in but we could take pencil and paper for hand-written notes, also they would not let us use any type of photocopying on Newton’s religious writings. So for hours we furiously wrote penciled notes and frankly it was fun for us. It is interesting that Cambridge University is essentially restricting the flow of this information about Newton’s religious writings – you really have to work for it! My wife found an argument penned by Newton that Jesus was born in the spring time, not in December.

Newton on the nature of the Godhead

Just how did Newton apply his “experimental” approach in his religious studies? A prime example comes from his studies of the nature of God, which he based on the Scriptures combined with the teachings of the early Bishops of the Christian Church. We see this approach in his copious notes, in which he quotes both Scripture and the “first teachers” as he called them. [Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University]

I found his handwritten notebooks regarding the nature of the Godhead. Newton provides analysis that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct beings, three members of the Godhead. And he has twelve points that he summarizes after all his studies on this. Newton came to the firm conclusion that the Godhead is comprised of three separate individuals -- I’ll quote just a handful of his points here.

1. The Son confesses the Father greater than him, calls him his God, &c
2. The Son acknowledges the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only
3. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father. Which would be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
4. The Son in several places confesses his dependence on the will of the Father.
5. The union between him and the Father is like that of the saints one with another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.
[Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University Library]

Newton explains that in the book of Revelation the Father gives Jesus a book describing the future. Newton notes that here is an example of the Father giving the Son a certain knowledge— so obviously they’re not the same entity—they are separate, distinct individuals. Furthermore the Father knew more at the time than Jesus so that after Jesus was resurrected, he received additional knowledge from the Father. “The union between him and the Father is like that of the saints one with another. That is in agreement of will and counsel,” Newton concludes -- not unity of substance but unity in their “will and counsel.” [Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University Library] This coincides with the LDS view.

Next we consider the Athanasian Creed [available at: http://anglicansonline.org/basics/athanasian.html]. Newton traced the history of its development. By the time of the Nicene Council, 325 AD, Athanasius and others were convened by Emperor Constantine. There had already been considerable discussion about the Godhead in the preceding decades. Here’s what this council came up with, quoting from the Athanasian Creed:

“Whosever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

So in other words: this creed is mandatory. After the council came up with this concept, certain of the church actually started killing people who didn’t believe it. Later in the Inquisition the sword was used to enforce the doctrine, including torturing and killing heretics who didn’t accept this creed. (The same methods were used by the Conquistadors to “bring” Christianity to the American natives.) Back to the Athanasian Creed:
“The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible.”
“So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other;
none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons
are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.”
This is straight out of the Athanasian creed. Is it crystal clear to you? Newton writes that as a mathematician this just did not make sense, this three in one notion. “Let them make good sense of it who are able; for my part, I can make none…” [Newton, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scriptures,” 1754. ] In his treatise on John’s Book of Revelation, Newton wrote:
“Apostasy was to begin by corrupting the truth about the relation of the Son to the Father in putting them equal.” [Newton, “Observations upon the Prophecies…,” 1733]

Thus, from his careful studies, Newton came to the conclusion that there was a general “Apostasy” from the early Christian Church and that the idea of a Triune God was unscriptural and contrary to the teachings of the early Christian writers. Therefore, he refused to accept the orders or rites of the Anglican Church in becoming a priest-- following his conscience instead. Quoting from historian H. McLachlan:

“Newton by his constant refusal to be ordained risked losing his fellowship at Trinity College, and would have lost it.” [McLachlan, 1950]

We will see what happened. Newton biographer M. White writes:
“In a battle between his conscience and his career he was willing to sacrifice all he had worked for to go with his conscience.” [White, 1977]


I greatly admire Newton for that. And I hope that if you are ever faced with such a decision you will say with Newton, “I will go with my honest research and with my conscience… That’s integrity.” Yes, that is integrity to be a careful researcher and to go with one’s conscience. It’s a pity there was so much pressure on this man to do otherwise even from his peers. We will see what happened to Newton as he faced this crisis in his life.

