Created Friday, July 12, 2002 - Updated Sat. Aug. 23, 2008

The trinity seems to be a really important doctrine to most Christian groups. And for the few groups who take exception to it, there exists a terrific squabble between the 2 schools of thought. Both are very insistent that they are both right and the other shall be judged for their error in thought or concept.

I think the very first issue to be settled is what can we judge another person or group against, or make a requirement for them to be considered as legitimate Christians. It is declared in the Athanasian Creed in regards to the trinity:

"Anyone then who desires to be saved should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation that one also believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully."

[By faithfully, I assume they also mean correctly and accurately so as to be faithful to what is required.]

"This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."

But this can not be found in the Bible. To assert something without the support of the scriptures is to teach the doctrine of men as if it was the doctrine of God. If we consider the scriptures and written history as well, I think it shall be proven that whether one believes in the trinity or not is not necessarily relevant to their salvation.

Now if we misunderstand God as to what sort of being He is or is not, what really is the consequence? Far more important is whether we have obeyed His clear commands. I can't imagine that God would pass us over or strike us dead because we might have thought of Him as having hands or feet when He is actually a spirit. Or not precisely understanding exactly what a spirit is or is not. Or how it is that He has always been and is eternal.

The argument is put forth that the trinity has always been the belief of the whole and complete faith, said to be catholic, a word basically meaning united as one. But it can be shown that it was not originally the belief of the various churches in the world. It was a late comer.

For me, I judge no one for whether they interpret a scriptural passage as literal or symbolic. Which way you interpret it makes a big difference. Some believe in a literal hell because they take passage literally. Others take it figuratively and so do not believe in hell. I also wrote an article on "Interpreting the Bible" (It will be under Related Articles at the end of this) which would also be worth reading in discussing this matter. As for me, I see many things as being figurative illustrations so I interpret hell as symbolic. But I do not judge or condemn any who might take it literally, though I would disagree with you.

It is true that I might feel they are taking things literal when Jesus commonly used illustrations. Perhaps I might even think them a little primitive or spiritually immature in their perceptive powers of interpretation. But I would not let that hinder embracing them as my brothers in Christ. It is too trivial. I do not believe that every Christian needs to or should believe the same thing when the belief in question could be taken in two ways. That would be more clearly explained in my article "Tolerance and Individual Belief" (In Related Articles).

There are numerous things in the Bible that appear on the surface to be contradictions. We who believe there is no contradiction with God, will seek to resolve a contradiction by perhaps assuming an idea is relative in one place and absolute in another. We each have our own ways of resolving apparent conflicts. Some resolutions are more logical, reasonable, or practical than others and some go to very ridicuolous lengths and unlikely directions to resolve a conflict. For me, I try to select solutions that are most simple and obvious, less complicated and more logical and reasonable. But we do not always see ourselves as others might. I leave you to judge my work.

But for many, this is an issue worth denying fellowship and denying a brother's Christianity and faithfulness to Jesus. This, I think, is a tragedy. It is an unnecessary cause of divisions and sects among the brothers. Christ exists divided. And that is no small or inconsequential matter. As I remind you of what Jesus said, that what you do to the least of those, his brothers, you in effect, do it to him. With that in mind, I would be quite slow and hesitant to judge anyone.

I see the trinity as coming down to some specific issues. I will also consider the many scriptures brought up in its defense. And again, let me emphasize, whether right or wrong, this is not necessarily an important doctrine, anyway, regardless of what the Athanasian Creed and its adherents declare. You would think the Creed was part of the Bible or something. They worship the traditions of men as the word of God. How wicked and like the Pharisees that is. But if we must discuss it, then here we go with the objectives I hope to convince you of.

• The trinity did not exist as a popular and accepted doctrine or concept before the 2nd century AD and was invented by a well known heretics of the latter 2nd century who can be named by specific names.
• The trinity is composed of Greek words, vocabulary, ideas, and creeds, none of which are to be found in the Bible by name, and some not even in concept or definition.
• The trinity was concocted to maintain the concept and label of monotheism and monarchism, both Greek words and concepts not required in the Bible. In short, a legalistic ploy and requirement of men.
• That the introduction of a son of God did not violate the concept of monotheism or monarchism in anyway, even though the son was fully divine before and after his resurrection.
• That the trinity was voted for and mandated by Constantine, who was not a Christian at the time and who was compromised as a worldly king with ambitions for the Roman Empire. Jesus said his kingdom was no part of this world.
• Further, that is was not even a doctrine held by a majority, even when it was introduced and voted for, or any time before that, and for some time after that.
• That the trinity was forced on people by use of political power and not by free will as God requires.
• That all the fruits of the first trinitarians were bad, being fruits of the flesh.
• That it is incorrect and not reasonable to suggest that something is not understandable.
• That it is incorrect and not reasonable to suggest that God would even bother to explain something incomprehensible, since it is a contradiction.
• That it is incorrect and not reasonable to suggest that God is not logical or understandable, at least in a general way.
• Without the concept preceding the investigation, one would not come up with the idea of the trinity based on the scriptures. There are simpler easier explanations for Jesus being called God.
• The concept of the trinity is not to be found in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets.
• That the word "One" is taken in a literal numerical sense when I believe it can be shown that it was in a symbolic sense of unity of action and of purpose.
• That the scriptures clearly show the Father in a superior position to the son and therefore, not fully equal in every sense or an absolute sense but only in relative ways.
• That the son did, in absolute fact, have a beginning, a birth, a creation, unlike the Father.
• That the Holy Spirit is not a person but God's personal divine power and its manifestations so that it can not be the third being of the trinity.
• That God, the Father, does not talk to or pray to Himself nor did He die on the cross.
• That names, titles, and roles are to be understood variously, as having either an absolute meaning or a relative meaning, depending on context and circumstance.
• Taking God's personal name out of the Old Testament helped add to the confusion of the identities of the Father and the Son. It was wrong and should be corrected in all Bibles.
• Jesus' many names and titles are often to be understood in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.

Although related in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, most trinitarians I talk to, do not believe that what is called Christology was the only belief or doctrine concerning Christ in the 2nd century. So I have gathered all the early ecclesiastical writers of those times and extracted their writings and views of the matter to show that this is absolutely true, that the trinity as defined to day, did not exist in the early days and Christology was the main idea. Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Mathetes, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Teretullian, Origen, Dionysius, Hippolytus, and Novatian. All professed a belief completely void of the trinity. Tertullian wrote about the beginning of the trinitarian belief and wrote an entire book (essay) against it, identifying its author, the time period, and the place. Novatian wrote a book on it as well, perhaps the best of any in those early times. This is all conveniently ignored by those who want to believe in the supposed tradition, orthodoxy, and validity of the trinity.

The trinity was a clearly identified heresy that was hardly even paid attention to, except by Tertullian or Origen. And as I said before, we even know the names of the heretics who started the lies which have become the modern trinitarian definition. But later on, it would become a serious contender for being an essential and correct belief of all the churches, despite its non-existence in all the early writers' works.

We are also going to consider the big show down at Nicaea in 325, where the Arians and Athanasians confronted each other over the trinity for the first but not the last time, whereby Constantine awarded the victory to the trinitarians. We will also examine the Athanasian Creed in detail to see what we might make of that.

What kind of God is it that you perceive you worship? Is He a smart God? Kind? Loving? Logical? Reasonable? Understandable? Some vary on some of those. Some say God is not understandable at all. But then why have Him bother to explain Himself when He is not understandable in the first place. That doesn't sound like a very smart God to me.

I prefer to be in harmony with the wonderful faith of Abraham, who could not and would not imagine anything bad about God, since God was in Abraham's mind, so wonderful, so powerful and amazing, that it was inconceivable that such a powerful God could be anything but loving, wise, reliable and trustworthy. So when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, of whom God promised that many nations would come from, Abraham never dreamed that God could be going back on His promise. Abraham concluded that God was going to bring Isaac back to life afterwards. Abraham evidently saw God not only as honest and trustworthy, but also loving, loyal and very powerful, so that He could bring people back to life, even though there is no record of any resurrections up to that point in time.

This was truly an amazing faith in God that Abraham possessed. It is the kind of faith I want to be known for having. And if you're a Christian, you no doubt want that, too. So do you think God is wise and intelligent about things? Logical, rational, reasonable, and sensible? Aren't those good qualities you would expect in the great sovereign Lord and God of the universe? I hope so. If we are in agreement, then it is just not logical to conclude that God would tell us something we can not understand or comprehend. He would tell us what we were capable of grasping, perhaps only relating certain basics about Him, leaving details that only a spirit would understand and comprehend, perhaps. That is the kind of God that I imagine above me. He knows my limits and respects those. He would not try to explain something that could not be explained to me, that I could not understand. He would know better.

John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Jesus accused the woman of worshipping what she did not know. But "we" do know what we worship, we who are from God. God can be known and understood in some measure. He certainly is not a contradiction to those who really know Him. Jesus also makes it clear to us that God is a spirit and may I add, not just any spirit, but an extraordinary one beyond any measure.

John 17:3 And this is everlasting life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

I doubt that if something was important for me to know or accept, that God would neglect to tell me about it rather directly and clearly, as He does when He gives us the 10 commandments. If it was required for salvation, God would make sure it was stated clearly. He cares enough about us to be fair and decent and allow us a fair chance in trying to live up to His commands and expectations by first knowing what they are. If you and I can agree on these two very basic and good qualities of God, being wise and being fair, then perhaps we are well on the way to solving the dilemma of the trinity.

That sounds daring, doesn't it? But in some ways (but not all), God wants us to test Him out. He allows Satan to try Him in court, so to speak. So here I go. Would God try to explain something that was incomprehensible to me? Wouldn't He definitely know better? I would hope so. Also, if it was important that I believe and understand something in order to be saved, God would take great care to make sure I and all His people were plainly told so that we would know and accept it, even if we did not understand it. For instance, many people sometimes struggle to understand why something that can be as beautiful and enjoyable as sex can be so wrong for unmarried people and so severely punished.

I believe there are some very good reasons why this is so but I can not absolutely say they are supported by the Bible. They are good, but not clearly spelled out in scripture. So though we may be left to wonder, it is still made very clear that it is necessary, in plain language so that we make no mistake about what God requires, even if we are not completely sure why.

I believe this would be the case with the trinity. If it is incomprehensible and a mystery that we can not understand, then it would at least be told to us in direct and clear terms, that we had to believe this doctrine. There would have been a command, such as "Thou shall believe this way or that or you will die." Further, requiring us to understand when we can not is not fair or wise, nor is it to be found in scripture. God can not ask us to understand what can not be understood. Mysteries are comprehensible or they would not be required as understandable, since it would not be fair of God to require something we can not do.

So from my standpoint, the trinity, which is said to be, even by its advocates, incomprehensible and a mystery, could not be required of us to understand. If it is to be believed, then there would have to be a distinct command to do so in plain understandable terms, or it is to be rejected as a false and erroneous belief. And the trinity is no where to be found as a command to be believed in, in plain clear terms. We are expected by trinitarians to read in between the lines and discern what is not there. This is not from God.

It always mystifies me how people can miss what the Bible states very clearly. And that is that Jesus always spoke and taught by means of parables and allegories, speaking frequently with metaphors and in terms with spiritual meanings, rather then literal ones. I wrote an article listed earlier that will give you plenty of scriptures to prove that. I will accept that you have either read the Bible and understand this or have read my article to convince you. This is not something that Jesus started while on earth, either.

While in heaven as God's Word and acting as God on God's behalf, Jesus revealed things to ancient prophets in terms and descriptions that left the prophets wondering what the words meant. It was not for them to know. It was written in a sort of code so that enemies not worthy of knowing God, would not be able to understand or make sense of the message. Jesus wanted the message veiled so that he could pass on in secret, what he wanted his people to know. It was even more important in Jesus day and after, to do this. And of course, the most symbolic book in the whole Bible, the book of Revelation, also known as the book of the Apocalypse, is full of almost nothing but figures, allegories, and spiritual symbolism so that our enemies would not understand that we were onto them and what they were doing.

Yet despite this incredible and overwhelming amount of evidence as to the way the holy and prophetic Spirit communicated things to men, most Christians seem to be clueless as to the technique employed in the Bible. But if we know and understand how the Bible was written and how Jesus spoke and taught, then we need not be surprised at all that we find him speaking in figurative terms. We should expect nothing else!

So when Jesus speaks of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadduccees, we would not think he was really referring to literal leaven as the disciples first concluded, would we? The disciples were scolded by Jesus because he felt they should have known better after having been with him for some time. Jesus expected them to perceive his spiritual, allegorical, figurative, symbolic language which he so frequently used. Do we need to be scolded too, for not understanding this? I hope not.

