Trinity Part 05 (Scriptures that are used to support the Trinity doctrine)

Part 05 (Scriptures that are used to support the Trinity doctrine)

The first scripture that we will look at is probably the most commonly used, when trying to give biblical support for the Trinity doctrine. John 1:1 (English-NIV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

So when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Moving on we seee In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (the). That article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (E.g., the Word, The God.)

There is an understanding among Greek scholars that in Greek sentence construction, if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (e.g., the) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this, many scholars saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but didn’t make the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature.

But can we really read the word ‘Theos’ in John 1:1c as qualitative rather using it to refer to an identity? The most likely candidate is that the last instance of ‘theos’ (in John 1:1c) is qualitative. This is true both grammatically and theologically. (Also, if The Logos was ‘the God’ in identity, then the verse would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God and no other.) So we have 2 good reasons now for reading the last word ‘God’ as qualitive. (In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have an article (the) preceeding it and in John 1:1c it is removed because the sentence cannot be constructed in this fashion. But the answer here is that John 1:1c can be qualitative in a gramatical sense and contextually and ly, but contextually speaking there is one God and one Word, so we cannot read the Word as God in identity because that makes the Word excquite simple. When talking of Adam for example (the first man) we can refer to Adam as both THE man and man.) One identifies him and the other classifies him. Similarly we can also refer to God as the God and God/god.

An example of the difference between identity an nature would be when you call someone an angel. This means that you are saying you are like an angel. But if we say you are ‘the Angel’, then we are saying that you are an actual and specific angel even to the exclusion of others being that Angel. However if we were talking about say Michael the Archangel you could say that he was an angel, and the angel.

Let’s look at this in another example. When I say “John is the man,” I identify John with a definite and particular person of the human race; but if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.”

To understand how the article can make a big difference to the understanding of a text, read these 2 examples below.
Guess which one of these 2 examples is correct.
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was the man a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or that the woman is a man in the sense that God made man, male and female

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In other words the word ‘man’ is used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not used in an identity sense like the other instances of the words woman and man in the above correct example.

The first example is wrong because adding the article means that the woman is the man in identity and not nature. It means that the woman is actually the man himself or that Eve is Adam. So then we are left with “Who is Adam” if Eve is the Man? In other words confusion. But we could go further and excuse this confusion by saying that Man is beyond our understanding so it is no wonder it seems confusing.

Now if we were to actually believe the first example, we would know that it was kind of rediculous, but to make it sound feasible we could invent a doctrine to explain this stupidity. Lets call it the Doctrine of the Triune Man.

Adam is Man, the Eve is Man and the Spirit of man is Man.
Hence Adam is the man, Eve is the Man, and the spirit of Man is the Man.
They are three, but they make up one Man (one being). Each is co-equal and co-created.

Is it starting to sound familiar now?

To understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought. So Judas was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not saying that Judas was the actual Devil. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order would be, ‘is the devil’; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, ‘is devil’. Since the word order is, ‘devil is’, and a form of “I am”comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is in John 1:1c.

This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate this passage, “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he is a divine being. He is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but the the image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time.

But of course such knowledge is often trampled by those who wish to distort the truth. They usually think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

The word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by an article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to decribe a quality.

Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. One prominent scholar called Origen is often quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes, they tend to avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons however. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D.

“We next notice John’s use of the article ["the"] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” ["the God" as opposed to "god"] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word "god" at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 2 is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
- John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two beings here (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’ but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two coequal gods. Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is “with” TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique. This one is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten”, and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “god.” So either there were two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike individual with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the second view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.

So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not the true foundation.

So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). In order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

So the idea that Jesus Christ is God is supported by John 1:1 according to many people. However the rest of the Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same careful distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. However the New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

We must also remember that we are also gods. This doesn’t mean that we are also part of a Trinity. It just means that we will partake of the divine nature. Just as the Word was/is divine. To be divine is different to being The Divine.

Also see John 10:34-35 (English-NIV).
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21 (English-NIV)
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

So we humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, we are gods, but we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:1 (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in Hebrews 1:5 (English-NIV)

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”

Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. But we must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not a created being like us. Rather he is the Word and he resides between God and Man and is our mediator to God. It was the Word that became flesh, not God who became flesh as some say and all things that were created were created by God though his Word. See John 1:3 (English-NIV)

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

This verse proves that Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called Gods only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator.

So Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God.
It must also be pointed out that the word beginning doesn’t mean that the Word has always existed with God as some say. The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is “arche” and this word means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or “arche” is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44 (English-NIV)

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.

Genesis 1:1 (English-NIV)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.

Another instance of Jesus being labelled God is when Jesus supposedly claims to be “I AM” and therefore Yahweh

Exodus 3:13-14 (English-NIV), says the following:
13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, `What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: `I AM has sent me to you.’”

In John 18:5-6 (English-NIV) Jesus says the following:
5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)
6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

But what does Yahweh say in Psalm 2:7
“I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

and in Acts 13:33
33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
” ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

Also look at Hebrews 1:5 & Hebrews 5:5

So Yahweh is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Son of Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh and therefore he is not God. Rather Jesus is the son of Yahweh, otherwise known as the Son of God.

Back in John 18 we can see that the Jews came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. They first took him to Annas (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Matthew 26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Jesus to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn’t find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn’t bear false witness about what Jesus said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days, then Jesus was condemned for claiming to be the Son of God in Matthew 26:63-65.

The point about Matthew 26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Jesus say “Ego eimi.” They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn’t. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn’t. Why not? Because it wasn’t blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Jesus of Nazareth.

