Embedded Files
V-24. Is the “Word” in John 1:1 a Separate Divine PERSON?
In other words, is the Word in John 1:1 a preexisting divine eternal God who was a separate person from Almighty God who was with God at God's side in the eternity past. Or is the Word the word OF God that cam forth out from the MOUTH of Almighty God as PROPHECY the BECAME a separate person from God after the word was made FLESH?
Now, I 100% believe that the Bible clearly teaches us that Yahweh the Father DWELT in the human flesh of Jesus. So to say that Yahweh Himself became flesh is NOT sound Biblical teaching. But to say that God who is SPIRIT came in the flesh to dwell in the human flesh of the Son of MAN, Jesus is a Biblical statement of fact. But it can be misleading depending on how God came in the flesh is worded. In other words, Christians might wrongly INTERPRET the sound Biblical statement of fact that Yahweh came in the flesh to incorrectly mean that Yahweh Himself literally became flesh. To say this another way, to say God the Son incarnated himself to become flesh is not Biblical. And to say that Yahweh manifested Himself into a human being and remained fully divine in nature is also not Biblical either.
And here is one of many reasons as to why I myself do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. And I might add that I also do not believe in the doctrine of the Oneness Pentecostal Pentecostal Christians that wrongly teach that Jesus is NOT a separate person from the Father. I believe that the ONE TRUE God is Yahweh who is ONE God in ONE person who ALONE is the Father. I believe that Jesus is the SON OF Yahweh the Father. And again, the FATHER alone is the ONLY TRUE God, according to John 17:1-3. So the, the short answer to the question, Is the Word in John 1:1 a divine eternal being is NO! The sound Biblical answer is that the word was MADE flesh BY Yahweh. The word is Yahweh's thoughts that He spoke forth out from His mouth. For the long in-depth sound Biblical answer please continue reading to the end of this study. Here is reason number one for why BOTH the doctrine of the Trinity AND the doctrine of Oneness CONTRADICT what the Bible itself teaches us in SIMPLICITY.
REASON #1.
Why the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT Biblical.
If you believe ALL of God's word then you will know that after the cross Jesus was highly exalted.
Please read Philippians 2:8-11.
“And being found in fashion as a MAN, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9. WHEREFORE (Or for this very REASON that the Son of MAN, Jesus, humbled himself and became obedient unto DEATH, even the death of the CROSS) God (Speaking of Almighty God Yahweh the FATHER) also has HIGHLY EXALTED him, (Speaking of the Son of MAN, Jesus being HIGHLY EXALTED by Yahweh the Father) AND GIVEN him a NAME which is above every name: (Speaking of a NEW NAME that Yahweh the Father GAVE to the Son of MAN, Jesus, as part of his being HIGHLY EXALTED. And the REASON FOR this NEW NAME is given to us in the very next verse)
10. THAT (Or SO THAT) at the NAME of Jesus (Speaking of the NEW NAME that Yahweh gave to Jesus AFTER the Son of MAN humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death on the cross) every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11. AND THAT every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory OF God the Father.”
Now, what does “HIGHLY EXALTED” mean? The word “exalted” means to rise higher in rank, power, authority, and character. It means to be elevated higher than you were before. So then “HIGHLY” exalted would mean being elevated MUCH higher than you were before.
And Jesus being HIGHLY EXALTED contradicts what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. I mean, to ME, this ONE reason concerning Jesus being HIGHLY EXALTED proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is a MAN-MADE doctrine that is NOT taught in the Scriptures.
Below is a diagram showing before the incarnation, according to the doctrine of the Trinity to the left, the days of the flesh of God the Son, the second person of the Godhead Trinity God in the middle of the diagram, and to the right is Jesus right now in heaven AFTER being HIGHLY EXALTED. Look at the diagram first to see if you see what I see without me explaining what I see to you. Simply think about what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.
Did you see the problem with the doctrine of the Trinity in this diagram? If you did not see any problem with the doctrine of the Trinity NOT being Biblical in which this present illustration shows, then get out a piece of paper and add what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches to the diagram. In the first three circles to the left add the words “invisible”, co-eternal, and co-EQUAL to all three persons of the Trinity Godhead. In the middle of the diagram, ONLY add the words “invisible”, co-eternal, and co-EQUAL to the Father and the Holy Spirit. In other words, do NOT add the words “invisible”, co-eternal, and co-EQUAL to God the Son down on the earth because the Bible ITSELF clearly teaches us that Jesus could do NOTHING OF himself and it was Yahweh the Father DWELLING IN him who did the works, according to John 8:28, John 5:19,30, and John 14:10. And if God the Son remained eternal then he could not die on the cross. And, obviously, Jesus was not invisible.