But then why is it when the Bible says Jesus is "the Father" or "God," that we do not discern a figure of speech here? Or when he says he is in the Father or the Father in him, why do we think in literal terms when Jesus hardly ever spoke in such terms. When Jesus says he is one with the Father, should we not first think of a possible symbolic explanation, rather the jump to a conclusion that is kind of ridiculous, although very literal.

I would say that the biggest error in interpretation of the scriptures today is that so much is taken literally when that is not the general technique Jesus used in speaking. We call this movement today, "fundamentalism." It is based on a very literal interpretation of many scriptures. And it is a very fundamental mistake as well.

I don't mean to say that it is easy to always discern when a scripture is symbolic or literal. There are plenty of literal accounts in the Bible. There also very many illustrations and symbolic prophecies and the like. There is no question that it requires some very careful serious thought when reading the Bible. And many of us have often gone back and forth in our understanding of something, as to whether it was of a symbolic meaning or a literal one. It was intended by God to require some effort and thought.

After all, if its interpretation was to escape God's and our enemies, then it would have to be fairly challenging in order to discourage enemies from putting too much time into understanding it. They would quickly conclude that there was nothing to any of it and would leave it and us alone until the very end.

So when Jesus makes statements about the relationship between him and the Father, it would make the most sense to me to examine whether he might intend something more symbolic than literal and see which one makes more sense.

It seems that much of the argument in the early days of the trinity revolved around the idea that 3 separate and almighty individuals, all of whom are God, constituted polytheism. Of course, the early argument was focused primarily on the Father and Son in 325 AD. The Holy Spirit was considered God, too, but was not much of the concern at that time. It would become more important later in 381 AD.

It was a matter of great concern to some that this religion, formerly of the Hebrews, but more recently having been taken from the Jews and handed over to the nations, the Gentiles, had now become polytheistic, whereas the opinion among some was that the Hebrew religion had always been monotheistic and they also decided it was very important to stay monotheistic in a very strict sense, pertaining primarily to numbers, I gather. In addition, they also thought it important that it remain what they called a monarchistic faith, coming from the word monarchy, indicating a single ruler.

But I believe their mistake is in concluding that having two who qualified as God constituted polytheism or violated the principle of monarchy. One of the notable traits of typical pagan pantheons of gods was their antagonism toward and conflict with each other. There was certainly no unity and the head god seemed to have little control over the wills and actions of the other gods.

And though Christ was in possession of all the Father's power, he was in complete subjection to the Father at all times. Further, because the Father appointed a ruler over His kingdom, does not mean it is still not a monarchy. Many kings often placed princes, viceroys, or viziers over their kingdoms. But the king was still in charge, ultimately and absolutely.

But one has to question why this name or title of polytheistic versus monotheistic was so important in the first place. It was not a word or even a definition or requirement that appeared in the Bible. It was simply based on the fact that they felt the Hebrew Father Jehovah had always been monotheistic, their term and their definition, and so they worked hard to twist the facts into supporting a definition that could be accepted as monotheistic.

The amazing thing is that even today, there are those who will chastise non-trinitarians as being polytheists. It is an accusation that is alive and well today, almost 1800 years later.

But consider this: lest we think that Christ being the Father eliminates the possibility of being called polytheistic, heaven forbid, then what shall we do with all the spirit sons of God, the angels, many, if not all, of whom are capable of mighty acts of power if God so wills them to act. One angel once killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night at the order of God in behalf of Israel. Angels can also execute orders and do other marvelous things that we attribute to gods. So if having God's power and acting on God's orders in God's behalf constitute one being a god, then we have much more to worry about than just Jesus. There is a whole heavenly army to concern ourselves with.

Jesus said there were 12 legions of angels at his disposal when he was on earth. The Bible also speaks of myriads of myriads of angels in heaven. All of them are spirits who are capable of being empowered by God or by His Son who has been given all authority. Any one of them acting on God's behalf could be considered God. But acting on God's behalf with God's authority or power does not constitute polytheism. Just because a being is powerful, God-like in power, does not make him God, Himself. And even with God's authority and power, he could be said to be God since he represents God and has God's authority and power, but he is not God in the absolute sense. He is still subject to the Father.

Let us look at a more obvious example here on earth. It the President issues orders to attack a certain nation, it is commonly said that President so and so attacked that nation. But in fact, the President specifically, did not actually do anything. He merely ordered and authorized the action which was actually taken by generals and armies. The power came through the President and passed on to those in subjection to him. We do not imagine that because the general heads the attack, that he is President, even though we might speak of it as the action of the President. But the President might very well give the general the power and authority to act as if he were the President in the President's absence from the battle, although, this was more common before the advent of radio and other sophisticated communications of today.

God has chosen to have a king, another word for authority, similar in many ways, to a President. God anointed Jesus to be His agent and ruler over His kingdom and interests. Jesus acts in behalf of his Father, the ultimate ruler in the kingdom, so to speak. But in order to demonstrate how much the Father has willed and turned over to the Son, the Father called the Son God, so as to make it dramatically clear how much the Son is one with the Father in power and authority. God left nothing lacking in power and authority to the Son. And the Son is completely loyal and obedient to the Father so that there is no difference between the Father and Son in thinking, will, or action. They are so perfectly united that they are referred to as one. Total and complete unity.

So when Jesus acts in behalf of God, there is still a single authority from which all intentions, desires, and power proceeds. Only one will governing the universe, that of the Father, Jehovah. Jesus being designated as ruler does not rob God of His ultimate and absolute authority. God is still over Jesus, regardless of what He assigns to Jesus. And I will prove from the scriptures that the Son is absolutely still in obedience and subjection to the will and authority of the Father, our God and Jesus' God, who chose to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament.

God designating someone to rule in His behalf, or even create the universe in His behalf, does not contradict monotheism or a monarchy. But neither is God required to match our view or understanding of what constitutes monotheism or a monarchy anyway. God did not create those definitions nor the necessity to fulfill those definitions. They are merely labels that mean nothing and were created and deemed important by men, who Go is not subject to. God is all and over everything and that is all that matters.

It is not surprising that since many Christians converts had once been part of the world, that they would be familiar with Greek philosophy which was all the rage in Roman times, as it had been in classical Greece. Many were likely raised on it in schools they might have attended. Greek reasoning and philosophy were veyr impressive, depending on who you read or listened to. It was the most advanced state of learning to exist up to that time, cutting-edge technology, you might say. But while Euclidean geometry was useful for say, building, and Aristotle syllogisms were useful for analyzing one's thought processes, they were still not that useful for discerning the truths of God and the universe. Christians would, of course, want to take God's word over anything that Greeks might assert that was contrary to God's word.

But some Christian leaders and writers, in wanting to present Christianity in terms that students and masters of Greek philosophy could appreciate, would often try to put Christians ideas into Greek terms. The problem here is that a lot of Greek terms and ideas had no counter part in the Hebrew language or concepts, nor Christian concepts and ideas, either. You see, the Greeks loved to speculate about things they could not possibly confirm or know about, such as a spiritual or heavenly existence, the after life, or concepts like that. In speculating, they would develop terms to label their newly proposed concepts of the "other world."

The trap for Christians is in assuming that the Greeks had got all their speculating right. The Greek concept of the soul was quite different from that of the Christians concept. Christians did not remain loyal to the Bible's definition and accepted the Greek definition as correct and began their arguments from there. Well, of course, if the premise is wrong, so will all the arguments built on top of it afterward. This was part of the problem with the trinity. Greek words and ideas were pursued which had no confirmation or equivalent in the Bible. But Christian writers would use Greek terms without keeping in mind that these had only a little or sometimes nothing to do with the Bible. Having accepted some error to begin with, the errors were compounded as the arguments progressed to bigger things. Let me demonstrate.

Here are some Greek terms: corporeal/incorporeal, substance, essence, ethereal, omnipotent, monotheistic, Godhead. Corporeal and incorporeal roughly correspond to fleshly and spiritual, indicating the form of existence an entity might have. But these two Greek words could be applied in ways that were not allowed when discussing the soul or something of that nature. This was even more the case when dealing with the trinity and terms like substance, essence, monotheism, or Godhead. You will find Godhead in the Bible as the translation of the Greek word "Theios," closely related to "Theos." Theios basically means godlike or divine. But by using the word Godhead, they leave it more open to a trinitarian interpretation, which is just plain dishonest. Notice 2 other scriptures that also translate this word and what and how they translate it:

2Peter 1:3 "As His divine power"
2Peter 1:4 "so that through these you might be partakers of the divine nature"

Think how stupid those scriptures would sound if you put Godhead there in place of divine! Godhead nature? Godhead power? What the hell would you be talking about??? Just another example of dirty tricks of mistranslation.

Now the Athanasian Trinitarian Creed speaks of substance and essence of God the Father, Son, the Spirit. Now where in the Bible does it even mention substance or essence and what do they mean, anyway? What are their differences? Anyone have an answer? And how do you know if you do answer? These are Greek speculations about spirits and have nothing to do with anything Jesus or the Apostles or any of the prophets ever revealed about God or divine beings or spiritual creatures, the sons of God. Look how easily God's so-called servants have gotten off the true road!

As mentioned just previously to this section, monotheism is just another one of those legalistic Greek terms that have no meaning or importance to God or His people. Just a clever term someone said was necessary to retain and maintain. Knowing the things they argued over, I suspect this one was introduced by Jews who wanted to find fault with Jesus being God's son or divinely appointed king in heaven so they said that if Jesus were indeed divine in origin, which he was, and divine again since leaving earth, that this would constitute polytheism which the Jews have never believed.

Well, first, Jesus was clearly mentioned and revealed in many Old Testament scriptures. It was just that the Jews were too blind to see them. In fact, the Jews did not even remain loyal or obedient to Moses, so little wonder that they should reject Jesus, too. But some foolish Christians, perhaps heavily influenced by the Jewish Judaizers/proselytizers, decided to concoct the clever conventions or the trinity to get around the childish legalistic objection raised by that term, "monotheisitic." Another Greek trapping, employed by people of very questionable motives, indeed!

So we want to beware of following the same error that has been previously followed, and avoid these unnecessary Greek words and ideas and adhere strictly to what God has put forth in the Bible. So get rid of substance, essence, Godhead, monotheism and words similar to those. They had no business ever being used in the first place. What is in excess of the word of God is from the wicked one.

And while we are at it, we might want to employ interpretations and explanations that are more simple and easy explanations of things that at first might seem contradictory, rather than embrace things that make no sense at all and confuse and bewilder intelligent rational people.

Yes, it is true that the trinity can not be found in the writings of early post apostolic writers and teachers until about 200 to 250 AD. Even more remarkable is that when it does first appear, it is called a heresy by Tertullian of about 200 AD. He even speaks of who authored it, where, and when. Praxeas was given as the originator of the trinity doctrine. I know most trinitarians will probably not accept what is in black and white but it is there for those who can believe their eyes and accept the truth. I have supplied the entire essay on Tertullian's "Against Praxeas," along with my ample comments through out that work. It will be linked at the end of this article under Related Articles.

Praxeas began the idea that the Father, Son, and Spirit were all the same God, 3 in 1. Tertullian strongly objects. Origen also objects but with more error. Both Tertullian and Origen make errors a plenty. But they do definitely reject the teaching of Praxeas. But Tertullian and Origen are the first up to their time who mention the trinity. Irenaeus, who came earlier, did condemn those who claimed that the Father and the Son were the same person, but that is as much as he mentions and he does not refer to the trinity.

It is possible that the trinity may have evolved from someone first suggesting that the 2 were 1. Plato noted how trinities were a common occurrence in religions and expanded a lot on the matter. It is most likely that given his popularity in those early centuries AD among the peoples of the Roman Empire, that some decided they could and would squeeze Christian doctrine into such an organization of 3.

It should be noted, however, that in those typical trinities of other religions, they were not 3 in 1, but were 3 distinct entities who were closely associated with each other, perhaps as a family containing a father, mother, and son, among other things. The Christian trinity, on the other hand, made all 3 into 1, so as to fulfill the definition of monotheism and monarchy, two terms which were not contradicted by the existence of both a Father and a Son, unless you define monotheism in some strict way regarding numbers only. Let me say it this way. The spirit of the definition of monotheism is not violated.

Now in addition to the essay on Praxeas, I have gathered what has been said of the Father and the Son by all writers after the Apostles up to and including Origen, about 250 AD. In these passages, it can clearly be seen that there was no definition of the trinity in their writings. However, by the late 2nd century, the late 100's AD, one can see Greek philosophy and understanding creep into their definitions, terms, ideas, and language. Many terms that have never been in the Bible, with many of them not even having meanings similar to those in the Bible, start to appear in the writings.