It is believed by some that the account recorded in John 8:48-59 further supports the position that Jesus is the “I AM.” Why else would the Jews try to stone him (v59)? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews.

“I am” is a translation from Greek words “ego eimi”. Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM? In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14.

Je used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (John 8:58). Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in John.6:35-48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51 & 52

In John 8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Jesus used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John 10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Jesus said to his disciples, “that ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in John 13:19 without them batting an eye.

* This brings us back to Jn.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Jesus;
* accused the Jews of “judging after the flesh” (vs.15).
* said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
* implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
* said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
* said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
* implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
* said their father was the devil (vs.44).
* said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
* accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
* accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).
* accused them of lying (vs.55).
* Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Jesus words leading them to believe;
* that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
* Jesus had a devil (vs.52).
* that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
* that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Jesus words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews, that they couldn’t restrain themselves. They simply couldn’t take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, “ego eimi,” but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham.

We need to also remember that “I AM” in the Old Testament is a different set of words from different languages to the New Testament instances. It would be like saying that “I am” in English is equating one with God for it is the word used by God in Hebrew. That is simply not true. Many say “I am” in the New Testament just as they say those words today without meaning they are God.

If you were watching Mickey Mouse on the Disney channel and Goofy said to Mickey, “are you Mickey Mouse”, am I to assume then that Mickey Mouse is claiming to be God if he answers, “I am”? Of course not. He is simply identifying himself as Mickey Mouse.

Back to the Old Testament we see that it was YHWH that said “I am that I am”. He was saying that he was the ever exisiting one. So his name was actually YHWH. To equate the common words “I am” as a claim to be YHWH is indeed a big stretch of the imagination.

Here is an example of the words “I am” in everday language/

Q: Are you Peter?
A: I am.

Conclusion: If I am Peter then am I blaspheming when I say I am. I am not saying I am YHWH. I am saying that I am Peter. I am simply answering the question asked of me. This behaviour is very normal and common as you can see. In fact this paragraph alone contains 7 instances of the term ‘I am’. Yet who in their right mind would think that I was claiming to be God?

To say that Jesus claimed to be God because he said “I am” can only be at most, an unsupported and extemely weak opinion. There are no scriptures in the bible that uses this occurrence as a teaching to promote a Trinity Or to prove that Yashua is Yahweh. To hinge the Trinity doctrine on an assumption is indeed a weak argument to make and wouldn’t get very far in a court of law. To say that we are condemned if we do not believe in a certain vague interpretation is totally unacceptable to all who earnestly seek truth. Remember that we are judged by the measures we judge others, so we shouldn’t be so unreasonable.

If you read the whole Bible without bias, would you come to the conclusion that Jn.8:58 is saying that Jesus is God and part of a Trinity. I really do not think so, therefore it is unfair to condemn someone who doesn’t hold to your opinion if you indeed believe in the Trinity doctrine and I have to note that there are hundreds of scriptures that show us clearly that the Father is God and Jesus is the Son of God. These verses are clear teachings. The Trinity doctrine is based on weak assumptions which come from the mind of Man. I prefer to believe the scriptures, rather than assumptions and imaginations of men.

The next verse we will look at is a blatant attempt by man to give the doctrine of the Trinity credibility. That verse is 1 John 5:7 (English-KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

All other translations do not have the words ” the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” ; Apart from the King James translation. Translators agree that the last part of this verse was added in later and is actually a footnote in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the King James Bible was translated from. Now this same verse in the NIV for example simply says the following:

1 John 5:7 (English-NIV)
For there are three that testify:

How did the disputed words find there way into the New testament?

The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words. A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin. Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.

An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus’ requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.

Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus’ 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion. Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.

The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads “son” instead of “word.” Tyndale’s translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus’ 3rd edition and so it included the words. In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale’s assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed. Jugge’s 1552 edition of Tyndale’s NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza’s 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus’ 4th edition). Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John’s letter. [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition]

Now 1 John 5:7 is about the closest verse in the Bible that hints at a Trinity and yet that verse is not actually scripture, rather a footnote that was inserted into some texts fraudently. In scripture we find that Jesus himself never taught the Trinity, on the contrary he taught us that his Father is his God and our God see John 20:17 (English-NIV)

Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

If we try to push a doctrine that is not biblical then the scriptures are there to correct us according to 2 Timothy 3:16 (English-NIV)

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

If we continue to push a false doctrine contrary to the scriptures then God hands us over to that way of thinking and we will reap the fruit of that doctrine. I have no problem understanding how some Christians got involved in worshipping Mary and the Saints. If we see men pushing to have the doctrine of the Trinity accepted then that pushing will complete its path and manifest to its extreme, so that not only is Jesus exalted to be equal with the Father but then we probably should exalt Mary as well, after all she is Jesus Mother and if Jesus is God then Mary must be the Mother of God and being the Mother of God means that she must also be sinless. And why not worship the saints after all if we can exalt Mary, then we should exalt the saints as they are legends and are worthy of special recognition?

I think history demonstrates to us that the wisdom of this doctrine is a false wisdom because the fruit of that doctrine is bad. God allows such things to mature so he can judge it and also to allow such thinking to be exposed in the light in order for creation to witness the result of such deception. In fact God does the same thing with the Devil and his children. Remember that Jesus wants the tares (children of the devil) and wheat (children of God) to mature so all can be understood so that all things can be judged. This is the harvest and the harvest is the end of the world.

