Editorial Comment

These past few weeks, I found my self a little lethargic and not having the energy or inclination to sit down and research anything. Even my Bible reading has been neglected. Some life issues have intruded and Ive been dealing, accepting, working out, moving on from the various decisions made.

The reality of my mortality and humanness came to roost.

Over the months and years, I have come to appreciated the reality of life on earth as a worshipper of the true God and found it to be harder than I thought. The words of Jesus ring daily in my ears that sometimes we can only do tasks in Gods strength not our own, because it THAT hard.

I was talking with co admin Sidgi, and the subject of “truth” came up. I was contemplating the idea of starting an on line Bible study course, when we both realized that the www.cfmin.wordpress.com in its self and in entirety covered the major doctrinal issues of the Bible.

Do we claim to have the absolute truth? No we most certainly don’t. But we do believe that the presentation here of scriptural understanding is in line with Gods word the Bible. Yes it differs with mainstream American Christianity regarding doctrinal teachings such as the trinity, hell, once saved always saved etc, but by virtue of that fact alone, we have had to dig deep and justify the stance we take using the Bible as our sole source of revelation. We have not mad any attempt to justify a proposed hypothesis postulated by one of us, instead we have taken each scripture or subject and examined it in conjunction with the rest of the Bible to ascertain our understanding.

You will notice, that CFM has steered clear of future dates and proposed time scales for the beginning of the great tribulation and the battle of Armageddon from the book of Revelation. Why? Simply because we do not know the time or the date and because too many religions have posted specific dates and those days came and went with no change.

The Bible makes it very clear that the Creator, made the unreserved offer that ALL who accept Jesus as the mediator between God and man, can draw close to God and learn about him and have promise of eternal life if they worship him in Spirit and truth. The Bible also makes clear that God is sifting mens hearts and drawing those he sees as righteously inclined toward him. The choice of course is always ours as to which path we choose.

While we at CFM take the time to promote Gods word, we accept no accolade of being chosen by God to do this work. We do it because of a desire to promote the Bible as the book of life, and to encourage all to come into a close relationship with the Creator.

Our Christian Ministry is to live our lives learning about him, raising our families to have faith in Gods blessings and promises and to be counted worthy in his eyes. If God wants a specific task done for the honor of his name, we believe he will motivate those available in the location at the time who have a willing spirit to do his will.

Some of you who read articles on this site will find a different understanding of the Bible as to what is promoted from your pastor. We ask only that you pick up the Bible and compare scripture for scripture and then meditate of the subject under scrutiny.

That’s what we did.

Cfm admin

Origins of the Insertion of the Trinity.

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”John 8:32

“Most “proofs” against the traditional teachings of Christianity consist of pitting one passage of Scripture against another.” Should it not be impossible to “pit one verse of the Bible against another”? Should the verses of the Bible not be consistent? Should they not reinforce each other rather that refute each other? What kind of logic is this?

As we shall now begin to see, humanity has over the ages taken great liberties with the text of the Bible. This has ultimately resulted in countless contradictions between the verses. This means that as a result of this continuous unrelenting tampering, the message of the Bible can no longer be trusted as the original 100% unchanged word of God. The Bible itself bears witness that a “false witness” will always result in discrepancy (Mark 14:56). “…and almost always taking such passages out of context.”

“The Christian message about Jesus revolves around three facts: the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.” Have we now totally given up on such matters as the “Trinity,” the “original sin,” the “atonement,” and so forth…? “Prove from the Bible or otherwise that any one of these three things are not true, and like a three-legged stool the truth of the message would collapse.” Please go back and have another look at your stool. Does it not need the doctrines of “Trinity,” “begotten son of God,” “original sin” and “atonement.” In order to remain standing?

But someone may now say: “If the Trinity was not revealed by God Almighty or Jesus then why does Christianity believe in it?” The answer lies in the council of Nicea of 325 CE.

In “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we get a glimpse of how the concept of the Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to four hundred years after Jesus :

“…….It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘One God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought … it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development”(emphasis added).

“The New Catholic Encyclopedia,” Volume XIV, p. 295

Jesus, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, all of the apostles, and even Paul, were completely unaware of any “Trinity.” !!

So what did exactly happen in this fourth century CE? David F. Wright, a senior lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinborough. Mr. Wright has published a detailed account of the development of the doctrine of the “Trinity.” We read:

“…Arius was a senior presbyter in charge of Baucalis, one of the twelve ‘parishes’ of Alexandria. He was a persuasive preacher, with a following of clergy and ascetics, and even circulated his teaching in popular verse and songs. Around 318 CE, he clashed with Bishop Alexander. Arius claimed that Father alone was really God; the Son was essentially different from his father. He did not possess by nature or right any of the divine qualities of immortality, sovereignty, perfect wisdom, goodness, and purity. He did not exist before he was begotten by the father. The father produced him as a creature. Yet as the creator of the rest of creation, the son existed ‘apart from time before all things’. Nevertheless, he did not share in the being of God the Father and did not know him perfectly.” Wright goes on to demonstrate in this book how before the third century CE the “three” were separate in Christian belief and each had his or it’s own status.

“Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity,” chapter on “Councils and Creeds,”

Tertullian (155-220AD), a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first Christian to coin the word “Trinity” when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, V4, p. 711).

About this time, two separate events were about to lead up to the official recognition of the church by the Roman empire. On the one hand, Emperor Constantine, the pagan emperor of the Romans, began to notice the increasing number of converts to the new faith among his subjects. They were no longer a petty fringe sect of no great concern to the empire, rather, their presence was becoming increasingly noticeable, and the severe division and animosity between their ranks was beginning to pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the empire as a whole.

On the Christian front, controversy over the matter of the Trinity had in 318C.E. once again just blown up between two church men from Alexandria, Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop. Now Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray. The emperor sent these men many letters encouraging them to put aside their “trivial” disputes regarding the nature of God and the “number” of God, etc. To one who had become accustomed to being surrounded by countless gods, and goddesses, and demi-gods, and man-gods, and incarnations of gods, and resurrections of gods, and so forth, the issue of whether a given sect worshipped one god or three gods or “three gods in one” was all very trivial and inconsequential.

After several repeated attempts by the emperor to pacify them failed, he finally found himself in 325 CE faced with two serious controversies that divided his Christian subjects: the observance of the Passover on Easter Sunday, and the concept of the Trinity. Emperor Constantine realized that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiations failed to settle the dispute, the emperor called the “Council of Nicea“ in order to resolve these, and other matters. The council met and voted on whether Jesus was God or not. They effectively voted Jesus into the position of God with an amendment condemning all Christians who believed in the unity of God. There is even extensive proof that most of those who signed this decree did not actually believe in it or understand it but thought it politically expedient to do so. Neo-Platonic philosophy was the means by which this newly defined doctrine of “Trinity” was formulated. One of the attendees, Apuleius, wrote “I pass over in silence,” explaining that “those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane.” The vast majority of the others signed under political pressure consoling themselves with such words as “the soul is nothing worse for a little ink.” It is narrated that out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted this creed (”Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyya”, Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306). They then approved the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of CO-EQUALITY, CO-ETERNITY, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY; of the second person of the Trinity with the Father. The doctrine became known as the Creed of Nicea.

Only on returning home did other attendees such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chaledon and Theognis of Nicaea summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula: “We committed an impious act, O Prince,” wrote Eusebius of Nicomedia, “by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.”

However, the damage was already done and there would be no undoing it now. It has been recorded that thirteen conferences were held in the fourth century wherein Arius and his beliefs were condemned. On the other hand, fifteen supported him. While seventeen conferences issued decrees similar to the beliefs of the Arians (”Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyya”, Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306).

Of the fruits of this council, Jesus was made “Very God.” Shortly thereafter, his mother Mary was given the title of “Ever Virgin.” It would not be long until these concepts were later combined in 431AD to give her the title “Theotokos” (God-bearing). This is how she became known to us as “Mother of God.”

The persecution of the Jews was just now getting into full swing and with it a severe disdain and intolerance for all Christians who did not convert to the new creeds. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new, “official” Christian beliefs. The following is one of the public declarations in this regard:

“Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who are called Cataphrygians … with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning… Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet .. . and that these should be handed over immediately to the catholic [i.e. official] church.”