These writings would begin to expand or confuse the nature and existence of the Father and the Son. Before long, they would be called one in substance, perhaps one in essence, and all sorts of confusing, even contradicting definitions and ideas. They would cease to be loyal to the holy scriptures and stay within the limits of what the scriptures stated. They would elaborate with Greekisms which were not appropriate or justified. It becomes quite clear that prophecy was being fulfilled as Greek philosophy began to replace what the Bible had declared, even as Paul had warned. I believe this will be plainly visible to you as you read. I add commentaries throughout the writings of the collected writers as well.

I thought it would be very helpful to show people the start and evolution of the trinity. The Encyclopaedia Britannica also tells us the trinity was non-existent in the early years but when I point that out, trinitarians do not believe me or the Britannica. So I decided that I needed to show them some further proof by consulting all those early writers of the faith. I imagine that will do little good, either. Facts and truth seem to have little effect on what people believe. But at least, if someone truly wants to be fair and objective, I believe the truth will be apparent.

I also want to make a big point out of the fact that a great apostasy was foretold by Jesus and the Apostles many times. One particular illustration Jesus gave concerning that was one about the wheat and the weeds where Jesus sowed fine wheat and then the devil came in behind him and sowed weeds or tares. Jesus said let them grow together and we will see who is who in the end. So we should expect that the original good wheat of truth would not survive and so we ought not expect any traditional orthodox teachings to survive. It is all weeds by now, forcing us to sift out the truth for ourselves from bits and pieces here and there.

But I do not believe that anymore than the Bible should be required. But the claim that the trinity is orthodox and had always been a part of the faith forced me to go into the past to prove them wrong, even in that department. But the Bible more than refutes the ideas of the trinity as it is known today.

I should also point out that starting with Tertullian and Origen, they both also call the Father, Son, and Spirit the trinity, but with much different definitions than what Praxeas and later people would offer. Praxeas' definition is the one which we possess today. So one could make a case for the trinity in name, as far back as perhaps 200 AD. But not with the definition defended today. And there is still that gap between 1 AD and 200 AD. There is also the matter that the trinity was called a heresy when it first was introduced. I don't know how this would be explained by trinitarians since I have never come across anyone who had ever been presented with this evidence and these arguments or who had this kind of knowledge before. It is new even to me as of this writing.

We then progress to the big show down in the early 4th century in the reign of Constantine, where two distinct schools of thought confront each other, one called by the victors a heresy, namely Arianism and the winner of the time, briefly, the Athanasian side, which declared the early definition of the trinity which would be fine tuned into the form we possess today. It would then briefly fall, but come back later, retaining its supremacy ever since.

The problem is that Constantine was not a Christian, though he did side with Christians, making them the official religion of the empire. He helped to force the acceptance of the trinity. Political leaders have no business running the Christian faith. But those in favor of the real heresy, the trinity, were happy to accept the helpful force of the ruler of the empire. They have been using force ever since.

The sad thing is that with the Christian faith evenly divided on the issue, it should not have been insisted upon, either way, in the first place. They should have agreed to disagree and went their ways. They wanted to be able to claim the faith was a catholic one, meaning united and whole. But it clearly was not that anymore. It was quite obvious at this time that the Great Apostasy as foretold by Christ and the Apostles was now in full bloom. The once united church of the faith was now in fragments, fully divided in half by this issue. But this was not the only issue over which there had been divisions up to this point. But this one was the big one, so to speak. It would set a bad precedent that plagues us to this very day.

But rather than admit that the falling away of the faith had come true as predicted and that everyone would now be on their own to decide matters, they decided that they would bring about unity by force. This was a most tragic decision on the part of both sides, neither of which has any rightful claim to being led by the spirit. The Apostles managed to keep the faith united and in tact by means of God's spirit. But with that having died out in the death of the Apostles, truth would also die out by means of introducing Greek philosophy, as well as other fleshly desires which corrupt men's hearts and ability to reason.

Force should never have been used. Since the Apostles were not around to settle matters as they once had been, it should have been left for each church to believe as they saw fit. There was no power, no authority, in any church, to force another church to believe as they did. All the first century churches were independent and autonomous, accountable only to the Apostles and ultimately, Jesus. The fact they were divided was evidence of Satan having crept into the faith as predicted by the illustration of the wheat and the weeds. Jesus said to let them grow together. But these rebellious ones of Satan were not about to listen to the words of Jesus, by any means. Had they done that, there would be no serious divisions.

So basically, the events of the early 4th century were a large formal declaration that the faith and accurate knowledge were now gone and would not be back until the time of the end, or after the end, when Jesus had returned to finish up the mess started by Adam a little over 6,000 years before. The fight over the trinity was a shame and disgrace to both sides, since both wanted to force the other to believe as they did. What this did was to ignore the Great foretold Apostasy and muddy up the waters of clarity in regards to the unique power and authority exercised by the Apostles as overlords of the Christian faith while they were alive.

This would have many more serious consequences for the faith. Since the exclusive authority of Apostles was overlooked, people would go on to make great claims of having the spirit in extraordinary ways which, one, were not backed up with appropriate works, and two, would let others lay claim to some sort of authority over the churches, for which no authority existed after the Apostles. I could go on about the many tragic consequences of this, but I will deal with that, elsewhere. What is clear here is that the trinity and use of coercive force corrupted and destroyed the faith of Christ once and for all. I also tell more detail about the tragedy of Nicaea in a separate article in Related Articles at the end of this article.

May I also point out how force has been the weapon of fallen apostate Christianity even since. Wherever apostate Christianity went, with the backing of political force, she would force people to accept the apostate Christians faith. Christianity now has one of the worst reputations as a blood spiller so that it is said in Revelation about her, the prostitute to the nations, old Babylon, herself, that the blood of all the saints was found in her, and that her sins had piled clear up to heaven. What a horrible blight she became in that 4th century, when she got into bed with kings and countries.

I was watching "Newton’s Dark Secrets" – on Nova, PBS, in Early 2007. Isaac Newton was a fascinating fellow, and one dimension of his personality not as well known, and preferred to be ignored by some, was that he was very religious nature. He was a very devout Christian and wrote far more on Bible subjects that he ever did science. Some would rather forget his religious inclinations for they believe that religion is irrational whereas science was very rational and logical. But with no scientist enjoying or possessing a better reputation as a scientist than Newton, it defies explanation as to how a man can be so rational and scientific and yet irrational and religious at the same time. Truth is, both good religion and good science are both very rational. Many religious people are irrational, but that does not mean religion, itself, is bad or irrational. Are there not irrational scientists, politicians, businessmen and every other sort of man and profession? Now let me show you just how rational Newton was as a servant of God.

Newton was reading the early church writers, commonly known as the Ante-Nicene/Church Fathers. I call no one father except the heavenly Father, Jehovah. It is unusual that anyone reads the Ante-Nicene gang for they seem so outdated and unimportant as we have long forgotten what they said or did. But Newton was reading them and at that time, it may have been a little more common to read such material. A lot of great religious works came into being from about 1500-1800.

For me, this account has special meaning for I got turned on to the Ante-Nicene writers due to reading an issue of Archaeology Odyssey or its sister magazine, Biblical Archaeology Review and having read an article about Eusebius and his Church History of the first 300 years. I was intrigued and obtained a copy on the net to read. I was swept right off my feet. So much was revealed that I had no idea about. I just knew from this that I had to read the many writers that Eusebius had quoted and written of. I red them all, too and was dumbfounded. It was like being born again or something. So much answered and explained. Who would have imagined! I knew I had to share this with the world. I read it all in 2002 and began putting things I came across in articles of my own so others could see what I was talking about. And it was among these that I noted the trinity was not believed or subscribed to at all.

Now here is the interesting coincidence. Newton read the early Ante-Nicene Writers as I did and concluded the same as I did, or more correctly, I concluded the same as he did maybe 400 years earlier. The Ante-Nicene writers shot down the trinity. Newton refused to believe the trinity forever after. And in his time, that was taking quite a risk. But there were elements and people who saw Newton's incredible mind and discoveries as very important to their cause and I have not doubt that they put out the word, "make trouble for Newton and you're as good as dead." Despite many very jealous spiteful types all around Newton, no one ever brought it up or made it public. I think they knew better. Torture and death can be so unpleasant.

But for Newton , the trinity was irrational, illogical, untruthful, and God-dishonoring. He absolutely refused to belief it or agree with it. These earliest writers did not describe any trinity or believe in such a doctrine. The trinity, although it did not have that name when it first come into being, was called a heresy in its early days but later at the Council of Nicaea, became the official party doctrine that was then enforced upon all by the emperor who had no jurisdiction over Christian matters but took it upon himself to do so even as the king of England once did in establishing the Church of England that so many protestants rejected.

Newton realized that God was too great to ever be able to take on human form. So He created a son who could assume that much lesser form. The son was the means of bridging the gap between the two worlds, the spiritual one of God and the earthly one of man. The son was eminently qualified to reveal the Father to us, having once been along side the Father in heaven. Newton came to appreciate things like this in the early writers.

For me, the revelations about the Anti-Christ were mind boggling. I did not believe in the Anti-Christ of the last days till I read the early writers; specifically Irenaeus and Hippolytus, among others, who quoted scriptures verifying things about the Anti-Christ and then adding what had been taught by the Apostles.

But getting back to the trinity and Newton, Newton recognized the real truth of the trinity by means of these Ante-Nicene writers even as I later did and I think any honest reader would also have to conclude. But this is only if your worship of God moves you to look for logic, rational thinking and reasoning, sound grounded thinking, letting the mind reason and deduce, rather than irrational tradition that makes no sense and conflict and contradicts good sound reasoning.

The Old Testament Witness
Back to Top

As I already mentioned, monotheism was not violated just because there were two equally powerful beings who both acted as God, although Jesus was the primary one to carry out the will of the Father. But who cares if monotheism was violated? We do not define God or what "He" is, or "They" are. But let us be clear about something. God, the Father, had always revealed the Son in the Old Testament of the Hebrews. It was not a new revelation with the advent of Jesus on earth or in the New Testament. The Messiah had long ago been foretold, starting right in Genesis 3:15 where it is prophesied (sentence pronounced, really) concerning the serpent, Satan, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel."

The seed was referred to as "He." It was a promise of God's anointed finally destroying Satan once and for all. There were many more, including one that might not have been readily recognized by the Hebrews and Jews but it is clear, nonetheless. Even earlier in Genesis, we could detect the presence of others in heaven if we were paying attention. Notice how God says for the first time in that book, "Let us." Who is He talking to? Its if obvious to us from our standpoint, it is, among others, the Son, though the rest of the angels are not excluded.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The Psalms are loaded with revelations of the Son/ Messiah. But it helps to discern the difference when we accurately and faithfully translate the name of God as it was in the original text of the Old Testament.

Psalm 2:1 Why have the nations raged and the peoples are meditating on vanity? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves; yea, the rulers have plotted together against Jehovah and His anointed, saying, 3 We will break their bands in two, and throw off their cords from us. 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; Jehovah shall mock at them. 5 Then He will speak to them in His anger, and He will terrify them in His wrath; 6 Yea, I have set My king on My holy mount on Zion.
7 I will declare concerning the statute of Jehovah: He said to Me, You are My Son. Today I have begotten You. 8 Ask of Me, and I will give the nations as Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth as Your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Now, then, be wise, O kings; be taught, O judges of the earth: 11 Serve Jehovah with fear; yea, rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Oh the blessings of all those who flee to Him for refuge!

Psalm 45:1 To the Chief Musician, Concerning the Lilies. For the sons of Korah. A Poem; a Song of the Beloved. My heart is overflowing with a good matter. I am speaking of my works to the King; my tongue is the pen of a rapid writer. 2 You are the fairest of the sons of man; grace has poured into Your lips; on this account God has blessed You forever.
3 Gird Your sword on Your thigh, Mighty One; with Your glory and Your majesty. 4 And ride prosperously in Your majesty, on the matter of truth and meekness and right, and Your right hand shall teach You fearful things. 5 Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the King's enemies; peoples fall under You.
6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness. 7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness; on account of this God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your fellows.

This next one shows why God's name is so important. For God is called Jehovah here and Jehovah is speaking to David's "Lord."

Psalm 110:
1 A Psalm of David. A statement of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as Your footstool.
2 Jehovah shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion; rule in the midst of Your enemies.
3 Your people shall be willing in the day of Your power; in holy adornment from the womb of the dawn, to You is the dew of Your youth.
4 Jehovah has sworn and will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
5 The Lord at Your right hand shatters kings in the day of His anger.
6 He shall judge among the nations; He shall fill with dead bodies; He shall shatter heads over much land.

Isaiah 9:6 For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. 7 There is no end to the increase of His government and of peace on the throne of David, and on His kingdom, to order it, and to sustain it with justice and with righteousness, from now and forever. The zeal of Jehovah of Hosts will do this.