Isaiah 9:6 (English-NIV) is another very popular scripture that people like to think proves the Trinity.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”‘

Here we can see that Jesus is called “Mighty God”. The word in the Hebrew used here is “El” and this word means the following:

1) god, godlike one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power

“So Jesus is the Mighty El and this can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is the ‘Mighty God Like One’ which is consistent with the overwhelming amount of scriptures that we have looked at so far. This interpretation is also in total agreement with the fact that, Jesus is the Image of God, and it must also be stressed that Isaiah 9:6 doesn’t say “Almighty God”. (The term Almighty God indicates that there are Gods of a lesser position). The term “Mighty God” in Hebrew is ´El Gib·bohr´ and the term “Almighty God in Hebrew is ´El Shad·dai´ and applies uniquely to YHWH.

The other part of the scripture that mentions the term ‘Everlasting Father’ seems like a contradiction as it seems to indicate that Jesus is the Heavenly Father. The word Father that is used here is “Ab” and this word is the same word that is used when describing Abraham as our Father and this scripture is just a reference to say that Jesus is our Everlasting Father, in other words he is greater than Abraham, but it certainly doesn’t say ‘Heavenly Father’.

It is very important to read scriptures not only in context but also in agreement with other scriptures, especially since it is possible to interpret some scripture in more than one way, because of the wide varying uses and meanings of some words. In fact we should always see things through Jesus eyes as he is the Truth. Many scriptures we have read so far were in fact the words of Jesus Christ himself. We should judge scripture with scripture in the same way that Prophets judge Prophets and Elders judge Elders.

We should steer clear of Man Made doctrine and formulas that try to explain God, as the things of God are revealed to us by the Spirit of God, not the spirit of man. If we try to see God as an idol made with human hands, or for that matter made from the human mind, such as trying to shrink God down to a statue, mathematical formula or diagram, then it can be said that you have created an idol. This comes from the heart of man as his nature is corrupt and always wanting to raise himself above all things including God himself. It is God who reveals himself to Man, not Man who reveals God. The things of God are revealed by the Spirit of God, not Man.

Another scripture that is used to back up the Trinity doctrine is Mark 12:36 (English-NIV):
David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “`The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”

But this scripture doesn’t support the theory that God is a Trinity and no-one would come to that conclusion unless they were biased toward Trinity thinking in the first place. What it is really being said is the Lord (Father) said to my Lord (Jesus). Sit at my right hand until…..
The reference My Lord and the Lord shows us that there is rank.
E.g. If I were a slave and the Lord spoke to my Master, then it would be correct to say The Lord said to my Lord. Remember that true believers are slaves to Christ so when the Father speaks to the Son, we can relay that information by saying The Lord said to my Lord. That is if Jesus is indeed your Lord. In fact this scripture shows us that David was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote this because the fact that The Father has a Son was not common knowledge in the Old Testament and to say those words shows inspiration and possibly a clear understanding of this fact. This scripture is very similar to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV) and this particular scripture is interesting in that it blatantly shows us that Jesus and God are two different persons.

24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

This next scripture is often used in support of the Trinity Doctrine. Colossians 2:8-10 (English-NIV)
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

Do you believe that this scripture shows us that Jesus is the Almighty God ? If so, then to be fair and consistent, you would have to believe that we are Christ because it says that Jesus is the fullness of the Deity Or Godhead and we are the fullness of Christ. No one uses this verse to say that we are Christ yet many use it to say that Jesus is the Almighty God.

But what Colossians is saying is that the divine nature of God is in it’s fullness in Christ just as our filling is Christ. It is not saying that Christ is that God from which all divinity originates, nor is it saying that we are Christ.

Here is the definition of of the word ‘deity’ in Colossians 2:8-10:
Transliteration: theotes {theh-ot’-ace} (2320)
Word Origin: from 2316 (theos)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
Usage in the KJV: Godhead
Meaning: divinity, godhead

Now look at Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
So we can see that God has the following attributes:

# He has divine nature;
# He has invisible qualities;
# He has eternal power.

Here is the definition of ‘divine’ in Romans 1:20:
Transliteration: theiotes {thi-ot’-ace} (2305)
Word Origin: from 2304 (divinity).
Part of Speech: noun feminine
Usage in the KJV: Godhead
Meaning: divinity, divine nature

2 Peter 1:4 also uses the same word ‘divine’.
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

So we can participate in the divine nature. Therefore:

# are we God?
# are we invisible?
# do we have eternal power?

No we are not God (we are gods). We have not lived forever in the past and we are certainly not invisible. But we will share in God’s nature and yet we will not be God himself. We will be like him as we are images and we are his sons. So to have divine nature doesn’t make anyone God himself. Now have a look at Christ. He is greater than us, but his Father is greater than him. So he is between us and God.

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Also as mentioned before John 1:1 shows us that the Word is not God himself but that the Word is like God. This is because John 1:1c doesn’t have an article preceeding the last word God. Therefore rather than talking about a person it is talking of a quality because the word “god” without the article is an adjective not a noun like the other instances of the word “God”in John 1:1.

Here is how Hippolytus (ca. 230 A.D) puts it.
The first and Only, both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself… He was One, Alone in Himself…. this Solitary and Supreme Deity, by an act of reflection, brought forth the Word first, not the Word in the sense of being expressed by voice, but as a Reason of the cosmos, conceived and residing in the Divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things, for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Word was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of his Progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with his procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as he is this Progenitor’s firstborn, he has, as a voice in himself, the concepts conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Word one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God…. God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Word might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind…. The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Logos is God [that is, "deity," in the sense of nature of substance], being the substance of God….