Following the Conference of Nicea, the matter of the “Trinity” remained far from settled. Despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine, Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; “Arianism” became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn’t hold to the newly defined doctrine of the Trinity. Athanasius, the bishop who is popularly credited for having formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the more his thoughts recoiled upon themselves and the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it. After the Council of Chalcedon in 451, debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy and earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousand because of this difference of belief.

Some people might object that the words of all of these eminent Christian scholars and highly respected references are all in error. They claim that Jesus did indeed teach the “Trinity” to the disciples, but that he did so in secret to them alone. The disciples then went on and secretly taught others, and then a couple of centuries later it was made public knowledge. However, not only is this theory based upon no evidence from the Bible, but it actually contradicts the words of Jesus himself:

“Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”

John 18:20

Worship of the Roman sun-god was very popular during the third century CE among the pagan Gentiles as it had been for centuries before that. As had become the popular custom, Emperor Constantine (who presided over the council of Nicea) was popularly considered to be the “manifestation” or “incarnation” of the supreme Roman sun-god. For this reason, in order to please Constantine, the Trinitarian church compromised with him on the following points:

• They defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birthday of the Roman sun-god
• They moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-day (Dies Soli), the holy day of the sun-god Apollo (see chapter 3)
• They borrowed the emblem of the Roman sun God, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity. Before this, the official symbol of Christianity was that of a fish, a symbol of the last supper (see chapter 3)
• They incorporated most of the rituals performed on the sun-god’s birthday into their own celebrations.

History records that Constantine was determined that the masses not think that he had forced these bishops to sign against their will, so he resorted to a miracle of God: Stacks of somewhere between 270 and 4,000 Gospels (one copy of all available Gospels at the time) were placed underneath the conference table and the door to the room was locked. The Bishops were told to pray earnestly all night, and the next morning “miraculously” only the Gospels acceptable to Athanasius (The Trinitarian Bishop of Alexandria) were found stacked above the table. The rest were burned.

“The reign of Constantine marks the epoch of the transformation of Christianity from a religion into a political system; and though, in one sense, that system was degraded into idolatry, in another it had risen into a development of the old Greek mythology. The maxim holds good in the social as well as in the mechanical world, that, when two bodies strike, the form of both is changed. Paganism was modified by Christianity; Christianity by Paganism. In the Trinitarian controversy, which first broke out in Egypt - Egypt, the land of the Trinities - the chief point in discussion was to define the position of ‘the Son.’”

History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, Prof. John Draper, pp. 52-53
History was repeating itself. God had cautioned the Jews in the past to never give concession in their religion to the non-believers. They, however, disobeyed Him and felt that a little compromise here and there might go a long way towards facilitating “the greater good” and the continuation of the faith. This trend was now repeating itself. A small compromise here and a little concession there, it would not be long until all remaining differences would be resolved. But at what price?

Many more sweeping campaigns for the utter and complete destruction of all “unacceptable” gospels to the Trinitarian Church would be launched over the following centuries. One example of such campaigns is the one launched during the period of 379-395 AD during the reign of the Christian Emperor Flavius Theodosius wherein all non-Roman Catholic Christian writings were destroyed, or the campaign of Christian Emperor Valentinian III (425-454AD) which again commanded that all surviving non-Roman Catholic writings be utterly destroyed. Such campaigns would become the norm in the centuries to come.

Muhammad ‘Ata ur-Rahim informs us in his book that Arius was quickly condemned and then excommunicated. He was reinstated, but was poisoned and killed by the Trinitarian Bishop, Athanasius, in 336 CE. The Trinitarian Church called his death “a miracle.” Athanasius’s treachery was discovered by a council appointed by Costanatine and he was condemned for Arius’ murder.

Constantine had made it an imperial law to accept the Creed of Nicea. He was a pagan emperor and at the time cared little if such a doctrine contradicted the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and the centuries of prophets of God before him who had suffered severe hardship in order to preach a monotheistic god to their people as can be seen in the Old Testament to this day. He just wanted to pacify and unite his “sheep.” Ironically, Mr. Ata’ Ur Rahim records that Constantine embraced the beliefs of the Arians, was baptized on his death bed in 337 by an Arian priest and died shortly thereafter. In other words, he died a believer in the divine Unity and teachings of the Arians and not the new Trinitarian beliefs of the Athanasiun sect.

This “triune God” theory was not a novel concept but one that was very much in vogue during the early Christian era. There was:

1. The Egyptian triad of Ramses II, Amon-Ra, and Nut.
2. The Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris, and Isis.
3. The Palmyra triad of moon god, Lord of the Heavens, and sun god.
4. The Babylonian triad of Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash.
5. The Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation body, enjoyment body, and truth body.
6. The Hindu triad (Tri-murti) of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.
   

However, it is popularly recognized that the “Trinity” which had the most profound effect in defining the Christian “Trinity” was the philosophy of the Greek philosopher, Plato. His philosophy was based on a threefold distinction of: The “First Cause”, the “Reason” or Logos, and the “Soul or Spirit of the Universe” (please see section 1.2.2.6). Edward Gibbon, considered one of the Western world’s greatest historians, and the author of “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” generally considered a masterpiece of both history and literature writes in this book:

“..His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archical or original principles with each other by the mysterious and ineffable generation; and the Logos was particularly considered under the more accessible character of the Son of an eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the world.”

“Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” II, Gibbon, p. 9.

Even the practice of promoting men to the status of gods was common among the Gentiles at the time. Julius Caesar, for instance, was acknowledged by the Ephesians to be “a god made manifest and a common Savior of all human life.” In the end, both the Greeks and the Romans acknowledged Caesar as a god. His statue was set up in a temple in Rome with the inscription: “To the unconquerable god.” Another man who was elevated by the Gentiles to the status of a god was Augustus Caesar. He was acknowledged as a god and the “divine Savior of the World.” Emperor Constantine was also popularly believed to be the human embodiment of the Roman Sun-god. And on and on. Is it inconceivable that such people, after hearing of Jesus’ many miracles, of his raising of the dead, of his healing of the blind, would consider elevating him to the status of a god? These were simple people who had become accustomed to countless man-gods, and Jesus had become a legend among them even during his lifetime. No wonder it did not take them long to make him a god after his departure. In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus himself indeed foretold that mankind would make him a god and severely condemned those who would dare to do so . The Bible itself bears witness to the fact that these gentiles were all too willing to promote not just Jesus but even the apostles of Jesus to the position of gods (see Acts 14:1-14).

Even though the “Trinity” was formulated in the council of Nicea, still, the concept of “Jesus was God,” or the “incarnation” was not formulated until after the councils of Ephesus in 431, and the council of Chalcedone in 451:

“…the Catholics trembled on the edge of a precipice, where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to stand, dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of their creed were aggravated by the sublime character of their theology. They hesitated to pronounce that God Himself, the second person of an equal and consubstantial trinity, was manifested in the flesh; that a being who pervades the universe, had been confined in the womb of Mary; that His eternal duration had been marked by the days, and months, and years, of human existence; that the Almighty had been scourged and crucified; that His impassable essence had felt pain and anguish; that His omniscience was not exempt from ignorance; and that the source of life and immortality expired on Mount Cavary. These alarming consequences were affirmed with the unblushing simplicity of Apollinans, Bishop of Laodicia, and one of luminaries of the church.”

“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” VI, Gibbon, p. 10.

Groliers encyclopedia under the heading of “Incarnation” informs us that

“Incarnation denotes the embodiment of a deity in human form. The idea occurs frequently in mythology. In ancient times, certain people, especially kings and priests, were often believed to be divinities. In Hinduism, Vishnu is believed to have taken nine incarnations, or Avatars. For Christians, the incarnation is a central dogma referring to the belief that the eternal son of God, the second person of the Trinity, became man in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation was defined as a doctrine only after long struggles by early church councils. The Council of Nicea (325) defined the deity of Christ against Arianism; the Council of Constantinople (381) defined the full humanity of the incarnate Christ against Apollinarianism; the Council of Ephesus (431) defined the unity of Christ’s person against Nestorianism; and the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the two natures of Christ, divine and human, against Eutyches.”