The “heretic” Basilides and the notion of Creation Ex Nihilo
Regarding the notion of “uncreate” which is prominent in the Athanasian creed, some additional background is relevant. There Gnostic philosopher Basilides joined the Christian church about 150 AD. Basilides promoted and perhaps invented the doctrine of creation out of nothing— creation ex nihilo. [See The New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02326a.htm “Basilides”] Before that the records show quite clearly that the Christians and before them the Hebrews in the Old Testament believed that the earth was created out of existing matter, rather than creation ex nihilo. [Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 354ff]
But Basilides said in effect, “Our God is greater than the Greek gods and the Roman gods, in that he can make things out of absolutely nothing at all!” So that means you and everything you see is made out of this stuff that was created out of nothing, and God is of course separate from the material world He created. It follows that God must be “uncreate”, if you subscribe to ex nihilo creation, and made of a different “substance” than temporal things. Newton knew about this fellow Basilides and determined that he was a heretic:
“It is to be observed that this Apostasy was to be general…This I gather from [Revelation and]…the working of iniquity in St. Paul’s time set on foot by Simon Magnus, Manander,…Basilides, ..and other heretiques like these…” [Newton, “Observations on Prophecies…”, 1733]
Well this new doctrine causes a lot of problems if you follow it through. How can Jesus the begotten Son of God and yet himself be a God which is “uncreated” and not of tangible body? Indeed, where does this leave the doctrine of resurrection, involving a tangible body of “flesh and bones”? Is the substance of the resurrected body of Jesus “uncreate”, since He is God, or “created” since it is flesh and bones? What a dilemma!
Basilides went so far as to deny that Jesus ever had a body of flesh and bones, as critiqued by Newton:
“For the hereticks thinking it below the dignity of their principal Gods to be really incarnate & to suffer really on the cross, eluded the truth of Christ’s being come in the flesh by various opinions. Some of them, as Simon Magnus, Basilides [and others] said that Christ had not a body of real flesh & bones but only appeared to men in shew.” [Newton, http://www.newtonproject.Sussex.ac.uk/t ... normalized ]
Clearly there appear major problems in theology when one introduces this notion of creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) as Basilides did, with only God being “uncreated”. And then there’s the doctrine that the early Christians had believed up until that time that man could progress and become like God. For instance, Cyprian, an early Christian Bishop, wrote:
“Therefore, we accompany Him [Jesus Christ], we follow Him, we have Him as the Guide of our way, the Source of light, the Author of salvation, promising as well the Father in heaven to those who seek and believe. What Christ is, we Christians shall be, if we imitate Christ. This Christ, who as the mediator of the two, [God and man], puts on man that He may lead them to the Father. What man is, Christ was willing to be, that man also may be what Christ [now] is.” [Cyprian, Testimonies]
But now if there’s this huge gap between the created stuff which is just temporary and ephemeral and God the eternal “uncreate” -- how could mortal man possibly bridge that gap? How can that which is material and created out of nothing become like the Eternal God, “Incomprehensible” and “Uncreate”? Something does not make sense. Maybe it is the concept of creation ex nihilo that is the underlying problem… But at the Nicene council, the pendulum did not swing that way.
Further, you have the concept from Greek philosophy that was making inroads with the Christians that God is “monadic”, the One, not divisible or divided. [White, 1997] And so the doctrine of creation out of nothing and the Triune Deity spread among the Christians up to the time that the Nicene Council was convened by Constantine – long after the twelve apostles were gone from the scene. And creation ex nihilo is still the doctrine of the Christian churches today -- except one that I know of —the LDS faith.
The Council of Nicea and the Athanasian Creed
Now how do we have the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost be one God and yet be three? The mathematician Newton wrote, “Let them make good sense of it who are able; for my part, I can make none…” [Newton, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scriptures,” 1754.] Then try to figure this out in the midst of all this confused doctrine about creation ex nihilo. Note that Joseph Smith rejected the doctrine of “creation ex nihilo”, for instance in the King Follet discourse. [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” p. 354 ff] And of course, after God the Father and the Son appeared to him as separate Personages in vision in 1820, Joseph Smith taught that They were separate and distinct Beings. Thus, Joseph Smith rejected the pair of dogmas of the Triune god and creation ex nihilo.
By 325 A.D., there sharply divergent viewpoints regarding the nature of the Godhead. So Constantine pulled a council together, the Council of Nicea, including Arius and Athanasius, to sort things out and come up with a statement on what God is really like. The views of Athanasius won out; Arius died shortly thereafter rather mysteriously…
Again from the Athanasian creed:
“So there is one Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three; One Holy Ghost, not Three. And in this Trinity none is afore or after, None is greater or less…but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity…he therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.”
The New Advent Encyclopedia has this comment about the Athanasian Creed:
“Frequent attempts have been made to eliminate the creed from public services of the Anglican church. The Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury has already affirmed that these clauses, in their prima facie meaning, go beyond what is warranted by Holy Scripture.” [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm]
Thus, some appear willing to admit with Newton that this creed is not solid Christian doctrine.
What the earliest Christian teachers taught about the Godhead
Again, in order to ferret out the true meaning of the scriptures, Newton developed the following key as expressed in his notebooks:
“The first Principles of the Christian religion [such as the nature of God] are founded not on disputable conclusions, opinions or conjectures or on humane sanctions but on the express words of Christ & his Apostles, & we are to hold fast the form of sound words [referring to 2 Timothy 1:13]. Further, it is not enough that the Proposition be…in the express words of Scripture: It must also appear to have been taught in the days of the Apostles.” [“The Newton Project,” http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts ... 003_n.html]
So this is Newton’s key to understanding true Christian teachings: look at the scriptures AND look at what the Christian leaders living in the days of the Apostles wrote and taught!
For example Ignatius was ordained a bishop by the Apostle Peter according to our history, so you would think that the writings of Ignatius would give us some insight into the true gospel doctrine. Similarly, Polycarp was a bishop in Smyrna, which is mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Smyrna is located in the area of modern Turkey, and Polycarp was ordained a Bishop by the Apostle John. So again you would expect that Polycarp’s writings would be reliable as regards the teachings of the Lord’s Apostles.
Let’s consider with Newton a few of these early Christian writers, especially those who wrote before about 150 AD (refer to timeline above). The early bishops wrote letters to other Christians, very much like John and Peter and James wrote letters, and many of these survived through the centuries. Ignatius, Bishop of Rome circa 100 A.D., wrote extensively to his Christian flock. The early saints were already having trouble with heretics and his letter is entitled, “Abstain from the Poison of Heretics.” The good Bishop writes:
“One of the ancients gives us this advice, let no man be called good who mixes good with evil. For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ, and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. They introduce God as a being unknown [“incomprehensible” comes to mind], they suppose Christ to be unbegotten. As to the Spirit some do not admit that he exists. Some of them say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are but the same person. Be on your guard therefore against such persons.” [Ignatius, The epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 6.]
Nothing could be clearer than that. And so one can imagine Newton reading this and comparing with the Athanasian creed. Here’s Bishop Ignatius writing to the Magnesians about 100 A.D.:
“At your meetings there must be one prayer, one supplication one hope in love, in joy that is flawless that is Jesus Christ, who stands supreme, Come together, all of you, as to one temple and one altar, to one Jesus Christ. Certainly if He were to imitate our way of acting we should be done for instantly. [I admire his sense of humor.] We must therefore prove ourselves His disciples and learn to live like Christians. Be zealous, therefore to stand squarely on the decrees of the Lord and the Apostles, that in all things whatsoever you may prosper, in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in the Son and the Father and the Spirit—Submit to the bishop and to each other’s rights, just as did Jesus Christ in the flesh to the Father, and as the Apostles did to Christ and Father and the Spirit so that there may be oneness. Farewell you who being of one mind with God possess an unflinching spirit which is to be like Jesus Christ.” [Ignatius, The epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.]
Notice his emphasis that Jesus submits to the Father, recognizing an order there. Clearly, the early saints are already having some heresies but Bishop Ignatius is striving to keep doctrines straight, including the pure doctrine of the Godhead.
Next consider the early saint Clement writing about 90 AD as he quotes the Apostle Peter:
“Simon said, I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God. [Peter replies] I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case…It is the shape of the just God. For He has shape, and He has every limb…For He moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal.”
[Clement, Clemintine Homilies, 16:19-17:7]
Nothing could be clearer.
Justin Martyr writing a little later about 140 AD explained:
“The Jews think that it was the Father of the universe who spoke to Moses. But the one who spoke to Moses was actually the Son of God. Those who think the Son is the Father are shown never to have really been acquainted with the Father. [Aha!] Nor do they know that the Father of the universe has a Son. In Ancient Times, Christ appeared to Moses and to the other prophets. It is only reasonable that that we should worship him, since we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself. We hold him in the second place and prophetic Spirit in the third place.”
“Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning. `behold. Adam has become like one of Us', this phrase, `like one of Us.' is also indicative of number; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the sophists endeavor to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand the truth.... You may perceive, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit. [Justin, We don't Speak Great Things-We Live Them, p. 106]