Now, I did not draw this diagram. And for this diagram to show all the “ages” of Jesus you would need five sections instead of three sections. But for now, we only need to add a fourth section between the second and third sections. So then, with another section added between the second and third sections, the added section would look the same as the second section with one exception. You need to add a small circle INSIDE Jesus down on the earth and put BOTH the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit to represent the ANOINTING of the Holy Spirit at the baptism of Jesus to begin his MINISTRY.
And in the diagram to the right, ONLY add the three words to the Father and the Holy Spirit. And to God the Son you can add the word “co-eternal” ONLY because God the Son is NO LONGER invisible and God the Son is NO LONGER CO-EQUAL with Yahweh the Father. And that is NOT what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God the Son is eternally co-equal with God the Father even during the days of his flesh.
According to the Bible itself, Jesus is UNDER and SUBJECT to his God and Father. In other words, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Son, the second person of the Godhead Trinity has always been CO-EQUAL with God the Father in every way where neither is less than nor greater than the other. And the God the Son has always been and always will be co-equal with God the Father. And God the Son will never be in the future not be co-equal with God the Father. To say this another way, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God that Son has ALWAYS been co-equal with the Father and he will ALWAYS be co-equal with the Father in the eternity future. In other words, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Son is ETERNALLY co-equal with God the Father where neither is less than nor greater than the other. But the Bible ITSELF clearly teaches us in SIMPLICITY that the Father is the God OF Jesus and that Jesus is UNDER and SUBJECT TO his God and Father.
Now, I can understand that perhaps God the Son might have STRIPPED himself of being INVISIBLE so he could be SEEN, and also stripped himself of being co-eternal so he could DIE on the cross, and even stripped himself of being co-equal so he could be like ALL other human beings WITHOUT ANY divine power of his OWN. And I can also see the possibility of God the Son being “REINSTATED” with the co-eternal status but remaining VISIBLE so that he could be SEEN in the world yet to come. But that is NOT what actually HAPPENED, according to the Bible ITSELF.
The Bible does NOT say that God the Son was “REINSTATED” back to his former glory of being co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father. But rather, the Bible says that Jesus was HIGHLY EXALTED which means being elevated ABOVE in power and rank from where he was BEFORE. And also, according to the Bible itself, God the Son is INFERIOR to what he was in eternity past IF SO BE that Jesus preexisted as God the Son in eternity past to be co-EQUAL with God the Father. For you see, IF there was a God the Son in eternity past and he was co-EQUAL with God the Father then after the cross and being HIGHLY EXALTED, God the Son is NO LONGER CO-EQUAL to God the Father. So rather than God the Son being HIGHLY EXALTED, God the Son was made LOWER than he was before IF there was a so-called preexisting God the Son who incarnated himself to become the Son of God.
But IF there was NO LITERAL already preexisting God the Son in eternity past as the man-made doctrine of the Trinity CLAIMS without any sound Biblical support, then God’s HUMAN Son, who came INTO existence at the virgin birth, would INDEED be considered HIGHLY EXALTED by being MADE Lord by his God and Father just like the Bible ITSELF clearly teaches us in Acts 2:36.
Please read Acts 2:36.
“Therefore, let all the house of Israel KNOW ASSUREDLY, that God has MADE that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, BOTH Lord and Christ.”
God MADE the Son of MAN, Jesus, the Christ FIRST. God ANOINTED the Son of MAN, Jesus, with POWER from on high according to Acts 2:38. And this ANOINTING with the Holy Spirit and POWER took place at the water baptism of Jesus. And that is WHEN God SENT His Son into the world to become the Messiah or the Savior of the world. The word “Christ” means ANOINTED and it also means Messiah or Savior. And the ANOINTED Son of MAN, Jesus, did not actually become our Savior until he humbled himself and became obedient unto DEATH, even the death on the CROSS. And AFTER the CROSS the Son of MAN, Jesus, was HIGHLY EXALTED and GIVEN a NEW NAME to be MADE our Lord and our God. And THAT is what I would call “HIGHLY EXALTED”. But the doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches the exact OPPOSITE where God the Son is ABASED and stripped of his co-equal status. Plain and simple, the doctrine of the Trinity CONTRADICTS what the Bible ITSELF teaches. Think about an already preexisting God the Son becoming God the Son. Think about God the Son incarnating HIMSELF to become the Son of God. That would make God the Son the Father of HIMSELF. And the Oneness doctrine is just as nonsensical to me because the Father is the Father of HIMSELF seeing that the Son is the Father, according to the Oneness doctrine.