Notice that it took the Church close to five hundred years after the departure of Jesus to build up, justify, and finally ratify the “incarnation.” Also notice that the apostles, their children, and their children’s children for tens of generations were too ignorant to recognize the existence of an “incarnation.” Jesus’ very first and very closest followers were too ignorant to recognize this “truth.”

It is not surprising then, that this doctrine of incarnation is not mentioned in the New Testament. Once again, the one verse which validates this claim, 1 Timothy 3:16, is again recognized as a later forgery which was foisted upon Jesus fully six centuries after his departure:

Regarding this verse, Sir Isaac Newton says:

“In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came into play … they that read ‘God manifested in the flesh’ think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business.”

“This strong expression might be justified by the language of St. Paul (I TIM. 3.16), but we are deceived by our modern Bibles. The word “o” (which) was altered to “theos” (God) at Constantinople in the beginning of the 6th century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac version, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek, as well as the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton.”

“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” VI, Gibbon, p. 10.

Notice how, shortly after the “incarnation” was officially approved, it was recognized that the Bible needed to be “corrected” and “clarified” so that the reader could see the “incarnation” clearly. All that was needed was to change one word. Thus 1 Timothy 3:16 went from saying:

Before the inspired sixth century “correction”:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: which 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.” to saying:

After the inspired sixth century “correction”:

“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”

Thankfully, more recent and faithful versions of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) are now beginning to discard such innovations. Much is yet to be desired, however, it is a start.

Even the holy “Easter” holiday is a pagan innovation unknown to Jesus and his apostles. The name “Easter” is derived from the pagan spring festival of the Anglo-Saxon goddess of light and spring “Eostre” (or “Eastre”) and to whom the month of April was dedicated. Many folk customs associated with Easter such as colored Easter eggs (representing the sunlight of spring in her festival), the Easter bunny (a symbol of fertility) are of pagan origin also. Her festival was celebrated on the vernal equinox (March 21st), and so too is the Christian “Easter.” It was celebrated to commemorate spring and the sun regaining it’s strength. Once again, the “Son” Jesus (pbuh), regained his power and came to life at the same time

After the council of Nicea, 325C.E., the following proud proclamation was made:

“We also send you good news concerning the unanimous consent of all, in reference to the celebration of the most solemn feast of Easter; for the difference has also been made up by the assistance of your prayers; so that all the brethren of the east, who formerly celebrated this festival at the same time as the Jews, will in future conform to the Romans and to us and to all who have of old observed our manner of celebrating Easter.”

As mentioned above, the very first Christians were all devout Jews. These first followers of Jesus (including the apostles themselves) followed the same religion which Moses and his followers had followed for centuries before them. They knew of no “new covenant” or annulments of the commandments of Moses . They had been taught by Jesus that his religion was an affirmation of the religion of the Jews and a continuation of it.

“The first fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem” writes Gibbon, “were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the Law of Moses with the Doctrine of Christ.”

“Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” II, Gibbon, p. 119.

As we have seen in the previous sections, this fact is indeed confirmed in the Bible where we are told that after the departure of Jesus, his faithful followers continued to keep up their daily attendance at the Temple of the Jews (the most holy of Jewish synagogues) in observance of the religion of Moses.

“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,”

Acts 2:46

Also remember the words of Professor Robert Alley:

“….The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions…. what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus’ death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers of Jesus) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus”

This would also have been beyond belief if they had preached the total cancellation and destruction of the law of Moses, as Paul did.

Toland observes:

“We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to forge books, this evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them? Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books were often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers, and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes, when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these two other questions: Why all the books cited genuine by Clement of Alexander. Origen. Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should he laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts?”(emphasis added).

The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73

Jesus himself did indeed foretell of this most tragic situation:

“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time comes, that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, you may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you..”

John 16:2-4

Well then, why did the masses in the centuries after this not revolt and renew the original teaching of Jesus? Because the Bible was made the property of the privileged few. No one was allowed to read it, nor to translate it into other languages. When these privileged few came into power in what would later be called “The Dark Ages,” (our more politically correct generation now prefers to refer to it as “The Middle Ages”) the Bible was hoarded by these men and they were claimed to be the only ones who could understand it’s teachings. The first authoritative English translation of the Bible was completed by Mr. William Tyndale, popularly considered a master of both the Hebrew and Greek languages. The King James Bible was based upon his translation. He was forced into exile in 1524 and later condemned and burned to death as a heretic in 1536 for the vile and blasphemous deed of translating the Bible into English.

With the rule of the church came the great Inquisitions. The Inquisitions were a medieval church court instituted to seek out and prosecute heretics. Notoriously harsh in its procedures, the Inquisition was defended during the rule of the church by appeal to biblical practices and to the church father Saint Augustine himself (354-430 AD), the great luminary of the church, who had interpreted Luke 14:23 as endorsing the use of force against heretics in order to convert them. Mr. Tom Harpur observes

“The horrors of the Crusades and the notorious Inquisitions are all but a small part of this tragic tale.”

Okay, but surely of those who had access to the Bible there must have been some who would have revealed these matters. As it happens, there were. Sadly, they were all put to death or tortured until they recanted their views. Their books were also burned. For instance, Isaac de la Peyere was one of many scholars to notice many serious discrepancies in the Bible and to write about them openly. His book was banned and burned. He was arrested and informed that in order to be released he would have to recant his views to the Pope. He did. There are countless such examples for those who would simply research their history books.

The Trinitarian church’s campaign of death and torture for all Christians refusing to compromise their beliefs continued for many centuries after the creation of the Trinity in 325 CE. Many brilliant scholars and leaders of the Unitarian Christians were condemned, tortured, and even burned alive in a very slow and drawn-out manner. Only some of these men are: Origen (185-254 CE), Lucian (died 312 CE), Arius (250-336 CE), Michael Servetus (1511-1553 CE), Francis David (1510-1579 CE), Lelio Francesco Sozini (1525-1562 CE), Fausto Paolo Sozini (1539-1604 CE), John Biddle (1615-1662 CE)… and on and on.

This wholesale condemnation became so bad that it was not sufficient to condemn individuals any more, but rather, whole nations were condemned and killed. An example is the Holy decree of 15th of February 1568 which condemned all of the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. Three million men women and children where sentenced to the scaffold in three lines by the benevolent Trinitarian church. Why does no one cry “Holocaust” for these poor people?

“Upon the 15th of February 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of King Philip II of Spain, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution. . . Three millions of people, men, women and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines. Under the new decree, the executions certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a single letter to Philip II, coolly estimates the number of executions which were to take place immediately after the expiration of Holy Week at ‘eight hundred heads.’”

“Rise of the Dutch Republic” John Lothrop Motly

Toland asks in his book The Nazarenes:

“Since the Nazarenes and Ebonites (Unitarian Christians) are by all the Church historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians, or those who believe in Christ among the Jews with which, his own people, he lived and died, they having been the witness of his actions, and of whom were all the apostles, considering this, I say how it is possible for them to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how came the Gentiles who believed on him after his death by the preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these things, or whence they could have their information but from the believing Jews?” (emphasis added).

(From: Jesus a Prophet of Islam)

Only today when true religious freedom, scientific knowledge, and archeological discoveries have come together in the study of the Bible and other ancient documents have Christians started to see the truth. An example of this can be found in the British newspaper the “Daily News” 25/6/84 under the heading “Shock survey of Anglican Bishops“ We read that a British television poll of 31 of 39 Anglican Bishops found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus is God, but only “His supreme agent.”

“The Doctrine of Christ”

“Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9, RSV)

“THE doctrine of Christ” was clear in John’s time. He was unwilling to receive any contrary thinking. John held uncompromisingly to this doctrine, saying, “If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work” (2 John 10, 11, RSV). In this booklet, we will discuss the false teaching John was addressing. Suffice it to say here, it did not include a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity concept was foreign to the early Church and did not emerge until the third and fourth centuries. Through time this “doctrine of Christ” has developed into a theology meaning something different from that which was held by John and the entire early Church.