So Jesus is in class or likeness ‘god’ and we can be too. But in identity the only God is the Father. His nature originates in himself and he shares his nature. Just as Adam was the first human (the son of man) we are also men, but we are not Adam, rather we are or should I say were in Adam. We inherited the fleshly nature from him.

The Trinity teaches us that God is not the Father (exclusively), rather God is a substance and that substance has 3 personalities. So God is this one substance that contains 3 personalities. But scripture teaches that God is the Father and he shares his nature with his sons. The trick with the Trinity doctrine is it tries to convince you that you are praying to 1 God. So in order to present 3 as 1 they say 1 substance. But who prays to a substance? Would that not be like someone communicating with me by talking to my human nature (the flesh). No when you talk to me you are talking to who I am, not what I am. I pray to the Father because that is who God is. Jesus taught us how to pray to God. “Dear Father in heaven”. Jesus said “ask the Father in my name”.

But Trinitarian pray to the 1 substance and call upon any of the so-called 3 personalities that are contained within the so-called substance and they feel at liberty to interchange the identities while they are praying. They are clearly praying to 3 persons when they pray to God. But Christ taught us to pray to the Father in his name. He taught us how to pray to God correctly.

Now Jesus is known by these 2 titles:
# The son of God;
# The son of man.

Is that because Jesus had divine nature and therefore was known as the son of God and then emptied himself of his former priviledge and took on human nature to become the son of man, the title that Adam previously had. Of course now he is back with God and has the glory that he had with him before the world began. I even think that he has greater glory too.

So is Jesus a divine being? Well he has God’s nature and he was begotten directly from God himself. Do you believe that Jesus is a divine being?

In the Latin versions, owing to the limitations of that language, both ‘theotes’ (deity) and ‘theiotes’ (divinity) are translated by the same term ‘divinity’. But this was felt to be inadequate by some scholars, and the word ‘deity’ was coined at a later date to represent “Theotes.” Scholars appear evenly divided over the differences in the words ‘theotes’ & theiotes. Some say there is no difference others say the difference is like saying ‘divinity’ versus ‘essence’. However whatever the truth is, it is clear that neither word is talking about God in identity (who).

In the Strongs for example it says that the word ‘theotes’ (Deity) means ‘divinity’ or ‘godhead’. According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, ‘theotes’ means ‘divinity’, ‘divine nature’. The word ‘theiotes’ (divinity) in the Strongs says it means ‘divinity’, ‘godhead’. This word comes from the word ‘theios’ which means ‘godlike’, ‘divine’, ‘godhead’.

So yes in nature or essence Christ is in class ‘god’. We can even use the words ‘theos’ & ‘elohim’ to describe him. But we too can be in class ‘god’. We too can be called by the titles ‘theos’ & ‘elohim’. Even the Father is a god. But as I have said before, the kind of god that the Father is the ‘Most High God’ and there is no one above him. He is the ‘original’ God and to call him ‘God’ or ‘the God’ is entirely appropriate when referring to the Father. He is even the head of Jesus Christ and Jesus calls him his God and our God.

When we talk of Jesus we say that he is the son. That is the son of God. The prototype son. He is very like God because he is God’s son.

Remember that it is written that “God was in Christ redeeming the world back to himself”. But it seems obvious that if God was in Christ, then God is different to Christ. The Colossians verse says that we have been filled who is the head of all rule and authority. Now to be filled with something means that it is inside us. The fact that he is inside us shows that I am a different person to what or who is inside me, just as water in a glass is different to the glass itself. If one is possessed by the Devil for example (the devil inside a person), then one is not the Devil himself. Rather he is controlled by the nature of the Devil and he would be like the Devil. But he wouldn’t be the Devil himself. He is still himself, his soul.

If the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, then the Father is not the Son. Now if the fullness of the deity lives in Christ we cannot say that Christ is “The Deity” himself, rather the quality/nature of The Deity is in him. Just as Christ should be in us, we should be Christ like and have his spirit inside, but we are not Christ. We are his image and Jesus is the image of God.

John 17:21 (English-NIV)
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Anyway we are in Christ and Christ is in us. The Father is in Christ and Christ is in the Father. They invite us to be in them and they will fill us. But we are still distinct. If I am in God and God is in me. I am still me. If God was inside me, then it should be assumed that I was not God either. What is inside YOU cannot be YOU because YOU would be that thing inside and then it wouldn’t be inside. Sounds cryptic I know, but that is how silly it is to try and make out that the Colossians verse is saying that Jesus is God.

1 John 5:20 (English-NIV) is often used to prove that Jesus Christ is God.
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true–even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

This scripture is one of those scriptures that can be interpretted in more than one way because of it’s construction. I offer you the following as an alternative and then confirm it with other scriptures.

“1 John 5:17 - And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, that we may know Him who is true (Him is referring to God and Jesus came that we may know God); and we are in Him who is true (we are in God), in His Son Jesus Christ (how about adding ‘even’ at the beginning of this sentence as is so often done to clarify - so, we are following the true God and also following his son, who leads us to God). This is the true God and eternal life.” (the God that Jesus teaches us about, Yahweh, is the true God who offers us eternal life).

To confirm this interpretation, please read the following scriptures:

Jeremiah 10:10 (English-NIV)
But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King.

