THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST

The Key to having "both the Father and the Son"
ISBN 0-9844153-7-8

Published by:
Associated Bible Students
P. O. Box 92
Clawson, MI 48017 USA
www.bibletoday.com
CONTENTS
Introduction
1. Let us ReasonTogether
2. The TrinityEmerges Gradually
3. The HolySpirit Misunderstood
4. Further ScripturalHarmony
5. ConfrontingGnostic Heresies
6. Readings fromthe Inspired Word ofGod
7. Views ofthe EarlyChurchFathers

Summaryand Conclusions
Appendix:Translations ofthe Greek αρχη (arche or arkee) Endnotes
References

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

"The doctrine ofChrist"was clear inJohn’s time. He was unwilling to receive anycontrarythinking. Johnheld uncompromisinglyto this doctrine, saying, "Ifanyone comes to youand does not bringthis doctrine, do not receive himinto the house or give himanygreeting; for he who greets himshares his wicked work"(2 John10, 11, RSV). Inthis booklet, we willdiscuss the false teachingJohnwas addressing. Suffice it to sayhere, it did not include a defense ofthe doctrine ofthe Trinity. The Trinityconcept was foreignto the early Churchand did not emerge untilthe third and fourthcenturies. Throughtime this "doctrine ofChrist"has developed into a theology meaningsomethingdifferent fromthat whichwas held byJohnand the entire earlyChurch.

The ChristianChurchstarted out exclusivelyJewishand, as such, had a singular God. "The Lord our God is one Lord"is the basic concept ofthe Jewishfaith(Deuteronomy6:4). This was universally accepted and stressed byJewishauthorities fromancient times. Theyunderstood the Old Testament Scriptures to portrayGod as trulysingular inbeing, and theyconsistentlyrejected anyother characterization. Withone voice, Jehovahwas believed to be the onlyall-powerful, unoriginated, immutable, eternaland self-existing One—the one true God.

There is little doubt the Christianreligionstarted out withthis original concept ofGod. The ChurchofEngland, inthe Book ofCommon Prayer, presents the Apostles’ Creed as a UnitarianCreed, whichit affirms was the beliefofthe Churchduringthe first two centuries. This UnitarianCreed is stillquoted inmanychurches today. (We should distinguishbetweenthe UnitarianCreed, whichpresents God as a single being, and the UnitarianChurch, whichbelieves Jesus is not the sonofGod but onlythe sonofJosephand Mary.)

Inthe fourthcentury, under Constantine (A.D. 325), the Nicene, or Semi-Trinitarianconcept, was forged makingJesus and God one in substance. Theninthe fifthcentury, the Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed, came along, addingthe holySpirit, to complete the Trinity doctrine. Thoughcalled the AthanasianCreed, it is now generally admitted to have beencomposed bysome other person. It is noteworthythat the word Trinitynowhere appears inthe Bible. More importantly, the earlyChurchdebates ofthe Apostolic Era were centered onkeepingnewlyconverted Gentiles frombeing brought under the Jewishlaw. There were no ongoingdebates on whether Jesus and God were two persons inone. Yet since the earlyChristianChurchwas mostlyJewish, anydeviationfromthe "Lord our God is one Lord"foundationwould have takenenormous discussionand debate.

The formulators ofthe AthanasianCreed wellknew theyhad to meet the singular requirement:"The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy6:4). How could theymake three persons into one? Some ofthe best minds forged this explanation—"There are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible."It was anexplanationthat did not explain. Withsuchincantationofwords, theypresented their case and, apparently, prevailed. Theyclaimed the One God was three persons, yet onlyOne God. No wonder theysaid it was "incomprehensible."

There was subtletyhere. God himself, inone sense, is
incomprehensible, inthat He is above and beyond our grandest conceptions. (Inanother way, He is not incomprehensible, because we are created inHis image withthe abilityto reasonand think in the same mode, thoughvastlyinferior to the divine.) Manypeople willgrant that inone sense God is "incomprehensible,"and therefore, byassociation, theypropose that the doctrine about God is "incomprehensible."Theyshift the "incomprehensible"fromthe personofGod to a doctrine made bymenabout God. Yet, "the doctrine ofChrist"was clear and comprehensible inJohn’s time.
Jesus Presented Himself to Israel Covertly
Jesus did not go about declaringhe was the "Christ"or the "Anointed One."He did not encourage his disciples to do so. Jesus "Anointed One."He did not encourage his disciples to do so. Jesus 20)? The answers were:Elijah, Jeremiahor one ofthe prophets. Nothingverydramatic, was it? Nobodyguessed he was the "Christ"—muchless God. No!—not evenHis disciples. Jesus asked, "Who do yousaythat I am?"Peter’s answer pleased our Lord—"Youare the Christ [Anointed], the Sonofthe livingGod." That was correct. Onlybythe aid ofthe holySpirit was Peter able to speak thus.