The Christian Church started out exclusively Jewish and, as such, had a singular God. “The LORD our God is one LORD” is the basic concept of the Jewish faith (Deut. 6:4). This was universally accepted and stressed by Jewish authorities from ancient times. They understood the Old Testament Scriptures to portray God as truly singular in being, and they consistently rejected any other characterization. With one voice, Jehovah was believed to be the only all-powerful, unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-existing One—the one true God.

There is little doubt the Christian religion started out with this original concept of God. The Church of England, in the Book of Common Prayer, presents the Apostles’ Creed as a Unitarian Creed, which it affirms was the belief of the Church during the first two centuries. This Unitarian Creed is still quoted in many churches today. (We should distinguish between the Unitarian Creed, which presents God as a single being, and the Unitarian Church, which believes Jesus is not the son of God but only the son of Joseph and Mary.)

In the fourth century, under Constantine (A.D. 325), the Nicene, or Semi-Trinitarian concept, was forged making Jesus and God one in substance. Then in the fifth century, the Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed, came along, adding the holy Spirit, to complete the Trinity doctrine. Though called the Athanasian Creed, it is now generally admitted to have been composed by some other person. It is noteworthy that the word Trinity nowhere appears in the Bible. More importantly, the early Church debates of the Apostolic Era were centered on keeping newly converted Gentiles from being brought under the Jewish law. There were no ongoing debates on whether Jesus and God were two persons in one. Yet since the early Christian Church was mostly Jewish, any deviation from the “Lord our God is one Lord” foundation would have taken enormous discussion and debate.

The formulators of the Athanasian Creed well knew they had to meet the singular requirement: “The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4). How could they make three persons into one? Some of the best minds forged this explanation—”There are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.” It was an explanation that did not explain. With such incantation of words, they presented their case and, apparently, prevailed. They claimed the One God was three persons, yet only One God. No wonder they said it was “incomprehensible.”

There was subtlety here. God himself, in one sense, is incomprehensible, in that He is above and beyond our grandest conceptions. (In another way, He is not incomprehensible, because we are created in His image with the ability to reason and think in the same mode, though vastly inferior to the divine.) Many people will grant that in one sense God is “incomprehensible,” and therefore, by association, they propose that the doctrine about God is “incomprehensible.” They shift the “incomprehensible” from the person of God to a doctrine made by men about God. Yet, “the doctrine of Christ” was clear and comprehensible in John’s time.

Jesus Presented Himself to Israel Covertly

Jesus did not go about declaring he was the “Christ” or the “Anointed One.” He did not encourage his disciples to do so. Jesus inquired, “Who do men say that the son of man is” (Matt. 16:13-20)? The answers were: Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Nothing very dramatic, was it? Nobody guessed he was the “Christ”—much less God. No!—not even His disciples. Jesus asked, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter’s answer pleased our Lord—”You are the Christ [Anointed], the Son of the living God.” That was correct. Only by the aid of the holy Spirit was Peter able to speak thus.

But notice what the holy Spirit did not suggest: It did not imply Jesus was God—not even the vaguest hint of it. The holy Spirit owed us the truth, and it gave us the truth. “You are the Christ [Anointed], the Son of the living God.” They were then charged, “Tell no one.” If denied from presenting Jesus as the Christ, would they present Jesus as God? Did the holy Spirit tell Peter a half-truth about the Christ?

The “doctrine of Christ” is: Jesus is the “Anointed” One. The Jews knew only priests, kings and some prophets were anointed, and it was strictly forbidden to make or use the special “holy anointing oil” improperly (Ex. 30:31-33). Jesus was not a Levite and, therefore, could not be of the Levitical Priesthood. He was, however, of David’s line and could be anointed “King.” Before his death, Jesus rode into Jerusalem saying, “Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your king is coming to you” (Matt. 21:5-16).

In Jesus’ last encounter with the Pharisees, he asked: “What do you think of Christ? Whose son is he?” They knew Christ (Messiah, the Anointed) was spoken of as the Son of David and that David looked for a son he would call Lord. They answered: “The son of David.” Jesus said, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord” (Matt. 22:42, 43, RSV)? We ask: Did David believe he would father a son who would be God himself? Would he father God? Certainly not! David, through the Spirit, was showing that the Messiah of promise would be born of David’s royal line and, by faithfully laying down his life as the ransom price, would be raised as Lord of both the living and the dead. (See Rom. 14:9.) This would be the Father’s reward for His son Christ Jesus, to enable him to carry out his great future work as Judge and Mediator in the Millennial Kingdom.

If the doctrine of Christ meant Jesus was God, the holy Spirit failed to make this known. The title “Anointed” is never applied to God. That would be a sacrilege. The greater always anoints the lesser. God is above all. He anoints, but is not anointed—nor can He be. We repeat: God is never called anointed! Never ever! It would be a grave impropriety to do so.

We Have Found the Messiah (The Anointed)

Andrew found his brother Simon and said, “We have found the Messiah [Christ, the Anointed]” (John 1:41). That is what they were looking for—the Anointed One of God—certainly not God. When they met Jesus, he did not tell them to take off their shoes because they were standing on holy ground, as Moses was instructed to do (Ex. 3:5). Jesus simply said, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas [Peter] (John 1:42).” We find no instance where they fell at Jesus’ feet worshipping him, nor of Jesus looking for such worship. As a matter of fact, we are told “Even his brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:5, RSV). They did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, and certainly they did not believe he was the God of Moses. Could they be God’s brothers? Surely not! (See Heb. 2:11, 12.)

Jaroslav Pelikan’s Observation

Jaroslav Pelikan, sterling Professor of History at Yale University, who is called “The Doctrine Doctor,” is quoted saying: “You are not entitled to the beliefs you cherish about such things as the Holy Trinity without a sense of what you owe to those who worked this out for you. . . . To circumvent St. Athanasius on the assumption that if you put me alone in a room with the New Testament, I will come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, is naive.”1 The renowned Doctor of Doctrine is telling us the Trinity cannot be found by open study of the New Testament. He is admitting that it is not a doctrine of clear Biblical statement. Rather, the Trinity is a doctrine of inference, not of statement. That is why the Trinity has such troubled acceptance. We could add to Dr. Pelikan’s statement and say that if you placed 10,000 people in rooms with New Testaments, they would not find the Trinity. We also have not found it.

The churches have had consistent trouble with unbelief in the Trinity. We quote Larry Poston, writing for Christianity Today, who looked into why the average age of Christian conversion was 16 years old whereas the average age of Muslim conversion was 31. His explanation in part was: “The Muslim is not asked to give credence to allegedly ‘irrational’ concepts such as the Trinity, the Incarnation. . . . If one does consider it essential that concepts such as the Trinity be explained before conversion, are the common presentations of these teachings adequate?”2

Can you have a rational explanation of an “irrational” concept? Mr. Poston cannot be a rational believer in the Trinity, and there are more like him. Such members within the church find themselves put upon to accept something that is inherently not understandable. The Athanasian Creed tried to present the Trinity not as “three incomprehensibles” but “one incomprehensible.” As much as Mr. Poston would like to see a more adequate explanation of the Trinity, it is unlikely that anyone will come up with a clear explanation of it.

The early Christian Church converts were mostly adult men and women. Mr. Poston must believe the modern church attracts members in their teens because mature minds are less inclined to accept irrational tenets. We must not conclude that everyone who professes belief in the Trinity teaching is necessarily a wholehearted believer. Some are silent doubting Thomases or, even worse, it is mandatory they confess the Trinity in order to be a member of a church denomination or that they put down theologically programmed answers to become degreed ministers. Forced belief was the stock and trade of religious oppression, but it has proved ineffective in making true believers out of people. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

For Those Who Have Doubts About the Trinity

The purpose of this writing is not for those who have no doubts about the Trinity. That is their fixed belief. Nothing we could say would penetrate their patriotic zeal for the Trinity. However, if you are one with gnawing doubts about it, and wish to satisfy your reason and heart, then this message may be very helpful. You may be glad to know early Christians did not believe in the Trinity, so you have lots of company. Also, there are increasing numbers in the churches today who sincerely doubt it, including some of the scholars as well.