And

John 17:3 (English-NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

So if we read 1 John 5:17 as saying that the true God is Jesus Christ, then John 17:3 would be saying that we may know Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ who Jesus Christ sent. Of course this interpretation is rediculous, but is the only conclusion we can draw if we say that Jesus is the true God.

So the true God is the Father as John 17:3 indicates and the true God sent Jesus Christ.

I conclude this with the following scripture:

John 8:42 (English-NIV)
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

Another very popular scripture that is used to support the Trinity is John 10:27-36 (English-NIV).

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all [1]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and the Father are one.
31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods’?
35 If he called them `gods,’ to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken–
36 what about the one whom the Father set ; Apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God’s Son’?

One thing that Trintarians point out with this verse are the words “I and the Father are one”, then later we can see that the Jews thought that Jesus was claiming to be God. Therefore Trintarians claim that Jesus was claiming to be God and then the Jews got very upset about his claim. But on closer inspection of this part of scripture reveals the complete opposite. The irony here is that Jesus said earlier in verse 29, My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all and after the accusation, Jesus then reminds them of the usage of the word “gods” in the Old Testament.
Jesus was actually referring to Psalms 82:6 (English-NIV) which reads:
“I said, `You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

After Jesus reminds the Jews of this, he then asks them:
…”Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (John 10:36 ).

Again this scripture reinforces the truth that Jesus is God’s Son and we can see that he certainly did not claim to be the Almighty God, rather he said that he was the Son of God. If you use this verse to say that Jesus is the Almighty God then you are making the same error that the Jews made and you are ignoring what Jesus said in defense of this accusation.

The following scripture repeats the fact that the Father and Jesus are one. But it also says that we are one and yet no one is saying that we are God are they.

John 17:21 (English-NIV)
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

A similar occurrence is also recorded in John 5:18-19 (English-NIV)
18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Here we can see that Jesus was accused of making himself equal with God, probably because of the Jewish custom that says that the eldest son is equal to his Father in the respect that he inherits all from his Father. Jesus reaction to this, is to point out that he can do nothing of himself, only what he sees his Father doing. In fact this scripture strongly reinforces the truth that his Father is his God and he (Jesus) is in submission to him. Again we make the same mistake as the Jews, if we use this scripture to say that Jesus is co equal to the Father. Whatever equality Jesus has with God was given to him by God, because all things originate in God.

The next scripture we will look at again seems to say at first glance, that Jesus is equal to God again and therefore it seems to be in direct conflict with the scriptures that we have seen so far that point out that the Father is greater than Jesus and that the Father is our God and also God to Jesus himself. The scripture in question is Philippians 2:6 (English-NIV) which says the following: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

The word “equal” in this verse is the Greek word “isos” which can mean

* similar in amount Or kind
* agree
* equal
* like

This verse is simply saying that Jesus has the nature of God and that he is like God. This is what the rest of the New Testament teaches including John 1:1. Jesus is god by class, not God in person. God begat a Son in his likeness, the likeness of himself, (Image of God, firstborn). Then through his Son he made creation and us. The plan is to unite man with God and his Son in spirit. We are also in God’s likeness, and those born of God have been born through the Logos to live forever with God. So Jesus will call us brothers and we are the Sons of God. In class we may be god including Jesus and the Father as we are referred to as gods and Jesus is the Mighty El. But in person the Father is the one true God. Humans can choose which nature to follow, the flesh or the Spirit.

Romans 8:5 (English-NIV)
Those who live according to the sinful nature (flesh) have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

Now we know that Adam is Man in person and nature, but Eve or Cain for that matter is man in class. Adam was the son of Man, not Eve. So Eve has the nature of man, but Adam was the Man. Flesh is the nature of Man and Deity is the nature of God. Now Jesus is the new Son of Man, the second Adam, but he is also the Son of God. He is of God and he is god in class, not God in person, just as Eve is not the Man in person, but man (mankind) in nature.

To understand this I will change the verse with the word ‘man’ instead of God.
“Who (Eve) being in nature man did not consider equality with the Man (Adam) something to be grasped.”

Philippians 2:6 is not a contradiction to the scriptures we have looked at, rather it compliments the other scriptures we have read that show us that Jesus is the Likeness of God or the Image of God. It doesn’t say that Jesus is “The God”, rather it points out that Jesus is like God. To be equal to anything actually means that you are not that thing, but you are like it. Otherwise you would just call yourself that thing. E.g. The Euro is equal to the dollar in value, does not mean that the Euro is the Dollar.

It is interesting to note that Jesus will call us brothers. This truly shows that we will be like him, yet he will still be greater than us, like our older brother. The Father however will not call us brothers, but rather we are his children (offspring) and he is our Father forever and we should call no one Father except our Heavenly Father . This alone shows us that the Father is greater than the Son. Again this scripture reinforces the true pattern, i.e. we will be like Christ and Christ is like God. Our inheritance is in Christ, Jesus inheritance is in God, we will sit with Jesus in his throne and Jesus will sit down with his Father in his throne. We read Revelation 3:21 (English-NIV) earlier which says

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne

Next we will look at the “Us” in Genesis when used in reference to God.

Genesis 1:26 (English-NIV),
Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.

Genesis 3:22 (English-NIV)
Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil

The first verse uses the word Elohim as God, and the second verse uses the words Yahweh Elohim. The plurality of the word “us” is the Father and the Son. So when God says “Let us make man in our image” it is the Father talking to the Son. To put it another way, God talking to the Word (Logos). God created everything through his Word, so it makes sense that God would say “Let us make man in our image”.

