The trinity myth or mystery by Corny Poems Inc.

The Trinity myth or mystery?

Andre W. George

The Trinity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; myth or mystery? Copyright ÂŠ Andre W. George, 2010

1st Edition 2010 2nd Edition (revised) 2011

All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any other way by any means except as brief excerpts in reviews and the like, without the express written permission of the author and publisher.

All quotations are taken from the Authorised King James Version unless otherwise stated after the citation.

ISBN 978-0-9864929-1-4 Published by Beth Lehem Publishing Paris Ontario Canada

Also by this author: The Devil & Satan Exposed and Unmasked

Foreword Few subjects can be considered as fundamental as those which concern God Himself. There are no deeper questions than those regarding the Deity and one must tread cautiously, as though standing on holy ground. It is not without good reason that the Apostle when writing to the Hebrews observed: â&#x20AC;&#x153;he that cometh

to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek himâ&#x20AC;? (Hebrews 11:6).

Diligence is

sadly lacking in so many walks of life, but when it comes to seeking Bible Truth, there can be no half measures, no short cuts, and no quick wins. One must invest both time and effort if the search is to be a fruitful one. Thanks be to God for the assurance that those who ask shall receive and those who seek shall find. Readers who are already acquainted with the Author will recognise his inimitable style through the pages of this book. Since becoming a Christadelphian in May 2005, Andre George has been a clear advocate of Bible Truth and a fierce opponent of false doctrine. His zeal and enthusiasm are matched only by a desire to share his findings with others and to convince them to take the teachings of Scripture seriously. It has always been a bold move to fly in the face of public opinion or to swim against the tide, even more so when the

opinion and tide belong to the world‟s largest churches. However the seeker of truth must be relentless and determined and not allow oneself to be swayed by the masses. The reader will find this book both challenging and informative. It examines the history of the doctrine of the Trinity as well as offering sound Biblical exposition.

It addresses the individual

elements of the subject as well as providing an overall perspective. Shoseki wrote that “Truth only reveals itself when one gives up

all preconceived ideas” and many readers will need to lay aside their deeply held beliefs in order to give this topic a true consideration, and this book the attention it deserves. The challenge made by Jesus centuries ago still calls out to would-be believers today:

“Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship… but the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” (John 4:23) J. Arne Roberts

Foreword to Revised Addition Do you believe in the God of the Bible or the God of the Trinity? Andre‟s book demonstrates, using a bit of logic and a ton of scriptures that these two (or four, if you count the Trinity as three) Gods are not the same. As for me, after reading this revised edition of his book there is no doubt that belief in the God of the Bible makes a lot more sense than the Triune God. So I invite you to evaluate the Bible‟s evidence for one God against the Trinitarian‟s evidence for a „three-in-one‟ God. Believe me, I think that you also will decide to adopt the Biblical view of God, who is no mystery over the Triune God that is fully a mystery. Enjoy your read. This book is guaranteed to make you think. Jack Robinson

Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................. 7 THE TRINITY EXPLAINED AND EXAMINED ..................................... 7 CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? ..................................................................................7 THE TRINITY DEFINED AND EXPLAINED ......................................................9 THE ‘MYSTERY’ OF THE TRINITY .............................................................. 11 IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY BIBLICAL? ........................................... 15 THE WORD ‘TRINITY’ AND THE BIBLE ....................................................... 17 SUPPOSED EVIDENCE OF THE TRINITY ....................................................... 18 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................ 23 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY ............................... 23 THE EARLY CHURCH ................................................................................. 23 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY ................................... 26 CONTROVERSY OVER JESUS ....................................................................... 26 OPPOSITION TO ‘TRINITY’ DOCTRINE ......................................................... 29 APOSTASY IN THE EARLY CHURCH FORETOLD .......................................... 30 THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA .......................................................................... 35 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE .......................................................... 39 FORMATION OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED ................................................. 40 COMPARISON OF THE CREEDS.................................................................... 42 WHAT INFLUENCED THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY? ............................... 46 THE PLATONIC CONNECTION ..................................................................... 49 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................ 53 BIBLE TEACHING ABOUT GOD THE FATHER ................................ 53 THE ONENESS OF GOD ............................................................................... 53

GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.................................................................... 55 GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ................................................................... 57 GOD AS ‘ELOHIM’ ...................................................................................... 63 GOD MANIFESTATION................................................................................ 66 JESUS BEARING GOD’S NAME .................................................................... 75 MARY – MOTHER OF GOD OR HANDMAID OF THE LORD?.......................... 78 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................ 82 BIBLE TEACHING ABOUT JESUS THE SON ..................................... 82 THE NATURE OF JESUS .............................................................................. 82 JESUS’ HUMANITY...................................................................................... 85 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GOD AND JESUS .................................................. 92 JESUS – GOD THE SON OR SON OF GOD? .................................................... 97 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND JESUS ............................................... 101 WHY CAN’T JESUS BE VERY GOD? .......................................................... 106 CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................. 116 THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS ........................................................ 116 CHRIST’S ROLE IN THE PLAN OF GOD....................................................... 116 GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE ........................................................................ 119 DID CHRIST PRE-HUMANLY EXIST? .......................................................... 121 CHAPTER 6 .............................................................................................. 137 BIBLE TEACHING ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT............................... 137 DEFINING THE HOLY SPIRIT..................................................................... 137 ‘SPIRIT’ IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ............................................................ 137 ‘HOLY SPIRIT’ IN THE OLD TESTAMENT .................................................. 141 GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT IN OPERATION .......................................................... 145 ‘SPIRIT’ AND ‘HOLY SPIRIT’ IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ............................ 149

ALLEGED PERSONALITY OF THE ‘HOLY SPIRIT’....................................... 153 PERSONIFICATION .................................................................................... 156 THE SPIRIT - WHO OR WHAT? ................................................................. 161 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS .................................................................... 165 GOD THE FATHER .................................................................................... 165 JESUS, SON OF GOD ................................................................................. 166 THE HOLY SPIRIT .................................................................................... 167 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................... 168 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ 169 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE GOSPEL ........................................................ 171

Introduction Everyone who acknowledges the existence of God should know some basic things about Him, especially what the Bible has revealed to us. But sadly many seem to know very little about Him, and even more appear ignorant concerning the Scriptures of truth and their revelation of God to mankind. This doctrine, called the „Trinity‟, has become one of the few doctrines generally accepted by the Christian world as the pivot of their faith.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican and even non-

conformist denominations, while separated by various issues, nevertheless agree on this one doctrine that God is a Trinity comprising of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - yet not three Gods, but one God. Herein is a great mystery, but one which all are urged to accept without question. But is this doctrine Scriptural? How did it come about? Taking Scripture‟s own advice, we must test it by what God has been pleased to reveal to us in His Word. Therefore to the Bible we will go to discover whether there is any substantial evidence to support this popular doctrine. It is the author‟s conviction that God has revealed Himself to us as a Unity and not a Trinity, as we shall discover. Any detour from the monotheism of God is simply a myth, a philosophy of man‟s own making.

We shall approach the topic in a 4

systematic way. First by explaining the doctrine of the Trinity, looking at the history of its development and then examining what Scripture has to say with regard to God the Father, Jesus Christ His son and the Holy Spirit. This book is written for the many that honestly and sincerely thirst for knowledge of the truth which pseudo-Christianity has corrupted.

To find and embrace real truth after decades of

Trinitarian indoctrination is no easy task. Nevertheless, I still ask my readers to read the contents of this book with an open mind and to impartially examine the evidence presented. Perhaps a few may be moved by the cogency of its reasoning. My thanks are extended to my former Bible tutors: Bryan & Joyce Pearce, Peter & Margaret Stonell, Bob & Diana Stodel, Jack & Shirley Robinson, Cliff & Julia Baines and Martin & Lois Webster. I am particularly indebted to Arne and Emma Roberts for their diligent guidance, unerring dedication and practical support in bringing this work to fruition. Without their help and patience, I may well have given up. I take the blame for any residual errors and humbly crave your indulgence. Finally I commend you, the reader, to God that He may lead you to the truth, that pearl of great price, which should not be sacrificed on the altar of human philosophy. Andre George 5

Chapter 1 The Trinity Explained and Examined Can you believe it? Do you believe that God is a Trinity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; three in one? Is it really true? Can it even be possible? Is it taught in the Bible? Does it have any religious and theological significance to us? Is it of any benefit to our knowledge and understanding of God? Most Christians do believe it since it has been a fundamental doctrine of Christendom for centuries and has become an article of faith. It is professed as a creed during the worship service of some churches such as Roman Catholic, Anglicans, Methodist and Lutheran. Because this doctrine forms the principal belief of many denominations, you would obviously expect to find its roots in Bible truth but, most surprisingly, they are not.

Even some

who once supported and staunchly defended this teaching have now changed their views, adding fuel to the fire of controversy that surrounds it. But why has the subject of the Trinity generated so much interest?

Even if we cannot explain it, why should we not

simply accept it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

the truth? Why should this doctrine be challenged? The reason is that a true understanding of the relationship between God and Jesus is fundamental. It is at the very heart of Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity, when closely examined, is found to be incompatible with Bible teaching about God. We must examine the Bible for ourselves if we are to uncover the truth about the nature of God and Jesus. This can be the only reliable source of information. In so doing, we will also unearth the truth about the â&#x20AC;&#x17E;mysteryâ&#x20AC;&#x; of the Trinity which Christendom has handed down to us. Although there may be slight variations concerning the details of the Trinity, the general teaching is that the Godhead is comprised of three persons â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Father, Son and Holy Spirit yet not separated, but fused together as one God. Further, the doctrine proposes that the three persons are co-equal (i.e. almighty, holding the same status) and co-eternal (i.e. uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead). Those who passionately support the Trinity contend that it is not only a doctrine created and established by the church, but structured on the Bible, although there is no solid proof to justify that claim. As a result, history and tradition usually form a great part of the argument for its defence.

If one accepts the Trinity to be true, then serious questions are raised about the integrity of statements that Jesus made, e.g. that he was subject to (therefore not equal to) the Father. Furthermore, it is an indictment of Almighty God to make anyone His equal, and far worse to have an earthly woman (Mary) being called His mother. How can this be true when Psalm 90:2 informs us that God is from everlasting to everlasting? This alone shows that God cannot be born. So how could Jesus be God given that he was born? If it were possible that Jesus was God-made-man, as the Trinity doctrine asserts, it would mean that God was absent from heaven for thirty-three and a half years. Does this sound realistic? Who then was in control of the universe during that period of time? As we can already see, there are substantial reasons for wanting to know more about the doctrine of the Trinity. However, before we embark upon discovering its origins and exposing its falsehood, it would be prudent to define and explain it more fully. What do Trinitarians understand by the term â&#x20AC;&#x153;Trinityâ&#x20AC;?? How do they explain it? What Biblical evidence is put forward to support it?

The Trinity Defined and Explained Almost all denominations in Christendom believe in a triune God, popularly termed the Trinity. The Roman Catholic Church, 9

which may be considered responsible for giving birth to this doctrine, states in the book „Catholicism‟: “we worship one God

in Trinity”. In other words – they worship one God, who is three in one and one in three. The Catholic Encyclopaedia explains the concept of the Trinity in greater detail. This is how it defines it:

“The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion… Thus in the words of the Athanasian Creed: the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods, but one. In this Trinity the persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent” *1 Thus, the Trinity is considered by Trinitarians to be one God who manifests Himself in three distinct persons, with none being superior to the other. All three existed from everlasting, none being created. If you find this definition and explanation of the Trinity puzzling, it is a result of its formulators and not

For a more detailed definition and explanation of the Trinity, see Chapter 2, pg.44

(Nicene Creed) and pgs. 45-46 (Athanasian Creed).

the Bible, since no such language occurs in the pages of Scripture. In truth, you may not be the only one perplexed by it, for many honest and sincere believers have questioned the definition and explanation of the Trinity. Because the doctrine generates more questions than answers, Trinitarians take refuge in the word „mystery‟, which we will now discuss.

The „Mystery‟ of the Trinity The confusion is widespread. Many who believe the Trinity, but cannot fathom it, resign themselves to accepting that it was never meant to be understood. Even theologians have found it difficult to understand and explain. They choose to hide behind the word „mystery‟ and making out that God is unintelligible to man. Unable to provide satisfactory answers, they rely heavily on quotations which say God‟s ways are higher than ours. God cannot be understood by the mind of ordinary man and the Trinity is a truth which can only be revealed by God Himself. It should therefore be accepted without further question! If

one

consulted

the

Encyclopaedia

Americana

for

enlightenment, one would be none the wiser. It says that the Trinity is „beyond the grasp of human reasoning‟. nutshell, it is still a mystery! 11

So, in a

Many who profess belief in the Trinity simply accept that it is a mystery which cannot be comprehended, but that it should not be denied. It is one of the inscrutable mysteries of God and as such it cannot be understood. So then why question it? Nonetheless, Jesuit priest, Joseph Bracken made this bold statement in his book, „What Are They Saying About the Trinity‟?

“Priests who with considerable effort learned about the Trinity during their seminary years hesitate to present it from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday” Why is that so? Bracken gives his answer by way of a shocking question:

“Why should one bore people with something that in the end they still would not properly understand?” The Trinitarian doctrine is so weaved in a web of mass confusion that not even its proponents can truly defend it. Here‟s what the New Catholic Encyclopaedia has to say about this issue:

“There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been 12

badgered at one time or other by this question. But how does one preach about the Trinity? And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.” Can you believe that this comment is being made by one of the strongest advocates of Trinitarian doctrine, the Catholic Church?

There are also many so-called non-conformist

denominations that also strongly subscribe to the Trinity doctrine. This is an amazing contradiction in terms! If the doctrine of the Trinity is the epitome of truth, then why is it shrouded in such mystery? Why do those who teach it struggle so much through the labyrinth of theological terms in a futile effort to explain it, only to end up with the overworked word „mystery‟? We may further marvel at this remark made by Cardinal John O‟Connor: “We know that it [the Trinity] is a very profound

mystery which we don‟t begin to understand” But are we to believe that this is what God intended? Is He the architect of this mystery? Here is what Paul states in this regard: 13

“God is not a God of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33, RSV) In light of this statement, could God be responsible for a doctrine about Himself that is so confusing? What could be clearer than a God who has constantly revealed Himself to the Jews of old as being one God, one who stands alone without any equal? (See Isaiah 45:5; 46:9)

If God went to such

lengths to reveal Himself to men in ages past, why now are we thrown into darkness and obscurity by a doctrine which was developed

several

hundred

years

after

the

Bible

was

completed? Although there are Biblical mysteries that are beyond man‟s capacity to fully grasp, such as the mystery of faith (1 Timothy 3:9), the mystery of resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:51) and even the mystery of apostasy (Revelation 17:5); the Trinity doctrine is never included as such. It is only men who have made up a „mystery‟, a jigsaw puzzle of words to convey an idea which no sooner expressed is then contradicted.

In truth

it is a myth, a fable of man‟s own making and we intend in the pages of this book to expose it. We may note the contradiction in the following statement about the Trinity: “The Godhead

comprises the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, each without beginning, each omnipotent and each distinct from the other, yet still all three are one being”. Truly there is mystery 14

in the Trinity doctrine, but not in the God who has revealed Himself to us through the pages of Scripture as the only God who has no equal.

“I am God, and there is none else: I am God and there is none like me.”

(Isaiah 46:9)

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical? Many cling to a belief that the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical. After all, it is an article of faith in many denominations that claim to be Christian. However, when the Bible is consulted, we find no trace of evidence in support of such a doctrine. If we truly and honestly affirm that the Bible is God‟s revelation of Himself to mankind, then why don‟t we trust the Bible to tell us exactly who He is? Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, we can expect it to set the record straight on this controversial subject. We should follow the example of Jesus and the Apostles who constantly used the scriptures as the fundamental basis for their teaching.

There is no better foundation than Paul‟s

confirmation to Timothy that:

“All scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 15

instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect and throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) If a doctrine as confusing as the Trinity cannot be examined analytically, then that doctrine is not based on the Bible. But what do Trinitarian scholars say to that? Doctor Adam Clark, an ardent supporter of the doctrine of the Trinity, made this amazing comment:

“The doctrine which cannot stand the test of rational investigation cannot be true. We have gone too far when we have said, such and such doctrines should not be subjected to rational investigation, being doctrines of pure revelation.