“Numerically distinct.” Nothing could be clearer than that! Remember in the Athanasian creed they’re co-equal and of the same substance but the doctrine before that clearly was that there is order, one, two, three, which is only possible with three distinct individuals. Again, Newton writes: “Apostasy was to begin by corrupting the truth about the relation of the Son to the Father in putting them equal.” [Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University Library]
Next, consider the “The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus” (ca. 100 AD, Beginning in Chapter 7):
“As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him, as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us.... But after he revealed and laid open, through His beloved Son, the things which had been prepared from the beginning, He conferred every blessing all at once upon us, so that we should both share in His benefits, and see and be active. Who of us would ever have expected these things? He was aware, then, of all things in His own mind, along with His Son, according to the relation subsisting between them.
“He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous... If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to himself, whom [man] He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him. And when you have attained this knowledge, with what joy do you think will be filled? Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing.” [Mathetes, “The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus”]
Again we see the distinct personages of the Father and his Son, and also the idea of man becoming like God, “if he is willing.” Ponder this: How could man become like Christ, become like God, if God were a Triune, uncreated, incomprehensible entity? If created from nothing, how could man bridge the gap to become like the uncreated triune Creator? Clearly, he could not. Thus the doctrines of creation ex nihilo and of a Triune deity mesh together, while excluding the doctrines of Christ as the distinct embodied begotten Son of God and that great goal achievable by man of becoming like Him, co-heirs with Him in heaven. On the other hand, when we read the teachings of the earliest Christian Bishops hand-in-hand with the Bible, as Newton did, then we may find that Basilides’ (circa 150 AD) teaching that the earth was created ex nihilo and the Nicene/Athanasian doctrine of an uncreated, incomprehensible Triune deity are both apostate.
I find these writings of the earliest leaders in the nascent Church of Jesus Christ to be very beautiful and insightful. These are bishops trying to help their flocks in the earliest days of the Church. They have, in general, been taught by the Apostles and they are sharing this learning with the early Christian Church – and with us. I find great consistency between these writings and the teachings of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In Newton’s very extensive notes, we find that he has carefully researched these early Christian Bishops and he is getting the early Christian doctrine straight. Do you think he is going to just accept the Athanasian creed after what he has learned? No. He did not.
Newton rejects 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
Newton wrote a long article about the passage found in 1st John 5:7 in the King James Version, which indeed sounds a bit like the Athanasian Creed:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” [1 John 5:7, KJV]
Not satisfied with this passage, Newton went back and read the text of the earliest scriptures in their original language. Using the writings of the early Christian writers as well as the Greek and Latin manuscripts of John’s letters, Newton showed that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," did not appear in the original Greek manuscripts. Newton writes:
“In Jerome's time and both before and long after it, this text [1 Jn. 5:7] was never thought of… Now it is in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business” [that is, supporting Trinitarian dogma.] “Let them make good sense of it who are able; for my part, I can make none…” [Newton, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scriptures,” 1754.]
Newton was fairly blunt about this, as he challenged this passage, 1 John 5:7. He concluded based on early texts of the Bible that this verse was simply added during the Dark Ages and he traces how this came about. Newton’s rejection of this verse in the King James Bible was written about 1690 but first published in 1754, 27 years after his death. [See: Sir David Brewster, “Memoirs of the life, writings, and discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, Volume 2,” Harper’s Stereotype Edition, 1833.]
Scholars today agree in general -- for instance in Unger’s Bible Dictionary we read:
“Verse 7 of 1 John chapter 5 is not in the oldest and best manuscripts and should be omitted.”
Yes, it should be omitted – it was added to the Bible during the Dark Ages as noted by Sir Isaac Newton. You might want to make a note of that in your scriptures.
Newton’s views of a general Apostasy, his rejection of Anglican rites, and his University position threatened
Newton wrote a lengthy treatise on the Book of Revelation and concludes:
“If you now compare all with the Apocalyptic visions and particularly with the flight of the Woman in the Wilderness and the reign of the Whore of Babylon, they will very much illustrate one another. For these visions are as plain as if it had been expressly said the true Church shall disappear and in her stead an Idolatrous Church reign in the world.” [Newton, “Observations on Prophecies…”, 1733]
I think many would agree with Newton that “said the true Church shall disappear and in her stead an Idolatrous Church reign in the world.” Newton goes on:
“It is to be observed that this Apostasy was to be general…This I gather from [Revelation and]…the working of iniquity in St. Paul’s time set on foot by Simon Magnus, Manander,…Basilides, ..and other heretiques like these…” [Newton, “Observations on Prophecies…”, 1733]
So you can see that Newton is saying that there was in fact a general apostasy from the early Christian church. He adds,
“Now the unity of the Church depended upon the unity of the faith and therefore the rule of faith was unalterable. Yet before the end of the second century [which would be 200 AD] some of the Latin Churches… began to add new articles to it. [To the original church doctrine]. And after they had by adding some articles…made precedents for creating to themselves a creed-making authority. They began to add articles other than that of scripture till they lost the primitive Apostolic rule of faith and by the loss of it brought all into confusion.” [Newton, “Observations on Prophecies…”, 1733]