Remember Revelation 3:12 (English-NIV)
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never again will he leave it.
I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

John 20:17 (English-NIV)
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,
`I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

We also need to remember that we humans are also God/god (Elohim) according to

Psalms 82:6 (English-NIV)
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.’

Jesus confirms this truth as he quotes this very scripture to the Jews.

See John 10:34 (English-NIV)
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)’

Another popular verse often quoted is Hebrews 1:6 (English-NIV). Trinitarians hard at work use verse 6 to demonstrate that Jesus is God because God says that the Angels should worship him and other scriptures say that only God should be worshipped. Sort of make sense on the outset, but lets dig deeper to reveal the truth.
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

First of all verses 1-5 the preceding verses demonstrate clearly that Jesus is the Son of God.

Hebrews 1:1-6 (English-NIV)
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”.
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

If we read the verse as seen through the eyes of the writer of Hebrews we see that the writer says “Let all God’s angels worship him”. In this view the word HIM can just as easily mean God if the writer is quoting what God has said, but seen through the eyes of the writer. So we should worship God himself when God brings his firstborn into the world, for doing such a great deed. On the other hand if we render the “Let all God’s angels worship him” as being a direct quote from God and not spoken by the writer and hence the word HIM means CHRIST, then we read it as follows: “When God brings Jesus into the world, all His Angels should worship His Firstborn.

Now neither option supports a Trinity. The first option says that we should worship God and the second option says that we should worship Jesus. But nowhere are we told in the scriptures that we are to worship Jesus as God. If he is worshipped at all, it is as the Son of God as the Lamb of God. Only the Father is to be worshipped as God.

In support of the first option, verse 6 supposedly a quote of Psalm 97:7 which actually reads, ” Worship Him, all gods (elohim)” and is rendered in the Greek as ‘Let all God’s angels worship him’. In this Psalm, God is not the speaker, the writer is. The context of that Psalm doesn’t make any sense for God to be saying to Himself, “Worship Him, all gods,”. However, it would make perfect sense if the composer was commending his audience to “Worship Him, all gods/angels.” So if this the case, then The HIM is referring to God.

In support of the second option we have a verse that shows worship to Jesus, but as the Son of God, not God.

Matthew 14:33 (English-NIV)
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

The next verse shows that Jesus is worshipped as the Lamb of God and God is also worshipped, but God is another.

Revelation 5: 12-14 (English-NIV)
12 In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Now it is the Father and the Son who sit on the throne.

And Revelation 3:21 (English-NIV)
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

So either view doesn’t support a Trinity, rather it supports the truth that God has a Son and his son is worthy of praise and honour.

So where is it recorded that Jesus was worshipped as the Almighty God?

shachah is the word used for “worship” in the OT, which means:

* worship
* bow
* bow down
* obeisance
* reverence
* fall down
* stoop
* crouch

“shachah” is also translated as worshiped in the following verse:

Genesis 24:26
Then the man bowed down and worshiped the LORD,

It is also used in 1 Kings 1:23 and translated as “bowed”.
And they told the king, saying, Behold Nathan the prophet. And when he was come in before the king, he bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground.

So most verses that talk about worship are exclusively talking about worship to God. Other verses talk about (but do not encourage) worship toward idols or other gods. But there is also a legitimate use for worshipping Jesus as the son of God, or worshipping David as the King of Israel, or worship toward those who overcame etc.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

So when you see the word worship with regards to God, Jesus, King David, overcomers etc, think of the word honour and praise. Jesus, King David, and those who are overcomers can be honoured and praised for what and who they are. But we do not honour/praise/worship any of them as God, except of course God.

The worship of Jesus as the son of God doesn’t and never has supported the view that Jesus is God. The “Jesus is God because he is worhipped” argument falls over when it’s tested.

As believers, we should honour Jesus as the son of God. We should not honour him as the Almighty God because there is one God, the Father. We do not honour 2 Gods, but one.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.
Amen.

Isaiah 48 (English-KJV) is often used in support of the Trinity doctrine.
For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Let’s read the same verse in the NIV. Isaiah 48:11 (English-NIV)
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another.

Now read John 17:5 (English-NIV)
“And now, Father, bring me into the glory we shared before the world began”

So we can see in one verse God says that he will not give his glory to another and in the second verse we see that Jesus is asking for that glory. Also if we think about it, he actually had that glory when the Isaiah verse was written because he was in heaven at that stage.

I also quoted the Isaiah verse in 2 different translations. The NIV used the word yield and that word is usually used in the context of giving something up as aposed to sharing something generously. But can we really assume that Jesus must be God in order to make these 2 verses make sense and avoid conflict. I do not think so.

If this were so, then we would have to conclude that we are God too because we share in the glory of Christ. Of course this assumption is rediculous, but it is the only logical conclusion if Jesus is God and if God gives his glory to no one.

Romans 8:17 (English-NIV)
Now if we are children, then we are heirs, heirs of God and co­heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 (English-NIV)
He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 5:1 (English-NIV)
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

The answer is in the difference in meanings of the words “yeild/give” and the word “share”. So God will not yield or give his glory away completely, but he does share it.

Another scripture that is quoted is Titus 3 4(English-NIV)
4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,

So the logic is as follows: If God is the saviour and Jesus is the saviour, then Jesus must be God. Infact there are many scriptures that call God, savior such as 1 Timothy 2:3 and many other scriptures that call Jesus, savior such as Philippians 3:20. But can we say that Jesus is God using these verses.

Now have a look at the following verse. It clearly distinguishes between God and Jesus like all other scriptures that mention God and his Son.