Now with this scripture from Isaiah, we are told of a child, specifically a son, and look at what amazing titles he is given. Mighty God, everlasting Father? How can he be a son and yet be the Father, too? Well, if there was a statement by Jesus later saying that was so, then whether understandable or not, we would have to accept it. But there is no such statement. The concept otherwise, would make no sense.

A much more logical, reasonable, and simple explanation is that Jesus is figuratively God or Father, since he acts in behalf of his Father, doing the will of the Father with the power and spirit of the Father. And he is a direct representative of the Father. This is not such a strange concept at all. Let me show you a couple scriptures that will show you why. The first that follows next shows Jesus spoken of as being named Immanuel. But he was never really called that when on earth. Immanuel has a meaning in Hebrew which is significant to the situation. It means "God is with us." So we can see it is not a literal name, but rather a name the symbolizes God being with us in that Jesus came in the name of God, with God's power and blessing, having come from God and heaven long before being born on earth.

Isaiah 7:14 So, The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! The virgin will conceive and will bring forth a son; and she shall call His name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey until He knows to refuse the evil and choose the good.

Exodus 7:1 And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh; and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

This one was really intriguing. Some might be slow or skeptical to accept that Jesus was God, the Father, in only a figurative or representative sense. But here we have the very same thing said of Moses. And here is something even more interesting to note. If you are familiar with the arguments over John 1:1, you might know about the indefinite article fought over by some, whereby there is no "the" in front of god (theos) in the Greek, thereby allowing a possibility that there should be an indefinite article (an "a") in front of god. I personally do not believe that it is needed or required, though certainly allowed for.

But if we accept that the "a" is not required and needed in front of god there, and should be understood as God, indicating the Father, which I agree is possible, then why is an "a" inserted in front of god here in Exodus 7:1? The Hebrew does have indefinite articles in their language but there is none to be found in front of god here. So when they translate it as "a god," they are making a distinction for us when they insert an "a" in there to denote a lesser god who is not to be confused with the Father. This is not an unreasonable move but then wonders why they do not do the same with Jesus when he is called God as in John 1:1. A clear bias for the trinity is evident.

It is very likely that when Jehovah told Moses that he was going to be God to Pharaoh, and not just "a" god. Jehovah meant that Moses was representing Jehovah, Himself. Surely this could be so since Moses came to Pharaoh in the name of Jehovah, the God of Israel. But we also know that although Jehovah made Moses God to Pharaoh, we surely do not also think that Moses was actually Jehovah, the Father, Himself. That would be foolish.

I see that same context with Jesus. We know he is God's son and Firstborn of all creation, but why conclude that he is the Father, Himself, when that fact contradicts everything else we know about Jesus, just as it does with Moses?

One could suppose a trinitarian explanation for this relationship, but resorting to that when a far better, more simple, logical, and obvious explanation exists, makes no sense. Why embrace something that contradicts itself, makes no sense, and would never normally occur to people, unless such an explanation was given before the facts were known. Really, if we try hard, we can see nearly anything in any light or from any angle that we want. I only ask that trinitarians attempt to objectively look at other possibilities and see if they are not more likely and reasonable, if one was not raised as a trinitarian to begin with.

So I believe I have explained in reasonable terms why Jesus can be called God and even Father. But may I also point out that Isaiah 9 is the only place that the Messiah Jesus is called that. He is also called Prince in that scripture. Prince when he could be called king, which is what he is called in other places. Prince almost seems to subject him to some degree to someone higher. But no matter.

What I want to emphasize is that Jesus does not lay claim to the term Father, but describes the Father as . . . well, . . . his Father. How obvious can that be? The Apostles in writing, never call Jesus the Father but always distinguishes him from the Father. So the most reasonable explanation for Jesus on rare occasions being called God is that He is acting as such on behalf of such and by the authority of his God. We will get into more scriptures as we go on.

Another very misunderstood term, perhaps even deliberately twisting the term, is the word "one." We all know the scripture above, John 10:30. Now for the explanation that more readily makes sense.

To me, anyone who knows the scriptures at all knows that God, His Son, and the Son's apostles did not look favorably upon divisions within the body of Christ, the Church, the House of God, the bride of the bridegroom. The scriptures below should be enough to persuade those who are not familiar with the scriptures.

1Corinthians 12:24 But our presentable members have no need. But God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member having need, 25 that there not be division in the body, but that the members might have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it. If one member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it. 27 And you are Christ's body, and members in part.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies, 21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, wild parties, and things like these; of which I tell you beforehand, as I also said before, that the ones practicing such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you all say the same thing, and there be no divisions among you, but you be united in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For concerning you, my brothers, it was shown to me by those of Chloe that there are strifes among you. 12 But I say this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:3 For you are yet fleshly. For where among you is jealousy, and strife, and divisions, are you not fleshly and walk according to man?

1 Corinthians 11:18 Indeed, first, I hear divisions to be among you when you come together in the church. And I believe some part.

Romans 16:17 And brothers I exhort you to watch those making divisions and causes of stumbling contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and turn away from them.

Rather than divisions and disharmony, the Apostles and Jesus always sought unity and cohesion, togetherness if you will. Unity was expressed as unity in some places. It was also expressed as being one. One indivisible whole, whereas two would signify a division. There was to be no division in the household of God as you will note in the following scriptures.

Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Ephesians 4:11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

1 Peter 3:8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

That last scripture really highlights and illustrates the similarity of unity and one and becoming one spirit with the Lord. One was not intended to understood as a literal number. It was to signify unity. It was being used figuratively. But its figurative use was not an uncommon or rare use. This was the way it was used, even in the Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament. One spirit as used by Paul was very similar to how Jesus used the word one, only not adding the word spirit but certainly implying it. With this in mind, let us consider the next scriptures.

John 17:11 Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

Surely Jesus can not mean that they, the disciples, would actually only be one person, being reduced from many bodies to one body. It seems rather silly to even suggest it. Or worse yet, are they also the Father since they are one with the Father? He clearly means one as in being united, in harmony, in agreement, with the same purpose, all on the same page and going in the same direction. In short, they are one. I really find it surprising that this could be such a difficult and unclear concept. It is kind of basic, even in the English language.

John 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

Now in this scripture, Jesus says that the Father is in him and that he is in the Father and that the disciples are also going to be inside them and that Jesus is going to be inside the disciples, too. Shall I take this literally? I don't think so. That would most definitely be absurd. Clearly, the language is figurative. And so is the word one. It is so blatantly obvious to even a rather simple person. Jesus helps us to understand what one is and means.

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God, and your God.

Jesus does speak plainly here. Will we listen? Though Jesus has on an occasion or two, been referred to as God or even Father once in prophecy, since in some respects, Jesus is those things, yet he does not refer to himself as those things here. Jesus makes himself a brother and equals with his disciples and refers to God as his God, and Father as his Father. Jesus admits to having a God and Father. We should be willing to accept that. Remember, he is talking directly to his disciples and not his enemies so the language is more plain and direct, rather than given in parables or whatever.

John 8:17 And in your Law it has been written [Deut. 19:15 is referred to.] that the witness of two men is true. 18 I am the one witnessing concerning Myself, and He who sent Me, the Father, witnesses concerning Me.

We see two witnesses, not 3. We could imagine the spirit as being a wtiness in some ways, but since the spirit is of God, from God, and by God, really, it is God who is the witness who speaks by performing works through Jesus. Further, if we have two witnesses, then we don't have 2 in 1. Either that or we would not have two witnesses and the law would not be fulfilled. Could that really be so? No!

John 5:19 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.

Jesus admits to being subject to the Father. That means he is not equal on all accounts, but only on some. So we can say Jesus is equal in a relative sense, but by this scripture, we can not say equal in an absolute sense. The Father is the boss and head. This is true for the next scripture as well.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but of the One who sent Me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God, or I speak from Myself. 18 The one speaking from himself seeks his own glory. But the one seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, this One is true, and unrighteousness is not in Him.

Look at the differences the Son says about himself and the Father. And you still say equal in all things . . . in an absolute sense? Also take notice that Jesus came to seek the glory of the Father. So as a result of Jesus' words and teachings, who do you glorify?

John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Unlike the Greek gods, who were numerous and had competing and separate wills and agendas, Jesus had no independent initiative but submits his will to the Father. More properly, his goals would be exactly like those of the Father and he would not dream of having it otherwise. The same would go for his disciples. Jesus subjects himself to the Father as do his followers as is clearly shown in the next scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

So while Jesus certainly had a prominent and glorious position in heaven along side his Father before coming to earth, being allowed by the Father to create all things in existence, with all the fullness of the Father dwelling in the son, Jesus did not have an independent and contradictory will or agenda compared to the Father. There was no division whatsoever. But there is headship. So Jesus is not co-equal in the absolute sense. He is subordinate in the absolute sense. This would violate the ideas of the trinity.

This would be an important issue for some would try to later claim that Jesus could not be a separate God for that would constitute polytheism, like that of the Greeks. But it most certainly would not. Although both were equal in power and status according to the will of the Father, there was no conflict or disagreement about what the plan and agenda was. It was the Father who set the goals and direction that the son was happy to oblige, even delighted in joining and sharing in with the Father. That is why Jesus uttered the following verse.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

Jesus did not mean they were literally one but that they were properly united in spirit with each other. There was no division of any kind whatsoever, as regards will, purpose, actions, or spirit. There was a division of beings or entities, however. But they were on the same team and working together. You can take that to the bank! He makes that clear further in the next verses.

John 10:36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Son of God? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me. 38 But if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may perceive and may believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.

Jesus points out that his works were of the Father, by the Father, from the Father. Even if they doubted Jesus, they had no excuse to doubt or deny the Father, who manifested Himself with great works through Jesus. In this way, Jesus said that it should have been apparent to them that the Father was in Jesus, and Jesus in the Father. These works are not here attributed to the Holy Spirit, although they are in other places. The Holy Spirit evidently then, is really just a part of God. It can be rightly said that the Spirit and the Father are one in the same with the spirit being the power and manifestation of the Father.

The same can not be said of the Son. Though God's spirit is fully the Son's, it still comes from the Father. Nor can we say the spirit is a person thought referred to as "he" several times, and as a comforter in place of Jesus a couple times. This is a well known literary technique called personification and it is very liberally used in the Bible so there is no need to make the spirit into a person when another more simple and obvious explanation is available. This last scripture kind of helps settle this as well as the rest of the Bible does.

Now was the Father literally in Jesus and Jesus in the Father? Can the Father actually be contained in a body or a temple? Isn't He in heaven above? And isn't Jesus on earth and not in heaven? Is it really reasonable to think that they are literally inside of each other? To me, it is obvious that Jesus speaks in a figurative spiritual kind of way. Jesus always spoke by means of things in parables and allegories. Isn't it likely he is doing so here? I see no way to conclude anything else. It seems to me the most sensible and obvious interpretation.

But some are not content to allow the obvious. They will not concede that one means unity. They will insist that there are not 3 individuals but one, manifest in 3 different persons. A literal number one. Again, the idea is so silly, I will not even give it serious consideration. But in their desire to defend a doctrine already obsolete and absurd, even when it was created, and preserve their precious "tradition of men," they will go to any length and argue any absurdity to prove that it is so, even though it defies all logic and can not once ever be demonstrated in the Hebrew Old Testament. They employ legalism, semantics, and all the very worst techniques that lawyers are most noted for, who distort and argue the ridiculous in court so as to pervert justice and make a mockery of it and get their client off or win him some money. So it is with these infantile ones who are again needing milk and being fed on the elementary things of the scriptures.

For it should well be obvious that Jesus spoke by means of parables, illustrations, and allegories to the people and then in private would sometimes explain things to his disciples. This would be the obvious and reasonable thing to do with the word "one." For those familiar with Ocham's razor, a philosophical precedent created by a philosopher of the same name, it states, in essence, that the simplest and most obvious solution is usually the correct one to any given problem. And the most obvious, simplest, most direct way to understand "one" is to acknowledge the obvious figure of speech indicating unity. Unity that exists not only between the Father and the Son, but also between the disciples and the Father and the Son. If we say the Father and the Son are literally one, then we are forced to somehow join the disciples into that Godhead as well. That would really be stretching it. I should point out that one religion, formerly lead by Herbert Armstrong, actually proposed this as doctrine, with the disciples being part of the Godhead. The World Wide Church of God has now splintered into many various groups since the death of Mr. Armstrong, believing any number of things.

So we are left with a good reasonable explanation of how the Father and Son are as one. It is quite simple and needs no complicated contraption such as is the trinity. In fact, the trinity could never be discerned from those scriptures dealing with one. You have to twist things to get that. To concoct a complicated concept like the trinity, which concept is loaded with contradictions, scripturally unsubstantiated assertions and definitions, makes no logical sense whatsoever. This is not a doctrine of logic, reason, or balance which proceeded from God, it is the twisted idea of demons who would love to get people in the habit of embracing that which can not truly be explained or understood. A mystery which has no solution. If they can get you to buy into one lie, then maybe they can insert a few more senseless and meaningless ideas into your heads. Don't let them do that to you.