Now do you think Newton going to accept the ordination in the Church of England as required at Trinity College given his findings? No:
“Newton by his constant refusal to be ordained risked losing his fellowship at Trinity College, and would have lost it.” [McLachlan, 1950]
Newton biographer M. White adds:
“Since 1672 he had spent time away from his experiments and had investigated deeply buried aspects of theology, ancient wisdom and the canon of comparative religion taking him deep into the origins of modern civilization….In a battle between his conscience and his career he was willing to sacrifice all he had worked for to go with his conscience.” [White, 1977, p. 150-155.]
Nevertheless the college administrators at his college insisted that he must accept ordination in the Church of England. He steadfastly declined; he would adhere to his analyses and his conscience. In 1675, the matter came to a head and Newton expected that he would be dismissed because he would not submit to the college administrators. He wrote to a close friend at this time
“The time draws near that I am to part with my fellowship and as my income contracts I find it will be convenient that I contract my expenses.” [White, 1997]
Newton fully expected to be let go. Newton was spared from rejection by his university due largely to the efforts of his friends and colleagues who stood up for him and for academic freedom. They wrote to King Charles II of England for an exception in his case. Remember the king of England was the head of the Anglican Church at that time and the British college system as well. His friends went right to the top.
It is interesting how the king worded the reply. His Majesty granted the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics and all subsequent holders of the chair exemption from holy orders. So whoever happens to be Lucasian Professor of mathematics would not have to submit to ordination in the Church of England. At the time, this just happened to be the outspoken Isaac Newton. The university administrators stood down, in Newton’s case.
On his death bed, Newton openly disclosed his rejection of apostate Christianity by refusing to accept the last rites of the Anglican Church. He died “without benefit of Clergy” at his own request. (But despite this he was buried in Westminster Cathedral with great pomp and ceremony organized by the Anglican church.) Also, he bestowed his heretical manuscripts to relatives, hoping they would be published. Unfortunately, only a few of these were actually published at that time – his study on the Book of Revelation became a best seller. The remainder came forth when these manuscripts were auctioned off in 1936, and the copious writings on religion and history are still being studied. [White, 1997]
Newton predicts a Restoration of the true gospel
Newton’s study of the Great Apostasy profoundly affected his life. But there is more to the story: Newton also came to the realization that just as there had been a falling away, there would be a restoration of the true church of Jesus Christ. He quotes Malachi chapter 3 and other scriptures in his commentary:
“Behold I will send my messenger & he shall prepare the way before me & the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple - But who may abide the day of his coming? & who shall stand when he appeareth? Malachi 3.1, 2.
“And there appeared unto them Moses & Elias & they were talking with Jesus - And (the disciples) asked him saying why say the Scribes that Elias must first come And he answered & told them Elias verily cometh first & restore all things... Mark 9.4, 11, 12, 13. Jesus said unto them (his disciples) Elias shall first come & restore all things, Matthew 17.11, 12, 13.
“Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3.21.
“Behold I will send my messenger & he shall prepare the way before me & the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple – But who may abide the day of his coming? & who shall stand when he appears.”