Acts 5:31 (English-NIV)
God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

So God is our savior and he sent his Son to save us and that unselfish act also makes Christ our savior. Now if I save someones soul by presenting the gospel to them, then technically I can be that persons savior, but does that make me God or Christ, absolutely not. Now we know that God is the source of all good things and we know that Jesus doesn’t do anything of his own accord, rather only what the Father wills. In fact we actually know that Jesus will is different to God’s will, but Jesus chooses God’s will over his own, in otherwords he aligns his will with his Fathers.

Luke 22:42 (English-NIV)
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

So God is our savior because he decided to save us. He then sent his Son into the world to save us and Jesus complied and chose to do his Fathers will. So he too is our savior. God saved us through his son, so they are both our savior. One willed it and the other did it. If you re-read Titus 3 4 you will notice that God saved us through Jesus Christ. It was a team effort because God washed us by the rebirth and renewal by his Holy Spirit after Jesus paid the penalty for our sin.

Ultimately it is God who saved us because Jesus did God’s will and not his own. But God who is the saviour sent his son to save us, just as he sent Moses to save the Israelites. So we can even see that Moses was a saviour too, but it was really God who was doing the saving, if Moses did God’s will. Even Jesus himself said:

Luke 22:42
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

So Jesus did God’s will and he became our saviour. This doesn’t rule out that God is our saviour.

Sometimes Old and New Testament scriptures are used together to build a picture in order to promote the Trinity doctrine. An example of this is Isaiah 45:23 and Phil. 2:10-11.

Isaiah 45:23 (English-NIV)
By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.

Philippians 2:10-11(English-NIV)
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The thrust of this Trinitarian argument seems obvious when read together. The Old Testament verse is taking about everyone bowing down to God and every toungue will swear or confess. So the logic goes, that Jesus is God because they both get the same treatment.

In defence of this assumption however I would like to first point out the obvious in the Philippians verses; that God and Jesus are clearly spoken of as 2 identites. It is assumed that the God spoken of here is the Father and Jesus is the Lord. This confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’, gives God glory.

Next, one has to wonder why Trinitarians are always saying that Jesus is God in identity because Jesus shares a lot of attributes with God and they some how assume from that he must be God because of this. But if we look at it from a Father and Son perspective, it is obvious that the Son is like the Father and will share many attributes. In addition to this, Jesus is described as the Image of the Invisible God. So Jesus is like God, very like God.

To be an image of anything is another way of saying that you are not that original thing. We are made in the image of God, yet no one assumes that we are God himself. Well some do, but Trinitarians do not. So to be like God, to be his Image or made in his image doesn’t make us or Christ, God himself.

But how do we explain the similar action of bowing ones knee and confession with the toungue. Well first of all it actually doesn’t say what they are confessing in Isaiah 45:23 but that verse is definately talking about God. But Philippians 2:10-11says that all will confess Jesus as Lord and then it says that this will glorify God. So the God in Isaiah 45:23 is glorified when all will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The verse doesn’t say that all will confess Jesus as God and nor does any other verse.

These scriptures and many others actually teach that Jesus is Lord and the Father is God. Never Jesus Christ is God. So just as the Pharaoh (King of Egypt) made Joseph ruler (lord over Egypt), God made Jesus Lord over all that he created.

Acts 2:36 (English-NIV)
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

So just as the people had to bow the knee and acknowlege that Joseph was ruler of Egypt, it was abovious that the Pharaoh was still the King and Joseph ruled on his behalf. The Pharaoh still had the power to remove Joseph, so Joseph was not the most high ruler of Egypt. Joseph represented the Pharaoh and the Pharaoh gave Joseph his authority. Of course I am sure that this was God’s plan and Joseph was truly blessed by God. But the Pharaoh and Joseph analogy is used to demonstrate that Jesus can be Lord and ruler over God’s creation and yet not be God himself.

So the answer to the similar treatment to both God and Jesus is answered in the next verse.

John 5:23 (English-NIV)
that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

The next 2 verses together are often used to promote the Trinity Doctrine:

One is Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

The other is Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The reasoning here is that God is plural just as man and woman are plural even though the word one is used. It is used in the same context as one in unity as aposed to unit or number. The OT word used as the English word ‘one’ is ‘yachid’.

But what is obvious here is that the word for LORD in Hebrew is YHWH, which is God’s name. If we Say that Jesus is Yahweh then why can’t we say that Eve was Adam. Yes Eve is of Adam, but of course she wasn’t Adam in identity. Just as Jesus is of God, but he is not God in identity. We as true believers are required to believe that Jesus is of God, not God himself as some say.

We are told that Adam and Eve became one flesh. To me that is saying 1 flesh as in joined together as one in number. So we are told that Adam + Eve = 1 flesh. But to say that 1 LORD + 1 LORD = 1 LORD is not consistant and goes against the greatest commandment that there is only one LORD. Yes many say that the Father + the Son = 1 LORD. But they also believe that they are both LORD. The Father is LORD and the son is LORD. So they are saying that 1 LORD the Father + 1 LORD the Son = 1 LORD. There is no mistaking it. This is what they teach. . Remember that LORD is a translation of God’s name which is YHWH, so to be consistent tehy should be saying that 1 Adam + 1 Eve = 1 Adam which is stupid. So to say that both the Father is LORD and the Son is LORD is to actaully break the greatest commandment that there is only one LORD. .