I know of no such

doctrine in the Bible.” Archbishop Tillotson, another passionate supporter of the Trinity, writes the following:

“When we say God hath revealed anything, we must be ready to prove it, or else we say nothing”

Therefore, we should not be afraid to put this teaching under the microscope to see if it holds up to scrutiny.

The word „Trinity‟ and the Bible Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence in the entire argument is that the word „trinity‟ cannot be found in the Bible. Nor is the word found in the writings of the early believers. The church from which this apostate doctrine was born acknowledges that the word „trinity‟ is not found in the Bible. The New Catholic Encyclopaedia makes this comment:

“In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which three Divine Persons are noted together. The word trias, from which the Latin trinitas is translated is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about AD 180” In the book „Paganism in our Christianity‟, Arthur Weigall states the following:

“Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word „Trinity‟ appear. The idea was only adopted by the church three hundred years after the death of Our Lord” 17

If we check the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 59, no. 251, we note this statement:

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: „substance‟, „person‟ or hypostasis, relation and so on…” What this statement implies is that the word „Trinity‟ was among the terminologies which the church developed in order to express its new doctrine. Therefore, we conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical but is a human invention. This shows that the Church considered herself to be of greater authority than the Bible which is God‟s inspired word.

Supposed evidence of the Trinity Though the word „Trinity‟ is not found in the Bible (which Trinitarians admit), they nevertheless contend that there is ample evidence to prove that God is a Trinity. But is this really so? Trinitarians often cite:

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26)

They contend from this statement that the Godhead has to be a plurality. Since the words „us‟ and „our‟ denote a plurality, then God has to be a Trinity.

They assume that „God the

Father‟ was addressing „God the Son‟ and „God the Holy Spirit‟, since it appears that within God himself there seem to have been some kind of discussion, or interchange of words. This belief is an assumption. So how should we explain this? In this account of Genesis about the creation of man, it is the Hebrew word Elohim that is translated “God”.

This word Elohim is plural and means

„mighty ones‟ and has no fixed number attached to it. Therefore, the plural „us‟ and „our‟ in the passage may refer to any number of angels who were present with God when He created man. The author believes that in Genesis 1:26 God was addressing the angels, the Elohim and commanded that mankind should be made in their image (which may help to explain why angels appeared as men in the Scriptural record). God performs His work by the multitudinous agency of his angels. These plural agents (Elohim) do His (singular) pleasure. It is said in Job 38:7 that the sons of God (angels) shouted for joy when they saw the creative power of God in operation. Although one may think that divine activity is restricted to God alone, this is not entirely so. For example, the Bible tells us that God appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:419

8).

However in verse two it clearly states that it was not

Almighty God in person, but an angel.

This is further

confirmed in Acts 7:30-35. In Genesis 32:30, Jacob said that he had seen God face to face and his life was preserved. But comparing Hosea 12:3-4 with Genesis 32:1-2 it is evident that he did not see God Himself, but an angel. From this, it is apparent that God uses angels to manifest His presence to man (Psalm 103:20) since no man can see God face to face and live (Exodus 33:20). Further evidence that Genesis 1:26 does not uphold the idea of the Trinity is evident at the fall of man where God spoke the words:

“Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”

(Genesis 3:22)

Here again we see the Elohim of Yahweh being addressed. The word “us” relates to the angels of God. But what about Genesis 11:7, where it is believed that God appears to be speaking to a plurality of persons? Here is the disputed verse:

“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language”

(Genesis 11:7)

Trinitarians argue that the word “us” denotes a plurality in the Godhead. However, if verses 5-6 and 8 are read, we realize 20

that the word LORD is singular. It is not a triune God speaking, but one God addressing his mighty angels through whom He executes His judgements. The angels are the vehicles of God‟s operation (Psalms 103:21; Hebrews 1:14). Another popular passage often used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity is found in Isaiah:

“…I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8) With their enthusiasm to defend and support the Trinity concept, Trinitarians either blindly or wilfully misinterpret this verse of scripture.

They contend that God the Father was

addressing the other two persons in the Godhead. However, if we read through this passage from the beginning of the chapter to the verse which is disputed, we realise that it is the prophet Isaiah who was engaged in conversation with the Seraphim. So the question: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” emanated from one of the Seraphim (symbolic manifestations of God and His glory) who flew to the prophet (v6).

In verse eight the Hebrew word for “Lord” is Adonai,

which means „master‟ so it was the spokesman of the Seraphim who bore the title “Lord”.

This becomes more evident in the reply given by Isaiah to the Seraphim: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Then said I, Here am I; Send meâ&#x20AC;? (v8). Clearly we can see that the one who made this reply was the prophet Isaiah and not Jesus, as some Trinitarians assert. The evidence is too obvious to dispute. It is poor scholarship to wrest the scriptures simply to defend any point of Biblical teaching. Scripture is inspired by God and thus has a way of defending itself even if we attempt to distort its truth. Hasty conclusions should not be drawn from a single verse of scripture if we ignore the context in which it is used.

Chapter 2 Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity The Early Church It is important to our study to know the teaching of the early church in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. What evidence is there that it was taught by the apostles?

If no such

evidence exists, at what point was the doctrine introduced? The Ante-Nicene Fathers, who have been recognised as the leading religious teachers during the infant stages of the Christian church, never acknowledged a Trinity within the Godhead. Here are a few interesting comments made by some of the most eminent teachers of the early church. Clement of Alexandria, who died in 215 AD, had this to say in his understanding of God.

“…the uncreated and imperishable and only true God. The Son is next to the only omnipotent Father, but not equal to him.” Tertulian, who died about 230 AD, acknowledged that God is the only Supreme Being. Here is his observation:

“The Father is different from the Son, as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent. There was a time when the son was not… before all things God was alone.” Hippolytus, who died about 235 AD, stated that:

“God is the one God, the first and the only one, the maker and Lord of all, who had nothing co-equal (of equal age) with him… But he was one, alone by himself; who willing it, called into being what had no being before.” Arius, an Alexandrian priest who was born at Cyrene in 250 AD, made this comment in a letter that he wrote to Bishop Alexander.

“We believe in one God alone without birth, alone everlasting, alone unoriginate…” It is also interesting to note those comments which have been made by historians with regards to the Trinity:

“At first, the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…it was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and early Christian writings.” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics

“The formulation one God in three persons was not

solidly

established,

certainly

not

fully

assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century… Among the apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely

approaching

such

mentality

perspective” New Catholic Encyclopaedia (1967) Vol. 14, pg. 299 What conclusion can we arrive at from such testimonies made by historians and theologians alike? The most obvious one is that the doctrine of the Trinity was both alien and absent during the early period of the Apostolic Church.

Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity As a result of what has been discussed so far, you might ask: If the Trinity is not scriptural, then how did it become a major doctrine of many so-called Christian denominations today? Many believe that it was born at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when church leaders met in an attempt to settle an issue about the deity of Jesus. Who was, or who is Jesus Christ? Was he man, God, or both? Although the Council did assert that Christ was of the same nature as God, the Trinity was not fully ratified or established as an official doctrine. However, this paved the way for further discussion and development. As we shall see, there was to be no going back now that this erroneous topic had been raised.

Controversy over Jesus For decades, there had been a gradual development within the church about the deity of Jesus. This led to stiff opposition from those who held on to the oneness of God.

Such

development began as a result of a growing faction within the Roman Catholic Church who harboured and promulgated the idea that Jesus was Almighty God in human form. This â&#x20AC;&#x17E;newâ&#x20AC;&#x; concept was strongly opposed by those who contended that Jesus was not God incarnate; these were the Arians. They 26

supported a charismatic Alexandrian priest named Arius, who was of the opinion that Jesus was not eternal like God, but was a creature intermediary between man and God - a sort of demigod. He emphasized that Jesus had earned his „adoption‟ as Son and his „promotion‟ to divinity by his morality and subjection to God. But to a Bishop named Athanasius (Arius‟ most formidable opponent), this concept of Jesus was incorrect. In his opinion, Arius was the antichrist misleading and deliberately distorting the scriptures in an effort to sow discord within the church. Nevertheless,

Athanasius

still

claimed

believe

monotheism.

His idea was that God is the only eternal,

omnipotent, omniscient being without any blemish. Athanasius considered God to be far more superior to any other mortal being, yet strangely, he contended that in order to save mankind, God had to do something drastic. Therefore, he took on human flesh and became Jesus, to enable him to suffer and die for our sins. According to Athanasius, Christ could not have been inferior to God, since it would have been impossible for him to redeem mankind. Can any ordinary human being have any power over sin and death, except God Himself? Because of all this, a bitter struggle against Arianism (the beliefs of those who followed Arius) ensued. A great controversy

exploded

within 27

the

church

–

Arians

and

Athanasians

vehemently

opposing

each

other.

This

development led to ferocious arguments and disagreements within the church, which was already in disarray, and slowly but surely moving astray from Bible teaching. The issue now escalated to a crisis point: which belief to accept as truth and which to denounce as heresy?

However, despite all this

growing confusion, the word Trinity had not yet been conceived. Although this teaching about the nature of Jesus was starting to spread like a cancer, the doctrine of the Trinity was still in its embryonic stage. In fact it developed over a period of around fifty years and it wasn‟t until 381 AD that the doctrine was fully established and the divinity of Jesus Christ was settled. The formulation and later publication of the Athanasian Creed (470AD) enabled the Trinitarian idea to gain recognition, although not without stiff opposition. Historians believe that the word „Trinity‟ itself was first coined by Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) around 168 AD, but its etymology was from the Greek word „trias‟ which became the Latin, „trinitas‟, translated „Trinity‟. This is said to appear in the writings of Tertullian although we should not necessarily conclude that Tertullian actually promoted Trinitarian theology. However here is what Hagenback in History of Doctrines, vol.1, pg.120 states.

“The Greek word “trias” was first used by Theophilus; the Latin term trinitas, which has a more comprehensive import, was introduced by Tertulian.”

Opposition to „Trinity‟ doctrine Did the early Christians readily accept the Trinity idea?

they did not. As a matter of fact it defiled pure Christianity, and brought about one of the greatest disputes ever experienced in the life of the church.

It further divided

Christendom into factions and is partly responsible for the great schism between the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholics) Christian Churches. The historian Johann von Mosheim writing of the fourth century had this to say in his Ecclesiastical History:

“The subject of this fatal controversy, which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of the three persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the

vain curiosity of human researchers, and have been left undefined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas.” In a book entitled „The History of Christianity‟, vol. 2, pg. 295296, we are informed that the early civil wars, which divided Christianity, were those of Donatism and Trinitarianism. This stiff opposition from the early church against the Trinity notion should highlight that it is a perversion of the truth, which honourable disciples of Christ fought so valiantly to protect, even under great persecution. The very refutation of this tenet by early believers should be an indication to seekers of the truth that the Trinity doctrine came into existence as a result of the controversy which brewed over the deity of Jesus.

Apostasy in the Early Church Foretold At this stage of our argument, it would be prudent to refer to the Scriptures which accurately foretold the corruption of pure Christianity. We will see that the introduction of the monstrous Trinity dogma was accurately predicted by Jesus and his apostles, years before it happened.

They gave solemn

warnings that an apostasy would rise within the church, which would lead to a deviation from the true gospel of Christ. There

would be a falling away from true worship to adopt the doctrine of devils which the apostle Paul rightly described in these words, “the mystery of iniquity” (2 Thessalonians 2:7) Let us ponder on the words of Jesus when he sent out his disciples to proclaim the gospel.

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves…”

(Matthew 10:16)

With these words of caution, Jesus was already alerting his disciples about the apostasy which was to come. He warned them to be prepared. The apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders about the departure from the truth and cautioned them to be on the alert. Choosing similar words to those of Jesus, he said:

“…grievous wolves [shall] enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

(Acts 20:29-30)

To the Colossians he put it this way:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit….and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8) Paul also wrote these words to his faithful friend Timothy concerning the falling away, and the myths which would replace sound doctrine.

“The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching, but their ears will be itching for anything new and they will collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes and then they will shut their ears to the truth and will turn to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4, JB) Jesus told a parable of “The Tares” (Matthew 13:24-43) in which he explained what would bring about this falling away from pure undiluted doctrine. This parable foreshadowed the future corruption of undefiled Christianity by those who would not endure sound doctrine, but would wander astray through the blind philosophies of men.

But it was not only Jesus and Paul who spoke and cautioned about this apostasy that would come.

Other disciples also

mentioned it. For example, Peter foretold,

“…there shall be false teachers among you who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” (2 Peter 2:1) John too, warning about the spirit of Antichrist, said:

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God: for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1 RSV) Jude gave quite a vivid description of this opposition in his epistle, when he wrote:

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once 33

delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christâ&#x20AC;? (Jude: 3-4) Trinitarianism, which surfaced around the fourth century, is a product of the philosophy and vain deceit of those who promoted it. This unsound doctrine did not reflect the accurate teachings of the early Christians regarding the true nature of the LORD God and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Regarding the falling away, and the time when the apostasy would emerge, Paul says:

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that

he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4) This falling away and that „man of sin‟ is a prophecy of the rise of Constantine and the Roman Catholic system of Popes. But how was this prophecy fulfilled and how did Constantine feature in all this? Well, the falling away began with a gradual decay in those who were supposed to be shepherds of the flock. Grievous wolves did enter in among the flock. Constantine could be considered one among them for the prominent role he played in the Council of Nicaea which he himself convened. This he did in an attempt to settle furious debates which escalated to heated arguments over the degree of Jesus‟ divinity: Constantine was determined to settle this issue once and for all between the Arians who preached that Jesus, though sinless, was less than God, and Athanasians who asserted that Jesus was God incarnate.

The Council of Nicaea For decades, there was this growing opposition within the church.

In an effort to bring an end to the bitter disputes,

Constantine, in his capacity as Emperor of Rome, intervened. He summoned all Bishops to attend a special council at Nicaea. 35

Though not all the Bishops attended, about three hundred were present. Looking back, it is outrageous to think that Constantine, a pagan

convert

who

had

adopted

Christianity

only

for

convenience, should have meddled in this way. He was elevated to prominence when he defeated the pagan Emperor Licinius (a former ally) in battle who was about to give orders for a general persecution and annihilation of the church. As a consequence, the Roman Church viewed this victory of Constantine as attributable to Jesus as he fought the battle in his name. Constantine rose to power and gained favour from the Church even though he wasn‟t fully a Christian. His socalled conversion from being a sun worshipper should in no way be regarded as an inward experience of God‟s grace as it appears that his motives were fuelled by selfish ambition. To Constantine

Christianity

was

means

–

not

end.

Nevertheless, this un-baptised pseudo-Christian Emperor played a major role in the Council of Nicaea which met on the 20th May 325 AD. Not only was he the convenor of the council, but he presided over the deliberations and proposed the relation of Christ to God. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1970), volume 6, page 386, we find this confirmation:

Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the Council, that Jesus was „of one substance with the Father‟… Overawed by the Emperor, the Bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” Isn‟t that horrendous? A pagan-Christian emperor, who had no understanding of doctrinal issues, played such a major role at the council and directed its outcome! After much heated debate, Constantine eventually decided in favour of the Athanasians who proposed that Jesus was God. This decision was not born out of any theological knowledge or conviction on the part of Constantine. He simply did this in an attempt to solve a religious issue which was a threat to his own position as Emperor.

Likewise, the Bishops who signed the

creed did so simply to protect their own interests. Honesty, integrity and truth were compromised, sacrificed on the altar of deceit!

However, what was so amazing about the outcome of the Nicaean Council was that none of the Bishops who reluctantly signed the creed previously advocated a Trinity in the Godhead.

Although the council had ruled on the nature of

Jesus, it never stated a position regarding the Holy Spirit: so believers during this time were actually left with a dual Godhead of Father and Son. Jesus was now said to be coequal with God. Although the divinity of Jesus was put to rest by the Council of Nicaea, it was the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) that produced an agreed definition of the nature of Christ:

“We all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead, the same perfect in manhood truly God and truly man...” Jesus is known “...in two natures which exist without confusion, without change without separation, the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken by reason of the union, but

rather the properties of each being preserved, and both concurring into one person.â&#x20AC;?