Mr. Poston is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this subject. Quoting another source: “A fruitful cause of error in ancient and also modern times is owing to an attempt to explain or illustrate this [Trinity] doctrine, forgetting that it is a mystery to be received on faith, which cannot, from its own nature, be rendered intelligible to man’s intellect.”3 We may also here quote H. M. S. Richards, in a Voice of Prophecy Radio Broadcast, who similarly said, “[Trinity] is basic in our faith. . . . None of us can understand it. It’s a divine mystery, but gloriously true.”4 No wonder children are prepared to believe it more readily than adults.

Three Classes of Trinitarians

The tendency is to group all Trinitarians into one group. Such is not the case. Actually, there are three groups in the Christian world professing belief in the Trinity.

(1) The Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church believe in Apostolic succession. They believe the Word of God is being developed on an ongoing basis through a continuous chain of apostles from our Lord’s time until now. Hence, they are not embarrassed to accept the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed even though contradictory. They do not need a strong Biblical basis for their beliefs because they can accept a council of bishops’ or a pope’s statements as a basis for belief. They believe God invests his truth in an ongoing body of apostles to define and clarify the faith. Hence they accept the fact that the early Church had a Unitarian God concept which evolved into the Trinity. They believe the Trinity just developed over time as the outgrowth of continued apostolic revealment.

(2) Then there is the Protestant Modernist and those who believe in Contemporary Religion. Their belief is that man makes known his understanding of God on an ongoing basis. In each time and place, men have presented their concepts of God. They hold that the Bible was created by men who presented their opinions about God in their time and place, and men have a right to continue presenting their growing conceptions of God and truth. Such do not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God but merely an attempt to define God in ancient times. Hence they do not waste too much effort trying to harmonize it or understand it. They feel man must continue writing his own Bible as he progresses. In this camp the range of belief is incredibly diverse, and the real question with many of these is not if they believe in the Trinity, but do they, in fact, believe in God. However, in that they do not openly oppose the Trinity or the Bible, but are quite permissive of both, they are acceptable in the Christian community.

(3) The last group are the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals who believe the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant. To this we agree. This group is uncomfortable with the fact that the Nicene Creed was created in the fourth century and the Athanasian Creed in the fifth century. That is an embarrassment to them because they feel the Bible is their sole basis of belief. Hence, having accepted the Athanasian Creed, they become revisionists of history and try to rewrite it so they can teach the early Christian Church believed it. They also comb through the Bible looking for some support of Trinitarianism. Some of their assertions make the Catholics, the Modernists and Contemporary religionists a bit uncomfortable. As badly matched as these three groups are, they are amazingly tolerant of each other in this regard.

Two Witnesses

In John 8:13-18 (RSV) the Pharisees were having a little skirmish with Jesus. They said, “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.” Here you are, just a plain ordinary person, going about making claims. Why should anyone believe you? After all, we are learned and taught in rabbinical schools, and why should we be concerned with your testimony? Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true. . . . In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” If they wanted two witnesses, Jesus gave them two witnesses—God and himself. We might ask, why didn’t he give them three witnesses, as provided for in Deut. 19:15, by adding the holy Spirit? Evidently because the holy Spirit was not a person. God and Jesus together make two, no more, no less: 1 + 1 = 2. That is pure math as taught by Jesus.

“They Have Taken Away My Lord”

Remember Mary, standing at the empty tomb. As she stood there weeping, two angels asked her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him” (John 20:13, RSV). Now, she was not looking for her deceased God. God does not and cannot die. She was looking for her Master or Teacher, or at least for his remains. Her only mistake was to look for the living Jesus among the dead after he was resurrected. We might say the same. The Trinitarians have taken away the living Lord and we do not know what they have done with him. If he is the God of Moses, then what has happened to our Lord Jesus? We would not have an elder brother. How could the Absolute God say, “I will proclaim thy name to my brethren” (Heb. 2:11, 12, RSV)? Only Jesus could speak of us as his brethren, and only he is privileged to thus proclaim the Father’s name to us.

God never ever called anyone His brother. He has no brothers or sisters. Jesus taught us to address God as “our Father.” Our resurrected Lord Jesus is not “ashamed to call us brethren.” God has given us the “Spirit of Sonship”—that makes Him “our Father.” God is not our “brother.” The Trinity concept has taken away our Lord Jesus—our Elder Brother, and we do not know what they have done with him. We cannot find him in this doctrine. God’s voice in two Gospels said, “This is my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17; Mark 9:7). If Jesus is a Son and we are sons of God, then we are brethren. Why have they taken away our brother? What have they done with him?

CHAPTER ONE

Let Us Reason Together

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.”
(Isa. 1:18, KJV)

JOHN 1:1 is the rallying point of Trinitarians. But in defense of the Bible Students’ non-Trinitarian reading of this verse, we quote from The Bible Translator, a periodical sent to Trinitarian scholars:

“If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation . . . would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. . . . The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.”1

Please note their observation that, as a word-for-word translation, “it cannot be faulted.” As a matter of fact, in Acts 12:22 (Herod’s voice is a god’s voice) and Acts 28:6 (Paul is called a god), the translators supplied the article “a” to the word theos in both instances. They just happen to think this would be contrary to John’s thought in John 1:1. That is a very subjective conclusion.

John 1:1, 2 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [ton, the] God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with [ton, the] God.” A word-for-word Greek rendering of John 1:1, 2 is: “In [a] beginning [arche] was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and [a] God was the Word. This was in [a] beginning with the God.” Trinitarians tried to level the field by leaving out the article (ton) “the.” In the King James, as in many other translations, all references to God are equal to the English reader. You do not get the contrast between the emphasized God spoken of twice and the unemphasized God referring to the Logos.

Yet consider how later in this chapter (John 1:18), in the same context, a clear distinction is drawn between these Gods apart from mere grammatical emphasis: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (New American Standard Bible, Marshall Interlinear, etc.) Clearly, there is a “begotten God” and a begetter “God.” Hence, John 1:1 must be understood in a manner that harmonizes with this verse.

To be convincing, the Trinitarian must prove that “God” in John 1:1 has supreme signification in all three of its uses. We quote from an orthodox Trinitarian, Dr. G. C. Knapp: “It (the appellation Logos, here translated Word), signifies, among the Jews and other ancient people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals Himself to men, and makes known to them His will. In this passage the principal proof does not lie in the word Logos (‘revealer of God’), nor even in the word theos (‘God’), which, in a larger sense, is often applied to kings and earthly rulers, but to what is predicated of the Logos.”2

Using such reasoning, is it possible to prove Jesus is the supreme God from this passage? Does the passage in fact say that the Logos God has parity with the God? Without parity, he cannot be the God, nor can he be one-third God. What beginning is John talking about? God has no beginning or end, for He is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psa. 90:2). So what “beginning” is the Logos identified with? Rev. 3:14 supplies the answer: “The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [arche] of the creation of the [ton] God.”

Some say that the word “beginning” (arche) is rendered “principality(ties), magistrates, at the first, first estate, corners,” etc. and that this gives Rev. 3:14 a different meaning. Whether our Lord was the beginning, first, or principal “creation of God,” how would that change his being a created being before all others? In the King James, the Apostle John’s use of the word arche is consistently translated “beginning.” In the Appendix we submit every usage of arche in the New Testament by John and other New Testament writers as listed in The Englishman’s Concordance. Please note its uses and how “beginning” is an appropriate translation. It is only because translators have seen the threat this poses to the Trinity that they have labored to change the intent of that word in this verse.

But, let us assume that the Trinitarians are correct on John 1:1. Let us presume the Logos was Jehovah (or Yahweh God). What is John then telling? If John believed the Logos was the God of Moses, why would John say the “Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”? What God was the Logos with? Why place a mark on eternity and say that was the beginning and the Logos was there? If he really wanted to prove the Logos was God, he should have said, “See this mark. It is the beginning. Now, the Logos was here before that beginning as the God, for He was the God.” To place the Logos at the mark called beginning and not before the “beginning” weakens their whole position.