It is no secret among Christians that Jesus did exist in heaven, prior to coming to earth. The scriptures testifying to this are numerous. What is fought over is whether Jesus was made, born, created, or whether he always existed with the Father in some form or other. Let us start with one of the most obvious ones.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Paul says he is not the Father but the image of the Father. That is a big difference. Paul also calls him the first born, not on earth as some suggest without explanation or support, but of all creation. He came before it all, says Paul. But in saying that, Paul also makes it clear that Jesus did have a birth, a creation, a start, unlike the Father, who always existed and has no beginning. Paul points out how Jesus was the creator of all things, preeminent in all things, even death. He shows Jesus to also be the first born from the dead to that end. It was God's good pleasure that all fullness of Himself dwell in the Son. Paul does not say that the Father is the Son. Not even close.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

Here in Hebrews, he again is called the first-born by Paul. We see it is the Father who brings His first-born into the world. Jesus is first-born before coming into the world. We also see the position that the Father gives to Jesus in requiring worship from the angels. No wonder he is also called God every so often. But he is not the same as the Father who is Jehovah in the Old Testament.

Revelation 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

John here calls Jesus "the beginning of God's creation." Beginning means beginning, the start. Jesus was and had, a start, a beginning.

1 Corinthians 8:6 but to us is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him.

One of each. They are apparently distinct. The Father "of" whom all things are and the Son, "through" whom all things are. See the difference?

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

John refers to Jesus here as only-begotten. That means what it says. Jesus was begotten and only Jesus and no one else. None of the angels can claim to be begotten directly from God, the Father. Only the first-born and only-born can claim that. The next one is rather famous in trinity arguments.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

The Word was with God and was God. How are we to understand that? Isaiah 9 which we earlier considered clears it up some. Jesus can not be both with God and God, Himself, unless we are to understand Jesus being God in the sense of having that title, as is clear when we read of angels being required to worship him. Yet he is not the Father but has the fullness of the Father dwelling in him as the image of the Father, a perfect representation. Jesus was there at the beginning of all things, even as he was a beginning himself at one point. He was the ultimate beginning, we might say.

Note too, that he is said to be God and I do not contest that. There is the possibility of there being an indefinite article being inserted before God so that it becomes "a God." But I am not sure that is right. But if we do it in Exodus 7:1, where it is not required in reference to Moses, then it could be argued for here without being too unreasonable. But in both cases, John 1:1 and Exodus 7:1, I believe "God" without any article is proper. If Moses can be called God, how much more so can Jesus be called that, though he is not Jehovah, the ultimate God and Father of all things, even of Jesus.

John 17:5 And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the existence of the world.

John 7:29 But I know Him, because I am from Him; and He sent Me.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

Trinitarians love to twist these next two.

John 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of man, then you will know that I AM; and from Myself I do nothing; but as My Father taught Me, these things I speak. 29 And the One who sent Me is with Me. The Father did not leave Me alone, for I do the things pleasing to Him always.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I AM.

First, the Greek language does not have the same tenses as we do in English. The past can not be denoted in the same tense as it can in English. So all Greek tenses sounds like the present. All appearances of the Greek "am become" are often translated as "have been," "was," or something similar. But since trinitarians got a hold of the Bible, they decided to refer to that tense as present, since it now makes it easier to connect up with Exodus 3:14 where God says:

"Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

But even if we should accept that the two are connected, even though they are not, there is nothing extraordinary to be suggested by the link. Jesus could easily identify himself as the speaker of the words to Moses as he was the speaker to Moses, posing and speaking as the Father. That is why he is called the Word of God. He is indeed, God's mouth piece, His Word in spoken form to men. It does not mean that Jesus was the Father, Himself. He represented the Father and spoke for Him in His name, even as men speak for the president of a company or country. There is a big difference. But all agree that Jesus existed long before Abraham. That was the point Jesus was trying to make. He did not intend that we should think him the Father.

If we thought he intended us to believe he was the Father, then he would be contradicting himself when he declares the Father, Father and God, not only of him but also of his disciples. So my explanation seems a more easy and simple one that satisfies all the scriptures and not just some of them. Here is another famous scripture.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned, for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John makes it clear that Jesus is the only-begotten Son. He is not "the" Father, although he is "a" father in that he made all things for the Father, becoming a father himself, as a result. Though all men are sons, many also become fathers eventually. In a relative sense, Jesus can be called a father if you choose, but in the absolute sense, there in only one Father, Jehovah. The next scripture is a very important one so pay attention.

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One reveals Him.

This can only be taken in an absolute sense and very literally. No one has seen God at any time. Period! Now with that in mind, we need to reconcile some things. Jesus can not be the Father in an absolute sense. If he were, then those who saw Jesus most certainly could have said they saw the Father. But what they saw was the image of the Father in the Son. Jesus is the perfect choice to represent the Father, since who knows the Father better than he who was the Father's only-begotten creation and created all things for the Father. The first-born and only-born Son of God is the obvious choice, being in the bosom position of the Father.

So Jesus can best describe and reveal the Father to us. He is the link between a God so mighty, so powerful, and so beyond our form of existence, that He can not take human form or get anywhere near the earth. But the Son can and he is the link, the bridge, between the greatness and majesty of the Father and us mortal men on earth. He reveals the Father to us as no other can. He is so far more qualified than any other spirit in heaven. His qualifications are unique among the heavenly crowd.

Matthew 16:15 He said to them, But you, whom do you say Me to be? 16 And answering, Simon Peter said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And answering, Jesus said to him, Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father in Heaven.

Peter calls Christ the Son of God. Those words speak for themselves. It is funny how fundamentalists, who normally take things so literally and fundamentally, do not take these words so. Jesus also refers to his Father, who is in heaven, not on earth, as if that were even possible. But trinitarians can not take words at face value. They try to twist meanings out of them that are so distorted and unusual, it is no secret why the trinity is called a mystery and incomprehensible. They got that one right!

1John 4:9 By this the love of God was revealed in us, because His Son, the Only begotten, God has sent into the world that we might live through Him.

Again, Jesus is clearly referred to as a son. A son means a son. Next note how Paul speaks of Jesus in so many ways in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

It is a son, an heir, who speaks for God and created the world for God. He reflects the glory of God. It does not say he is the glory but that he reflects it. He also bears the stamp or seal of God's nature. Then after serving on earth faithfully, he sits at the right hand of God as foretold in the Psalm which I earlier quoted. The "name" Jesus obtains is far greater than the angels, in that he has done far more and possessed much more, having been the creator of all those other angels. So Jesus is not just another spirit son of God. He is the only-begotten and directly-begotten Son of the Father. No other angel can make a claim like that. So Jesus had a heavenly existence long before coming to earth and much more to brag about than that.

Now when the Bible plainly says that Jesus is born or the first-born, begotten or only-begotten or that he is a son and the son, that is exactly what God's word, the Bible, means. For we know how we were all told to let our yes mean yes and our no mean no. And what the Lord tells us to do, he already does himself and always has. He says what he means. Otherwise, he would constitute himself to be wicked. Never may that happen. It is impossible!

Yet that is exactly what the trinitarians suggest. They say that first-born does not mean first-born but indicates a position or privilege. You mean there was no other way to indicate it than by that term? And only-begotten means that he was begotten or adopted after having been on earth, the first-born and only begotten of the dead. But the scriptures speak of much more than that and to assert it as that alone is to lie and deny the scriptures, the Word of God, which is also to deny God. Jesus is many times called a son. They say it is not son in the normal sense. Well, what sense, then? What scripture can you show me in the Bible that shows me that son does not mean son, but indicates something else?

The problem is, that there is no such scripture. It is assumed and inferred without any support or authority whatsoever. Basically, they deny Biblically used words and their meanings, without a shred of real reason. This means that God's yes does not mean yes. Son does not mean son. First-born does not mean he was born. Only-begotten is not indicative of being born, either. These are outright distortions and lies. God means exactly what He ordained be written by His servants. If Jesus did not have a beginning, it would have been stated that way. God does not lie or even mislead. I am going to cover one more important reference in this silly argument that trinitarians offer.

Proverbs 8 speaks of the creation of Wisdom. Now this wisdom is said by all who mention this account of the early Christian writers after the Apostles, which is nearly everyone. Only one (Irenaeus) attributes it as applying to the spirit. Most say the spirit is uncreated and always having been a part of God which I agree with. All the rest apply the wisdom of Proverbs 8 as applying to Jesus. Interestingly, wisdom, an obvious non-entity, is personified. This is further evidence that the spirit could also qualify as being personified. But wisdom is given a peculiar personification that bears a lot of resemblance to the early existence of the Son of God. Let's look at the account. After spending 21 versus speaking of the greatness and value of wisdom, 22 begins a different course.

Proverbs 8:
22 Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from that which was before the earth.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no springs heavy with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth;
26 before He had made the earth and the fields, or the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when He set the clouds above, when He made the strong fountains of the deep,
29 when He gave to the sea its limit, that the waters should not beyond His command; when He decreed the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was at His side, like a master workman; and I was His delights day by day, rejoicing before Him at every time;
31 rejoicing in the world, His earth; and my delight was with the sons of men.

We would probably all accept that since God always existed and always will, that He always possessed all wisdom, love, power, etc. They were always a part of Him. But this "wisdom" was said to be set up and brought forth before anything else. From that point, wisdom was with God and was at His side at all times. Especially close to wisdom's heart was the sons of men. It also mentions that the Father delighted in His wisdom day by day. It seems to be a consensus of all but one early writer that this was speaking of Jesus. This was the tradition that they say was passed on by the Apostles.

For if God always had wisdom and contained wisdom, then how was it that suddenly He brings it forth only at some time in His existence? Did He not have it at some point back in time? I think it not likely as the early writers also think. So to these early ecclesiastical writers, Jesus was God's Word and His Wisdom, brought forth before anything else. Most certainly, Jesus had a beginning, a creation date, a birth; he was made. All the early writers believed this.

I will ask, of what importance or necessity is it to have him uncreated and always with the Father? It would be of no importance unless you were trying to make him fit in some pre-conceived notion of co-equal, co-eternal trinity. But which came first, the conclusions about the son, or the concept of the trinity which the son was to be squeezed into? I would say it was pretty clear that they formed their ideas about the son, only after having concocted the trinity and wanting to make him fit to it. Had they gone by the Bible, first, they never would have come up with the trinity.

The Son makes it quite clear that he is in subjection to the Father and that he loves the Father. The Apostles also make it very clear that the Son is subject to the Father. So co-equality has its limits. In many senses, the Son is equal to the Father, but in the absolute sense, the Son makes it clear the Father is greater. See for yourself.

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

14:31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father.

Jesus says the Father is greater than Jesus is. He also takes commands from the Father. Co-equal you say? Jesus also loves the Father. If Jesus is the Father, then is he confessing to loving Himself? Or someone greater? What does the weight of the scripture here suggest? Now some will say that when Jesus said the Father was greater, he was speaking of the Father in reference to Jesus' earthly existence at the time he spoke it. But Jesus said he was going to the Father and that his disciples should be glad because the Father was greater than the Son. So evidently the Father was going to do something for the disciples that Jesus could not, even though he was going to be back in heaven with the Father.

Here again, Jesus refers to the spirit of the Father that the disciples would receive after having the spirit poured out upon them when the Son presented his sacrifice to the Father. It was speaking of Jesus after His receiving back his heavenly glory. So this could not be as the trinitarians suggest. Besides, where in the Bible would we get the understanding that is was only within the context of Jesus earthly existence? I would never understand it that way. I believe this is just more twisting and lying since Paul says the Father is the head of the Son, long after the Son ascended to heaven and sat at the Father's right hand in great glory as I quoted earlier and will quote again.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

If the Father knows something the Son does not, then how can they be said to be equal in all senses, therefore, co-equal. The obvious answer is that they can not be co-equal in an ultimate or absolute sense.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

Co-equal? Sounds like Jesus is the Father's errand boy, to me. I jest a little but plainly, Jesus is in subjection to the Father. There is no denying that.

John 5:19 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.

Jesus is an imitator and not allowed initiative in some senses. That is not entirely true, of course, for even men were given the authority to take initiative on behalf of God. But Jesus makes it clear that he would not exceed the bound of what the Father does, but always remains in harmony and unity with the Father. But it is not co-equal in all senses of that word, which is not in the Bible anyway.

John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Here Jesus says his will is in subjection to the Father's will. In this way they are united as one. No polytheism to be found here, either. And the monarchy is still in tact.