The Council of Constantinople The Council of Nicaea, which was intended to bring an end to the dissentions within the church, did not achieve its purpose. For many years afterwards, other serious issues were raised and those who believed that Jesus could not be co-equal with God were starting to gain back some lost ground. But this was short-lived, for Theodosius who was the then Emperor, adopted and ratified the Nicene Creed as the official creed to be used by the Church. Some years later, Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to bring to an end the issue which had plunged the Church into bloodshed. On this occasion, the council agreed to include the Holy Spirit on the agenda. Again, after some explosive debates and arguments, Christendomâ&#x20AC;&#x;s Trinity was finally decided and approved.

The Holy Spirit

became the third person of the Godhead, conveniently ignoring that God Himself is Spirit! Surprisingly though, even after the Council of Constantinople, Trinitarianism did not really flourish, since it was not a universally accepted creed. Those who clung steadfastly to the 39

Apostles‟ doctrine still vehemently opposed it. Although in the minority, these loyalists continued to make their voices heard choosing to suffer and even die for their cause rather than accept this erroneous dogma and religious deception.

Formation of the Athanasian Creed Although the Trinity issue had been laid to rest at the Council of Constantinople, another creed still had to be formulated since the Nicene Creed was now regarded as incomplete. An addition was made to the creed to accommodate the third person of the Trinity – the Holy Spirit. Thus, the new creed would now depict the Holy Spirit as a distinct person alongside Jesus (God the Son) and God (God the Father). Here is what a part of the Athanasian Creed declares:

“We worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty co-eternal.”

Yet another small addition was made to the creed after the Council of Florence in 1438 AD. What is now known as the „filioque‟ was included – “the spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son”.

This „filioque‟ became the subject of sore

disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox Church. When one compares the Athanasian Creed (also known as the „Quicunque vult‟) with the Nicene Creed and the early Apostles Creed, one can see the steady progression of thought and the development of the Trinity doctrine. The Apostles Creed is short, simple and untarnished; a true reflection of the teachings of the apostles and the early church fathers. There is absolutely no hint of a Trinity Godhead. However, the Nicene and Athanasian creeds make a leap, both in their language and theology in order to describe the concept of the Trinity. The Athanasian especially, which begins with the direct message, „We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity‟ was a total departure from the truth of the apostles‟ doctrine! We have migrated from something straightforward and unequivocal, drawn from the words of Scripture to a convoluted statement, containing the language of man. How can we have faith in a creed which describes the Father and Son as “incomprehensible”?

And consider the irony of the

phrase “neither confounding the persons” when this is precisely what has taken place?!

Comparison of the Creeds The word "creed" comes from the Latin word credo, meaning "I believe." The Creed was useful in several ways: 

It was a public statement of faith, a standardized way in which new believers could confess their faith in Jesus Christ.



It was a preaching and teaching tool, giving an outline for further discipleship.



It was memorized through frequent repetition, which helped the many believers who could not read.



It provided a doctrinal basis for different churches to accept one another, and to reject those who did not accept the basic truths.

The following pages contain a comparison of the texts contained in the Apostles‟, Nicene and Athanasian creeds. The reader is urged to note the transition which took place from Creed to Creed. The Apostles Creed – circa 200 AD It was called "Apostles" not because the apostles themselves wrote it, but because the Creed was believed to be an accurate summary of what the apostles believed and taught. 42

The Nicene Creed – circa 325 AD This creed was formed after the Council of Nicaea. Athanasian Creed – date uncertain (but probably after 470 AD) It was named after Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, but of unknown authorship. Note the complete departure of the Athanasian Creed from the truth of the Apostles Creed.

Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell. The third day He arose 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 Spirit; the holy catholic* Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to

the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nicene Creed We 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 the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of 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 Spirit 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 we believe in the Holy Spirit, 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 spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic* and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The word "catholic" now refers to the Roman Catholic Church, and

not to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Athanasian Creed Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 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 Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One 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 Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the 45

Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is 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 into 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 He is 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 and firmly, he cannot be saved. It can be seen that this Creed is a convolution of words which does not appeal to human reasoning. It is all wrapped up in a ball of confusion which is intended to deepen the cardinal mystery of the Trinity.

It is a tenet of many churches not

intended to be understood by the human mind.

What influenced the Doctrine of the Trinity? It would be incomplete to end this chapter without giving an insight on what may have influenced the Trinity doctrine. 46

Throughout ancient times, before the advent of Christ, pagan worship was common, particularly in ancient Babylon, although it was also prevalent in Egypt, India, Greece and Rome. It was soon after the death of the apostles that the pagan ideas of triad gods gradually began to infiltrate the Christian faith which was now in the hands of unscrupulous men. When

Constantine

defeated

the

pagans

and

adopted

Christianity as the official state religion, he did not destroy pagan ideas and beliefs. These ideas still flourished and as a result, a form of pseudo-Christianity which incorporated pagan philosophy emerged. Hence the comment made by Will Durant that “Christianity did not destroy paganism, but adopted it.” Edward Gibbon, in the preface to his book „History of Christianity‟ made this remarkable observation:

“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 idealised by Plato were retained as being worthy of belief.” In a book written by Siegfried Morenz, entitled „Egyptian Religion‟, he makes this fascinating comment:

“The Trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians… three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way, the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.” From these observations made by Gibbon and Morenz, it is apparent that the notion of a triune Godhead can be traced right back to the Egyptians, who worshipped a triad of Horus, Osiris and Isis. We may deduce therefore that Christendom‟s Trinity

was

derived

from

ancient

pagan

religions

and

assimilated into the Christian teaching. Athanasius, who lived in the late third and fourth centuries, mirrored this influence with his reasoning that if Christ was any less than God, he could not have redeemed us. And if the deity of Christ is not accepted, then it is impossible to be saved. So the fear of not being saved by denouncing the Trinity keeps its belief intact.

But apart from Athanasius, what else could have had an impact upon Trinitarian influence within the church?

Well, many

historians are of the view that Platonism did: for the NeoPlatonic view of the Ultimate Reality is triadically represented.

The Platonic Connection How did Plato have any influence upon the formulation of the Trinity doctrine since he lived and died long before Christ arrived on the scene? Historians, as well as theologians, are of the opinion that although Plato himself never taught the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies nevertheless had a tremendous impact on its development.

As time moved on,

Plato‟s ideas of God and nature began to flourish within the church. This included his triadic beliefs. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge illustrates this influence of Greek philosophy within the bowels of Christianity:

“The doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity received

their

shape

from

Greek

Fathers,

who…were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy… That errors and

corruption crept into the church from this source cannot be denied.” The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) comments on Plato‟s influence by stating the following:

“The platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine

persons

taught

the

Christian

churches…This Greek philosopher‟s conception of the divine trinity… can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.” In a book entitled „A Statement of Reasons‟ Andrew Norton made this astounding remark about the Trinity:

“We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy… The Trinity is not

a doctrine of Christ and his apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.” Therefore, through the hands of those Platonists, Christianity became increasingly saturated with Platonic philosophies and so the purity of early Christianity was defiled. Although the church has responded by claiming that the new doctrine was structured on the Bible, it can really only be traced to Egyptian or Greek mythology. By the middle of the fourth century, Christianity was already in shambles; thus fulfilling the state of apostasy foretold by Jesus and his apostles. This apostasy spread like an epidemic within the church. The formulation of the „Trinity‟ dogma was only one example of this. Christendom had degenerated, and had entered into the foretold period of the dark ages – dominated by the emergence of the “man of sin” as mentioned by Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:3). As we can clearly see from the testimony of history, the doctrine of the Trinity is a monstrous error, contrary to Bible teaching and a clear deviation from the real teaching of Jesus and his Holy Spirit filled disciples. This official doctrine is the result of over a century of bitter disagreements which surfaced

within the church over the nature of Jesus. Here is what (Quaker) William Penn said about this doctrine:

“Thou mayest assure thyself, it is not from Scripture nor reason – it was born about 300 years after the ancient gospel was declared: it was conceived

ignorance,

brought

forth

and

maintained by cruelty.” (Quoted by Stannus, Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity) It is tragic that a doctrine that is rooted in paganism and cannot be supported from the Bible has been adopted by so many denominations of Christianity today.

Chapter 3 Bible teaching about God the Father The Oneness of God If the Bible is read from Genesis to Revelation without any Trinity bias, is it likely that people would arrive at the notion of a one-in-three-in-one God of their own volition?

Absolutely

not! Unless the scriptures are wrested, the Trinitarian concept is not evident. God is presented to us as the one and only Almighty, separate and distinct from the Lord Jesus Christ who was begotten by God Himself and has been introduced to us in the scriptures as the Son of God. Among the themes which we find in the Bible, the oneness of God is the most conspicuous.

Professor of ecclesiastical

history, L.L. Paine makes this comment in relation to the oneness of God:

“The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic; God is a single personal being. The idea that a Trinity is to be found there… is utterly without foundation.”

However, is it possible that there was a change from monotheism to polytheism during the period when Jesus was on earth? Professor Paine provides the answer:

“On this point, there is no break between the Old Testament and the New.

The monotheistic

tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology… And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: „Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God‟.” Many times throughout the Old Testament, God speaks of Himself as one entity. He stands alone as an independent and eternal being he is not a concoction of three persons as the Trinity doctrine asserts. God is one in the purest sense of the word – the absolute one. Neither with Him, nor in Him are there any other co-equal or co-eternal beings as Trinitarians promulgate. God himself revealed to the Jews of old His true nature. He never once gave any indication to them that He

was a God of three in one. For this reason, the words of the „Shema‟ are loudly proclaimed by all fervent Jews up to today.

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4) This is a clear repudiation of the Trinity doctrine. To the Jew, the monotheism of God cannot be compromised to accept the concept of a God who is one yet three.

God in the Old Testament What does the Old Testament teach us about God? Does it support a „three-in-one‟ Godhead? The doctrine of the Trinity, whatever it implies, must be consistent with what God has revealed of Himself to us.

What He has declared needs no

contradiction. “God is not a man that he should lie”

(Numbers 23:19). Here are a few citations about what God has revealed to us about himself.

“…that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other beside Him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35, ESV)

“See now that I, even I, am he and there is no god with me”

(Deuteronomy 32:39)

“O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubim, thou art the God, even ”thou alone… (2 Kings 19:15) “Thou art the LORD, thou alone” (Nehemiah 9:6, RSV) “Before me no god was formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD and beside me there is no saviour”

(Isaiah 43:10-11)

“I am the first, and I am the last: and beside me there is no God”

(Isaiah44:6)

“I am the LORD and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:18, ESV) “…for I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:22, ESV)

“…you know no God but me, and besides me there is no saviour”

(Hosea 13:4, ESV)

We could continue, for there are numerous passages which emphasise the oneness of God.

In this regard, we need to

allow our honesty to transcend our prejudice. We can clearly see, unless we are wilfully blind, that none of those citations give the slightest indication of a triune God. Observe carefully the pronouns – „I‟, „Me‟, „Thou‟ which are all singular. Could we really deduce from this that there are three persons speaking with a singular voice within one God? Not at all. Those singular pronouns used by God are all intended to convey His unity – not a Trinity.

God in the New Testament Having concluded that the Old Testament is firmly monotheistic in its presentation of God, we must ask whether the God of the New Testament is different. Does the New Testament provide a new concept of God, since it gives a fuller revelation of the Godhead by Jesus Christ himself and his apostles? However, before we refer to any scriptural passages, it would be interesting to note some comments made by a few celebrated writers who have been outspoken on the Trinity issue. 57

Bernhard Lohse, in „A Short History of Christian Doctrine‟ penned this comment:

“As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity” Historian, Arthur Weigall had this to say:

“Jesus

Christ

never

did

mention

such

phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word „Trinity‟ appear. The idea was only adopted by the church three hundred years after the death of Jesus” The Paganism in Our Christianity Professor E. Washburn Hopkins, Yale University in his „Origin and Evolution of Religion‟, states:

“To Jesus and Paul, the doctrine of the Trinity was apparently unknown… they say nothing about it.” In the New Encyclopaedia Britannica, we read:

“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.” Dr. Joseph Priestly (1871 AD) made this statement:

“Why was not the doctrine of the „Trinity‟ taught as explicitly, and in as definite a manner, in the New Testament, at least, as the doctrine of the divine Unity is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, if it be a truth?

And why is the

doctrine of the „Unity‟ always delivered in so unguarded a manner and without any exception made in favour of the Trinity, to prevent any mistake with respect to it.” None of these comments appear to endorse a Trinity belief, nor do they argue for such a teaching about God in the New Testament.

However, what this writer found remarkable

however was the fact that almost all of those historians had either been, or remained, Trinitarian believers! This is amazing! We must now turn to examine the evidence of the New Testament writers themselves. 59

First and foremost, we begin with the words of Jesus, who Trinitarians claim to be God incarnate. This is what he states:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”

(John 17:3)

Wouldn‟t it be considered preposterous for Jesus to utter those words in prayer addressed to his Father, if he himself was Almighty God? Any rational mind would realise the absurdity of God praying to God. We also see from the citation that Jesus has

distinguished

himself

from

the

Father,

who

acknowledges to be the only true God. Why would he do so if he shares equality with the Father? Of course Jesus was also quick to ensure that his teaching reflected his private thoughts. On one occasion, a rich young ruler approached him and asked this question: “Good teacher,

what must I do to receive eternal life?”

Jesus‟ first response

was not to answer the question, but to qualify the man‟s statement so that there should be no misunderstanding at all.

“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

(Mark 10:18, JB)

In saying this, Jesus clearly recognises and acknowledges the superiority of God; that He alone was deserving of the description “good”. If Jesus was God Himself or the second person of the Trinity, he would have accepted the rich man‟s compliment. Instead, he refers all praise to God, showing that he was separate and inferior to his Father. When a certain scribe approached Jesus and asked him, “which is the greatest

commandment of all?” He replied with the words which describe the Jewish idea of God.

“Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” (Mark12:29-30) Why would Jesus ascribe all love and affection to God if he was Almighty God made man or co-equal and co-eternal with Him? This shows that Jesus did not consider himself to be equal with God; but only an instrument used by God to manifest Himself to mankind since God is too holy to be seen of men. The apostles too endorsed Jesus‟ teaching about God. Here is what Paul stated to the early believers at Corinth.

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many and lords many), but to us there is but one God, the Father of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things, and we by him” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) Later in the same epistle, he explains the hierarchy that exists, showing that God has the ultimate supremacy.

“Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3 NIV) Paul reiterates the unity of God in his letter to the Ephesians:

“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

(Ephesians 4:6)

But is Paul the only one to confirm that God is one? No, he isn‟t. James, in his letter, admonishes believers that they must live a life compatible with their belief in one God.

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well…”

(James 2:19)

And Jude, at the end of his short letter, ascribes praise,

“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”

(Jude: 25)

As we can see, neither the historical commentaries nor the Bible passages quoted give any trace of evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity appears in the New Testament. They all endorse what God has revealed of Himself in the Old Testament. So, we conclude that the Old and New Testaments harmonise perfectly concerning the monotheism of God.

God as „Elohim‟ In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word „elohah‟ (god) has two plural forms. One is „elohim‟ (gods, mighty ones) and the other „eloheh‟ (gods of). Although both forms can refer to Yahweh (God), surprisingly they are not translated in the plural, but the singular – God. Therefore, though these words are plural they do not suggest a plurality in the Godhead.

In connection with this, „The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures‟ offers this explanation for the use of „Elohim‟:

“It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate and takes a singular adjectival attribute.” This explanation can be substantiated in the account of creation, because the word „Elohim‟ appears about thirty five (35) times by itself. What is interesting for Trinitarians to note and ponder upon is the fact that the verb which denotes what God said and did is singular in each instance (Genesis 1:1, 2:4). The conclusion to the publication in the journal is also worthy of note. This is what it states:

“Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty” In „A Dictionary of the Bible; article entitled “God”, William Smith observed:

“The fanciful idea that „elohim‟ referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. 64

It is either what

grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.” Although Trinitarians may present the argument that „Elohim‟ means mighty ones, it should be brought to their immediate attention that there is a vast difference between the words „mighty‟ and „almighty‟. For instance, angels are mighty and men are mighty, but God alone is Almighty (omnipotent) – the God of Gods (Daniel 11:36). He alone is to be magnified and worthy of the title “the most high God („El‟)”. Many renowned historians and theologians affirm that the word „Elohim‟ (Hebrew) gives no countenance to God being a Trinity. It is a general term used in the Hebrew language to refer to any particular deity and can therefore be equally applied to a pagan god.