The following texts delineate this truth—that God always existed and that a beginning in time is associated only with the Logos:

God “from everlasting to everlasting.” Ps. 90:2

Christ Jesus “in the beginning was the Word . . .” John 1:1

“The Lord created me at the beginning of his work.”
Prov. 8:22, RSV

Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed through the Bible using every possible text to prove their point. In the overwhelming majority of texts used, you find them doing the same thing as in John 1:1, using arguments that God and Jesus are one, hoping we will not notice that none of their proof verses include the third part necessary – the holy Spirit. The idea is to get people so involved in the discussion that they will forget the holy Spirit is not mentioned. Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rational proof. In order to prove the Trinity doctrine, it is necessary to find Biblical statements of the oneness of being of Father, Son and holy Spirit. Even if we could prove the Father and Son were one being, would it give us a Trinity?

To call God “Christ” gives them a name but not a Christ [an Anointed One]! We ask again, “What have you done with Christ?” Where is he? You cannot have three absolute Gods and one absolute God. The moment you do, you must redefine absolute. The moment you define God as Christ, you replace Christ. God can never be less than God!

Why Must the Savior be a God-Man?

The Trinity concept insists that Jesus had to be a God-man to be the Savior. If he was a mere man, they say, how could he take upon him the sin of the whole world? It sounds good to make such extravagant claims about Jesus. Generally, we cannot pay sufficient homage to our Savior for his great sacrifice, so why not go all out in our claims for him? To some extent that is how the Trinity was started, countering claims that Jesus was just a mere man. As the defense of our Savior was made, so the claims for him grew and became exaggerated – from being a perfect man and Son of God, until at last the ultimate claim was made that he was in fact God. Then followed the super patriotism and the cry “To the fire” with those who dare claim Jesus someone less than God. History records John Calvin burned (roasted) Michael Servetus at the stake for not believing the Trinity. As they lit the flames, Michael Servetus cried out, “Oh thou Son of the eternal God have pity on me.” One observer said, We might have had pity on him if he had said, “Oh Eternal Son of God.” Why is church history so lacking in mercy and kindness and so mean?

“By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). If only God’s people had served their God as well as they had their Church organizations, how much kinder Church history would be. In a Church bent on world conquest, there is little love or kindness to be found. Our country was born to provide refuge from religious persecution.

Jesus Christ the “Ransom for All”

We read in 1 Tim. 2:5, 6: “The man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” What is the ransom? The Greek word for ransom is antilutron – defined by Dr. Young as “a corresponding price.”3 One perfect man was a substitutionary sacrifice for the perfect man Adam, who forfeited his life along with the human race in him. However, the Church fathers lost sight of the true meaning of the ransom. When this happened, there was no holding back the ground swell of extravagant claims about Christ. Anything less than calling Jesus God was considered demeaning.

For the sake of argument, let us go along with this exalted claim that Christ is God—a claim neither he nor Scripture makes. Let us accept their claim that he was God and, therefore, God died for us. May we ask, How could an immortal God die?

Did the Absolute God die? The creed maintains Christ was “very man.” Hence, to call God “Christ” gives them a name, but not a Christ. It was the “very man” Christ who died. No matter how they define it, they have only a “very man” who died. How, then, did “very God” die? God is immortal, death-proof. God could not die; only some flesh form could die. Despite the semantics, they come away with only a perfect “human sacrifice.” That is exactly what we believe and claim.

Dr. Adam Clark, a Trinitarian, says, “Two natures must ever be distinguished in Christ: the human nature, in reference to which he is the Son of God and inferior to him, and the Divine nature which was from eternity, and equal to God.”4 He also disallows that Jesus could be begotten from eternity, saying: “To say that he [Christ] was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to TIME. SON supposes time, generation, and father.”5 In other words, it was only the human flesh of Christ that died. Hence, they do not have an infinite sacrifice, because it was the inferior Son who died. So where, oh where, is the infinite sacrifice of God?

Unless the complete Trinity died on the cross, Trinitarians have but a very man for their savior. While Trinitarians insist Jesus was wholly God and wholly man, their burden is to prove this and also to show that both God and man died on the cross. The Bible does not say this. Theologians have labored long and hard to compensate for what is not clearly stated in the Word. Did Jesus ever say he would give his flesh and deity for man as a ransom? No. He said, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). Then could he take his flesh body back after giving it? What would have become of his ransom if taken back after it had been given?

Dr. Adam Clark renders Psalm 8:5: “Thou has made him little less than God.” He refers to this verse in Heb. 2:7, and applies it to Jesus, saying, “For a short while, he was made lower than the angels, that he might be capable of suffering death.”6 If Dr. Clark’s assertion were true, Jesus was less than God or lower than the angels. How could he be “less than God” and still be Absolute God? This presents a problem in logic.

A Mighty and Infinite Sacrifice With Small Results

Let us allow that Christ’s sacrifice was infinite as claimed. We are allowing this without a Scriptural basis, for nowhere does the Bible say Jesus’ sacrifice was infinite. It does not say he suffered more than all mankind. It does not even say he suffered more than any man. Even Isaiah 52:14, which speaks of his “visage” and “form” being marred “more than any man,” does not fulfill the infinite suffering assertion. It is not wise to say more than the Scriptures say. We are allowing such reasoning only to see where it leads.

Now, allowing for the most extravagant sacrifice for sin, we ask, How come so few are saved? How come, when salvation has been reduced to just making a “confession for Christ,” the vast majority of mankind are not accepting Christ? The churches, for some 1500 years, have entreated the world. They have carried on bloody wars, imposed the “holy(?) inquisition,” employed the powers of the state, threatening damnation and eternal fire on those slow to respond—torturing, killing, maiming—all in vain. The vast majority of the world is not Christian in any sense of the word, and the part called Christian is suspect of being mostly a field of “tares” (Matt. 13:24-30). Would God provide such a powerful salvation, requiring only the faintest acceptance, and still somehow fail to save the vast majority of those purchased?

Even when telling people that Christ has purchased their ticket to heaven and all they have to do is accept it, still the world at large is unsaved. How come this mighty salvation fails? More than two-thirds of the world are without Christ. And the part that accepts Christ might have a goodly number of “tares” among them, who are the planting of the Wicked One. How could something so overpowering be so ineffective? With such an overwhelming salvation, how is it that most people are lost?

The claim that Jesus had to be God to pay for every man’s sins, who, according to their theology, is to be tortured forever and ever if unsaved, means that Jesus would have endured the fires of theological hell for every man, woman and child that eternity would inflict upon them—a very sadistic concept. They claim he had to be God to do this. This whole claim is totally unscriptural. The Bible says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11). Again we read: “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

This shedding of blood requires the death of the victim, not merely suffering. If people could atone for their sins by suffering, then the Hindu and Eastern religions, wherein people afflict themselves, laying on spikes, putting hooks in their flesh and staring at the sun until blind, would certainly commend themselves to God by buying remission for their sins. Even the pre-reformation Christian theology with its flagellations should not then have been discarded. The world already endures such great suffering because of sin. As we look out into the world, our hearts ache for humanity. How they need the hope of Christ’s glorious Kingdom on earth, when all men will be lifted up and blessed as God pours out His “spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). All of this will be possible by Christ’s death on the cross. Let us see how.

Our Claim!

Our understanding of Scripture is that Jesus died as a perfect man providing a “corresponding price” for father Adam. He died a substitutionary death for Adam. All who are in Adam, therefore, will be ransomed, released from the condemnation of death. It stands to reason that if Adam did not possess everlasting life (and he didn’t because he died), then Christ’s ransom sacrifice can restore to Adam and all men only what he lost before he sinned. Adam had an opportunity to live everlastingly if he obeyed God, but failing in this, he died. Christ’s ransom sacrifice can only bring Adam, and all in him, another opportunity to attain everlasting life.

Two classes, the Church and the world, will be privileged to benefit from Christ’s death. During the Gospel Age, the True Church receives justification to life and, upon “overcoming,” will receive a heavenly reward. The world will be released from Adamic condemnation during the Millennium. Christ will be their Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5, 6). How can he mediate between God and man if he is God? A Mediator must always be a third party! When the world is nurtured back to human perfection and their reconciliation with God shall have been accomplished, they will then be delivered to God, the Father. When Christ’s mediation is completed, then shall “The King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). The Mediator’s work shall have been accomplished. See 1 Cor. 15:24-28.