So again I repeat that true faith requires that we believe that Jesus is of God, not GOD himself. As it is written:

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Now fortunately Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 and this is found in Mark 12:28-29.
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29″The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Now the NT word used here for ‘one’ in Mark 12:29 is ‘heis’ like ‘he is’, but joined together. According to the Strongs Concordance it means: numeral, prim

It is also used in the following verse:

Ephesians 4:4-6
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

So there is no mistaking it. One God the Father and one Lord Jesus. i.e one in number. The notion of plurality is dispelled right here.

The Trinity doctrine has bewitched many into not believing that there is one (in number) God who is the Father. This belief is actually the greatest commandment. We should take this seriously. It is not about pride or winning an argument, it is about how we can align ourselves with God and his truth.

As far as teh OT word for ‘one’ ‘yachid’ is concerned, the argument made is that it doesn’t dispell plurality and therefore the trinity Doctrine is not a contradiction of the greatest commandment. But it has to be said that it doesn’t dispell the notion of meaning single/one either.

However we are very fortunate that Jesus actually quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 in Mark 12:29 and the Greek word for one/numeral is used and the other verses in the NT that use ‘heis’ are also talking about one in number. Check it out for yourself. Pickup a Concordance and browse teh scriptures that use that word. It means 1 as in number.

The irony here is that Jesus himself taught that God is one in number not plurality in unity. These words come from the lips of the one that many say is also God, therefore calling him a liar (even in ignorance). Being a follower of Jesus is about believing his own words. If you do not believe Jesus words, then how can you even follow him? A true disciple hears what he says and doesn’t listen to the voice of others.

Again the trinity doctrine confuses nature with identity. Jesus has divine nature and so can we. Eve had human nature and so did Adam. But Adam is not Eve in identity, just as Yahshua is not YHWH in identity.

YHWH is the only true God. This is the greatest commandment.

The one true God YWHW has a son. He is called Yahshua (Jesus in Greek). The only way that we can fellowship with God is through Jesus Christ his Son. He died for our sins and rose from the dead victorious. He is now seated at the right hand of the one true God and interceeds for us. We need to believe that Jesus is God’s son and that he is the only way that we will be brought into God’s presence. This is the true gospel. If you believe that then you should be baptized in the name of Jesus as your part in accepting God’s free gift of salvation.

The last scripture I would like to point out is Matthew 28:19 which is one of the major scriptures that is used to support the trinity argument.

Matthew 28:19 (English-NIV)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

In the name of something refers to the authority of something. E.g If I say in the name of the Law, then I am invoking the authority of the Law. If I am saying something in the name of Jesus, then it is his authority rather than the pronounciation that I am invoking and we know his authority comes from God and God sent his Spirit to the Church. Hence a possible interpretation of the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So at best we cannot say that Matthew 28:19 teaches a Trinity and in the light of what we have read so far, we simply cannot throw away all the scriptures that say that God is the Father and he has a son, who is called the son of God.

In addition to the meaning of this verse, there is great speculation and some would say strong evidence that this verse like 1 John 5:7 was actually added in later and is not part of the original book of Matthew. But whether this speculation is true or not, one certainly cannot derive a Trinity understanding from this verse on its own, as it doesn’t teach that all 3 are 1 God. The evidence for a possible alteration or addition is below:

Encyclopedia Britannia, the 11th edition vol 3, page 365-366
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost by the Catholic church in the second century.

Encyclopedia Britannia, vol 3, page 82
“Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53
The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume2
Christian baptism was administered using the words, “in the name of Jesus”. page 377.
The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church’s history. page 378
“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, in my name” … the latter form being the more frequent.page 380.
Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, when the triune formula was used. page 389.

Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2, page 377,
Catholics acknowledge that baptism in Jesus’ name was changed by the Catholic church.

Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435
The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.

Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88
It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus.

The Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 states,
The early Church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the developement of the trinity
doctrine in the 2nd Century.

Whatever we may believe about the validity of Matthew 28:19 we must remember that the Apostles were taught and discipled by Jesus directly and they administered baptism in the name of Jesus, just as they did all things in the name of Jesus. In scripture we see no record of the Apostles baptizing or repeated the words ” In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost”.

We know that the earlier believers continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine (Acts 2 : 42) and we read in Acts 2:38:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The New Testament clearly shows us that the Father is God to Jesus and he is also our God. Remember that Jesus is the Mediator between God and Mankind and this is why Jesus speaks for God and it is only in the New Testament that the distinction between the Father and Son is made clear. This is because Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and now God himself can fellowship with redeemed man as a result of Christ’s sacrifice and we are living in the season for this mystery to be understood.

Jesus is the Word of God and only he can redeem creation back to God, as he is in that unique position of being between God and Creation. We cannot save ourselves and God himself cannot save us directly, as he cannot fellowship with sin. “He is too pure to look upon evil”. This is the mystery revealed to us in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV)

24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

So the New Testament is a greater revelation of God, whereas the Old Testament only hints of the existence of God’s Son. This is why the Jews were confused when Jesus claimed to be God’s Son, they thought he was saying that he was either the Most High God or that he was equal to him. They were expecting the Messiah, but they didn’t know that the Messiah is also Gods Son and that he would come as a servant before coming as King. Yet if the Jews had known the Old Testament scriptures, then they would have known who Jesus was, because the Old Testament speaks of him, but the New Testament reveals him.

Matthew 13:16-17 (English-NIV)
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.
17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Finally I leave you with John 17:21 again, which shows us that the scriptures do not teach a Trinity, rather a family. We like Christ will partake of the nature of God, so we are gods. But we are not the God.

that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.