For example, Baalzebub - the god of Ekron (2

Kings 1:2) and Dagon - the god of the Philistines (Judges 16:23-24), are described as „Elohim‟ (mighty ones). In addition, the word „Elohim‟ can also be applied to humans. In Psalm 82:1, 6 we find the judges of Israel styled „Elohim‟ because of their ruling position in the nation.

Moses also,

when he was to appear before Pharaoh, was told by God:

“Have I not made thee a god to Pharaoh?” (Exodus 7:1). 65

Moses was made an „Elohim‟ (a god) in the sight of Pharaoh and given miraculous powers.

God Manifestation What we are about to discuss under this heading may not be easily grasped, especially by those who are unfamiliar with the terminology and what it means. Nevertheless, the importance of this subject in relation to Yahweh (God) will become more evident as we proceed. This portion is included so that we can get a comprehensive understanding of the Bible‟s revelation of God to us. Being able to understand God manifestation will help us to get a better understanding of God in relation to His Son. It would magnify for us the “monotheism” of God and allow us to see the role which Jesus plays in being the “link man” between God and us. As we have already seen from our last section, the title „Elohim‟ (God) can be carried by anyone upon whom Yahweh wishes to designate this title or manifest himself through. Therefore, this means that angels and mortal men can be called God. Very simply, they assume delegated authority from God to represent Him before men. Before the advent of Jesus, God used His representatives, the holy angels, to communicate His message to mankind. Angels 66

spoke with delegated authority from God and acted in conformity with His character. There are many illustrations of this. For example, the angel who guided the Israelites through the wilderness took on the sacred name of God (YAHWEH). Here is what Yahweh said about the angel:

“Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.” (Exodus 23:21, ESV) This angel assumed the title „God‟ for he was acting on God‟s behalf. He was Elohim (mighty God) though clearly not the Almighty Yahweh Himself. The angel who communicated to Moses in the burning bush spoke as though he was Yahweh (the LORD) in person. Hence, it can be said that the LORD spoke with Moses face to face (Exodus 33:11). However, we realize that God was communicating with Moses through the angel. A similar example is the angel who appeared to Manoah, Samson‟s father. After the angel was detained by Manoah, he performed such a spectacle before Manoah and his wife that Manoah believed he had seen God Himself (Judges 13:8-23). His frightened exclamation to his wife “we shall surely die 67

because we have seen God” confirms this (verse 22). This is a good example of God manifesting His presence through an angel. Another good example, which illustrates the principle of God manifestation, is the incident where Jacob detained an angel and wrestled with him (Genesis 32:24-30). But what is striking in this incident is the fact that Jacob believed he had seen God face to face. Here is what the Bible record states:

“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved” (Genesis 32:30) In Genesis 18: 1, 2, 10, 13, and 20, we note where three angels came to visit Abraham. One bore the name Yahweh (Lord) - yet he was not Almighty God in person. That angel was commissioned by God to deliver His message to Abraham, so we could say that he was God‟s mouthpiece. All these incidents demonstrate that Yahweh can be present through His angels who act on His behalf: hence the reason why Jesus was called Emmanuel, meaning – „God with us‟ (Matthew 1:23). Not that Jesus was „God-made-man‟, as the Trinity doctrine states, but Jesus became the medium through

whom the invisible God revealed Himself to mankind in these last days. (Hebrews 1:1) A good passage to illustrate this is John 10:34-36, where we see the Jews making the very same mistake which is made today. They accused Jesus of claiming to be God. Instead of using the opportunity to confirm their accusation or to explain his complex relationship as the second person of the Trinity, Jesus corrected them by reasoning from the Old Testament.

“Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods… how say ye of (me)… thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the son of God?” Notice how Jesus rationalises his relationship with the Father not by seeking co-equality, but by confirming his sonship. Jesus‟ argument was simply this: „In the Old Testament, men (i.e. Israel‟s judges) were called gods. If this was so, why are you Jews so perturbed and angry with me for saying that I am the Son of God? How can this be blasphemy, since I am not claiming to be God?‟ Of course, Jesus‟ original statement in this discussion that he and his Father are one (v30) was not a claim of substance or physicality. How could that be, given that Jesus was on the earth when he spoke those words, and God was in heaven? 69

Rather, Jesus is referring to the oneness of purpose that the Father and Son shared when it came to offering protection for their followers. A quick consideration of the preceding verses in John 10 proves this:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father‟s hand. I and my Father are one.” (John 10:27-30) The last statement about the Father and Son being one relates to the repetition of no man being able to pluck them from either the hand of Jesus or the hand of God. Both Father and Son are one in the protection and care that they extend to those who believe in them. At this stage, we should explain that the full name of God, in Hebrew, is „Yahweh Elohim‟, meaning He who will be mighty

ones. In other words, God‟s own name reveals His purpose which is that He is to be manifested in a group of mighty ones. 70

Thus it should not surprise us that God could and did manifest Himself through an individual, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a true reflection of Yahweh (God), the very embodiment of the Divine Character displaying the effulgence of the Father‟s glory to man. This explains why Jesus could say “he who has seen

me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Not that God was Christ, but that God was in Christ working out His purpose. (2 Corinthians 5:19). God was working with Jesus because he was doing what his Father asked of him.

“And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.”

(John 7:29)

“But that the world may know that I love the Father: and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do...”

(John 14:31)

Jesus was an obedient son, whereas Adam was not. Adam‟s disobedience brought death. Jesus‟ obedience brought life.

“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead”

(1Corinthians 15:21)

Jesus made a commitment to do God‟s will, as was written of him; he kept his word (Heb 10:7) and so could rightfully bear his Father‟s name. The false doctrine of the Trinity hides the real reason for God sending His son and the real reason for Jesus sending his disciples and us into the world. In his prayer to his heavenly Father, Jesus said this:

“As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.”

(John 17:18)

His reason for doing this is to show mankind that even as God was in Jesus, Jesus would be in us:

“To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles ; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:” (Colossians 1:27-28)

We can be in God‟s image and likeness, but only with God‟s help and Jesus‟ example. God planned this from the beginning of creation when he said to the angels:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26) Man had this potential, but to accomplish it, man needed to be born of God and to imitate his Father, that is to think and act like God. Mankind needed to be true Sons of God. This is known as God manifestation. Because of Jesus‟ willing obedience, God was able to accomplish his purpose in his Son. Jesus became “the image

of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature...the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:16). God accomplished his purpose of manifesting himself in man first in Jesus, whom he raised from the dead and gave him the promise of the Holy Spirit, as shown in the following two passages:

“Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.”

(Acts 2:33)

“And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee.”

(Acts 13:32-33)

Jesus was begotten as God‟s son in the fullest sense, being given immortality, the nature of God, when he was raised from the dead. Jesus was the firstborn among many brethren:

“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ‟s at his coming. (1Corinthians 15:21-23) 74

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son ,that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

(Romans 8:29)

Jesus was the firstborn of many brethren whom God foreknew, and whom God had in mind to fill the earth with His glory. In Jesus God has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and Godliness so that we too might partake of divine nature (2 Peter 1:3-4). Our hope is to be like Jesus, part of the multitudinous body of Christ (Romans 8:19-21).

Jesus bearing God‟s Name If both angels and humans have assumed God‟s name, it should not be surprising that Jesus, the Son of God, should also bear the name of God. We are familiar with the concept of a son having his father‟s title, yet not being the same as his father. That name however is only now applied to Jesus as a result of fulfilling his mission successfully in reconciling mankind to Yahweh. So God rewarded Jesus by highly exalting him and giving him a name which is above every other name (Philippians 2:9). However, this should not be mis-interpreted to mean that Yahweh somehow incorporated Jesus back into 75

the Godhead or that He bestowed upon Jesus the same status as Himself. Here is how Paul explains it to the Ephesians.

“And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power. Which he [God] wrought in Christ when he [God] raised him [Christ] from the dead, and set him at his [God‟s] right hand in the heavenly places.

Far above all principality and

power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in the world to come”

(Ephesians 1:19-21)

From this declaration by Paul, we can now properly understand the prophecy made by Isaiah, concerning Jesus.

“For unto us a child is born, a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, the everlasting Father, the prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6)

This prophecy, which shows that Jesus will carry all the titles of Yahweh, has not yet been fulfilled. Note well the future tense “shall be”, for this will surely come to fruition in the kingdom age when Jesus will be recognised as „King of Kings‟ and „Lord of Lords‟.

He will be looked upon as El Gibbor, the mighty

warrior and father of those he has redeemed. He will rule in the stead of Yahweh for a thousand years until he has put all enemies under his feet.

“For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”

(1 Corinthians 15:25-26)

When this is achieved at the end of the Millennium, Jesus will relinquish all power and dominion back to the Father.

“And when all things shall be subdued unto him [God], then shall the Son also himself be subject

unto him [God] that put all things under him [Jesus] that God may be all in all‟ (1 Corinthians 15:28) This further explains the prophecy of Isaiah, and also helps us to understand what Gabriel meant when he told Mary that one of Jesus‟ names would be Immanuel, “God with us”. Although 77

Jesus was not „God-made-man‟, as the doctrine of the Trinity states, he was the manifestation of God to mankind. Simply put, he mirrored God to us, and reflected all of God‟s moral attributes. The writer to the Hebrews expresses it in this way:

“God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (Hebrews 1:1)

Mary – Mother of God or Handmaid of the Lord? Our argument thus far has revolved around the nature of God. We have established from scripture that God is one – not three in one, nor one in three. However, the Trinity dogma which Constantine championed raised another serious issue which ought to be addressed.

As a result of elevating Jesus to

become God, it was necessary to revisit the status of his mother, Mary. humble

earthly

Mary is presented to us in the Gospels as a woman.

deduce

from

the

details

surrounding the birth of Jesus that she was materially poor despite being in the royal line. At no time does Mary make any

claims as to her own position within the church (or in fact in regard to anything) nor is there any verse in Scripture that suggests she should be honoured, worshipped or canonised. It was in 431 AD at the Council of Ephesus that this grievous error was set in motion. Mary was proclaimed “Theotokos” (a Greek word meaning „God bearer‟).

The church rationalised

that if Jesus, according to the Trinity doctrine, was “Very God of Very God”, then Mary must be the mother of God. But how can an earthly woman give birth to deity?

If God is the

Almighty, Eternal, “dwelling in light that no man can approach

unto”, how can He possibly be born of a woman? The very suggestion is appalling, yet that is how the dogma surrounding Mary began. It is said that “one lie leads to another” and one can see that in order to preserve and protect their new-found teaching, it was necessary to create more myths and mysteries to explain the first! A cursory glance at Scripture reveals the error of Mariolatry and sets the record straight regarding the mother of Jesus.

evidence this, we begin with the annunciation of the birth of Christ by the angel Gabriel to Mary,

“…that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”

(Luke 1:35)

Notice he does not say „God the Son‟! To give birth to a god would have required Mary to be a goddess and yet the very thought is repulsive and not worthy of our consideration. It was impossible for Mary to give birth to God as Romanism advocates in the „Prayer to Mary‟. Nowhere in the Scriptures will we find a statement made that Mary gave birth to „God the Son‟. But let us see Mary‟s response to the Angel‟s news:

“I am the Lord‟s servant, Mary answered. May it be to me as you have said. Then the angel left her.” (Luke 1:38, NIV) What an amazing reply! What humility this woman had and with what grace she accepted the Angel‟s words. She was to be the mother of Messiah, the woman that all women of Scripture hoped they would be! Later on, in what has become known as her „Magnificat‟, she would say

“…My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (Luke 1:46-47)

How can Mary be the mother of God when she acknowledges that God is her saviour? Her own salvation depended on the redemptive work of her son Jesus. It is tragic that Mary has been made into a church „celebrity‟; venerated and objectified in a way which would have horrified her. How remarkable that God should have selected this lowly woman to give birth, not to Himself but to His son, His only son.

How privileged she was and with what dignity she is

portrayed in the pages of Scripture, as she faithfully carries out her duties as the mother of Jesus and the servant of the Lord. As we can see, this doctrine of Mary being the „mother of God‟ is one of the greatest departures from scripture. This is all due to the grievous error of Trinitarianism which teaches that Jesus was God incarnate.

Chapter 4 Bible teaching about Jesus the Son

The Nature of Jesus To make Jesus part of the Godhead or more confusingly, God Himself, as the doctrine of the Trinity states must rank as one of the most glaring errors that Christendom has committed. What we need to understand is that although Jesus was conceived

the

power

the

Holy

Spirit,

which

overshadowed Mary, he was nevertheless born with our human nature. If he was not, then it would be a gross error on the part of the writer to the Hebrews saying that Christ was â&#x20AC;&#x153;in all

points tempted as we areâ&#x20AC;? (Hebrews 4:15). This would definitely have been misleading the readers. But Christ did have our human nature, meaning that he had the propensity to sin and yet remained sinless, being able to overcome the very temptations which led to sin. Trinitarians would say that Christ overcame sin because he had two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man. The nature of God prevailed for how else could he have conquered sin? How can an ordinary man not commit sin, unless he is specially protected by God? But if we were to accept this view, it would render Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x; victory over sin rather hollow. 82

To believe that Jesus was not God and yet was able to overcome sin is not easy to digest. But to believe that he was God renders his sacrifice and our redemption meaningless. It was necessary for Jesus to be human so that he could be touched by the feelings of all our infirmities (Hebrews 4:15)and experience and overcome temptation in order to provide support and comfort for us now. Here is a passage of scripture which puts this in perspective: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Therefore, since the children share in flesh and

blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He 83

has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. ” (Hebrews 2:14–18, NASB95) This passage encapsulates the true nature of Jesus. Through it, we can understand why Christ could not have had two natures simultaneously.

The fact that Christ had flesh and

blood like us (as emphasised in verse 14) is evidence enough that he was not God Almighty, for God is spirit by nature (John 4:24) and is immutable (Malachi 3:6). It was imperative then for Christ to share our human nature in order for his sacrifice to have been effective. For God to have somehow given up His own divinity and allow himself to die (which in itself is absurd seeing He is eternal) knowing He would be raised again would have been the biggest deception of all time. To suggest such is not only to wrest the Scriptures, but also to make the sufferings of Christ a sham and errs on the side of blasphemy. If Christ had not possessed our sinful flesh (i.e. „flesh of sin‟), he could not have condemned sin in the flesh. And the very fact that he did proves that he could not be God since the Almighty is of “purer eyes than to behold evil”. So to contend that Christ was not altogether human is to be deliberately blind to the scriptures, or to allow our bias to transcend our honesty. 84

Jesus‟ humanity Although we have just concluded that Jesus by nature was human, it may be that this does not fully convince us so we will look at the argument from another angle. We begin with what is the shortest verse in the Bible: “Jesus

wept” (John 11:35). This was observed at the death of his friend Lazarus. Weeping shows great emotion and indicates that Jesus had strong human feelings. In the very same gospel of John, we have another significant incident which highlights the humanity of Jesus. In John 4:6-7, we note that Jesus had to sit down by a well, „being wearied

with his journey‟ and asked a woman who came to draw water for a drink to quench his thirst. We also have the words which he spoke while in the Garden of Gethsemane, before his arrest and eventual death. “My soul is

exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”, he cried, as he prayed to his Father to spare him from the death on the cross that awaited him (Matthew 26:38).

It is Luke however who

supplies the extra detail that he prayed so earnestly that even his sweat was like drops of blood (Luke 22:44). What further evidence should we need of Christ‟s humanity? The greatest proof however that Jesus was human must be his death on the cross. This above all indicates that he was, like 85

us, fully mortal. The fact that Jesus needed to be saved from death since he too was a son of Adam from the lineage of Mary, is testimony that he could not be God. What are we to make of his earnest supplication to Yahweh (God) in this regard? Consider this quotation:

“Who in the days of his [Jesus‟] flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him [God] that was able to save him [Jesus] from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he become the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Hebrews 5:7-9) The fact that Jesus had to plead with Yahweh (God) to save him from the bonds of death shows clearly that Jesus was human and could not in any way be equal with God since he too was in need of redemption (Hebrews 9:12; 13:20). Jesus, though sinless had to be perfected through suffering and death.

After Jesus was raised from the dead by God (Acts 3:13-15; 5:30-31), we read that death no longer had any power over him. If Jesus was „Very God of Very God‟, as the Nicene and Athanasian creeds state, these verses would make no sense, for God cannot die (1 Timothy 6:16). God has never ceased to be God, nor has He at any time relinquished His divinity to become man. This we deduce from the fact that “he is from

everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 40:28).