Luke 22:41 And He was withdrawn from them, about a stone's throw. And placing the knees, He prayed, 42 saying, Father, if You will, take away this cup from Me; but let not My will be done, but Your will.

Jesus is clearly subject to the Father, and remains in union with the Father at all costs, even though it might not look so good as was the case when about to be tried and crucified. God's will also wins out over the Son's.

Let us consider a few more scriptures that deal with all the topics we have covered so far.

1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Here we can better appreciate how close the two are to each other and that they are indeed, one with each other. So that when you have one, you have the other. This scripture will be more important later.

1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 23 Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them.

Remember how Jesus said the Father was in him and he in the Father? Now those who obey the Father's commands live in him and he in them so when Jesus says he is in the Father, he can not be speaking literally, but spiritually speaking instead.

1 John 3:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.

John says that we need to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God and does not say Jesus as God. If we believe this, then God lives in us and we in God. So our salvation would seem to require recognizing Jesus as the Son of God. On the converse, if we confess Jesus as God, we are not walking rightly in the word of God. The Father is entitled to speak of Jesus as God, but we are not. We know Jesus as the Son of God. If we do not, that could potentially mean trouble. I wouldn't want to risk that.

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

John tells us here that Jesus is a child of God. Now what do you trinitarians suggest is meant by child of God? What position is indicated by that? To me, it means what it means, Jesus was born of God, and not uncreated or unmade.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Now what do you suppose when Paul says God was manifest in the flesh. Does that mean Jesus was the Father? But what about when Paul said no man has ever seen God? If we consider all the scriptures in the matter, the most likely explanation to me, would seem to be that Jesus was the perfect image and representation of the Father in fleshly form. Remember that we, too, are created in God's image, except that Adam caused us to be born in sin. There is no need to imagine Jesus is literally the Father, for that would nullify too many other scriptures.

Now I want you to pay close attention to the next scripture. I am going to show how the trinitarians have lied and inserted things in to the Bible. First, here is the authentic version. Notice how verse 6 speaks of he who came by water and blood and then talks about the spirit in verse 7 brings up the spirit. Then notice verse 8, which sums up the matter.

(RSV)1 John 5:
6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.
7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

After having brought up the 3, John says they are all witnesses, the water, the blood, and the spirit. He says they are all witnesses that all agree with each other. There is a smooth flow from one point to the next, leading to the ultimate conclusion of the matter.

But now we will look at the tampered version and I believe it is clear that it was tampered with. In case you are not aware, there have been no Bible versions earlier than the 13th century that have this inserted verse, so from that, it has been assumed by most translators today that it was inserted. But it is not just from that evidence. How it was squeezed into another topic shows. Green's literal translation retains the inserted verse but highlights it in italics so that we know of its questionable standing. They took verse 7 from above and put it into verse 6 below and then inserted a different 7th verse. They also insert "One" a couple times, too. And they insert an "And" at the beginning of verse 8 to make it look like a continuity of verse 7, which it is not.

(GLT) 1 John 5:
6 This is the One coming through water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the One witnessing, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three bearing witness in Heaven: the Father the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three who bear witness on the earth: The Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are to the one.

Instead of continuing on with the 3 first mentioned, it brings up 3 who were not brought up and not related to the train of thought started in the authentic version. To me it would have made more sense to finish the thing on the water, blood, and spirit, and then bring up the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit after. And the spirit was already addressed before. So there are two good strikes against this insert, which also leave two good strikes against trinitarians who seem to need to twist the Bible and even make up verses in order to generate enough evidence to support their idea.

But for that sake of good argument, lets just assume that the insert was authentic. Was it wrong? Not exactly. God is a witness in heaven as are the Son, called Word, and the Spirit. But what good is it for them to testify in heaven. We are down here on earth so John addressed what had testified on earth for us to see and have reason to believe. Whoops! I guess they should have thought of that. The Father did testify to earth. The spirit was His testimony, as well as His own voice from heaven. The Word also testified many times to men. And of course, the works of the Spirit were also quite manifest to people, so it well testified to men. But the works of the Spirit were also a witness from the Father as well, since the Spirit is His. So the verse in question is not all that wrong, but it does not make sense in context. It is out of place where it is.

The Bible often goes back and forth on the miraculous works, at some times calling them from the Father and at other times saying they are from the spirit, assuming that we understand the Spirit is from God, of God, part of God and that we would not be silly enough or uninformed enough to think that the Spirit was another person.

Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.

Hebrews 2:4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.

That is to say, by God's own will and it was God who bore witness, by means of His spirit. Get the picture? But there is always someone who will argue even the most absurd, given enough time. It never fails.

The Bible in the Old Testament uses one word, spirit, in a great variety of ways. I offer both Strong's definition and Thayer's. From these you will be able to see what I am talking about.

From Strong's
07307. ruwach - pronounced roo'-akh;

from 07306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):-- air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-])wind(-y). Greek 4151 and 5590.

From Thayer's
07307 ruwach - pronounced roo'-akh

KJV - Spirit or spirit 232, wind 92, breath 27, side 6, mind 5, blast 4, vain 2, air 1, anger 1, cool 1, courage 1, misc 6; 378

  1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
1a) breath
1b) wind; 1b1) of heaven; 1b2) quarter (of wind), side; 1b3) breath of air; 1b4) air, gas; 1b5) vain, empty thing

1c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation); 1c1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigor; 1c2) courage; 1c3) temper, anger; 1c4) impatience, patience; 1c5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented); 1c6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse; 1c7) prophetic spirit

1d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals); 1d1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being
1e) spirit (as seat of emotion); 1e1) desire; 1e2) sorrow, trouble
1f) spirit; 1f1) as seat or organ of mental acts; 1f2) rarely of the will; 1f3) as seat especially of moral character

1g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son; 1g1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy; 1g2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning; 1g3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power; 1g4) as endowing men with various gifts; 1g5) as energy of life; 1g6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory; 1g7) never referred to as a depersonalized force

Of course, Thayer assumes the trinity in his definition. That does not mean the trinity is supported by the Bible, but only by Thayer and others like him.

As pointed out in Thayer's, this Hebrew word appears in the KJV as Spirit or spirit 232 times, wind 92 times, breath 27 times, along with a few other occurrences you can check out in my quote from Thayer's. The spirit is likened to wind or breath as approximate ways of trying to communicate to us what spirit is like. Though we see it in action as we see the wind have its effect on things such as tree branches and fields swaying under its force, yet we do not see the wind itself. Same with breath. We die when we can not breath, and have life when we do breath, yet the breath and the air we do not see. But the absence of breath is apparent in one without it, who is lifeless and quickly decays.

When we have breath, we are said to have spirit, God's spirit as I will show from the scriptures.

Genesis 6:17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.

That phrase, "the breath of life" is from the Hebrew word I quoted from the two dictionaries of Hebrew, "ruwach." It is translated in some Bibles as spirit, but here as the breath of life. In English, we have a number of words that distinguish breath or wind from the spirit of God, but in Hebrew, there was no such distinction. One word covered many ideas. We also have words that have a number of meanings or variations, but not in the case of "spirit." That word we limit more specifically than the Hebrews did. Greek was more like English in that they often had separate words for variations of meaning. The next verse is another example of where

Job 27:3 as long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils; 4 my lips will not speak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceit.

Breath in this scripture of Job is another word for which breath is the most common translation. But spirit is also used and referred to as in his nostrils. So breath is described in Hebrew in 2 ways. First it can be an actual breath and it can also be described as the spirit of God, or breath of life, giving particular attention to the life aspect, it being from God as we shall see in more scriptures.

Ecclesiastes 3:19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?

In this scripture, as in many, they use breath for the first occurrence of spirit. But in verse 21, they use spirit for the next occurrences of the word. So the men and beasts all have but one spirit, it, the breath of life force being from God, the supplier and sustainer of all living breathing things. Where that breath or life force goes after we lose it, Solomon could not say, whether up or down or wherever. Solomon was not referring to heaven or hell when speaking of directions. Our life force is a mysterious can of force and why things live or what happens when something dies is still quite the mystery, even with all our science available today. That, I believe, was Solomon's point about not knowing where the spirit goes after it ceases in a man or beast. But we know it is from God.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Here we have a clear statement about where our "life" comes from. Life is a sort of spirit that comes from God and God receives it back when we die. We do not need to imagine that it is something of some special quality or being that God keeps. It is merely a force or animating power that ceases to be, said to return to God, figuratively speaking.

Psalm 104:29 You hide Your face, and they are troubled; You gather their breath, and they expire and return to their dust
30 You send out Your Spirit, and they are created; and You renew the face of the earth.

Again, more verification to emphasize God as the giver of life, directly or indirectly as when one man father's a son. God was the starter of that particular species and race called man and man's ability to reproduce, without strings attached.

We have considered God's overall life force and animating power that He gives somewhat without forcing obedience. In that sense it is an unconditional granting of life. But now we are going to see further revelations of God's spirit and its diverse functions.

Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.

Every living person and animal who breathes can legitimately claim to have a portion of God's spirit. But not all have the same portion, even as in our society, there are those with far more money and wealth than others. So it is with those who worship God as opposed to those who do not. Those who do have a far greater measure of that spirit than those that do not. Worshippers in the days of the apostles received the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not always referred to as God's, although it is referred to as God's in many places but also left out in some, too. Because it is said to be God's in a number of places, God did not feel the need to always identify it with Himself. He figured we were smart enough to put that together and understand it. Are we and do we? Verse 8 says the spirit, of God, naturally, comes upon people and verse 5 says it brings power. The spirit is power, from God, of course, as it is also holy as we might expect of anything from God.

Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Here it is said that all were filled with Holy Spirit. Now if this spirit is an entity or being as most Christians seem to think, then how do one and all get filled with it, and baptized in it as an earlier scripture mentioned? It does not make sense. We know that everyone, even wicked people, have at least a little bit of God's spirit. So are we to believe that this Holy Spirit is in all people? I would say not.

The Holy Spirit is a power and force, as well as an attitude, that grants knowledge, power, wisdom, visions, and prophecies to people. It is only given to those who worship God and are worthy of such a portion of His spirit. Wicked people are not entitled to this spirit, or measure of spirit at all.

Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. 29 Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.

God calls it "my" spirit. It is a possession and belonging of the Father. And He pours it out on His servants. Would or could you do that to a person, entity, being?

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

When people were filled with the Holy spirit, they became bold and proclaimed God to all. Again, if filled with this, can we really be talking about a person?

Ephesians 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit.

Acts 7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Full of the Holy Spirit? If this is something we are filled with, are we filled with a person, with God, maybe? Well, in a symbolic or figurative sense, we could say that, but in an absolute or literal sense, I do not believe we could make such a claim. God can not literally or physically reside in sinful people. He is too pure and too powerful to do that. But His spirit can fill people and empower them, for sure.

Acts 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

When Jesus was a man on earth, he was anointed with and received the Holy Spirit, and he suddenly became very powerful and performed great works, in the name of the Father, of course. When he received the spirit, do we imagine that he received a person into himself, quite literally, even if that person was a spiritual one? If indeed, another person was inside Jesus, then how could he die when there was another person inside him who could not die? A much more simple and obvious solution is that the spirit was the power of God and not a person.

Luke 11:13 "how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

This is a rather interesting passage. It led to me discovering what you could almost call a conspiracy of sorts. I don't think it has been brought up before but I will here. It says in this scripture of Luke's, "the" Holy Spirit. But "the" does not appear in the Greek. There is no definitive article like "the" in front of Holy Spirit in Greek. "The" is unjustly inserted. It is wrongly assumed by the translator, who is also acting as interpreter in a biased kind of way. In fact, "the" is often not inserted, even when there is a definitive article in front of a word, for that is not the way we speak in the English.

The worst part is that when I went checking all the original Greek text, I found that nearly all occurrences of "Holy Spirit" did not have an equivalent of "the" in front of them. Yet translators inserted a "the" there to make it sound like "the" Holy Spirit was a person. Most of the previous texts that I have quoted do not have a "the" in the original Greek text. But I did not feel it to be a major point in those scriptures, though not one to be ignored, either.

The Greek style of speaking and writing was/is different from ours. It is most often the case that when a Greek word has no definitive article in front of it, that an indefinite article such as "a" is put in front of it. This is not a strict rule but almost always is done that way. So without the definitive article in front of Holy Spirit, we could assume an "a" in front or we could leave it as just "give Holy Spirit," but we can by no means insert a definitive article like "the" in front of it.

But they do so here, not observing Greek rules of grammar at all. Since it is not "the" Holy Spirit, but merely Holy Spirit that is given, it becomes more obvious that we are speaking of something in an impersonal way. Holy Spirit and spirit are often used in an impersonal way in the Bible, despite occasional errors or bias.