But notice what the holySpirit did not suggest:It did not implyJesus was God—not eventhe vaguest hint ofit. The holySpirit owed us the truth, and it gave us the truth. "Youare the Christ [Anointed], the Sonofthe livingGod."Theywere thencharged, "Tellno one."If denied frompresentingJesus as the Christ, would theypresent Jesus as God? Did the holySpirit tellPeter a half-truthabout the Christ?

The "doctrine ofChrist"is:Jesus is the "Anointed"One. The Jews knew onlypriests, kings and some prophets were anointed, and it was strictlyforbiddento make or use the special"holyanointingoil" improperly(Exodus 30:31-33). Jesus was not a Levite and, therefore, could not be ofthe LeviticalPriesthood. He was, however, ofDavid’s line and could be anointed "King."Before his death, Jesus rode into Jerusalemsaying, "Tellthe daughter ofZion, Behold, your kingis comingto you"(Matt. 21:5-16).

InJesus’ last encounter withthe Pharisees, he asked:"What do you think ofChrist? Whose sonis he?"Theyknew Christ (Messiah, the Anointed) was spokenofas the SonofDavid and that David looked for a sonhe would callLord. Theyanswered:"The sonof David."Jesus said, "How is it thenthat David, inspired bythe Spirit, calls himLord"(Matthew 22:42, 43, RSV)? We ask:Did David believe he would father a sonwho would be God himself? Would he father God? Certainlynot! David, throughthe Spirit, was showingthat the Messiahofpromise would be bornofDavid’s royalline and, byfaithfullylayingdownhis life as the ransomprice, would be raised as Lord ofboththe livingand the dead. (See Romans 14:9.) This would be the Father’s reward for His son Christ Jesus, to enable himto carryout his great future work as Judge and Mediator inthe MillennialKingdom.

Ifthe doctrine ofChrist meant Jesus was God, the holySpirit failed to make this known. The title "Anointed"is never applied to God. That would be a sacrilege. The greater always anoints the lesser. God is above all. He anoints, but is not anointed—nor canHe be. We repeat:God is never called anointed! Never ever! It would be a grave improprietyto do so.
We Have Found the Messiah (The Anointed)
Andrew found his brother Simonand said, "We have found the Messiah[Christ, the Anointed]"(John1:41). That is what theywere lookingfor—the Anointed One ofGod—certainlynot God. When theymet Jesus, he did not tellthemto take offtheir shoes because theywere standingonholyground, as Moses was instructed to do (Ex. 3:5). Jesus simplysaid, "Thouart Simonthe sonofJona:thou shalt be called Cephas [Peter] (John1:42)."We find no instance where theyfellat Jesus’ feet worshipinghim, nor ofJesus looking for suchworship. As a matter offact, we are told "Evenhis brothers did not believe inhim"(John7:5, RSV). Theydid not believe Jesus was the Messiah, and certainlytheydid not believe he was the God ofMoses. Could theybe God’s brothers? Surelynot! (See Hebrews 2:11, 12.)
Jaroslav Pelikan’s Observation
JaroslavPelikan, sterlingProfessor ofHistoryat Yale University, who is called "The Doctrine Doctor,"is quoted saying:"Youare not entitled to the beliefs youcherishabout suchthings as the Holy Trinitywithout a sense ofwhat youowe to those who worked this out for you. . . . To circumvent St. Athanasius onthe assumption that ifyouput me alone ina roomwiththe New Testament, I will come up withthe doctrine ofthe Trinity, is naive."1 The renowned Doctor ofDoctrine is tellingus the Trinitycannot be found byopen studyofthe New Testament. He is admittingthat it is not a doctrine ofclear Biblicalstatement. Rather, the Trinityis a doctrine of inference, not ofstatement. That is whythe Trinityhas suchtroubled acceptance. We could add to Dr. Pelikan’s statement and saythat if youplaced 10,000 people inrooms withNew Testaments, they would not find the Trinity. We also have not found it.

The churches have had consistent trouble withunbeliefinthe Trinity. We quote LarryPoston, writingfor ChristianityToday, who looked into whythe average age ofChristianconversionwas 16 years old whereas the average age ofMuslimconversionwas 31. His explanationinpart was:"The Muslimis not asked to give credence to allegedly‘irrational’ concepts suchas the Trinity, the Incarnation. . . . Ifone does consider it essentialthat concepts suchas the Trinity be explained before conversion, are the commonpresentations of these teachings adequate?"2

Canyouhave a rationalexplanationofan"irrational"concept? Mr. Postoncannot be a rationalbeliever inthe Trinity, and there are more like him. Suchmembers withinthe churchfind themselves put uponto accept somethingthat is inherentlynot understandable. The AthanasianCreed tried to present the Trinitynot as "three incomprehensibles"but "one incomprehensible."As muchas Mr. Postonwould like to see a more adequate explanationofthe Trinity, it is unlikelythat anyone willcome up witha clear explanationofit.