The

fact that God raised and exalted Jesus to be “a prince and a

saviour” (Acts 5:30-31) is testimony to the fact that God is superior over Christ and also separate from him. This means that Christ does not share co-equality with God nor can he be co-eternal with Him. This also rules out any possibility of Christ having two natures – that of God and man – as stated by the dogma of the Trinity. Jesus is not God who became a deified man as the Nicene and Athanasian Creed portrays him to be. During his entire earthly life, Christ demonstrated his dependency upon God: for time and again he made statements such as the following:

“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19) 87

“I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” (John 6:38, RSV) “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.”

(John 7:16, NIV)

As we can clearly see, Jesus did and taught nothing of his own. He was simply God‟s emissary; he only did the will of the one who sent him. But isn‟t the sender superior to the one being sent? The very fact that Jesus submitted himself entirely to the Father, and allowed the Father to operate through him shows that Jesus was subordinate to the Father and not coequal as Trinitarians state. We take for granted the growth and development of children; from babies to children, then from teenagers into adulthood. As a child begins to mature with age, it is expected that his wisdom and knowledge should increase. In this, Jesus was no different. The Bible tells us that “Jesus increased in wisdom

and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52). Earlier, in Luke 2:40, we are told that „the child grew and

waxed strong in spirit‟. indicate

parallel

These two quotations of scripture

between

development of Jesus. 88

the

natural

and

spiritual

At one stage throughout his life, he demonstrated his human limitation to knowledge, for when asked a question about the climax of the age, and his second coming, his reply was:

“No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son; only the Father knows”

(Mark 13:32, GNT)

Isn‟t this a disclaimer by Jesus himself that he wasn‟t Almighty God and that he had limited knowledge? While most would agree, some would attempt to wriggle their way out by arguing that Jesus, although he was God who became man, had divested himself of his Godly omniscience and was thus limited in knowledge. But how can an all-knowing God become a partknowing human? And even if this was so, then it would have made Jesus, who is considered by Trinitarians to be God, a liar. But God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). If Jesus was God made man, was he denying himself? But God cannot deny Himself either (2 Timothy 2:13). The truth is plain and simple: Christ could only divulge the knowledge which was revealed to him by his Father, as evident in Mark 13:32. When Jesus foretold his death, James and John made a request to Jesus, which was to sit, one on Jesus‟ right hand 89

and the other on his left in the day of his glory. Although the other disciples were indignant and jealous of the brothers‟ request, they need not have been anxious.

Jesus‟ reply to

those headstrong Sons of Thunder may have come as a surprise:

“…to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give…”

(Mark 10:40)

But why couldn‟t Jesus grant their apparently simple wish? The answer is clear and simple; he was not all-powerful or equal to his Father. Jesus was again illustrating his subservience to God and that he did not at this time have the authority to grant such a request, which only the Father could give. Jesus spoke often of his dependence on the Father and what he had learnt and been taught by him in the process of time. Consider John 5:30, when Jesus said “I can of my own self do

nothing”. Was this a deliberate denial of his deity? Similarly, we observe in Hebrews 5:8 that Jesus had to “learn obedience

by the things he suffered”.

Not only this, but through his

suffering he became perfect, and the author of our salvation (v9). Note that the perfecting of Jesus, according to the writer of Hebrews, was effected through his suffering and not something that was already in existence which had become latent or laid aside. 90

The difference in knowledge between God (Yahweh) and Christ is very wide, as we have seen. Even after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, Christ was dependent on God for knowledge. This is evident from the first verse of chapter one of the Book of Revelation. Note carefully the opening words:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him…”

(Revelation 1:1, ESV)

Even if Jesus had relinquished his status within the Godhead in order to become man, would he not have been fully restored to the Godhead after his ascension?

Remember that the

Athanasian Creed states that the Father is God and the Son also is God. So why would Jesus still be dependent upon the Father to give him the information to pass on to John? If he was truly God, couldn‟t he have done so himself?

Yet the

Scriptures show that Jesus remains subject to the Father and God is the head of Christ (1 Cor11:3). But what did the disciples think of Jesus? Did they regard him as God? Peter, a prominent disciple of the Lord Jesus made this notable comment:

“Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye 91

yourselves know; him being delivered up by the determinate council and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay, whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death; because it was not possible he should be holden of it.

(Acts 2:22-24)

This declaration made by Peter endorses the fact that the Lord Jesus was regarded as a man even among his closest disciples. A god could not experience death. If Jesus was not truly human, he would not have been vulnerable to death. Note also that the mighty works, signs and wonders accomplished by him is said to have been done by God through Jesus. It was not Jesus using his own power to do them.

Differences Between God and Jesus Are there any significant differences between Yahweh (God) and Jesus? Left to Trinitarians alone, it does not seem that there are any. Even if there are, they are overlooked since to them God is a mystery whom no one can truly fathom. But laying aside the Trinitarian arguments, we find that the Scriptures highlight some major differences, adding to our weight of evidence that God and Jesus are not one and the same. 92

We begin with one of the most striking and vivid differences between God and Jesus, which advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity would do well to ponder upon. Here is the verse of scripture:

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus…” (1 Timothy 2:5, NIV) From the words underlined the following conclusions can be reached: 1. That there is one God and one mediator. The conjunction „and‟ makes this distinction and denotes a separation between the two persons, Christ and God. By making this distinction, Paul cannot be referring to one and the same being. 2. The words “the man Christ Jesus” do not give the impression that Paul regarded Jesus as „God the Son‟, as Trinitarians do. More damning still is the fact that Paul made this statement after the ascension of Jesus into heaven. Despite his glorification and immortalisation, Paul still referred to Jesus as a man. 3. The word „mediator‟ means go-between.

How could it be

possible for Christ to be a middle-man between God and

men, if Christ was Almighty God himself? No rational mind could see any sense in this.

There are numerous occasions in the Bible where we are reminded that Almighty God is not a man. Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9; Numbers 23:19.

For example: 1 If Christ was

described by Paul to Timothy as a man even after his ascension into heaven, this indicates that Paul did not view Christ as being consubstantial with God.

Hence the reason for Paul

making this statement:

“For since by man [Adam] came death, by man [Jesus] came also the resurrection of the dead”

(1 Corinthians 15:21) However, although Jesus was fully man, he was nevertheless the real Son of God. This was communicated and confirmed by the angel who delivered the message of Christ‟s conception to Mary. This is what the angel declared to her:

“He [Jesus] shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest…”

(Luke 1:32)

Observe that the language is in the future tense and more important, that God is referred to as being “the Highest”. Is

not this a clear indication that God and Jesus are not the same nor are they co-equal? The idea presented by Trinitarians that Jesus was born with the nature of God, does not make Jesus God. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God is the Father of Jesus, but this does not mean that God and Jesus are the same. If we were to use the example of Jack, who was born with the nature (i.e. the qualities and characteristics) of his father, Robert, would we believe that Jack and Robert are the same person. Not at all. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Pocket Edition) pg. 103, article 464, this statement is made:

“The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the confused mixture of the divine and the human…” But while this is so true about Jesus, a distortion of the truth is made with the addition of the following words.

“He became truly man, while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.” This latter statement now makes for a confused mixture of the divine and the human, which it previously stated that Christ wasn‟t!

We now realize to what tautological lengths those

attempting to defend the doctrine of the Trinity will go. Nevertheless, truth has always had a way of standing out even through the most outrageous distortion of the scriptures. In line with our reasoning there are a number of major differences between God and Jesus, which shows that they are not the same. The following table provides a most useful summary of the differences between God and Jesus. God Has no beginning - uncreated

(Psalm 90:2) Cannot be seen by men

Jesus Had a beginning - begotten by God

Was seen and handled by men

(John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16) Cannot be tempted by evil

(James 1:13)

(John 3:16)

(1 John 1:1) Was tempted in all respects like us

(Hebrews 4:15)

God

Jesus

Cannot die, Eternal by nature

Died, but was raised again, now

(Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 6:16)

made immortal

(Romans 5:8; Acts 2:24) Is omniscient (knows all things) (Psalms 147:5; Isaiah 42:9;

Had limited knowledge in his earthly life

Hebrews 4:13)

(Mark 13:32; Revelation 1:1)

God is omnipotent (all powerful)

Power derived from God. Not

(Isaiah 45:5-7)

inherent

(John 5:19)

These simple, but major differences between God and Jesus should lead us to conclude that God is superior to Jesus. It is unmistakeably clear throughout the Bible that Yahweh (God) is supreme, since He is the only uncreated being with no equal.

Jesus – God the Son or Son of God? Is „God the Son‟ of Christendom the same as „Son of God‟ which we read about in the Bible? Although those two titles are used interchangeably by Trinitarians to describe Jesus, it should be clarified that they are not the same. The title „God the Son‟ does not appear in the entire Bible whatsoever. It was developed in an effort to give credence to the Trinity doctrine which considers Jesus to be co-equal with God.

„Son of God‟ were more frequently used, then the error of the 97

Trinity would be less noticeable since this appellation does not give the impression that Jesus is part of a triune Godhead. Therefore „God the Son‟ was invented by Trinitarians as a form of camouflage for their grievous offence in making Jesus equal with God. Jesus himself never saw that position of equality something as to be grasped at (Philippians 2:5-6, RSV). So the Trinitarian „God the Son‟ has no Biblical basis and cannot honestly be used to refer to Jesus Christ, Son of God, who is so often spoken about in the New Testament. 1 John 4:2 clearly states for us that Jesus has come in the flesh.

This is in accordance with the principle of John 3:6,

which states, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh”. Jesus was conceived by a woman, and therefore inherited the same substance as his mother, which was flesh (Galatians 4:4). Can this be disputed? Jesus could not have been simply an „incarnation‟ embodied in human flesh. He was entirely flesh and blood, having been born of a woman. As scripture says: “concerning his Son, who was descended from David

according to the flesh ”

(Romans 1:3, ESV)

If we read the entire New Testament, we will find that Jesus is consistently referred to as „Son of God‟. At his baptism, God himself proclaimed it to those who witnessed the baptism.

“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”

(Matthew 3:17) We also have the testimony of John the Baptist who was present on that baptismal occasion:

“And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God”

(John 1:34)

God spoke again at the mount of transfiguration and confirmed that Jesus was His son:

“And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.”

(Mark 9:7)

As we can observe, there is not a single occasion when the phrase „God the Son‟ is used. This supports the statement that God the Son is not a biblical term. We will now consider the instance when Jesus put this very important question concerning himself to his apostles. “Who do

men say that I am?” he inquired. They had informed him that some said he was John the Baptist, some Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the other prophets, Jesus then asked them, “But whom 99

say ye that I am?” ministry.

Here is the pivotal moment of Jesus‟

If ever there was a right moment to declare his

divinity, to explain that he was God come down to earth, this was the time. Simon Peter answered and said, „Thou art the

Christ, the Son of the living God.‟ (Matthew 16:13-16). This remarkable confession by Peter generated this response from Jesus.

“Blessed are thou Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:17)

So, if the Trinity doctrine is true, why didn‟t Jesus correct Peter or provide his closest followers with a clearer explanation of his origin? Wouldn‟t this have been an ideal moment to declare that he was God if that was indeed the truth? We may take Jesus‟ silence on the topic and his endorsement of Peter‟s confession as evidence that the Trinity is false. But two things that we can be certain of from this brief exchange are: 1. Jesus was indeed the Son of God. 2. Jesus was separate and distinct from his Father.

100

So we see that there was harmony between Jesus and his disciples concerning his identity as the Son of God. It was for this very reason that the Jews sought to put Jesus to death. They wrongly interpreted his affirmation that God was his Father (cf John 5:18). The Jews thought that Jesus was saying, „I am God‟ when he stated that he was the “Son of God”. “Thou being a man, makest thyself God”, they scoffed, (John 10:33). But note well, Jesus never implied that he was God; rather, he declared that he was the Son of God, and consistently acknowledged the supremacy of his Father - “my

Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Would Jesus make this statement if he was co-equal with God? Therefore, we assert that the Trinitarian „God the Son‟ has no place in Scriptural teaching.

It is not the Jesus who was

preached by the apostles and who under inspiration wrote the New Testament. As stated from the outset, the title „God the Son‟ was fabricated after the „Trinity‟ doctrine was ratified and Jesus was proclaimed to be the second person of the Godhead by the Council of Nicaea.

Relationship between God and Jesus We have already seen that the Scriptures depict Jesus as the Son of God and that God is the head of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:24-28). So it is not possible for them to be co-equal, 101

or co-eternal, as stated in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. If Jesus was co-eternal with God, it would mean that they were both from everlasting. Clearly, there is a fundamental problem with this: for the relationship which exists between God and Jesus is one of father and son. Can a son be as old as his father? That of course, we know, is impossible. Trinitarians argue that in the case of Jesus „only begotten‟ does not have the same dictionary meaning of „begetting‟ which we know is to „procreate as a father‟ (Webster‟s „Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary‟). They further contend that where Jesus is concerned it means „the sense of unoriginated relationships‟ which is a sort of only son relationship without the begetting (Vines „Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words‟). But this does not make any sense nor does it have any semantic foundation. The Greek word for „only begotten‟ is „monogenes‟. It is derived from „monos‟ which means „only‟ and „ginomai‟, a root word meaning „to generate‟, „to come into being (Strong‟s Exhaustive Concordance).

The Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, explains „monogenes‟ means of sole descent, that is, without brothers or sisters. It further explains that in John 1:18; 3:16 and 1 John 4:9, the relationship between Jesus and God is that of an only child with his father. 102

Therefore, the only begotten son had a beginning. So, when the Bible refers to God being the Father of Jesus, it means that they are two separate persons who have the relationship of Father and Son. That relationship can neither be co-equal nor co-eternal. In the Bible, particularly the New Testament, God the Father is shown to be above the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:17; 1 Peter 1:3). Even after his ascension to heaven, he remains subordinate to the Father. As ruler of the nations, Jesus has been given the title “God” (Hebrews 1:8). At the end of the Kingdom age when the last enemy, death has been destroyed he will yield the kingdom to his Father (1 Corinthians 15:28). This is the most striking point on the relationship between God and Jesus. It shows the authority and superiority of God over His Son. The subordination of the Son is expressed by his action in handing the kingdom over to the Father so that God could be “all in all.” In the letter to the Hebrews, the writer indicates to us that the relationship between God and Jesus is not one of equality. The separation between Father and Son can clearly be seen from statements like “Christ…entered heaven itself so that he now

appears in the presence of God on our behalf” (Hebrews 9:24, JB). How can Jesus and God be one and the same? How can Jesus, who appeared in the presence of God on our behalf, be 103

God Himself as well? Did he appear before himself or did he speak to himself about us in some bizarre courtroom parody where he represents both sides? This is not logical. Similarly when Stephen was being stoned to death, we are told that he, “being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and

saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55). Note that Stephen did not see a combination of three Gods, but saw the glory of God and Jesus standing beside that glory. It is interesting to note that Stephen was full of the Spirit on this occasion. We shall look at the question of the Spirit in more detail in Chapter 6 of this book. The last book of the New Testament, Revelation, written after Christ‟s glorification and ascension into heaven, speaks of God as being the Father of Jesus (Revelation 1:6).

Later in

Revelation 3:12, we see Jesus speaking about “the temple of

my God”, “the name of my God” and “the city of my God”, again showing that he viewed himself as distinct from the Almighty. In spite of his exaltation, we see that Jesus still regards God as his God. Is this not proof to us that Jesus‟ relationship, as a son to God has not changed? How then can Jesus be God Almighty, God the Son, Very God of Very God or any of the other extraordinary titles bestowed upon him by the Trinitarians?

104

If we stop to think about the concept of unity for a moment, we see it in many different aspects of life. Take, for example, the relationship between a husband and wife.

The Bible

describes their union in these terms, “and they shall be one

flesh” (Genesis 2:24). But does this make the man the wife or the wife the man?

Absolutely not!

They remain separate

individuals with different identities and gender. So too, God and Jesus can be described as one without having to resort to some convoluted explanation which cannot be supported by Scripture.

Or, imagine a company, let‟s say a bank.

employee of the bank answers the telephone and says: “Good day, this is ABC Bank, how may I help you?” Now, we do not imagine for one moment that this individual is actually the bank. He is a representative of the company for which he works and as such he may be considered synonymous with the bank for the purposes of our enquiry.