The fact they do this repeatedly is an even worse indictment against the various translators and interpreters. There are only a few places where a "the" is placed properly in front of Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:31-32 and Matthew 28:19 are 3 such places where there is indeed a "the" in the original Greek text and therefore could, though not with certainty, merit a place in the English version. But in most places, it is totally unwarranted. Do not imagine this was not known or realized at some point. And many new versions continue the error. Either we have lots of poor scholars or there is a lot of bias and prejudice apparent.

Without the erroneous translating, it would become much more apparent that Holy Spirit was some "thing" that was given, poured, or filled with, the power of God. Now on the other hand, when spoken of as just the Spirit, without the "Holy" in front of it, the Greek equivalent of "the" appears in the original Greek text and therefore, could be possibly inserted in English as well. By their fruits you will know them. Trinitarian bias ignores the accurate translation of the word of God. He who ignores God is not from God. Nor does that person receive Holy Spirit. He is in danger of receiving condemnation and judgment if he does this knowingly. I wouldn't want to risk it.

2 Corinthians 1:22 he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

Here the spirit we are given is said to be "His" spirit, meaning God's. So while it is often referred to as Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit, it is also said in very many places such as this one, to be God's spirit as it belongs to God and is His, just as my arms are mine and belong to me.

It seems to me from these scriptures we have considered, that it is not necessary and creates many ridiculous situations that are nearly impossible when we make the Holy Spirit out to be a person rather than God's force. Further, since the spirit is a possession of God, it could hardly be said to be co-equal in all aspects, as it does not own or possess God but He does possess and own it. So it is not a two way possession or ownership.

This spirit is poured out in some measure to all living things, yet only poured out in special and powerful ways to those who are considered by God to be deserving of it. Since it is poured out to all living things, and people can be filled with it, it hardly seems likely or reasonable to conclude it is a person who gets poured or fills up others with itself. If it is not a person, then the trinity comes crashing down in ruins. This is why trinitarians defend the spirit as being a person so staunchly. If this part of their argument fails, the whole idea does as well.

But an honest seeker of truth is not likely to conclude that the spirit is a person, if they are not prejudiced with the idea of the trinity to begin with. They are apt to clearly see the 2 or 3 rare instances of the Holy Spirit referred to as a comforter, consoler, counselor, or "he" as being a literary technique known as personification which is frequently and commonly employed in the Bible so as having no reason not to be recognized by anyone well acquainted with the Bible as all Christians should be.

The next argument to overcome is the ideas of Christ being fully God and fully man, or even half God and half man. Surely it is not unknown to most Christians that Jesus came to give his life in sacrifice to buy us back from the sin that Adam sold us under. Adam was a perfect man who threw away that perfection and the opportunity and responsibility that went with it. Life in behalf of life, blood in behalf of blood, just as it is eye for eye and tooth for tooth, what is required in a sin atoning sacrifice is another perfect man, like Adam had once been. A perfect man could buy back Adam's offspring. But a perfect man could only come from God, even as the first man had come from God.

Philippians 2:5 For let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus, 6 who subsisting in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, having become in the likeness of men 8 and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death, even the death of a cross. 9 Because of this also God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus "every knee should bow," of heavenly ones, and earthly ones, and ones under the earth, 11 and "every tongue should confess" that Jesus Christ is "Lord," to the glory of God the Father. [Isa. 45:23]

Being or subsisting in the form of God could even be said to have come into existence as I show with definitions from Strong's and Thayer's Greek dictionaries. But we will go with being.

From Strongs #5225, huparcho hoop-ar'-kho; to begin under (quietly), i.e. come into existence (be present or at hand); expletively, to exist (as copula or subordinate to an adjective, participle, adverb or preposition, or as auxil. to principal (verb):-- after, behave, live.

From Thayer's; huparcho hoop-ar'-kho

KJV - be 42, have 2, live 1, after 1, not tr 2; 48

1) to begin below, to make a beginning; 1a) to begin
2) to come forth, hence to be there, be ready, be at hand
3) to be

So Christ being or existing, or having come in existence in the form of God, or image of God, you might say, thought it not robbery or unreasonable to be thought equal to God, in most respects at least. I doubt he imagined himself to be equal in every aspect for he often made it clear he was not equal in every aspect. But enough where it was not outrageous to say that in the most important ways, he was equal to God. Yet despite this, Jesus emptied himself of that great heavenly glory that he shared alongside the Father. The Bible said emptied, not partially emptied, or partially reserved, but complete divested himself of his heavenly spiritual existence as God, by virtue of being a son, an only son, directly speaking, of God. A son of a God is also a god, just as a son of a bear is also a bear or the son of a man is also a man.

He willingly emptied himself and became a man, a slave, leaving heaven and the spirit life behind, having become in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of a cross. It was indeed humbling to leave the glory he once had and become a man. On top of that, he even went so far as to allow himself to killed by wicked men who themselves were quite worthy of death when certainly, Jesus was not.

What this means is that Jesus was fully a man. There was no God left in him as far as his form of existence. He emptied himself of that. He became a man since the requirement for Adam's sin was the blood of a perfect righteous man, not half man half God or some other crap like that.

Had Jesus been half God or fully God as well, then how could he really be said to be legitimately tempted or tried, since God can not sin or be tried by earthly desires. Not can God really suffer in any way since He is a spirit. Jesus was fully vulnerable in the flesh to temptation and death, too. A God can not be killed. Only a man of flesh and blood can be so vulnerable.

1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

It is a requirement that you believe that Jesus came in the flesh if you are of God. Gods are not flesh! So Jesus was a man. I have some more.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since death is through man, also through a Man is a resurrection of the dead; 22 for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Paul said that as death is through a man, so is the resurrection through a man. He did not say that he would also be partially God or fully God as well.

Acts 17:30 Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now strictly commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He set a day in which "He is going to judge the habitable world in righteousness," by a Man whom He appointed; having given proof to all by raising Him from the dead. [Psalm 9:8].

Paul here says God appointed a man. Imagine that!

1 Peter 3:18 Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit.

Peter says Christ was put to death in the flesh. That rules out him being partially or fully God!

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

Here again, Jesus is said to be a man. How many times more must it be said by God's holy servants before we will believe them? Show me where Jesus was said to be God in a literal way while on earth! He may have had God's authority, having been sent by God. He may have come in God's name. He may have been possessed of God's spirit so as to perform powerful works, but he was not God as in being also of a spirit substance and he was not God the Father! He was a man who could, if he so chose, sin, and even if he did not, he could be reasonably tempted, and certainly was capable of dying. Really, do you imagine that Satan would not have loudly protested if Jesus was not fully man to the same degree that Adam had been. Would it have been fair to Satan if Jesus was not fully human and emptied of any God like existence? What part of emptied is it that you do not understand?

I think we also forget that you do not have to be God to have His power and authority as Jesus did as a man. The Apostles who came afterward, also had the spirit and were able to do the same powerful works that Jesus did. Jesus, himself, said they would do works greater than his. What can you say about that? Even in the Old Testament, Elijah and Elisha were capable of resurrections, calling fire down our of heaven, or stopping and starting rain when they chose. Did not Moses perform many incredible works by means of God's spirit? So one does not have to be anything but a man to do what Jesus did while on earth.

In the early centuries of Christianity, there were heretics who claimed that Jesus only appeared in the flesh but was not really flesh. The scriptures I quote above clearly show that to be a lie. Some others of that time say that Jesus was only a man and had no existence before that. This, too, is a complete lie as both trintarians and I will both agree. These various lies come about because some would not let the scriptures speak for themselves and they tried to deny Jesus' very divine qualities or to over emphasize them and even deny the flesh as being his true form while on earth. Both have been refuted at this point.

In John 17, we have a very elaborate prayer Jesus makes to the Father. Jesus also taught what is called by many the Lord's prayer, where he tell us to pray to the Father. We also have these words:

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (Which being translated is, "My God, My God, why did You forsake Me?") [Psa. 22:1; 69:21].

Was Jesus praying to himself? Does that sound rational, not to mention sane? I think not. But if Jesus is the Father and Jehovah, then that is what we have him doing. Jesus also referred to the Father being in heaven in scriptures quoted earlier. Was Jesus lying? He was if the trinity is to be believed. Really, the concepts of the trinity are pretty insane.

Further, since Jesus was to and did die and was raised on the third day, who raised him if he was dead? And were we without any God in those 3 days? Nothing makes sense if we are to believe the trinity. Logic is nowhere to be found in it. And if Jesus was not fully man, then part of him, the part of the whole that was God, must have lived and survived that death of the flesh. But then he never really died and the resurrection is a lie. I am not sure Satan would have let that one get by.

We know that Jesus called God his own God. He told his disciples that he was going to his and their God, his and their Father. I have another example.

Revelation 1:11 Behold, I am coming quickly. Hold what you have that no one take your crown. 12 The one overcoming, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall not go out any more. And I will write the name of My God on him, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem which comes down out of Heaven from My God, and My new name.

So Jesus has a God? Then he is not equal in all senses of the word, is he? How could he be if even he has a God. Really, the more we look at the scriptures, the more insane and completely outrageous the concept of the trinity becomes. It can not begin to answer all the dilemmas it creates. The easiest solution is to recognize the obvious literary techniques and the fact that there are relative senses of words and definitions and absolute senses. And the Bible frequently uses both senses of words at times.

God assumes that it is rather obvious to us that various words are to be understood in particular ways at particular times. If we are in doubt, we only have to try it both ways and see which harmonizes with the rest of scripture, better. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the trinity loses in any comparison like that. Let us consider one last scripture to sum it all up.

1 Corinthians 15:25 for it is right for Him to reign until He puts all the enemies under His feet; [Psa. 110:1] 26 the last enemy made to cease is death. 27 For "He subjected all things under His feet;" but when He says that all things have been subjected, it is plain that it excepts Him who has subjected all things to Him. [Psa. 8:6] 28 But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all things in all.

In the plainest English (originally Greek) possible, Paul tells us that Jesus will also be subject to the Father after he accomplishes his assignment. And in some ways, Jesus has always been subject to the Father as he confessed in his own words which we considered earlier. This leaves us with no doubt about the pecking order. Jesus is not in all senses, equal to the Father or uncreated and co-eternal in that way.

Again, the trinity was created in order to defend the concept of monotheism and monarchism, neither of which was violated or contradicted with the Father and Son being distinct. So they were attempting to fix something that was not broke and in the process, messed it up far worse than it was. All for the love of Greeks and wanting to be like them.

The biggest problem was admitting way too much Greek philosophy, adopting many of their words, meanings, ideas, and concepts which were not supported in the Bible. Then they came up with an idea that they loved (the trinity) and tried to squeeze the scriptures into it, but it did not fit. Worst of all, they forced their ideas onto the other 50% of the Christian religion, something they had no right to do.

Worst of all, as I show in my articles of the early post-apostolic writers, heretics were great for changing what others wrote and making up books as well. Even the Bible shows signs of being tempered with. And by whom? The trinitarians. If their position was so great, why did they have to corrupt Bible texts in order to prove their point. Anyone can do that but what does it prove? The main point of this is that we can recognize people, a group, or a movement by the fruits they bear. Let us consider the fruits of the trinitarians.

They twist scriptures make non-sense out of them. They tamper with the Bible. They tamper with other writers of their time. They use political force to get their way over others. They deny the authority of the Apostles and lay claim to the same authority over others when they do not do the same works as the Apostles did to back their works as being from God. Nothing they do is backed by the Bible. They seem to fail on all accounts. That leaves us with one thing to do. We must dump the trinity and put this beast out of its misery right now.

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; 7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

We do not walk in darkness, ignorance, incomprehensibility, and mystery. We walk in light and understanding.

John 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

We must worship God in truth. It is one thing to have a misunderstanding, it is another to embrace an idea that in no way is supported by any clear or direct statement in the Bible and requires extreme twisting to make it work. That is a dangerous precedent, even if it does not appear to have a big impact on the faith. Deliberately resisting the plainly stated facts and truth of the Bible usually ends up in going far down the wrong road and ending up in death, ultimately.

Some have said that Jesus is worthy of worship and that the Father desired that Jesus be worshipped, after having proved faithful, even to death. Show me a scripture that plainly states that Jesus is to be worshipped. There are two words that are typically translated as worship. The first one is the Greek word that is appropriately translated as worship.

4576 sebomai pronounced seb'-om-ahee
middle voice of an apparently primary verb; TDNT - 7:169,1010; v
KJV - worship 6, devout 3, religious 1; 10
1) to revere, to worship

This next word, however, it not properly translated as worship, even though most do. It was an act performed toward a number of high ranking men as a gesture of respect or to supplicate. It was not necessarily an act of worship at all..