"I will lay the Land most desolate & the pomp of her strength shall cease, & the Mountains (i.e. Cities) of Israel shall be desolate. Ezek 33.28... Jerusalem shall become heaps... But in the last days it shall come to pass that the Mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the Mountains & it shall be exalted above the hills &c i.e. above all other temples. [Newton interprets the other temples to be "Idol-temples” in his notes.] Mica 3.12.

"So in Dan 2, the new Jerusalem extending its dominion over the earth is represented by a great mountain which filled the whole Earth." [Yahuda Manuscript collection, Cambridge University]

Newton found multiple examples throughout history of reformations by God:

“The worship which is due to this God we are to give to no other nor to ascribe any thing absurd or contradictious to his nature or actions least we be found to blaspheme him or to deny him or to make a step towards atheism or irreligion. The worship which is due to the God of Abraham we are to give to no other lest we make a step towards atheism…
“For as often as mankind has swerved from [true principles] God has made a reformation. When the sons of Adam erred & the thoughts of their heart became evil continually, God selected Noah to people a new world. & when the posterity of Noah transgressed & began to invoke dead men, God selected Abraham & his posterity. & when they transgressed in Egypt, God reformed them by Moses. & when they relapsed to idolatry & immorality, God sent Prophets to reform them & punished them by the Babylonian captivity.”
“& when they that returned from captivity mixed human inventions with the law of Moses under the name of traditions & laid the stress of religion not upon the acts of the mind but upon outward acts & ceremonies, God sent Christ to reform them.
& when the nation received him not, God called the Gentiles.
& now the Gentiles have corrupted themselves; we may expect that God in due time will make a new reformation.
“And in all the reformations of religion hitherto made, the religion in respect of God & our neighbour is one & the same religion ... so that this is the oldest religion in the world.” [Newton, Quoted in Goldish, pp.63-64]

Newton’s argument is it is the same religion that keeps being restored from time to time by God because men deviate from this true religion. Therefore, he fully expects that “God in due time will make a new reformation”, a restoration of the Lord’s church.

In summary, Newton writes:
“So then the mystery of this restitution of all things is to be found in all the Prophets: which makes me wonder with great admiration that so few Christians of our age can find it there.” [Yahuda MS 6, folio 12 (quoted in Manuel, Religion, p. 126)]

I admire Newton’s sense of humor.

Conclusion

Isaac Newton is seen as both a renowned scientist and also a devout Christian. Both are clear from his copious writings and notes. Newton rejected Aristotle’s authority and encouraged actual experiments as part of the scientific method. He based his Christian beliefs on his own studies of the Bible along with the earliest Christian writers, particularly those early Bishops ordained by living Apostles. He traced the origin of the doctrine of a Triune God (the Trinity) and concluded the notion was un-Biblical and apostate. Accordingly, he refused the rites of the Anglican Church. As a result of this, Newton almost lost his position at Cambridge University. But he had good friends and colleagues who stood up for him and prevailed with the king of England who allowed him to keep his position at the university. How disappointed Newton would have been if his fellow professors had not taken a position to defend his academic freedom even when his views were unpopular! Yet the experience of being confronted by the University must have left an unpleasant taste in his mouth, for Newton soon left the university environment and applied his considerable skills in other ways.

Based on extensive studies and careful notes, Newton concluded that a general apostasy had occurred and that a future Restoration of the Lord’s Church would take later place. He wrote:
“Apostasy was to begin by corrupting the truth about the relation of the Son to the Father in putting them equal.” [Newton, “Observations upon the Prophecies…,” 1733]
“& now the Gentiles have corrupted themselves; we may expect that God in due time will make a new reformation.” [Quoted in Goldish, pp.63-64]

Do you agree that the truth has been corrupted and that God would make a new reformation? I do. Thank you.


References

Aristotle, De Caelo. Translation by J. L. Stocks.

Athanasian Creed [available at: http://anglicansonline.org/basics/athanasian.html].
Sir David Brewster, “Memoirs of the life, writings, and discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, Volume 2,” Harper’s Stereotype Edition, 1833.
Clement, Clemintine Homilies.
Cyprian, Testimonies [available in GospeLink].
Matt Goldish, “Judaism in the theology of Sir Isaac Newton,”International Archives of the History of Ideas 157. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
John Heilprin, Associated Press, Seattle Post Intelligncer, Aubust 23, 2003; available at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... epa23.html

Ignatius, The epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians.
Ignatius, The epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
Justin, We don't Speak Great Things-We Live Them.

Frank E. Manuel, “The Religion of Isaac Newton.” Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1974.
Mathetes, “The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus”

H. McLachlan, Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts, Liverpool University Press, 1950.

Sir Isaac Newton, Four Letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Dr. Bentley,” London: R. And J. Dodsley, 1716.