In a similar fashion,

Jesus was God‟s representative on earth, bearing His name, revealing His glory and character to mankind, but we should not confuse Jesus with the One he represents. So, the Father and Son are one, not in substance or person, as the Trinity would have us believe, but one in purpose, in association and relation.

We have already looked at John

10:30, but consider also John 17:22 which reads, “…that they

may be one, even as we are one…”.

Jesus prayed to the

Father for oneness to exist between himself and his disciples, 105

the same as the oneness which existed between God and himself. Now I don‟t know anyone who suggests that believers are part of the Trinity or the Godhead, yet it was Jesus‟ desire that we should have the same oneness as he and His Father has. What else can that be but oneness in purpose? How else can believers be one with God and Christ except by expressing their faith and hope in the same ideals and plan which God has revealed and is working out?

Why can‟t Jesus be Very God? To begin with, Jesus himself declared that he was not God. This he declared to his apostles when he categorically told them “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Had

Jesus been equal with God, it would have nullified this statement and made Jesus a liar. Trinitarians nevertheless contend that Jesus proclaimed himself to be God. They base their argument on a reply which Jesus gave to Philip when he asked Jesus to show them (the apostles) the Father. It was beyond their human limitation to see God because He dwells “in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no

man hath seen, nor can see” (2 Timothy 6:16). So Jesus gave Philip this reply.

106

“Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father… Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” (John 14:9-10) Now, notice that Jesus doesn‟t use the title God on this occasion. He does not say, „if you have seen me you have seen God‟, but rather, “He that hath seen me hath seen the

Father”. Now even Trinitarians don‟t believe that the Father is the Son so this verse is problematic for them also. We may paraphrase Jesus‟ words as follows: “If you have seen me, then you know what the Father looks like. Don‟t you believe me, Philip, for I am in the image and likeness of my Father and the Father is working in me?” Some of Paul‟s words help to illustrate that this is what Jesus meant. He says to the Colossians that Jesus is:

“the image of the invisible God”

(Colossians 1:15)

Though an image is not the real thing it nevertheless gives an idea of what the real thing looks like. So we understand from Paul‟s remark that Jesus portrayed the express image of the invisible God. He was a true reflection of God in the sense that 107

he mirrored all the attributes of God to the fullest (Colossians 2:9).

Jesus was the perfect embodiment of all of God‟s

principles, which he exhibited; so to have seen him was to have seen the Father. He was God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). As Paul puts it later, “for it pleased the Father

that in him [Jesus] should all fullness dwell” (Colossians 1:19). This means that Jesus personified all the attributes of God to the fullest. Jesus also said that “no man hath seen God at any time; the

only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18) which again creates problems for those who believe that Jesus is God. Jesus declared the Father through what he taught about Him and the miracles which he wrought in the Father‟s name. This is why he could say to the disciples, “the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works”

(John 14:10). Those who saw Jesus saw the Father. This can be considered as an example of the language of God manifestation – “I am come in my Father‟s name” (John 5:43). Although Christ exhibited all the characteristics of God to the fullest it still does not make him „Very God‟.

Any son can

display aspects of his father, from looks to logic, mannerisms to mistakes, but none of those qualities will make him be his father. On one occasion in contending with the Jews, Jesus told them that they had “neither heard his [God‟s] voice at any 108

time, nor seen his shape” (John 5:37). This statement would have been blatantly untrue, if Jesus was „Very God of Very God‟, for the Jews had seen, heard and touched Jesus. Trinitarians argue that there are many occasions where Jesus was either called or addressed as God but, in reality, there are only a few passages and all of these can be explained when read carefully. Here are the „usual suspects‟:

“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”

(John 20:28)

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…”

(Hebrews 1:8)

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God…” “ (Philippians 2:6)

We shall deal with each of these verses separately in an effort to show why Jesus could not be God even though he was called or addressed as such.

109

John 20:28 “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. ”

(John 20:28)

This exclamation of Thomas was made out of great surprise. Thomas had been sceptical about the resurrection of Jesus from the very beginning especially since he hadn‟t been there when Jesus had made his first post-resurrection appearance to the disciples. But, when he is confronted by the Lord to see and touch for himself, he is positive that Jesus is alive and indeed the Messiah. Thomas, being himself a Jew, employed a form of expression common to the Old Testament, where accredited representatives of God were addressed as though they were God.

We have already shown in Chapter 3 that

angels were called „God‟ (Genesis 16:7, 13; 22:8,11,15,16; Exodus 23:20,21). Moses was referred to as a god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1). Jesus was God in the same sense that Moses was before Pharaoh, when he performed many great miracles by God‟s power in the sight of Pharaoh. Aptly, the title „God‟ could better be applied to Jesus, who in his time performed much greater miracles than Moses did. Yet still, this does not make Jesus „Very God‟ for he had no power of his own, a fact to which Jesus himself attested: “I can of my own self do

nothing...” (John 5:30). This statement is sufficiently 110

emphatic that Christ did not consider himself to be „Very God‟ nor co-equal with Him. Hebrews 1:8 “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is

for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. ”

(Hebrews 1:8)

As is so often the case when we look at a puzzling verse in Scripture, we must first examine the context. In the very next verse (v9) of that same chapter, we read the words

“…therefore God, even thy God hath anointed thee [Jesus] with the oil of gladness above thy fellows”.

Clearly then,

although Jesus is addressed as God, there is still someone above him, also referred to as “God”. This passage in Hebrews is in fact a quotation from Psalm 45 and is describing a future event. We have already shown and explained in Chapter 3, that Jesus can be called „Mighty God‟. This will only be in the Kingdom Age, when Jesus will reign in the power and authority of his Father, seated upon the throne of David (Luke 1:32). Both the Psalmist and the Hebrews‟ writer are looking forward to that time and ascribing to Jesus the name of God, which his position of authority will deserve. 111

Philippians 2:6

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to

be equal with God: ”

(Philippians 2:6)

Before attempting to explain this passage, we shall observe how this verse is translated by other Bible versions:

“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (New American Standard Bible) “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (English Standard Version) “who though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped”

(The NET Bible)

“Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped” (Jerusalem Bible)

112

The opening verses of the chapter make it clear how verse six should be interpreted.

Paul was exhorting and urging the

Philippians that “in humility, let each esteem others better than

themselves”. Paul then used Christ as the shining example of this attitude. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ

Jesus”, he urged. What “mind” was Paul referring to? Was it the thought that equality with God was not robbery? No! That would be the opposite of the point he had just made. On the contrary, Jesus always esteemed God above himself (e.g. John 14:28) and never sought equality with God. Though he was made in the „morphe‟ (form, image) of God (being the Son of God) he humbled himself even accepting death on a cross. Since God cannot die (1 Timothy 6:16), we are safe to draw the conclusion that Jesus cannot be God and assured that this passage remains consistent with the rest of Scripture in disproving the Trinity. We have already spoken at length so we ask you, the reader, to ponder deeply upon the following statements, which may be considered further reasons why Jesus could not be God. While hanging on the cross before he died Jesus spoke these words:

“my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) 113

“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”

(Luke 23:34)

“Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46) If Jesus was „Very God‟ to whom did he address those words? There had to be someone superior to him and separate from him, to whom he was speaking. He could not have been addressing himself. Had there not been a genuine person known as the Father (distinct from Jesus), then all those words spoken from the cross could be considered a sham or fraudulent. Before Jesus was arrested, he prayed to his Father for a possible way out. Yet still he ended with the words „not as I

will, but as thou wilt‟ (Matthew 26:39). indication

separate

persons

and

Isn‟t this a clear independent

wills?

Remember that Christ had already stated before that he came not to do his own will, but the will of the one who sent him (John 6:38). We may also ask the question: Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did he raise himself? No, he didn‟t. God raised him from the dead (Acts 5:30).

Furthermore, he

ascended to God who raised him (John 20:17). “I am

114

ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.â&#x20AC;? The case for the prosecution must rest, but it seems abundantly clear in the light of the evidence put forward that Jesus cannot be who Trinitarians claim him to be, which is: 1. God the Son 2. God in human form 3. Co-equal with God 4. Co-eternal with the Father 5. Very God of Very God

115

Chapter 5 The Pre-existence of Jesus No book on the Trinity would be complete without a consideration of the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus. Although a separate teaching, it is nevertheless closely related to the idea of the Trinity, in the sense that many Christians believe that Jesus must have had an existence before that of his earthly appearance. We need to state briefly that the term „pre-existence‟ is contradictory, since someone cannot truly exist before he exists. However, we have retained its use for the heading of this chapter since it is the most common expression found for this topic. Within our discourse, we will employ the term „pre-human existence‟ since this would more accurately reflect the belief in question.

Christ‟s role in the Plan of God We begin our consideration by examining the role of the Lord Jesus Christ in the planned purpose of God. Few would doubt that Yahweh (God) had a plan even before creation actually began so it is reasonable to suppose that Christ was also included in that plan long before he came into being. In fact, we may do more than suppose, since the Scriptures tell us that Christ was in the mind of God before he came into existence. 116

The Book of Revelation describes Jesus as “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Since we know that the actual death of Jesus took place around 33 AD (long after the world was founded), we can be quite certain that this is talking about God‟s foreknowledge.

God foreknew (knew before) that His

son would have to die.

Long before Adam and Eve‟s

transgression, God realised that there would need to be a plan of salvation, a redeemer for mankind and He purposed that it would be his Son, Jesus who would fulfil this role. The Apostle Peter tells us that Jesus was:

“foreordained before the foundations of the world, but was manifest in these last times”

(1 Peter 1:20).

The word „foreordained‟ simply means „foreknown‟. So it follows that Christ existed in the mind of God as the centre of His future purpose. The role of Christ in the plan and purpose of God was of such importance that he was visualised by God as being in His (God‟s) mind long before he actually came into existence through his conception by Mary. Here we need to clarify that Jesus was neither an angel nor a spirit being before his birth, as some believe. How could he be an angel or spirit? The writer to the Hebrews informs us that he was made “a little

lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:7) before his death, but 117

after his resurrection, he was exalted to be above them having

“by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they” (Hebrews 1:4). In the Old Testament, there are abundant prophecies about the coming of the Messiah, which make clear what his role would be, but in no way do they imply that he was already in existence. Let us consider a few of those prophecies:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him”

(Deuteronomy 18:18)

“I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son” (2 Samuel 7:14) “…his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”

(Isaiah 9:6)

Trinitarians, as well as those who advocate the pre-human existence of Christ, need to note that in each of the quotations the future tense is used. Why would they have phrased their words like this if Christ was already in existence as an angel or 118

as a spirit?

In each passage we observe that Messiah is

portrayed as one not yet born; not a being who existed in heaven before and who would be incarnate of a virgin. Here is another passage which conveys the same message:

“He shall cry unto me, thou art my Father, my God and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:26-27) Surely these passages indicate that Jesus had no existence prior to his earthly birth. Even if those passages are read with a Trinitarian mindset, there is no evidence within them which would give the slightest suggestion of pre-existence. The future tense used in those prophecies does not suggest that Jesus was originally with the Father before his earthly birth. As we can deduce from Psalm 89:27 (above), Jesus was not yet God‟s firstborn. Therefore, we can conclude that Jesus became the firstborn after he was born of Mary.

God‟s Foreknowledge We know that God is omniscient (all knowing). One aspect of this is His foreknowledge: “declaring the end from the

beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isaiah 119

46:10). In other words, God can speak of things in the future as though they are already in existence. Paul in his letter to the Romans expresses it this way:

“God calleth those things which be not as though they were”

(Romans 4:17)

If God spoke about Cyrus King of Persia before he came into existence (Isaiah 45:1-5), or could tell Jeremiah “Before I

formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth from the womb I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5), why do Trinitarians find it so difficult to accept that God can speak of Christ in the same way? Are there those who believe in the pre-existence of Cyrus or who think that Jeremiah existed before his birth? We understand these passages to be prophetic and proof that God, the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator, is not limited by time as humans are. If God can speak of a day in the future as though it has already come (Isaiah 3:8), then Jeremiah and Cyrus were real to God before they actually came into existence. They existed in His foreknowledge. In Revelation 3:18, Christ is said to be “the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”. In reality, was Christ slain then? This language can only be meaningful and true in God‟s foreknowledge - for He sees everything in the present. 120

Conversely, God not only sees things before they are, but also after they have gone. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have long since ceased to exist.

Like all humans, they lived and died,

were buried and are now a part of the dust that they came from. But in the eyes of God they are still alive for “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:32). In other words, their resurrection is assured and, although from a human standpoint, they are just a part of ancient history; to God they are merely sleeping, waiting the moment when He will call them from their graves. Taking all this into consideration, is it not possible for God to speak of Christ as though he existed, even though he was yet to come into being? An honest and unbiased reasoning of the scriptures would indicate that Christ had no pre-human existence with God until Mary conceived him through the creative power of the Holy Spirit.

Did Christ pre-humanly exist? We have attempted to explain that Christ‟s only „pre-existence‟ was in the mind and purpose of God, but we must now address certain Scriptures, which suggest he was alive and active before his recorded birth.

121

John 1:1 We begin with the passage which is the bedrock for arguing the pre-human existence and deity of Christ. It is the opening to the gospel of John.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”

(John1:1)

Using this passage, Trinitarians endeavour to show that Jesus co-existed with God from the beginning and in fact was God at that time. The key to understanding this verse lies in how we interpret “the beginning”.

Trinitarians jump to the conclusion that

because this sounds like Genesis 1:1, John must therefore be talking about the Creation of the World. However, a careful study with a concordance or lexicon reveals that John speaks of “the beginning” in sixteen further instances, not one of which alludes to Genesis 1:1. Almost all other occurrences of „the beginning‟ in John‟s writings have to do with the beginning of the ministry of Jesus or the beginning of discipleship. John is concerned not with the past, but with the present. describing the New Creation. Here are a few examples:

122

He is

“…for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (John 6:64) “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning”

(John 15:27)

“…and these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.”

(John 16:4)

“Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:7) “For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1 John 3:11) This list should be conclusive to show that John 1:1 is speaking about a beginning that is different from that of Genesis 1:1; of the ministry of Jesus. In fact, John is consistent with the other 123

Gospel writers who also took the same approach. Mark‟s gospel opens with:

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”

(Mark 1:1)

Luke‟s introduction reads:

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses-and-ministers of the word.” (Luke 1:1-2) Having now understood the context in which John is writing, we can attempt to explain what he was referring to. When John states “And the Word was God”, it is important to observe that in the original Greek, the word “God” (Theos) is without the definite article which it normally carries in the New Testament. So, the first mention of “God” (Theos) in verse 1 reads like this:

124

kai

logov

prov

ton

yeon

and

the

word

was

with

the

God

but the second mention reads: kai

yeov

and

God

logov

was the

word

Readers will note the absence of the definite article (“the”). Although this may seem fairly trivial, it is in fact vital to interpreting the meaning of the verse. When the word “Theos” appears without a definite article, then it can just as easily be translated as “Godly” or “Godward”.

In other words John is

saying: kai

yeov

and

Godly

hn was

o the

logov word

As such, John is declaring the divinity of Christ, not his deity. Accordingly, Moffat translates it “the Word was divine”. Paul uses the same word in several of his epistles and here the translators have taken note and correctly rendered the word “Theos” as it should be.

“…in simplicity and godly sincerity” (2 Corinthians 1:12)

125

“For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:10) “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith” (1 Timothy 1:4) Sadly, the Trinitarian bias of many translators has blinded them when it comes to John 1:1. Micah 5:2 Another well know passage which is frequently used to argue the pre-human existence of Christ is the following:

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”

(Micah 5:2)

The argument about this passage is centred on the last statement, which Trinitarians assume to indicate the eternal

126

pre-human existence of Christ. But was Micah really conveying the idea that Jesus actually pre-existed? In this passage, there are three Hebrew words which must be considered in order to get a proper understanding of it. The first is „mikedem‟, which is from „kedem‟, a common word which means old, afore, before in time, or location, but is usually translated simply as “ancient times”.

The second is „olahm‟

which basically means „an indefinite period of time‟. The third word is „motsaah‟ which in plural form means „goings forth‟. Micah employs those words in a passage which is mainly intended as a reminder to the Jews of their past history (Isaiah 46:8-10). However, those who use this citation in support of the Trinity and pre-human existence of Christ place their emphasis on the words “goings forth”, in an attempt to show that Christ was active in heaven before his incarnation.

But the term “goings

forth from everlasting” is simply a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ; the Messiah who was to come as the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15).