REASON #2.
Why the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT Biblical.
The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God the Son IS WHOLLY God the SAME as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. And therefore, God HIMSELF in the “person” of God the Son BECAME a man. Here is a quote of the doctrine of the Trinity from an official Roman Catholic Church website. I have emphasized some words and phrases which I will explain after you read the official teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity, according to the Roman Catholic Church that FORMED the doctrine of the Trinity. So who better to know what the doctrine of the Trinity ACTUALLY teaches than the church denomination that FORMED the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
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 God." In this Trinity of Persons, the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to the origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.
In Scripture, there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterward, it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century, the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
There is, therefore, nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterward: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason, it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion, it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture.
Now, the Roman Catholic Church itself OPENLY admits that the Doctrine of the Trinity is NOT FOUND in the New Testament but yet SOME Protestant church denominations dogmatically demand that if a person DENIES the doctrine of the Trinity then they are NOT saved. And they will remain DEAD in their sin until they believe in the doctrine of the Trinity which teaches that God the Son died on the cross as opposed to the Son OF God died on the cross. At the end of this study on the “7 REASONS WHY THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE!”, I will give you some quotes from several Trinitarian sources that also OPENLY admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT “explicitly” found in the Scriptures. But for now, REASON number two as to why the doctrine of the Trinity CONTRADICTS the Bible is that the Trinity doctrine states that God Himself BECAME a MAN. But yet the Scriptures clearly teach us that God is NOT a MAN and NEITHER is God the SON OF MAN. Please read the following passages of Scripture.
Numbers 23:19.
“God (Or “El” speaking of Yahweh the creator) is NOT a MAN, that He should lie; NEITHER (Is El) the SON OF MAN, that He should repent: has He said, (Or has He PROPHESIED) and shall He not do it? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?”
Yahweh SPEAKS or PROPHESIES by speaking words of prophecy out from Himself and then Yahweh PERFORMS His own word of PROPHECY to bring IT to pass. So the IT that Yahweh PROPHESIES is Yahweh's word of prophecy that become a MAN but Yahweh Himself is NOT that Son of MAN that Yahweh prophesied into existence. The Son of MAN, Jesus, CAME OUT FROM God as God’s HUMAN Son but Jesus is NOT the God who BEGAT himself. Jesus is ANOTHER God that was MADE Lord and God BY his God and Father after the cross. Jesus was GIVEN a NEW NAME after the cross. And that NEW NAME is PROPHESIED in Isaiah 9:6. Jesus was NOT born with his NEW NAME, but rather, the Son of MAN, Jesus, was HIGHLY EXALTED after the cross and Yahweh the Father GAVE the highly exalted Jesus a NEW name, according to Philippians 2:8-11. Now, if so ne that Jesus is Yahweh Himself as both the doctrine of the Trinity and the Oneness doctrine claims then the NAME of Jesus would have already been the HIGHEST name there is. But the Bible ITSELF teaches us in simplicity that Jesus was GIVEN a name that is ABOVE every other name except for the Father's name which is Yahweh. Can you not see the many problems with both the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Oneness?
Hosea 11:9.
“I will not execute the fierceness of my anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, (Or I Yahweh am El, the Almighty) and NOT MAN; the Holy One in the midst of thee: (Or the Holy One dwelling in your midst is my Son in whom I am well please so HONOR him even as you HONOR me. I have MADE him for MY GLORY) and I will NOT enter into the city.”
Yahweh COMMITTED all judgment into the hands of his now highly exalted Son, according to John 5:22-27. So Jesus, the now highly exalted Son of God who is no longer a MORTAL human but who is now an IMMORTAL human will execute the wrath of Yahweh’s anger and Yahweh will NOT enter the city Himself.
REASON #3.