Mankind, which had been driven from Eden, will return to an Edenic Paradise on earth. We have all that is required—the perfect man Christ Jesus as our Savior and tremendous results from two salvations—the Church now, and the world of mankind in Christ’s kingdom here on earth. Therefore all men will be benefited from Christ’s sacrifice. That is as it should be.

And in the final picture, the Divine Christ will be subject to the Father, with all “overcomers” of both the Gospel Age and the Millennium received back into favor with God (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Then God will be all in all. What could be sweeter?

“Are You the Christ?”

In Jesus’ illegal trial at night, while Peter was still there, they asked Jesus –”Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am” (Mark 14:61, 62). If Jesus was truly the Absolute God, didn’t Jesus owe them that information? The reason Jesus was crucified was because he was the “Christ, the Son of the Blessed.” If Jesus proclaimed himself to be Absolute God, they would have had a perfect right to put him to death according to their understanding of the Mosaic Law: “You shall have no other Gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). Oddly, they crucified Jesus for claiming to be the “Son of God,” exactly what he admitted being, while they themselves claimed, “We have one Father, even God” (John 8:41).

If the disciples believed Jesus was God, they would not have believed his death. How could they if they held any concept of his being God? God is eternal! Their immediate problem after his death was accepting the truth that God raised Jesus from the dead—Thomas being the last to believe. Later, they became witnesses to his resurrection, saying to the Jews, “Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead” (Acts 3:14, 15).

“Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.”
—The Jerusalem Bible

The above quoted subhead is from Romans 9:5. Several interesting commentaries on this verse may be found in the literature. A Catholic Dictionary states: “We have the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament].”7 But establishing Christ’s divinity is not the same as establishing the Trinity. The King James reads, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” No one would argue Jesus is not “God blessed.” To argue that this statement makes him God the Father is pressuring this verse to say something more than it does.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology comments on this verse: “Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature, for the word theos [God] has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul.”8 A Catholic Dictionary comments: “There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate ‘God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.’”9 The Revised Standard Version so renders it—”God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” Hence, we see, there are rational thinkers who try to prevent the spread of hasty and unwarranted conclusions. Some Trinitarians are in constant and labored activity reading Trinity into verses so eagerly that it is needful for their fellow theologians to try to temper some of their excesses.

There is another strange fact of Trinitarian behavior. They seldom inform the laity of the host of criticisms and corrective evaluations from within the walls of religious academia. They vent most of their anger and frustration upon those who openly and honestly confess not believing the Trinity based on personal Bible study. They endeavor to malign these by calling them improper names or even failing to recognize such as Christians.

In Acts 11:26 we are told the disciples of Jesus were “called Christians first in Antioch.” If this be so, how could they be called Christians who knew nothing of the theological Trinity which did not become defined until the fifth century? How is it that those who believe in the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit are not recognized as Christians today if they say they do not believe the “incomprehensible” Trinity? Perhaps the old desire to persecute and stigmatize those who differ still exists latently in the hearts of some. Insecurity can surely lead to unchristian behavior.

CHAPTER TWO

The Trinity Emerges Gradually

“The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3, 4, NIV)

AFTER the Church lost the pristine vision which it held in the beginning, these last two creeds were formed. The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed, became the largest and most confusing creed of all. It became necessary for salvation to believe this creed—making this a threatening theological statement. Please notice the unitarian concept of God was a statement of belief without threatening overtones. Notice how the Creed becomes more foggy and “incomprehensible” as it endeavors to incorporate Trinity concepts. Additionally, as it swells to more than a statement of belief, it then threatens any not accepting this foggy concept with perishing “everlastingly.”

When Jesus rendered his final report to his Father, it only required three words—”It is finished” (John 19:30). Nothing more needed to be said. Notice, however, when the one-talented, unfaithful servant rendered his report, it required 43 words, and he was just as much a failure after his explanation (Matt. 25:24, 25). The Unitarian Creed required only 115 words to make itself known; the Nicene Creed required 230 (twice as many words to make God and Christ one); and the Athanasian Creed required 702 words to explain the “incomprehensible” Trinity. If the number of words used proved the case, the latter is clearly the winner. But it is not by much speaking that we shall be heard.

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the fourth century. . . . Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine.”1 That is partially correct. Theology indeed is responsible for constructing the doctrine. But we firmly believe that the “elements” of Scripture alluded to here were never intended to provide a framework for such a dogma.

The following is found in The Book of Common Prayer on
Three Creeds of the Church of England:

The Apostles’ or Unitarian Creed
Being the Creed of the first two Christian centuries.

“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

“And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

“I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”

The Nicene, or Semi-trinitarian Creed:

Principally drawn up by the Council of Nice in A.D. 325, the clause concerning the Holy Ghost in brackets [ ] having been affixed to it by the Council of Constantinople, in A.D. 381, except the words [and the son], which were afterwards introduced into it.”

“I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and of all things visible and invisible.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of (or from) God; Light of (or from) Light; Very God of (or from) Very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary; and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

“And I believe in the Holy Ghost, [the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets].

“And I believe one catholic and apostolic church: I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins: and I look for the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed

Long ascribed to Athanasius, a theologian of the fourth century, but now generally allowed not to have been composed until the fifth century, by some other person.

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

“And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost, the Father uncreate, the son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal; and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another, none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; who, although he be God and man, yet is he not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ: who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; he ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; at whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

“The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.”—Article VIII. of the Church of England: taken from the Book of Common Prayer. [In the Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Article VIII. reads as follows: "The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Scripture."]2

Dual Natures

Greek philosophy was a serious threat to the early Christian Church. Paul said, “Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:22, RSV). To counter this, Paul said, “I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:1, RSV). Apparently, there were those who did. Greek philosophy was kept out of the Bible, but not out of theology. As the church fathers strove for preeminence, they found the high-sounding wisdom of Greek philosophy a cutting edge for distinguishing themselves. When the religious debates spilled over before the Roman emperors, what better tool could be used than Hellenistic philosophy interwoven with Christian doctrine? Greek and Mid-eastern philosophies were pervasive, and when someone like Constantine listened to the controversy between Arius and Athanasius, the strong pagan influence was certain to have an effect.

Constantine had ostensibly converted to Christianity, and he intended to use the new religion to solidify the empire. Earlier he had raised a symbol of Christ seen in a vision (”R” fixed in the center of an “C”—the first two letters of “Christ” [CRISTOS] in the Greek) as a new imperial standard and used it to gain victory in a key battle against pagan forces. He believed he had heard a voice from heaven saying, “In this sign conquer.”3 If the symbol (also called a “Christogram”) actually represented two gods, he might have thought it all the better. If Christ were really both man and God, flesh and spirit, that would be closer to Greek philosophy and the pagan trinity models. It would make the new religion all the more attractive to the masses.

The Nicaean Council

Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read:

“The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor Constantine and held in the imperial palace under his auspices. Constantine viewed the Arian teachings—that Jesus was a created being subordinate to God—as an ‘insignificant’ theological matter. But he wanted peace in the empire he had just united through force. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.

“The expression homo ousion, ‘one substance,’ was probably introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today’s Spain). Since he had great influence with Constantine, the imperial weight was thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next century the Nicene and the Arian views of Christ battled for supremacy. First Constantine and then his successors stepped in again and again to banish this churchman or exile that one. Control of church offices too often depended on control of the emperor’s favor.”4

Why would anyone look to the fourth century for truth, particularly in view of our Lord’s great prophecy covering the period of his absence and return, saying, “Take heed that no man deceive you” (Matt. 24:4)? Without a doubt, this was where the Church had lost its way. It was shamelessly prostituted before the ambitious Roman emperor. It is important to know that while Constantine accepted Christianity and became the Pontifex Maximus of the Church, he also continued to function in all the pagan ceremonies, as paganism had deep roots in the Roman Empire and would not pass away overnight. Julian succeeded Constantine to the throne, and he was a devout pagan, although a noble one. Rome became a melting pot of paganism and Christianity—not a good mix.