It was this prophecy, which was

mentioned from of old, from everlasting. Messiah would come from the seed of Abraham and through the lineage of David. The RSV translation of Micah 5:2 puts it into proper focus when it says “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days”. So it is

127

in this sense that his “goings forth” (the expectation of his birth) is from ancient times, from everlasting. This is also recognised by the genealogy of Christ, recorded in Matthew‟s gospel (Matthew 1:1-16). We see then that Micah‟s prophecy has nothing to do with the pre-human existence of Christ. To quote this verse to support the idea that Christ had a pre-human existence is to misuse the passage. John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before

Abraham was, I am. ”

(John 8:58)

It is surprising and yet discouraging that those who propagate the notion of Jesus‟ co-eternal pre-existence find most of their „support‟ in John‟s writings. This illustrates the limitations of their argument and also highlights their lack of appreciation of the message John was trying to convey. The statement found in John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I am” is often quoted. Without even considering the context in which this statement was made, two hasty conclusions are drawn: 1. Christ said he was before Abraham, so he must have had a pre-existence.

128

2. Christ used the divine name “I am” so this implies that he is „Very God‟ himself. But when John 8:58 is fully considered in its context, we realise that Christ‟s reference to being before Abraham was made not in the context of his existence; but rather to affirm that he (Christ) was of far greater importance and significance than Abraham whom the Jews claimed to be their father. Through this statement, Christ was affirming his pre-eminence, not his pre-existence as Trinitarians assert. He was simply declaring to the Jews a profound truth which they needed to understand – that he Christ preceded all else. He made this remark because the Jews had earlier stated that Abraham was their father (v39) and was greater than Jesus, whom they despised and derided. Therefore, Jesus confirmed his pre-eminence: for in the purpose of God he was far greater than Abraham.

Note well, that Jesus did not say “before

Abraham was, I was”. The Jews, who were always opposed to Jesus, completely misunderstood him. They thought that Jesus was saying that he was older than Abraham (v57)! How ironic that modern-day Trinitarians and believers in the pre-existence of Christ should still think like the Jews of old!

129

However, the Jews‟ argument is refuted by Jesus‟ remark “your

father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad” (v56).

Could you imagine how astonished the Jews

would have been on hearing this from Jesus?

Little wonder

their thoughts turned to physical violence towards Jesus. But of course we know that Abraham did not literally see the advent of Jesus, but saw it through the eye of faith. Abraham was one of those who: “died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13) The presumption that Christ was alluding to his divinity when he used the words “I am” has no validity at all. There is no concrete evidence for such an assertion. Jesus used the term “I am” as an existential expression of who he was.

For

example he said:

“I am that bread of life…”

(John 6:48)

“I am the light of the world…”

(John 8:12)

130

“I am the way, the truth, and the life…” (John 14:6) “I am he that liveth, and was dead…” (Revelation 1:18) Should we conclude that in each of these cases, Jesus was expressing his divinity by using the term „I am‟? Certainly he was not. The divine name is an expression of intent, “I will be

who I will be” (Exodus 3:14, KJV margin). This name was a declaration of God‟s divine purpose, from which His covenant name of YHWH (Yahweh) is derived.

Jesus, as we have

already explained, was the manifestation of God in human form (1 Timothy 3:16). He was the word (logos) made flesh. But regardless, some of the statements made by Jesus that he came down from heaven, are used by Trinitarians as proof that he had existed previously (i.e. prior to his earthly ministry):

“For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven”

(John 6:33)

“I came down from heaven”

131

(John 6:38)

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven” (John 6:51) A proper understanding of the analogy made by Jesus, with the manna from heaven, would help to clarify those expressions. Jesus compares himself to the manna which God gave to Israel in the wilderness, but that does not mean that the manna was literally manufactured in heaven. It was produced through the power of God‟s Holy Spirit so we can say that it originated from heaven. It is in this same sense that Christ came down from heaven, he was indeed of divine origin, i.e. “from heaven”. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, sent down from heaven, Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. So Christ could also say “I

proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42) Similarly, Christ could say to the Jews:

“Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world”

(John 8:23)

Jesus was ever involved in His Father‟s business, doing His Father‟s will, so in this regard, he was truly from above. He demonstrated this by the heavenly things which he said and did. By contrast, the Jews were from beneath, because they 132

were engrossed in their worldly affairs. They spoke with the mind of the flesh, while Jesus spoke with the mind of the spirit. Hence also why Jesus could say “my kingdom is not of this

world (John 18:36).

We see that these statements, when

understood in the right context, have nothing to do with the pre-human existence of Christ, so we must be very careful not to apply a superficial interpretation to them. John 17:5 This is another of the many passages which is assumed to confirm the co-eternal existence of Jesus as the second person in the Godhead.

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was.”

(John 17:5)

When arguing to support that Christ had a pre-human existence emphasis is placed on the last part of this passage. And the question is asked “how could it be possible for Christ to have glory with the Father if he never had a pre-human existence?”

Simple logic would explain this.

Any good

architect would visualise his masterpiece, in his mind‟s eye, before he put his plans on blueprint. God, who is the greatest Architect of all time, had a vision of His Divine plan long before 133

He effected it. Christ, who was foreordained, visualised in the mind of God, had glory with God long before he (Christ) came into being. It is not strange for Scripture to speak of persons as though they were in existence before they actually lived, humanly speaking. For example, Paul wrote of believers:

“Whom he [God] did foreknow… them he also glorified.”

(Romans 8:29-30)

“… the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory”

(Romans 9:23)

“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”

(Ephesians 1:4)

Because these passages have a meaning which is not immediately apparent, would we suggest that they imply that we all pre-existed before our births? Yet, Paul states that God foreknew those believers long before their actual human existence. We should understand John 17:5 in a similar light. Unless one is

able

this principle of God‟s

foreknowledge and observe that Yahweh speaks of things that

134

have not yet existed as though they are, the same confusion will surface time and again. Here is one final verse of scripture closely related to the proposition that Jesus existed with the Father from all eternity: â&#x20AC;&#x153;For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,

that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that through his poverty ye might become rich.

(2 Corinthians 8:9)

From those words spoken by Paul, two inferences are made by Trinitarians to support the doctrine of the pre-human existence of Christ. First, he enjoyed riches in heaven prior to his earthly birth. Secondly, he relinquished his riches to become a man like us.

But Paul in this part of his epistle is encouraging the

believers to show their generosity when contributing money to a fund that will be used to help poor believers in Jerusalem. In order to make a very strong point, Paul uses the example of Jesus Christ who surrendered his life (i.e. gave everything he had) on the cross in order that people would have the opportunity to be made rich in the grace of God. The riches that Jesus had was in being the Son of God and receiving the power of the Holy Spirit â&#x20AC;&#x153;beyond measureâ&#x20AC;? but

135

used that blessing according to his Father‟s will (not his own) and died a poverty stricken death on the cross. By his death, Jesus brought life and immortality to light: so that in the new dispensation, God might shower the abundant riches of his grace on believers through Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:7). We conclude this chapter by saying that the evidence that Christ is not „Very God‟ is overwhelming. He did not have a coeternal existence with God prior to his birth; his power and authority are derived from God, they are not innate.

“As thou [God] hast given him [Christ] power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou [God] hast given him [Christ]” (John 17:2)

136

Chapter 6 Bible teaching about the Holy Spirit According to popular theology, the Holy Spirit is considered to be the third person of the Godhead, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. It is also described as „God the Holy Spirit‟. This is set out in great detail in the Athanasian Creed, as we have demonstrated in Chapter 2.

Defining the Holy Spirit According to the „Oxford Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament‟ (pg. 924-926), the word most frequently used in the Old Testament for “Spirit” or “spirit” (the capital letter is irrelevant) is the Hebrew word „ruwach‟. It has a range of meanings: breath, mind, wind, but none which would suggest that it could be isolated as a separate being from God. In the New Testament, the Greek word is „pneuma‟ which carries a similar meaning: „wind, breath, spirit‟.

„Spirit‟ in the Old Testament The Bible‟s use of Spirit or Holy Spirit indicates clearly that it is a power or active force which is used by God to accomplish His purpose.

Whilst any analogy has its limitation, one may

perhaps compare it to the power of an electric current, which 137

has no life of its own (i.e. it must be generated) and yet is essential to the operation of electrical appliances. This „active force‟ is first introduced in Genesis 1:2, which states that “the spirit (ruwach) of God was moving over the

waters”. Immediately we see that the Spirit was not a separate entity in itself, but something which belonged to God. Genesis does not say that „God the Spirit‟ moved over the waters. God‟s Spirit power was instrumental in creation as the following verses show:

“…when thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created...” (Psalm 104:29-30, RSV) “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life” (Job 33:4, RSV) “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth...” (Psalm 33:6-9, RSV)

138

God‟s Spirit is what enables and allows mankind to live. But God‟s power can be harnessed in whatever way He chooses. He controls the elements and forces of nature; his Spirit can bring about storms or calm them again.

“…and God made a wind to blow over the earth, and the waters subsided…”

(Genesis 8:1, RSV)

“But the LORD sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.”

(Jonah 1:4)

God is also actively involved in the lives of human beings, particularly those who believe and worship Him. God‟s power can be given to men for the purpose of teaching, witnessing, prophesying, ruling, performing miracles or whatever God seeks to achieve.

Here is a small selection of passages to

illustrate this:

“And the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward”

(1 Samuel 16:13)

“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.”

(Psalm 51:10)

139

“Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not thy manna from their mouth…” (Nehemiah 9:20) “…and didst warn them by thy spirit through thy prophets.”

(Nehemiah 9:30, RSV)

“Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

(Isaiah 48:16)

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions…” (Joel 2:28) Once again, we see that in the Old Testament, the word Spirit (ruwach) is not portrayed as a person, but as the power that God exercises. Notice the possessive pronouns “thy”, “my”,

140

“his” which show that the Spirit belongs to God and cannot be separated from Him to function on its own as a third person. We should comment at this stage on the absence of the word “Holy” since it is the term “Holy Spirit” that is most frequently used when talking about the Trinity. The writer is convinced that the terms are synonymous. Every aspect of God‟s Spirit should be considered holy for He is a „holy‟ God. So the terms „Spirit‟ or „Holy Spirit‟ are the same. However, Holy (meaning set apart) is sometimes used to show God‟s spirit power being used for a special purpose. The term Holy Spirit is hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, which in itself is helpful in our attempt to build the correct picture. Are we to suppose from this that the so-called third person of the Trinity was silent or inactive during the four thousand years of history that is spanned by this period?

„Holy Spirit‟ in the Old Testament As we have indicated, there are only three references in the Old Testament where the term “Holy Spirit” is mentioned. One is found in Psalm 51 and the other two are in Isaiah 63. The first occurrence is by David, who said,

141

“Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.”

(Psalm 51:11)

This is a part of the prayer that David made where he shows great remorse and repentance over his grievous sin of adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, Uriah. David earnestly asks that God would not withdraw His Holy Spirit from him, as was done to Saul who wilfully disobeyed God. Would this be interpreted by Trinitarians that David was asking God not to withdraw the third person of the Godhead from him? The illogicality of this is clear to see, yet this is what the Trinity Doctrine about the Holy Spirit leads one to assume. The two other references of the „Holy Spirit‟ are found in the following passage:

“In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them… But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. Where is he who brought out of the sea the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put in

142

the midst of them his holy spirit, who caused his glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses, who divide the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name, who led them through the depths? Like cattle that go down into the valley, the spirit of the Lord gave them rest.” (Isaiah 63:9-14, RSV) This gives a vivid description of God‟s special care and protection for the Israelites in the wilderness after their redemption from bondage in Egypt. The references to God‟s “Holy Spirit” may well refer to the angel of God‟s presence indicated in verse nine of Isaiah 63, whom God had assigned to be ministering spirits to protect his people.

Despite God‟s

concern, the Israelites murmured and rebelled against God, who was distressed by their continuous provocation. This is borne out by Psalm 78:40-41 (RSV) which states:

“How often they…grieved him in the desert! They… provoked the Holy One of Israel.” It is very obvious that the one provoked and grieved was God Himself. God‟s own spirit (mind) was vexed because of all that He had done for this people. He had sent the Angel of His 143

presence, filled with His Spirit (power) to rescue Israel from slavery in Egypt, to guide them through the wilderness of Sinai, to provide food and water for them. But instead of obeying His commandments, they rebelled and grieved God‟s Holy Spirit to its very core. Paul picks up the idea when he says:

“Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30, RSV) But see again how the term „Holy Spirit‟ is used, not as an independent person, a third part of the Godhead, but as belonging to God.

The terms “his” in Isaiah and “of” in

Ephesians denote possession, thus requiring us to see the Spirit as subordinate to God and under His control. Isaiah does not say that Israel grieved “God the Holy Spirit” and neither does Paul. In fact, “God the Holy Spirit” is not a term that can be found in Scripture. So on the only three occasions when God‟s Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Old Testament, it refers to: 1. God‟s power operating through David‟s life and David pleading that this would not be withdrawn from him. 2. God‟s mind being troubled by His wayward people and the anger felt by the Angel of His presence. 144

Thus we conclude that the Spirit of God, which radiates from Him, sometimes termed as “holy” describes the manner in which God works in the lives of people, whether that be directly (through guidance) or indirectly (through angelic ministration).

God‟s Holy Spirit in operation In truth, we cannot separate God from His Spirit.

It is

preposterous to suggest that the power of God works independently from Him. God‟s power or Spirit achieves that which He purposes. It has no existence outside of Him nor does it possess a distinct identity or independent will. If we truly believe the Scriptures, then “God is Spirit” (John 4:24) so it is ridiculous to attempt to separate or isolate God‟s Holy Spirit from Him and consider it a separate person. However, there are times when Yahweh uses His Spirit to teach and enlighten mankind or to empower them to achieve extraordinary things. For example, when Moses expressed to God that he was unable to bear the burden of the Israelites all alone, God chose seventy capable men to assist him with his duties. But note what God said to him.

145

“I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee…”

(Numbers 11:17)

It is impossible to deduce from God‟s reply that His spirit is a person. What can be understood is that God‟s spirit power was upon Moses alone, so God took a portion of that spirit and divided it among the elders, thus empowering them to help Moses. If the Spirit referred to a person, all of this would have been impossible. How could the third person of the Trinity be passed around from person to person or divided up into parts? One good example of God‟s spirit supplying power beyond that which is normal is in the case of Samson. Here is how it is described:

“The spirit of Yahweh seized on him and he tore the lion to pieces with his bare hands as though it were a kid”

(Judges 14:6, JB)

Since we have no reason to believe that Samson had any intrinsic strength of his own, we may well ask what empowered him to such great feats. Did a divine being (God the Spirit) enter Samson or was it divine energy (“The Spirit of the

146

LORD”) transferred to Samson from God? Obviously it was the second. We are told that the Spirit gave the disciples of the first century the ability to perform deeds beyond the ordinary. Acts 2:1-4 relates that on the day of Pentecost, the disciples were all assembled:

“…with one accord in one place; when suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting.

And there appeared unto them cloven

tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance”. There are two details in this passage which aid us in showing that the Holy Spirit is the power of God. 1. The sound of a rushing mighty wind, itself a powerful force. 2. The tongues of fire which alighted on the Apostles.

147

Are we to imagine that God is a „shape-shifter‟, taking various forms at various times? Yet we know that no man has seen God nor has been able to ascribe a physical shape to Him. Surely this was nothing else but the power of God, being sent from heaven to aid the Apostles and to testify that God was with them and working through them. On receiving the Holy Spirit, they were infused with power to perform miracles and to speak in tongues. God‟s Spirit was also used to inspire men and women. The Apostle Peter describes:

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 3[Spirit]” (2 Peter 1:21) It is through inspiration that we believe the Scriptures were delivered and written. Thus, Paul could say to Timothy:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable…”

(2 Timothy 3:16)

N.B. The word „Ghost‟ (as used in the Authorised Version) should be

substituted with the word „Spirit‟. Ghost is simply an obsolete Saxon term.

148

„Spirit‟ and „Holy Spirit‟ in the New Testament Compared with the Old Testament, the term „Holy Spirit‟ is used more frequently in the New. The idea behind the word “holy” is one of separation or distinction so this may be to illustrate that in the first century, God‟s power was more focused as He and His Son operated within the church, a separate group of called-out people. As we did with the Hebrew word “ruwach” in our consideration of the Old Testament, we shall demonstrate the various uses of „spirit‟ (Greek pneuma) in the New Testament.