Why the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT Biblical.
The third reason as to why I can no longer believe in the doctrine of the Trinity is that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that Jesus PREEXISTED in eternity past and the Bible ITSELF clearly teaches us that Jesus was BEGOTTEN. And since Jesus was begotten by Yahweh the Father that means that Jesus came INTO existence which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity as it is being taught is NOT SOUND Biblical teaching. Now I already have an in-depth study on reason number three and also for most of all the following reasons as well. So I will give a link to that Study for all the Scriptures that support that particular reason as to why the doctrine of the Trinity CONTRADICTS what the Bible itself teaches us in SIMPLICITY. So for of the Scriptures that support reason number three please read the three-part study “WHEN DID JESUS BECOME GOD’S ETERNAL SON?-1”
REASON #4.
Why the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT Biblical.
The fourth reason as to why I can no longer believe in the doctrine of the trinity and why I could NEVER believe in the doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism is because BOTH doctrines wrongly teach that DURING the days of his FLESH Jesus had TWO natures at the SAME time, one divine, and one human.
The TWO nature doctrine was formulated in the FOURTH-century to try and settle the controversy between Christians who REJECTED the doctrine of the Trinity and the Christians who FORMULATED the doctrine of the Trinity eventually become the dominant FORCE. And thus, the TWO nature doctrine of Jesus along with the doctrine of the Trinity were forced upon Christians with the threat of death or ex-communication from the church.
But in the last two hundred years there have been many Bible Scholars who are “hardcore” Trinitarian Christians but yet they OPENLY admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT found in the Scriptures. In other words, they openly admit that while the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT “explicitly” and clearly taught in the Bible it seems to be IMPLIED that there is but ONE God and the THREE persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are that one God. They argue that God is specifically called God and the Holy Spirit seems to be spoken of in many verses “INTERCHANGEABLY” with God. Now. both of these Trinitarian augments can NOT be denied but they can be explained in ANOTHER way without trying to force God to be a Trinity Godhead with three person in one God.
For all the QUOTES from Trinitarian Bible Scholars who are experts on the subject of the Trinity, I have those quotes at the end of this study. And for all the Scriptures as to why Yahweh does NOT have to be forced to be a Trinity Godhead please read the studies >>>WHO IS JESUS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?<<< and “WHY THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE FATHER!” I 100% believe that the Holy Spirit IS a PERSON but I do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit is a SEPARATE person from the Father. I believe that the Bible ITSELF teaches us that the Holy Spirit is the SELF-SAME being as Yahweh the Father. So to me, I only find TWO separate persons in the Bible which again proves that God is NOT a Trinity Godhead because the word trinity mean three.
REASON #5.
Why the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT Biblical.
Now, reason number five is more for showing that the Godhead is ONE person. For you see, IF the Godhead were THREE separate persons then that would mean that God the Son dwelt IN God the Son because Colossians 2:9 says that the FULLNESS of the Godhead DWELT IN him bodily. The word fullness mean ALL. So the fullness of the Godhead would mean ALL three persons of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus. And that would mean that God the Son dwelt in God the Son. Now the Oneness Christians believe that Jesus IS the Father. So WHY would the Father NEED to dwell in Jesus if so be that Jesus was BORN as being FULLY Almighty God Himself?
And that is where their man-made so-called “TWO NATURE” doctrine comes in handy to keep them and their followers deceived into believing that God Himself MANIFESTED Himself to become flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16 does NOT say that the MYSTERY of God is that God HIMSELF manifested Himself to become flesh. That is the Oneness and Trinitarian INTERPRETATION that is read INTO that verse of Scripture. For the full in-depth teaching on the TRUE SOUND Biblical meaning of 1 Timothy 3:16 please read the study “WHAT DOES 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 TRULY MEAN?” But for now, let us read that verse of Scripture the way that it is written.
1 Timothy 3:16.
“And without controversy great is the mystery of GODLINESS: God was manifest in the flesh, JUSTIFIED in the Spirit, SEEN of ANGLES, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY.”
So the MYSTERY is GODLINESS and NOT Almighty God Himself manifesting Himself to become flesh. The Scripture does NOT say God HIMSELF was manifest in the flesh. The Scripture does NOT say God manifested Himself to become flesh.
But rather, the Scripture simply says that God WAS manifest IN the flesh. So there are two sound Biblical interpretations of this verse of Scripture.