Sir Isaac Newton, Optics.

Sir Isaac Newton, Principia Mathematica.

The New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

“The Newton Project,” http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts ... 003_n.html

Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Merrill F. Unger, New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Moody Press, 1988.

M. White, Isaac Newton, The Last Sorcerer, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997.

[BroJones]

oops -- double threads on the same topic... I got an error when submitting the first time, thought it failed. Can a moderator pls delete one of the duplicated threads? Thx.

[larsenb]

Fascinating and astonishing! Thanks for posting that. Where are you publishing it? I think it should be in the Ensign, but maybe too long.

Amazing that you were allowed to peruse Newton's original writings at Cambridge!

[BroJones]

Thank you, larsenb. This talk was delivered on BYU campus, obviously before I was put on Administrative Leave. The talk was well received and was requested to be included in a series of talks for the Summerhays Lecture series. The paper has been submitted to the editors, both professors at BYU. I will let you know if it is accepted.

You may notice in this paper that I emphasize that Newton's colleagues supported him, which is how he retained his job/position at his university when it was threatened as he followed his conscience... Thus the tradition of supporting an outspoken professor was begun, but not always followed even at prestigious universities since.

In particular, I allude to 9/11 in this paper. We will see whether the editors allow me freedom of speech in this case. (Do you think they will?)

[larsenb]

In particular, I allude to 9/11 in this paper. We will see whether the editors allow me freedom of speech in this case. (Do you think they will?)

Based on past behavior of BYU hierarchy, no. Guess it depends on how much influence the editors are subjected to by the administration; and may depend on their awareness level, as well.

[joseph]

We will see whether the editors allow me freedom of speech in this case. (Do you think they will?)

A private entity has every right to accept or reject a transcript for publication. Are you saying that if they reject your paper that your first amendment rights are being violated?

[larsenb]

A private entity has every right to accept or reject a transcript for publication. Are you saying that if they reject your paper that your first amendment rights are being violated?

Not sure how you could jump to that conclusion.

Not speaking for Dr. Jones, but he was simply wondering whether the editors would let his comments stand about how argument from authority won out over experimental science regarding the safety of WTC dust; there may have been other references to 9/11 issues, as well. They also might jump to the conclusion that Dr. Jones was making an unspoken, invidious comparison between how Newton's Cambridge collegues supported him in the Ordination controvery vs. how he was treated at BYU.

[joseph]

A private entity has every right to accept or reject a transcript for publication. Are you saying that if they reject your paper that your first amendment rights are being violated?

Not sure how you could jump to that conclusion.

Not speaking for Dr. Jones, but he was simply wondering whether the editors would let his comments stand about how argument from authority won out over experimental science regarding the safety of WTC dust; there may have been other references to 9/11 issues, as well. They also might jump to the conclusion that Dr. Jones was making an unspoken, invidious comparison between how Newton's Cambridge collegues supported him in the Ordination controvery vs. how he was treated at BYU.

Yes, I think that I do understand his argument and the conjectures he is making. I am aware of the history of Dr. Jones and BYU. And I enjoyed reading his essay on Newton. I was just wondering how any of this violated his freedom of speech. His words (..."allow me freedom of speech..."), not mine.

[larsenb]

Yes, I think that I do understand his argument and the conjectures he is making. I am aware of the history of Dr. Jones and BYU. And I enjoyed reading his essay on Newton. I was just wondering how any of this violated his freedom of speech. His words (..."allow me freedom of speech..."), not mine.

Joseph, no big deal; he was just being a bit sardonic.

[bobhenstra]

"O" to have a mind like Newton! Along "with" latter-day revelation---

Steve, they'll soon discover your right, no need to rub salt in it! --- Publish it after their discovery---- And please continue with your Newton thread!

Thanks

Bob

[joseph]

Joseph, no big deal; he was just being a bit sardonic.

O.K.

[ready2prepare]

Here's a related quote from Sir Isaac Newton:

“About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised
up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and
insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of
much clamor and opposition.”

And I just LOVE this one:
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy."

Source:
http://space.about.com/od/astronomerbio ... quotes.htm

Best Regards,
Sharon (Making the Best of Basics) in Mississippi

[bobhenstra]

Here's a related quote from Sir Isaac Newton:

“About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised
up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and
insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of
much clamor and opposition.”