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you…” (Luke 1:35) “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.”

(Luke 4:14)

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

(John 3:8) 149

“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you...”

(Acts 1:8)

“Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:13) “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” (1 Corinthians 12:3) “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise…” (Ephesians 1:13)

150

“But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet…”

(Revelation 11:11, RSV)

As we can see, the Greek word „pneuma‟ is translated in different ways although predominately as “Spirit”. What is so outstanding is the association of “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” with the idea of „power‟, which further cements our argument. When the angel Gabriel conveyed the message to Mary about the birth of Jesus, she was told that the Holy Spirit would come upon her. Luke chooses his language carefully when he states

“the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee [Mary]” (Luke 1:35). There is no hint that a Spirit person would come to impregnate Mary, but rather that the power of the Highest4 would overshadow or envelope her. The conception of Jesus was to be created by God‟s active force operating upon the womb of Mary, hence why he would be called “the Son of God”. The Holy Spirit is such a dynamic force, that it did not only bring about the birth of Jesus, but later appeared at his

The “Highest” is a term that must apply to Almighty God, as we

demonstrated in Chapter 3 of this book.

151

baptism and subsequently compelled him into the wilderness, where he was tempted by the devil (Mark 1:12). The incident of Jesus‟ baptism is worthy of our consideration. Mark records that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove (Mark 1:10). We have already seen from our earlier consideration of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) that God Himself does not appear in different forms, so we can rule out the idea that this was God the Holy Spirit literally descending like a dove from heaven. Besides, if Jesus was also God, as Trinitarians claim, then you have what could only be termed, a „bizarre‟ picture: God the Son being anointed by God the Spirit while God the Father observed from Heaven and voiced His approval. Does this sound in any way like a realistic possibility? See what crazed notions the myths of men force upon the interpretation of Scripture when all we truly need is the Bible in hand and a rational mind. After giving His divine seal of approval with the words, “Thou

art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased”, God sent His power, the Holy Spirit, so that Jesus might be endowed with God‟s spirit power for his ministry, which was about to begin (John 6:63; 12:49). The appearance of the Spirit in the form of a dove was a visible sign to John and to those present that God had bestowed this power upon His son. later recounted: 152

The Apostle Peter

“…How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”

(Acts 10:38)

Matthew testifies that the crowds were amazed at the miracles they witnessed:

“But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” (Matthew 9:8) With this we conclude that the Holy Spirit is the special power, influence or energy, which emanates from God upon an individual to empower him to act beyond his natural capabilities. The Holy Spirit is God Himself at work, fulfilling His purpose.

Alleged Personality of the „Holy Spirit‟ The Trinitarian claim is that three persons constitute the Godhead, one of whom is „God the Holy Spirit‟. So far we have refuted this by showing that God Himself is both holy and also spirit. In essence, He is a „holy spirit‟, but 153

this does not require a separate person from Him to be called „God the Holy Spirit‟ and there is no evidence in the Scriptures that this is so. Nevertheless, we are aware that there are a number of passages of Scripture which imply that the „Holy Spirit‟ is a distinct person from God. While an exhaustive study would fill several volumes, but we shall now address a few of those passages, which are often cited in an effort by Trinitarians to prove that the Holy Spirit is a separate person within the Godhead.

“But the comforter which is the Holy Spirit… he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26) “…when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come..” (John 16:13-14)

154

“But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?”

(Acts 5:3)

“While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee” (Acts 10:19) “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…”

(Acts 15:28)

“Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia… they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.”

(Acts 16:6-7)

“Wherefore as the Holy Spirit saith, Today, if ye will hear his voice”

(Hebrews 3:7)

After reading the above passages, it would be very rash to say that they do not imply a personality to the Holy Spirit. Personal 155

pronouns such as „he‟ and phrases such as „lie to‟, „suffered not‟, „seemed good to‟ are all used to describe the interaction of the Holy Spirit. How then can it be said or explained that the „Holy Spirit‟ is not a third person of a Trinity, when all this appears to favour the Trinitarian understanding? As with any understanding of Scripture, we must plead for an open mind and a laying aside of any bias or traditionally held beliefs. We must also strive to interpret Scripture consistently knowing that God is not the author of confusion nor does He contradict Himself.

Personification Most

readers

„personification‟.

will

familiar

with

the

concept

This is a figure of speech in which an

inanimate object or abstraction, is given human qualities or abilities. We may have come across the idea of Justice as a blindfolded woman holding a pair of scales and sometimes refer to cars or boats in the female gender. It is not unusual for the Bible to employ this literary technique to personify words or ideas (e.g. wisdom, sin, death, riches and even Holy Spirit). “Wisdom”

“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from 156

everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.”

(Proverbs 8:22-23)

“Doth not Wisdom cry? And understanding put forth her voice?”

(Proverbs 8:1)

“Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars”

(Proverbs 9:1)

“Wisdom is justified of all her children”

(Luke 7:35)

In these verses we see that “wisdom” is given human qualities and portrayed as a woman (which means that it cannot be Christ as some have suggested!). The Lord possessed her in the beginning - she cries, she builds and she even has children, but no one would contend that wisdom was a literal woman. “Sin” and “death”

“…sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire…”

(Genesis 4:7)

“Whosoever committeth sin is a servant of sin” (John 8:34) 157

“Sin hath reigned unto death”

(Romans 5:21)

“Behold a pale horse, and his name that sat on him is Death, and Hell followed with him” (Revelation 6:8) Does sin really lie in wait? Is it a master or a king? Does death ride on a horse? Clearly not, but we are not perplexed by this language. We understand the pictures that are created for us by the personification of these abstractions. “Riches”

“No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon”

(Matthew 6:24)

We may also be familiar with the saying „Money is a good

servant, but a bad master‟ which, like the teaching of Jesus shown above, illustrates how riches can easily get the better of us and distract us from true service to God. So we see that personification is in the Bible as well as in everyday life. Therefore we should not be worried or confused by considering the „Holy Spirit‟ in a similar light. 158

The other factor in understanding the language employed by the New Testament relates to grammar. Jesus, when speaking of the Holy Spirit as a „comforter‟ and employing words like „teach‟, „guide‟ and „speak‟ (John 14:16, 26; 16:13) used a Greek word „parakletos‟ which is masculine in gender. So when Jesus used personal pronouns like „he‟ or „his‟ this was simply the correct grammatical expression. In other words, when a masculine noun (parakletos) is used, the associated pronoun (he or his) had to be likewise masculine. The Lord‟s reference to the comforter coming and being with the disciples is based on the angel of the presence in the Old Testament. This angel guided the Israelites on their way to the Promised Land. In the case of the comforter, it was given in the context of Christ`s impending departure. The purpose of the Comforter was to guide the apostles in the way of truth, much like the function of the angel of the presence. In Greek as well as in English the gender of the noun and pronoun has to be consistent; „comforter‟ is masculine in Greek and is neuter in English. It is also important to appreciate that „spirit‟ is neuter in gender so the corresponding pronoun must be neuter. This is illustrated in the following quotations:

159

“…who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen on any of them…”

(Acts 8:15-16, RSV)

“The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

(Romans 8:16)

Here the Holy Spirit is regarded as a power rather than a distinct personality from God as the pronouns „it‟ or „itself‟ indicate. Of course, we find ourselves once again at the mercy of the translators, but if we take that into account in conjunction with the Bible‟s use of personification, we find a rational explanation for such phrases as „to lie to‟, „to tempt‟ or „to grieve‟ the Holy Spirit. We do not need to resort to the myth of the Trinity or to go beyond the bounds of Scripture in postulating a non-existent „third person‟ of the Godhead. Remember that God himself is Spirit. Others may contend that in Matthew 28:19 a „name‟ is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, showing that it must be a person. But names do not necessarily require personality.

There are plenty of

names given to inanimate objects (e.g. boats). The author has seen a tourist ship called “Aida”. More interestingly however, we sometimes use a name to illustrate authority. A policeman could say to an offender „I arrest you in the name of the law‟. 160

This does not make the law a person, but simply means that the arrest is made through the authority or power which the law bestows upon the policeman. Thus, the use of the word „name‟ in Matthew 28:19 and the instruction to baptise “in the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is used to denote power and authority.

The Apostles were now operating with the full

authority of their Lord who himself had received “all power…in

heaven and in earth” from the Father (v18). To baptise in the name of the Holy Spirit is recognition of the power of the Holy Spirit which affects the validity of the baptism to bring about a transformation within the individual. This is reflected in the case of Nicodemus when Jesus said to him that he needed to be baptised of water and the spirit (John 3:5). The water represents baptism, but the spirit is the power of the word of God to cleanse the mind and transform the person to a new life in Christ.

The Spirit - Who or What? Who or what is the Holy Spirit? Is it a person or a power? Although we have already discussed it in great detail, it is nevertheless imperative to get a clear understanding of it, for

161

many have insisted that it is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son. In the Acts of the Apostles we read that the Holy Spirit was conferred to the recipient simply by the laying on of hands.

“Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:17, RSV) Simon the Sorcerer, after hearing the gospel from Philip, was baptised, but when he later witnessed the work of Peter and John to pass on the Holy Spirit power to others, he wanted the ability to do so himself.

“Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles‟ hands, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:18-19) In both these quotations from Acts 8, we notice two facts that are extremely important to our discussion and to an understanding of the Holy Spirit: 1. The Holy Spirit was transmitted to others by the „laying on of hands‟. 162

2. Simon wanted to purchase this remarkable power. This proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the Holy Spirit is a „power‟ and not a person. Are we to imagine that a person of the Godhead could be transferred between individuals by simple touching?

The idea is so ridiculous, yet that is what

Trinitarians are advocating by their doctrine. Still more absurd is to think that God could be bought with money, as Simon enquired.

Although Simon acted rashly, he was not stupid

enough to think that he was able to buy a person, „God the Spirit‟. He was looking to purchase power in order to increase his own status among his community. Jesus once asked these questions to the Pharisees: “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he

(Luke 11:11-12)

offer him a scorpion”?

To these questions Jesus gave this amazing reply:

“If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” (Luke 11:13) 163

From this reproof given to the Pharisees, we should realize that the gift of the Holy Spirit which Jesus spoke about cannot refer to a person, but rather a force or power which can be given. It would be ludicrous to think that God would place a person within everyone who sincerely and earnestly asks for the Holy Spirit to be given to them. Clearly, all this indicates to us that the Holy Spirit cannot be the third person of a triune Godhead as the Athanasian Creed states. It is not distinct from the Father (as the doctrine of the Trinity sets out), but is God‟s spirit power or active force in action. God‟s power is within Him and emanates from Him in word and in deed. It is the same Spirit spoken about in the Old Testament, but called “Holy Spirit” more frequently in the New Testament, to highlight its purpose with God‟s holy church. In the Old Testament, it inspired the prophets to speak and write God‟s word. In the New Testament God worked miracles, signs and wonders by Jesus and the apostles by the power of his Holy Spirit.

164

Concluding Thoughts

A careful and unbiased consideration of what has been presented in this book should lead us to only one conclusion: The doctrine of the Trinity is a pernicious lie, a myth made by men, which has no place in true theology. Consider the facts: 

The word „Trinity‟ is not found in the Bible.



The doctrine of the Trinity was unheard of in the apostolic times of the early church.



The belief was formed to serve the politics of men and was ratified under the auspices of a former pagan emperor.



The phrase was first used by Tertullian, (circa 200 AD).

It owes its origins to pagan beliefs, having no shred of Biblical evidence on which to base itself. The concept of the Trinity contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles and early Christians believed and taught about God and should be renounced and denounced by any true follower of Christ.

God the Father We have concluded that there is but one God, by whom all things visible and invisible were made, and through whom all things subsist. He is the Almighty, the Ancient of Days, the

165

only omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus, Son of God Jesus is the true reflection of God, the only begotten, born of a woman yet still able to reveal to us the glory of His Father, full of grace and truth. As a son, a man, he cannot be considered co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. He was not God, taking a human form, nor is he the second person of a Trinity Godhead, but rather the manifestation of God, displaying the Divine Character in human form. Paul describes it like this in his letter to Timothy,

“God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Timothy 3:16). Jesus shared our nature, endured temptation, suffered on the cross and died in order that we might have a hope of life. But being sinless, the grave could not hold him and so he was raised by God. Now made immortal, he is exalted, glorified, sitting at God‟s right hand (a further indication of his inequality) awaiting the time when he will return to the earth to establish the Kingdom of his Father. Jesus was, and remains an entirely

166

separate being from God; an assertion which deals a deathblow to the popular concept of the Trinity which would seek to blur such a distinction.

The Holy Spirit The Spirit of God is simply His active force or power, by which He is omnipresent. The Holy Spirit is the same power of God, but more directed to accomplish special purposes, such as the remarkable work of redemption and revelation. It has neither personality nor an identity of its own. It is no more separate from the Father than sunlight is from the sun. Much food for thought has been presented throughout these chapters to allow us to reach a sane and coherent understanding of an admittedly mind boggling and difficult subject. If the Trinity doctrine is not compatible with the teaching of Scripture, it should be immediately dismissed as a fabrication of the truth. Those who are honest enough to come to this conclusion must question whether they can stay in company and fellowship with those who persist in holding to error.

The author again appeals to the reader that he may

have the strength and the faith to act upon his conviction and do something before it is too late.

167

Bibliography

ABEL, Ron

WRESTED SCRIPTURES The Christadelphian Box 1066, Pasadena, California 91102, USA

BROUGHTON, James H. & SOUTHGATE, Peter J.

THE TRINITY, TRUE OR FALSE? “The Dawn” Book Supply 66 Carlton Road, Nottingham, NG3 2AP, England

CHAPMAN, Geoffrey

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A Cassell Imprint Wellington House, 125 Strand, London, WC2R 0BB, England

CRUDEN, Alexander

COMPLETE CONCORDANCE Samuel Bagster & Sons 15 Paternoster Row, London, England

HEASTER, Duncan

BIBLE BASICS Christadelphian Advancement Trust P.O. Box 3034, South Croydon, Surrey, CR2 0ZA, England

ROBERTS, Robert

CHRISTENDOM ASTRAY Logos Publications 9 West Beach Road, West Beach, South Australia 5024, Australia

RUBENSTEIN, Richard E.

WHEN JESUS BECAME GOD Harcourt Inc. 6277 Sea Harbour Drive, Orlando, Florida 32887-6777, USA

TENNANT, Harry

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES The Christadelphian 404 Shaftmoor Lane, Birmingham, B28 8SZ, England

WHITE, Percy E.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY Shallard & Potter 2 Jervois Street, Torrensville, South Australia 5031, Australia

168

Glossary

Anno Domini

confer, refer to

e.g.

„exempli gratia‟ meaning for example

ESV

English Standard Version

GNT

Good News Translation

i.e.

„id est‟ meaning that is

Jerusalem Bible

KJV

King James Version

N.B.

„nota bene‟ meaning note well

NIV

New International Version

RSV

Revised Standard Version

169

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." Herbert Sebastien Agar

170

Key Elements of the Gospel According to the Scriptures and as presented by the Christadelphian Bible Students of St. Lucia

1. The Bible is the only true message from God and was entirely given by Him.

2. There is only one God, the Father, who made the world and has a great purpose for it.

3. The Holy Spirit is God's own power, by which He works out His own holy will.

4. Jesus is the Son of God. He is also Son of man through being born of Mary.

5. Jesus overcame all temptation and died to save his followers from sin and death.

6. Jesus was raised from the dead by God. Later he ascended to heaven but will return.

7. When he returns he will raise and judge the responsible dead and give eternal life to the faithful.

8. He will be King over the restored Kingdom of God in Israel and over the whole world.

9. His immortalised followers will assist him to bring everlasting righteousness and peace worldwide.

10. The devil is not a supernatural being but is a figure of sin, and destroyed only in Christ.

11. Salvation involves covering from sin through Christ, and freedom from sin and death at his coming. In all those granted eternal life, the devil will be destroyed

12. When man dies he ceases to exist and is unconscious. The only hope of life is by resurrection at Christ's return.

13. Belief in God's Promises about the Kingdom of God and the work of Jesus Christ is essential for eternal life.

14. Repentance and baptism into Christ by immersion in water and daily following of Christ are all necessary for ultimate salvation.

171

For further information on the topic of this book, or a free Bible postal course Please contact:

Christadelphians of St. Lucia P.O Box 966 Castries St. Lucia West Indies

172