INTERPRETATION #1.
The word “God” was INTENDED to be referring to Yahweh the Father as being manifestly DECLARED to be the ONLY TRUE God IN the FLESH of His HUMAN Son Jesus.
INTERPRETATION #2.
The word “God” was INTENDED to mean “A” God was literally MANIFESTED in the human flesh, then JUSTIFIED in the Spirit. The SEEN of the ANGELS to prove to the angels that a creature made a little LOWER than the angels could live without sin. And then the Son of MAN, Jesus, was RECEIVED up into heaven in GLORY to be CROWNED with glory and honor for he is WORTHY because he has PREVAILED against God’s enemy. And the SAME joy of being GLORIED with a new immortal body that was set before Jesus to ENDURE the cross is now set before us who OVERCOME even as Jesus overcame.
The Greek word that is translated as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16 is also the same Greek word translated as “God” in John 1:1. And this Greek word “theos” can ALSO mean “A” deity and does NOT always mean THE Almighty God Himself. Here is how E-Sword defines the Greek word “theos”.
G2316
θεός
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
In other words, WITH the definite article “THE”, as in, “the” God was manifest in the flesh then we would have to conclude that Yahweh was manifest in the flesh. But that still does not prove that Yahweh Himself BECAME flesh. For you see, the word manifest also means to manifestly DECLARED or to show plainly. And Jesus manifestly declared the Father to be the ONLY TRUE God in John 17:1-3.
And since the is NO definite article in the original Greek text then the Greek word “theos” could just as easily mean “A” God under and subject to the ONLY TRUE God was manifest in the flesh. And since the END of the fulfillment of prophecy clearly and plainly shows us in SIMPLICITY that Yahweh the Father is God over and above Jesus then that proves that Jesus is NOT one and the self-same God as the Father. Jesus is ANOTHER God who is under and subject to his God and Father. And to me, the mere fact that Yahweh the Father is the God OF Jesus proves that BOTH the doctrine of the Trinity AND the doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism are NOT SOUND Biblical teachings.
REASON #6.
Why the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT Biblical.
Reason number six as to why the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical is because there is evidence that the Bible has been “tampered” with in order to give SUPPORT to the doctrine of the Trinity. And the mere fact of this evidence of tampering with the Bible in order to give SUPPORT to a church doctrine that is NOT found in the Scriptures proves to ME, that the doctrine of the Trinity is a man-made doctrine that should be rejected by all Christians who are seeking the honest truth of who Jesus is according to the Bible itself.
Here are some examples that Trinitatrian Christians have added to the Bible to give support to the doctrine of the Trinity. So why add words to the Bible if so be that the Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.
Scripture #1.
1 John 5:7.
“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”
This is called the Johannine Comma. You can type in that name and do your own research. Some Christians do not know that this verse was added to the Bible. These added words are NOT found in any of the early Greek manuscripts of the Bible that have been dated before the TENTH century. Some commentaries say the SEVENTEENTH century. The exact century is not as important as the fact that Bible scholars attest to the fact that 1 John 5:7 was inserted or ADDED into “translations” of the Bible. It is known that these words were first added to the Roman Catholic Church Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. And by the time, the King James Version of the Bible the doctrine of the Trinity had already become “Orthodox” Christianity. So the Textus Receptus which means the received text was used to translate the King James Bible. And from then on other Bible translations followed the same pattern of interpretation.
Scripture #2.
Matthew 28:19.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Matthew 28:19 is translated in most modern translations of the Bible as “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in MY name”. So the Roman Catholic Church itself openly admits that she changed the baptismal formula in the second century. Please consider the following quotes from the official Roman Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Catholic Encyclopedia II (Page 263)
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
Britannica Encyclopedia 11th Edition, Vol 3, Page 82, and Pages 365-366.
“Everywhere in the oldest sources, it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”- “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, Page 53.
“The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.”
So to ME, I have NO doubt that the Roman Catholic Church TAMPERED with the original Greek Manuscripts when Roman Catholic priests copied the manuscripts.
Scripture #3.
John 1:1.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
YES, even the famous Trinitarian John 1:1 verse has been CHANGED in order to give support to the doctrine of the Trinity. How was John 1:1 changed to INFLUENCE Christians to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Greek word Logos was capitalized. And thus, John 1:1c, the third phrase is “INTERPRETED” as the Word was Almighty God Himself. And, therefore, Almighty God Himself BECAME FLESH in John 1:14, according to the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Oneness.