And I just LOVE this one:
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy."

Source:
http://space.about.com/od/astronomerbio ... quotes.htm

Best Regards,

Wonderful quotes Sharon, Thank you!

Bob

Sharon (Making the Best of Basics) in Mississippi

[BroJones]

Thanks for the quotes, Sharon.
larsenb is correct, Joseph (thanks).

This is hilarious... as long as it doesn't actually happen -- ordering a pizza in 2015:

http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

[Niemand]

One way to annoy edgy atheists online is to point out that Isaac Newton wrote more about God and astrology than he ever did on physics. True dat!

Interesting post, thank you.

[endlessQuestions]

Newton's work on Biblical chronology was stunningly good, and his treatment of the book of Daniel has probably never been duplicated.

An amazing, amazing individual.

[Niemand]

Newton's work on Biblical chronology was stunningly good, and his treatment of the book of Daniel has probably never been duplicated.

An amazing, amazing individual.

Definitely not what most people think he was.

[Sunain]

It is unfortunate that so many records and revealed knowledge are locked up making it harder for the world to know things.

[Niemand]

It is unfortunate that so many records and revealed knowledge are locked up making it harder for the world to know things.

It is unfortunate to think that only twenty years ago, the internet showed great promise as an intellectual democracy where everyman could access documents previously under lock and key.

Then came the spammers, the censors, the social media and undoing of most useful functions the internet once had. Now we have search engines which will find you almost nothing.

[Hogmeister]

Thank you Brother Jones. I really enjoyed your article/talk. Do I have your permission to share it? I have also studied a lot of early Christianity but did not know Sir Isaac Newton was so diligent in building a testimony on solid foundation for himself.

[MikeMaillet]

Newton was always one of my heroes and I really appreciated the article; thanks!

I'm not a mathematician but my basic knowledge of calculus tells me that it is based on the idea of limits, a fuzzy way to by-pass division by zero and yet get absolutely accurate results. Cool stuff!

Mike

[Niemand]

The missing link with Newton seems to be a man called William Whiston, also a fascinating character.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whiston

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Theory_of_the_Earth

[BroJones]

Thank you Brother Jones. I really enjoyed your article/talk. Do I have your permission to share it? I have also studied a lot of early Christianity but did not know Sir Isaac Newton was so diligent in building a testimony on solid foundation for himself.

Yes , of course you may share this article freely as you wish.
One of the important aspects of Newton's studies of The Bible is that he came to the conclusion the firm conclusion that Jesus and God the Father are separate distinct individuals. This got him into considerable trouble and difficulty at his University known as Trinity college

[NeveR]

Thank you Brother Jones. I really enjoyed your article/talk. Do I have your permission to share it? I have also studied a lot of early Christianity but did not know Sir Isaac Newton was so diligent in building a testimony on solid foundation for himself.

Yes , of course you may share this article freely as you wish.
One of the important aspects of Newton's studies of The Bible is that he came to the conclusion the firm conclusion that Jesus and God the Father are separate distinct individuals. This got him into considerable trouble and difficulty at his University known as Trinity college

Newton was famously at Cambridge University.

The universities of Oxford and Cambridge are subdivided into different, semi-independent colleges. Eg, Balliol College, Oxford. Newton was at Trinity College, Cambridge. So, the name of his college was Trinity, but the name of his university was Cambridge.

If you say his university was Trinity College, people will assume you mistakenly think he attended Trinity College Dublin - which is a university.

[Niemand]

Thank you Brother Jones. I really enjoyed your article/talk. Do I have your permission to share it? I have also studied a lot of early Christianity but did not know Sir Isaac Newton was so diligent in building a testimony on solid foundation for himself.

Yes , of course you may share this article freely as you wish.
One of the important aspects of Newton's studies of The Bible is that he came to the conclusion the firm conclusion that Jesus and God the Father are separate distinct individuals. This got him into considerable trouble and difficulty at his University known as Trinity college

Newton was famously at Cambridge University.

The universities of Oxford and Cambridge are subdivided into different, semi-independent colleges. Eg, Balliol College, Oxford. Newton was at Trinity College, Cambridge. So, the name of his college was Trinity, but the name of his university was Cambridge.

If you say his university was Trinity College, people will assume you mistakenly think he attended Trinity College Dublin - which is a university.

That's fair enough, although TCD is single college, I think.