4352 proskuneo pronounced pros-koo-neh'-o
(meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); TDNT - 6:758,948; v
KJV - worship 60; 60

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication;
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank; 3a1) to the Jewish high priests; 3a2) to God; 3a3) to Christ; 3a4) to heavenly beings; 3a5) to demons

If you recall, 3 wise men from the east wanted to pay homage (proskuneo) to Jesus. Many translations say worship but that is not quite accurate. The real word (sebomai) that truly signified worship was never applied to Jesus. Even in this verse:

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

The word used there is "proskuneo" which refers to homage and respect, not God worship. So here we have a problem created by poor translation, added to a warped doctrinal interpretation known as the trinity which see both the Father and the Son as the same thing, anyway. But where Jesus has accomplished so much and God has appointed him as judge and king of all things, is there not room for worship, too? All I can say to that is this:

1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

1 John 3:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.

To honor the Father is to honor the Son. To honor the Son is to honor the Father, also. So is it really important which one we choose? Yes, it is. It is not we who make the choice, it is our God, who Jesus represents in full. Notice next.

1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 23 Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them.

Obedience is a must. Obedience is worship of the best kind. When we listen to the words of the Son as if they came from the mouth of the Father, we treat the Son as if he really was the Son of God, anointed, appointed, and celebrated by the Father. To recognize the Son as being from the Father is to honor both since we all agree that at least in the most important ways, they are one.

When we pray to the Father or worship the Father in some way, do we not honor the Son who made it clear that his purpose was to seek the glory of the Father and not himself? Do we not greatly honor and worship the Son when we accomplish what he wants, which was glory for the Father, to bring all things back into subjection to the Father, so that once again, the Father can be all things to all?

Trinitarian Jesus worshippers pay too much attention to worshipping Jesus as they want to and not as Jesus commanded them to. Anyone who claims to know Jesus, love Jesus, and worship Jesus, must also obey Jesus. Obedience is where its at! I have a whole article on this in Related Articles at the end.

So if we want to honor and worship Jesus, if that is proper, then we must do it in the way that he tells us to. Here is how he tells us to pray.

Matthew 6:9 Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Jesus also taught by example and also prayed to the Father, Himself, as the Father was his God, too, by his own confession. The Apostles also prayed to the Father in the book of Acts.

John 16:23 Truly, truly, I say to you, Whatever you shall ask the Father in My name, He will give you.

John 14:13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Jesus directs all attention to the Father. He does not speak for himself of his own initiative, but only what the Father tells him to speak. Jesus came to seek the glory of the Father, not himself. That Father is the object of all things.

Just think about it for a minute. Who did Adam violate the command of? It was the Father, Jehovah, right? Who did the human race end up alienated from? It was the Father, right? Now who is it that we wish to be reconciled to? The Father, no doubt! The Son is not the goal, he is the means to a goal, to be reunited to the Father, as Adam was with the Father before he sinned. So if you want to worship the Son, then obey the Son and realize why the Son came in the first place. It is to the ultimate glory of the Father. So let the Father receive the first and only place in your worship and you will be honoring the Son as well, for this is why he came in the first place.

Many people embrace the trinity as a means to claim a right to have a personal relationship with Jesus. Believe me, I can find no fault with that. And indeed, Jesus makes it clear that we are all his brothers who are destined for heaven and that anything done to the least of us is as if it was done to him. So it is perfectly reasonable to want a relationship with someone who gave their life for you and has made a commitment to you to protect and serve you, even though he is King of kings and Lord of lords.

But it is not necessary to worship Jesus in the ultimate sense, in order to have a relationship with him. Nor is it necessary to believe the trinity to have a relationship with him. Jesus knows all his sheep. His sheep know him, too. We are known and know him, too. But I must say this. There is no better way to know Jesus, than to know his words, know his commands, and even more important, to obey those commands. And I'm not done yet. The greatest way of all to say that you know Jesus and are in him and he in you is if you have love in yourself so as to show abundant love to your fellow man, just as Jesus did. He or she who loves Jesus, acts like him.

For as John made it clear in 1 John, God is love and those who truly worship Him and his Son, must also reflect that love. So to know the Bible and to show love to your brothers and sisters in the faith as well as to your neighbors, the world in general, these are the most important things you can do to say that you know and love Jesus and that you are known by him and loved by him.

But many feel that you also need to be able to talk to him. On this I can not speak with certainty or authority. We know that Jesus says that anything you ask the Father, Jesus will give it to you as the Father has given all such duties to Jesus. On the other hand, it is also said in the Bible that if you ask Jesus, he will do it for you. How do we make sense of that? Well, asking the Father is the same as asking Jesus. We know that much. And Jesus did tell us to pray to the Father, even as he did. So it would seem proper to direct our words to the Father as He was the reason that Jesus came to begin with. It was the desire of Jesus to bring us back to the Father and make the Father known to us.

But if Jesus said to ask him and we do have a rare example or two of attention directed to Jesus, even though it was usually the Father who was addressed or prayed to, I can not absolutely tell you it is wrong the address the Son. But I can tell you it would be wrong to ignore the Father or not want to have personal relationship with Him, too, since He was the object, the goal, the reason for Jesus coming to earth so that he could glorify and reveal the Father to us. So if we love Jesus, how much more should we love the Father, who was the object of Jesus' love and devotion.

We love, honor, and worship Jesus when we recognize him as coming from the Father and representing the Father, and speaking for the Father with the Father's authority, to the end that we are reconciled and reunited with the heavenly Father of us all, in the ultimate sense. So when we love and honor the Father, we honor the Son, too! The Son does not feel left out. The Son says that he can only gather what the Father draws to him. That's us, of course. It is the Father, ultimately, who is all things. Jesus is the means and we honor him for that. But our ultimate recognition and devotion should be to the Father as Jesus desires.

I hope it can be recognized that relative views and ultimate absolute views are two different ways of looking at things. Jesus often tried to get us to see things from the proper view point, or what we might call today, the right spin. Jesus is the head spin doctor appointed by the Father to give us the righteous and proper spin, the right way and context to view and think about things. Satan has his own spin, too, but we want nothing to do with that.

But getting the right spin is important. Jesus, even though he is the one who did create us through Adam, did not do so out of his own desire but as the Father desired. It was the Father who originated the idea of making us but first chose to make a Son who would carry out the rest of God's purpose in behalf of God. So though Jesus was the means of our creation, our origin in will and desire was from the Father and Jesus requires that we see the Father as the ultimate and absolute creator and Father of us all, even though Jesus was the one who fathered us in all other senses.

Having the right view and understanding is recognizing that the Father is the ultimate and absolute source of all things. Jesus said the following.

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, coming near, one said to Him, Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? 17 And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One, God! But if you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mark 10:18 But Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One, God.

Now how could Jesus say he was not good if he was to be a perfect sacrifice for Adam's sin? How could he be acceptable and pleasing to God if he was not good? It would not be possible. Yet here he is telling us he is not good. Shall we assume the Bible and Jesus contradict themselves. I suppose that would be the easy way out and a cop out. But it would be far from right. But we do need to look beyond the obvious. Jesus is trying to tell us something here.

While Jesus could easily said to be good, he is obviously not speaking in a relative sense, since surely if he did not qualify in an absolute sense, he could at least qualify in a relative sense. But how is it that he does not qualify, even in an ultimate and absolute sense, being the Son of God? I propose this to you.

All life proceeds from the Father. All the good will and good gestures and actions performed in our or anyone's behalf were things that originated with the Father. Jesus started nothing. The Father did. That is why Jesus was created. Jesus recognizes why he has life and why we have it. Because the Father desired it. So when speaking of good, all good originates from the Father, and is given birth from the Father. This was Jesus' way of letting us know this, by only attributing good to the Father and not even to himself, since God was the source and origin of all good things.

So it is real important to Jesus that we see just how truly important the Father is to all that has come to be. This is why I find the trinity so objectionable. It robs the Father of a glory that belongs only to Him and Him alone. That is why the Son reserved it only for the Father. Trinitarians have robbed that Father of much of his glory, giving the Son so much glory, that the Father is almost completely eliminated from the picture. That was never the will of the Son.

So it is very important the we understand the Father as the origin of all things, including His very own and only-begotten Son, the first born of all creation, who came into being because of the will of the Father.

Revelation 11:11 Lord, You are worthy to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because You created all things, and through Your will they exist and were created.

The key words there are "through Your will." For indeed it was through God's will and by His will that it all came into existence, even if it was Jesus who was actually the one who performed the work but it was not him who originated it. That is the distinction that unveils this whole mystery about who the Son is and who the Father is.

I do not unequivocally say that someone who believes in the trinity is doomed. Many have not read this or else they might possibly be inclined to reject the trinity . . . maybe. But old habits and traditions die hard in people's hearts. Truth does not readily take root in people's hearts. Some seeds do not grow if they hit upon the wrong soil. But I can not see how someone can not see the plain words and teachings of the Bible and conclude something that makes no sense at all and quite often contradicts some simple basic truths.

To me, and I may be wrong, but it seems right for the present, it is hard to see how people can twist the scriptures and be in good standing with God. But the trinity has a long standing tradition and has been shoved down our throats as being orthodox and established, even if by violence and force. And we tend to like the old wine in its old wine skins, don't we?

And really, who of any of us can really be said to appreciate the Father as we should. So that some should be further away from the Father than others hardly seems to be that big a thing since we are all very far away, no doubt. Jesus has opened the way for us to get back to the Father but that will come more after the last day, typically called Armageddon. And if we should be mistaken about some particular aspect of God, well, we probably all have some misconceptions on that. Misconceptions of God will not, all by themselves, keep any of us from receiving salvation.

So it seems a little extreme to say that someone can not be saved because they believe in the trinity. But on the same hand, it is not a very good sign when someone can not abide by good logical sense and reasoning from the plain words of the scriptures. To be sure, it is a challenge to read the scriptures and their often metaphorical, allegorical style, which was intended to veil the understanding to many who would not have the right heart condition. We certainly do need to have the right heart condition, the right spirit, to get that understanding. We need to have God's spirit, His mental attitude, so to speak, as well as His blessing and revelation which His spirit generously grants to those worthy of it.

But it is quite presumptuous for any to make claim to it with dogmatic certainty and without the proper support from the scriptures and solid reasoning from pure hearts. And with such divided opinions on the matter, one can only wonder at who has the truth and who hasn't.

Given that such division is not from God, we can wonder about who might be misled and who might not. But I offer this in my defense of my views and interpretations. There was a great apostasy foretold by Jesus and the Apostles. So we should expect the traditional orthodox roots to be corrupt, since the truth was supposed to be basically wiped out by Satan. So we should not expect the truth to be handed down from the traditional orthodox past. It would have to resurface again after having been lost to the world. Let me show you.

Daniel 8:15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, "Gabriel, make this man understand the vision." 17 So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened and fell upon my face. But he said to me, "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end."
19 He said, "Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the end.

Daniel 11:35 and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.

Daniel 12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."
10 Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but those who are wise shall understand.

Summed up in these various words given to Daniel are the fact that many prophecies were given for the time of the end. At that time near the very end, they would be understood but not before then. The words of the book were sealed until that time of the end. But the angel also tells us through Daniel, that knowledge would certainly increase. This could be knowledge in general. And many would purify themselves. Why? Were they first polluted in some way? Apparently, Yes!

In regards to knowledge, though not by any means certain, it might apply to Bible knowledge as well. But even if not Bible knowledge specifically, general knowledge is bound to enlighten all things, including the scriptures. For instance, many ancient languages once lost are being rediscovered and translated. Old manuscripts such as the ones we have considered of early post-apostolic writers also have bearing on our understanding of what went on back then.

These are available over the internet and in many libraries. In ancient times, texts and books of writers were quite rare and only a few got to have the benefit of such things. So now we all profit by the great proliferation of knowledge only available to a few at one time. So with all this knowledge, we are all in a better position to make better decisions, formulate better ideas and have a better understanding of God's will and purpose, since we are so close to the time of the end. We have begun to see the fulfillment of those prophecies which were sealed until the time of the end. But only those who were meant to understand, the wise and pure, would understand. None of the wicked would "get it!"

What we learn about the sciences has also allowed us to understand the out-working of God's purpose more clearly. So knowledge increasing is bound to have a positive effect in Christianity as far as God is concerned. But the ultimate knowledge will not come till after the last day, Armageddon, when Jesus will take full control of the earth.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not do evil, nor destroy in all My holy mountain. For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. (GLT)

Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. (GLT)

So we want to take advantage of all the knowledge afforded to us in these last days to better understand the nature of God. We need not be ignorant of the history of the trinity and other heresies of those early centuries of corruption. We can better evaluate it, having seen it progress over the last 1800 years or so. We can trace each step of progression and match it up along side the Bible.

If you have read this and/or any of the related articles about it, I would like to know what you thought about it all, if you care to drop me a note. And regardless of what you believe, whatever it is, spread what you know around to others so knowledge will increase.

The Trinity Page

Back to Top