But John 1:14 does NOT say that Almighty God Himself BECAME flesh. Rather, John 1:14 simply says that the word was MADE FLESH.
Scripture #4.
Isaiah 9:6.
“For unto us a Child is born, unto us, a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
BOTH Trinitarian Christians AND Oneness Christians us Isaiah 9:6 as their proof text to try and prove that they alone have the only true teaching about who Jesus is. The Oneness Christians FOCUS totally on the word “Everlasting Father” to try and prove that Jesus IS the Father, as in, Yahweh the Father, manifested Himself to become the Son.
And Trinitarian Christians FOCUS on the word “Mighty God” to try and prove that Jesus is Yahweh Himself.
Now clearly, seeing from actual manuscript evidence that 1 John 5:7, Matthew 28:19, and John 1:1 were all CHANGED to influence Christians to believe the doctrine of the Trinity then it is no stretch to say that Isaiah 9:6 and other famous Trinitarian verses are BIASED in there being “TRANSLATED”. In other words, there is no evidence of tampering with the manuscripts themselves with Isaiah 9:6 but that does NOT mean that there is no BIAS in the translation. Clearly, in the case of SOME verses of Scripture, there is indeed a Trinitarian BIAS in the “translation” of those verses of Scripture. And since the changes in 1 John 5:7. Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1 were DELIBERATE changes in order to influence Christians to believe the doctrine of the Trinity then why is it so hard for some Christians to see that other verses of Scripture were translated as well to be BIAS toward the doctrine of the Trinity? Please read the study “ISAIAH 9:6,7 WHAT DOES EVERSLATING FATHER TRULY MEAN?”
The SIMPLE answer is that Jesus SHALL BE CALLED by the NAME or TITLE of Mighty God in the world yet to come WHEN the government shall be LAID upon his shoulders to rule FOR Yahweh in the NAME OF Yahweh for 1000 years. And Jesus shall also be called by the NAME everlasting Father which should be read as father of eternal life because Yahweh GAVE all power and authority to give eternal life or everlasting life to whosoever he judges worthy to receive eternal life in the world to come. According to Hebrews 5:9 Jesus was MADE perfect and he BECAME the AUTHOR of eternal salvation, The author of a book in the father of that book that he or she wrote. So after the cross God mad the Son of MAN perfect and Jesus became the author to give us who endure unto the end eternal life in the world to come.
REASON #7.
Why the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT Biblical.
The following quotes are from “Trinitarian” authors that I found on the following Biblical Unitarian website called What Trinitarian Scholars Say
Trinitarian Millard J. Erickson - (Research Professor of Theology at S.W. Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Baptist) in his book on the Trinity, "God In Three Persons"):
“This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes...It was the very first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet it is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed doctrines. Further, it is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith" (p. 11-12).
Professor Shirley C. Guthrie, Jr. - (Trinitarian scholar, in his best selling book, "Christian Doctrine"):
“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word "trinity" itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or "substance"), and three 'persons' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy " (p. 76-77).
Trinitarians Roger Olson and Christopher Hall - (In their book, "The Trinity"):
"It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. "The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the N.T. in the heat of controversy. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.)" (p. 1-2).
Professor Charles C. Ryrie - (Respected Trinitarian Evangelical Biblical scholar, in his well-known work "Basic Theology" ):
"In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity " (p. 65).
"But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (p. 89).
"The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof text in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results... If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit " (p. 90).
Graham Greene - (Noted Catholic scholar):
"Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture...but the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels ."
Professor Cyril C. Richardson - ("The Doctrine of The Trinity: A clarification of what it attempts to express")
“I cannot but think that the doctrine of the Trinity, far from being established, is open to serious criticism, because of both the modern understanding of the Scripture and inherent confusions in its expression. It is not a doctrine specifically to be found in the New Testament. It is a creation of the fourth-century Church " (p. 17).
"But Philo (20 B.C. - 50 A.D.) introduces a second theme derived from Greek thinking, that God creates by his Word or Logos. From these observations, it becomes clear that there is an essential ambiguity in Philo's thought, an ambiguity which we shall find running through trinitarian thinking" (p. 31-33).