Wrong conclusions are easily reached about the Nicaean Council. It is easy to conjure up images of a united group of bishops with only two in dissent, endorsing wholeheartedly the Athanasian proposition uniting the Father and Son into two parts of one deity. Nothing could be further from the truth. We quote the following:

“They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those of his opponents; that is to say, they were merely competent to establish negations, but lacked the capacity, as yet, to give their attitude of compromise a positive expression. . . . True, at Nicaea this majority eventually acquiesced in the ruling of the Alexandrians; yet this result was due, not to internal conviction, but partly to indifference, partly to the pressure of the imperial will—a fact which is mainly demonstrated by the subsequent history of the Arian conflicts. For if the Nicaean synod had arrived at its final decision by the conscientious agreement of all non-Arians, then the confession of faith there formulated might indeed have evoked the continued antagonism of the Arians, but must necessarily have been championed by all else. This, however, was not the case; in fact, the creed was assailed by those very bodies which had composed the laissez-faire centre at Nicaea; and we are compelled to the conclusion that, in this point the voting was no criterion of the inward convictions of the council. . . . For it was the proclamation of the Nicene Creed that first opened the eyes of many bishops to the significance of the problem there treated; and its explanation led the Church to force herself, by an arduous path of theological work, into compliance with those principles, enunciated at Nicaea, to which, in the year 325, she had pledged herself without genuine assent.”5

This tells us, in effect, the body of bishops who voted for this Creed were not unanimously believers in it. Hence, the vote testified to weakness of character and the human tendency to get on the bandwagon for the sake of expediency. What else would make one vote for something not truly believed and which would later be assailed by them?

When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary until the close of this council. We quote the following:

“A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, ‘for the ministers of God’ . . . No one of the bishops was absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared more like a dream than a reality.”6

We cannot help but contrast this event with the occasion when Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of this world and their glory and then said, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me” (Matt. 4:9, RSV). It seems the Devil had more success with these bishops than he did with our Lord. Yes, Constantine now had most of the bishops in his pocket, and from there we see the church merged with the kingdoms of this world, trying to make believe that this was the kingdom of God.

Pagan Models of Trinity

The Trinity concept presented by Athanasius was essentially borrowed from other ancient religions. John Newton (Origin of Triads and Trinities) writes: “With the first glimpse of a distinct religion and worship among the most ancient races, we find them grouping their gods in triads.” He then proceeds to trace the strong Trinitarian beliefs which were common in ancient India, Egypt, and Babylon as examples.

Regarding ancient India he states: “The threefold manifestations of the One Supreme Being as Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva was thus sung of by Kalidasa (55 B.C.):

“‘In these three persons the One God is shown,
Each first in place, each last, not one alone.
Of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, each may be
First, second, third among the Blessed Three.’”

In speaking of ancient Egypt, Newton quotes Professor Sayce (Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures) as follows: “‘The indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity. The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt.’” Newton continues:

“And now we see some meaning in the strange phrases that have puzzled so many generations in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, such as ‘Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not Made, Being of one Substance with the Father.’ These are all understandable enough if translated into the language of the Solar Trinity [worshipped in ancient Egypt], but without this clue to their meaning, they become sheer nonsense or contradictions. . . . The simplicity and symmetry of the old sun Trinities were utterly lost in forming these new Christian Creeds on the old Pagan models. . . . The [pagan] trinities had all the prestige of a vast antiquity and universal adoption, and could not be ignored. The Gentile converts therefore eagerly accepted the Trinity compromise, and the Church baptized it. Now at length we know its origin.”7

What a revelation—that portions of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were plagiarized from pagan sources—word for word and exact phrases, lifted right off the papyri and inscriptions of ancient Egypt! Should this knowledge not leave a little chill among those subscribing to these creeds?

Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to History of Christianity: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”8 Gibbon is an historian’s historian. He would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his evaluations.

Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G. Wells writes: “We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine.”9 The fact that the Trinity did not originate with the Apostles should be of grave concern to all Christians. The Church of England freely admits the Unitarian Creed was believed in the first two centuries. In view of all these facts, we cannot help but wonder why anyone would feel secure in accepting the doctrinal developments of the fourth and fifth centuries and forsake the pristine teachings of our Lord and the Apostles.

In Matthew 13:24, 25 we read: “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men [the Apostles] slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.” How can one leave the Apostolic Era to find truth without risking being contaminated and choked by “tares”? The “tares” sowed were the work of the enemy. The “tares” that sprouted and grew were results of false teachings that begat “tare” Christians. Hence, all Bible-believing Christians need to be aware of the risks involved in leaving the Apostolic Era of doctrinal purity and of coming under the influence of the “tare” seeds of error spread by the Adversary.

CHAPTER THREE

The Holy Spirit Misunderstood

“When he [the truth-giving Spirit] comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak his own message—on his own authority—but he will tell whatever he hears [from the Father] . . . He will honor and glorify me, because he will draw upon what is mine and will reveal it to you.” (John 16:13, 14, KJV and Amp.)

OF the three components of the Trinity doctrine, the so-called holy Ghost (or Spirit) is certainly the least understood. The holy Spirit is assigned equality in relationship with the Father and the Son and is spoken of as “God the Holy Spirit.” As such, it is necessary to conceive of this entity as a distinct person—the Third Person in the Trinity equation—with attendant powers and capabilities to distinguish it from the others. Yet such a concept is impossible to prove from the Scriptures and certainly was not held by early Christian believers for three hundred years after the death of Christ.

Jeremy Taylor has written: “That the Holy Ghost (Spirit) is God is nowhere said in Scripture; that Holy Ghost (Spirit) is to be invocated is nowhere commanded, nor any example of its being done recorded.”1 Well spoken. Who has a right to say what is not stated in Scripture? One clearly stated Scripture verse would have more weight than a mountain of theology. Until such a verse can be produced, Trinitarians have an impossible burden. An incantation of words and never-ending theology is no substitute for a weighty Bible text or a “thus saith the Lord.”

Biblical Designations of the Spirit

In the Bible, there are various titles and definitions that are applied to the holy Spirit. As these are carefully studied, it becomes evident that all of them describe characteristics that stem from God and Christ and do not necessitate an additional personality. Many are also reflected in the life of the Church. Note these examples.

• “The Spirit of God” (Matt. 3:16)
• “The Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:11)
• “The Spirit of Holiness” (Rom. 1:4)
• “The Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17)
• “The Spirit of a Sound Mind” (2 Tim. 1:7)
• “The Holy Spirit of Promise” (Eph. 1:13)
• “The Spirit of Meekness” (Gal. 6:1)
• “The Spirit of Understanding” (Isa. 11:2)
• “The Spirit of Wisdom” (Eph. 1:17)
• “The Spirit of Glory” (1 Pet. 4:14)
• “The Spirit of Counsel” (Isa. 11:2)
• “The Spirit of Grace” (Heb. 10:29)
• “The Spirit of Adoption” (Rom. 8:15)
• “The Spirit of Prophecy” (Rev. 19:10)

Even the most avid Trinitarian would find it necessary to define “Spirit” in most usages as an influence or power. Personhood of the Trinity just does not fit into these descriptions. So the Trinitarian must use two definitions when referring to “Spirit” in the Bible: one meaning the Third Person of the Trinity and the other as an influence or power. Unless the meaning is continually defined in each verse, the reader is left uncertain as to what is meant.

There is another side to this matter which is very revealing. There is also an “unholy spirit” that is referred to frequently in the Scriptures. This spirit is described in opposite terms to that of the holy Spirit. Note the following:

• “The Spirit of Fear” (2 Tim. 1:7)
• “The Spirit of Divination” (Acts 16:16)
• “The Spirit of Bondage” (Rom. 8:15)
• “The Spirit of Antichrist” (1 John 4:3)
• “The Spirit of the World” (1 Cor. 2:12)
• “The Spirit of Slumber” (Rom. 11:
• “The Spirit of Error” (1 John 4:6)

Would anyone propose to add personhood to these spirits or to suppose that these various designations, unitedly considered, prove there is another evil being apart from Satan, the adversary of God? Not very likely, because it is commonly recognized that these terms, which generally signify the wrong spirit, all have their chief exemplification in Satan. A separate personality is not required,