"The idea that the Logos is begotten by God, is his 'first-born', his 'invisible image' and so on, plays an important role in Philo, and whether directly from him or not, comes into Christian thinking. The Word is for Philo the intermediary between God and his action" (p. 34).
Please note: Philo was a Hellenistic (Greek) Jewish philosopher and writer who taught the "divine Logos" doctrine. He mentions the Logos over 1400 times in his writings and refers to it as "a second God" and calls it " the mediating Logos ." He was born some twenty years before Jesus and was a famous writer before Jesus began his ministry. Philo lived in Alexandria, Egypt and there is no indication that he ever heard of Jesus. He got his idea of the "divine Logos - second God" from Greek philosophy and mostly the Greek philosopher Plato (428-348 B.C.). Professor Richardson says, "From our brief study of the New Testament material it becomes apparent that the symbols Father, Son, and Spirit do not constitute a genuine Trinity. In fact, there is no way to overcome the paradox that we must think of God both as one and as a society. There simply is no way in human thought to compose this paradox (p. 95).
"My conclusion then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct. It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms. Christian theology might be aided by abandoning such a procedure and by making clear the inadequacy both of the ambiguous terms and of the threeness into which its doctrines have been traditionally forced. There is no necessary threeness in the Godhead " (p. 148-149).
Professor Richardson is writing as a dedicated Trinitarian but he admits, "much of the defense of the Trinity as a 'revealed' doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it" (p. 16).
What Credible Sources Say Concerning The Doctrine of the Trinity.
Harper-Collins Bible Dictionary - (1996 Edition):
"It is only with the fathers of the church in the third and fourth centuries, that a full-fledged theory of the Incarnation develops. Attempts to trace the origins still earlier to the Old Testament literature cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship. The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great Church Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament ."
Harper-Collins Bible Encyclopedia of Catholicism - (1995 Edition):
"Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament ...It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the Old Testament to suppose that a late-fourth century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there. Likewise, the New Testament does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."
Encyclopedia International - (1982 Ed.; Vol. 18; p. 226):
"The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles preaching as this is reported in the N.T."
New International Encyclopedia - (Vol. 23; p. 47, 477):
"The Trinity doctrine; the Catholic Faith is this: We worship one in trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost - the Glory equal; the Majesty coeternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the O.T. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity, without serious examination."
Again, the above Trinitarian quotes were taken from a Biblical Unitarians website by JOEL HEMPHILL
And all of the following Trinitarian quotes were taken from various different websites which I did not save the links. But again, many Trinitarians openly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT found in the Bible.
The New Bible Dictionary: “The term ‘Trinity’ is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries”(1996, “Trinity”).
Religious writer A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, states that the Trinity is an “incomprehensible mystery” and that attempts to understand it “must remain forever futile.” He admits that churches, “without pretending to understand,” have nevertheless continued to teach this doctrine (1961, pp. 17-18).
The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, in its article on the Trinity, concedes that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible: “It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect” (1988, p. 1308).
Cyril Richardson, professor of church history at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself, said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity:
“My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct . . . It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms” (1958, pp. 148-149).
He also admitted, “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a ‘revealed’ doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it” (p. 16).
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge states regarding the Trinity, “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves” (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885, “Trinitarians”).
MORE admissions that the Trinity is NOT in the Bible!
MORE admissions that the Trinity is NOT in the Bible!
Notice these admissions from a number of reputable sources and authors who, while themselves affirming the Trinity, acknowledge that the word “Trinity” and the doctrine is NOT found in the Bible.
Notice these admissions from a number of reputable sources and authors who, while themselves affirming the Trinity, acknowledge that the word “Trinity” and the doctrine is NOT found in the Bible.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that “ ‘trinity’ is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement” (1988, Vol. 4, “Trinity,” p. 914). It further states that “church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries”—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.
The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary tells us, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]” (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, “Trinity”).
The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism states: “Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT [Old Testament] or the NT [New Testament] . . . It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there . . . Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity” (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, “God,” pp. 564-565).
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its article on the Trinity, explains: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons” (1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928).
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out that “primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church” (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, “God,” p. 84).
Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells, in his noted work The Outline of History, points out, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him” (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499).
Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).
The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: “Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]” (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, “Trinity,” p. 782).
Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ‘clearly’ states that there is one God who exists in three persons” (1999, p. 89).
Ryrie goes on to state: “The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 90).
Millard Erickson, researcher professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity “is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.
“In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble” (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12).
Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching “is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God” (p. 20).
Professor Erickson later points out: “It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity’s uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.
“Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion” (pp. 108-109). Later in this booklet, we will consider various Scriptures often used to support the Trinity doctrine.
Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy” (Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77).”
Trinitarian scholars manipulate the Bible to protect their doctrine.
Trinitarian scholars manipulate the Bible to protect their doctrine.
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” [John 17:3]
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” [John 17:3]
This statement in the Bible is devastating to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it clearly identifies God as the only true God to the exclusion of Jesus. Here Jesus defines his own position as the Messiah, distinct from the Godhead, which consists of the Father alone.
This statement in the Bible is devastating to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it clearly identifies God as the only true God to the exclusion of Jesus. Here Jesus defines his own position as the Messiah, distinct from the Godhead, which consists of the Father alone.
In fact, so devastating is this statement, that major pro-Trinitarian scholars of the past have resorted to manipulating the Bible in order to protect the doctrine of the Trinity. We note the remarkable comment of the celebrated Church Father Augustine. Augustine of Hippo is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers in Western Christianity. It was so difficult for Augustine to harmonize John 17:3 with the doctrine of the Trinity, that this immensely influential church leader actually restructured Jesus’ words to accommodate both the Father and Son in the Godhead.
In fact, so devastating is this statement, that major pro-Trinitarian scholars of the past have resorted to manipulating the Bible in order to protect the doctrine of the Trinity. We note the remarkable comment of the celebrated Church Father Augustine. Augustine of Hippo is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers in Western Christianity. It was so difficult for Augustine to harmonize John 17:3 with the doctrine of the Trinity, that this immensely influential church leader actually restructured Jesus’ words to accommodate both the Father and Son in the Godhead.
Augustine, in his “Homilies on John”, boldly asserts that John 17:3 means:
Augustine, in his “Homilies on John”, boldly asserts that John 17:3 means:
“This is eternal life, that they may know Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent, as the only true God.” [1]
“This is eternal life, that they may know Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent, as the only true God.” [1]
This daring alteration of the Bible seriously distorts the original meaning of the words in order to include Jesus in the Godhead. Such forcing of the text merely exposes Augustine’s desperation to protect his creed in the Bible.
This daring alteration of the Bible seriously distorts the original meaning of the words in order to include Jesus in the Godhead. Such forcing of the text merely exposes Augustine’s desperation to protect his creed in the Bible.
So then, in the LIGHT of the SOUND Biblical evidence is why I myself can no longer believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. But I find it very interesting that so many very prominent Trinitarian Bible Scholars and authors of books and commentaries would OPENLY ADMIT that the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT found in the Scriptures.
But what I find in my mind to be shocking is that they still yet cling to the doctrine of the Trinity as the core MUST be believed doctrine in order to be a true born-again Christian. How can any Trinitarian Christian dogmatically INSIST that the doctrine of the Trinity is ESSENTIAL to the Christian faith when it is NOT found EXPLICITLY in the Scriptures in clear, plain, simple language?
Thanks for reading and may God bless you richly as you continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Brother Mark.
RETURN TO HOMEPAGE
AT
VERSES USED TO TEACH THAT JESUS PREEXISTED!
To me, the best way to know the ONE true God in ONE person is to know who Jesus TRULY IS according to the WHOLE word of Almighty God so please read ALL the studies under the heading >>>WHO IS JESUS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?<<< and you will see that the Bible itself teaches us that Jesus was CREATED by his God and Father. And if you have any questions related to the correct meaning of certain verses of Scripture on this subject of who Jesus is please read all the studies under the two headings >>>A LIST OF STUDIES ON THE TRINITY!<<< and >>>VERSES USED TO TEACH THAT JESUS PRE-EXISTED!<<< These two headings have ALL the studies that I have on who Jesus truly is according to what the Bible itself teaches us in simplicity. I compiled these three headings to make it easy for my readers to send just one, two, or three links to those you desire to help understand what the Bible itself teaches concerning who Jesus is in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of Almighty God.
Thanks for reading and may God bless you richly as you continue to seek the truth of the whole word of Almighty God.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Brother Mark.
RETURN TO HOMEPAGE
AT
Report abuse