The earlyChristianChurchconverts were mostlyadult menand women. Mr. Postonmust believe the modernchurchattracts members intheir teens because mature minds are less inclined to accept irrationaltenets. We must not conclude that everyone who professes beliefinthe Trinityteachingis necessarilya wholehearted believer. Some are silent doubtingThomases or, evenworse, it is mandatorytheyconfess the Trinityinorder to be a member ofa churchdenominationor that theyput downtheologically programmed answers to become degreed ministers. Forced belief was the stock and trade ofreligious oppression, but it has proved ineffective inmakingtrue believers out ofpeople. "A manconvinced against his willis ofthe same opinionstill."
For Those Who Have Doubts About the Trinity
The purpose ofthis writingis not for those who have no doubts about the Trinity. That is their fixed belief. Nothingwe could say would penetrate their patriotic zealfor the Trinity. However, ifyou are one withgnawingdoubts about it, and wishto satisfyyour reasonand heart, thenthis message maybe veryhelpful. Youmay be glad to know earlyChristians did not believe inthe Trinity, so youhave lots ofcompany. Also, there are increasingnumbers inthe churches todaywho sincerelydoubt it, includingsome ofthe scholars as well.

Mr. Postonis not a lone voice cryinginthe wilderness onthis subject. Quotinganother source:"A fruitfulcause oferror inancient and also moderntimes is owingto anattempt to explainor illustrate this [Trinity] doctrine, forgettingthat it is a mysteryto be received on faith, whichcannot, fromits ownnature, be rendered intelligible to man’s intellect."3 We mayalso here quote H. M. S. Richards, ina Voice ofProphecyRadio Broadcast, who similarlysaid, "[Trinity] is basic inour faith. . . . None ofus canunderstand it. It’s a divine mystery, but gloriouslytrue."4 No wonder childrenare prepared to believe it more readilythanadults.
Three Classes of Trinitarians
The tendencyis to group allTrinitarians into one group. Suchis not the case. Actually, there are three groups inthe Christianworld professingbeliefinthe Trinity.

(1) The Catholic Churchand the EpiscopalChurchbelieve in Apostolic succession. Theybelieve the Word ofGod is being developed onanongoingbasis througha continuous chainof apostles fromour Lord’s time untilnow. Hence, theyare not embarrassed to accept the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and the AthanasianCreed eventhoughcontradictory. Theydo not need a strongBiblicalbasis for their beliefs because theycanaccept a councilofbishops’ or a pope’s statements as a basis for belief. Theybelieve God invests his truthinanongoingbodyofapostles to define and clarifythe faith. Hence theyaccept the fact that the early Churchhad a UnitarianGod concept whichevolved into the Trinity. Theybelieve the Trinityjust developed over time as the outgrowth ofcontinued apostolic revealment.
(2) Thenthere is the Protestant Modernist and those who believe in ContemporaryReligion. Their beliefis that manmakes knownhis understandingofGod onanongoingbasis. Ineachtime and place, menhave presented their concepts ofGod. Theyhold that the Bible was created bymenwho presented their opinions about God in their time and place, and menhave a right to continue presenting their growingconceptions ofGod and truth. Suchdo not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word ofGod but merelyanattempt to define God inancient times. Hence theydo not waste too much effort tryingto harmonize it or understand it. Theyfeelmanmust continue writinghis ownBible as he progresses. Inthis camp the range ofbeliefis incrediblydiverse, and the realquestionwithmany ofthese is not iftheybelieve inthe Trinity, but do they, infact, believe inGod. However, inthat theydo not openlyoppose the Trinityor the Bible, but are quite permissive ofboth, theyare acceptable inthe Christiancommunity.

(3) The last group are the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals who believe the Bible is the Word ofGod and inerrant. To this we agree. This group is uncomfortable withthe fact that the Nicene Creed was created inthe fourthcenturyand the AthanasianCreed inthe fifth century. That is anembarrassment to thembecause theyfeelthe Bible is their sole basis ofbelief. Hence, havingaccepted the AthanasianCreed, theybecome revisionists ofhistoryand tryto rewrite it so theycanteachthe earlyChristianChurchbelieved it. Theyalso comb throughthe Bible lookingfor some support of Trinitarianism. Some oftheir assertions make the Catholics, the Modernists and Contemporaryreligionists a bit uncomfortable. As badlymatched as these three groups are, theyare amazinglytolerant ofeachother inthis regard.
Two Witnesses
InJohn8:13-18 (RSV) the Pharisees were havinga little skirmish withJesus. Theysaid, "Youare bearingwitness to yourself; your testimonyis not true."Here youare, just a plainordinaryperson, goingabout makingclaims. Whyshould anyone believe you? After all, we are learned and taught inrabbinicalschools, and whyshould we be concerned withyour testimony? Jesus answered, "EvenifI do bear witness to myself, mytestimonyis true, for I know whence I have come and whither I amgoing. Youjudge accordingto the flesh, I judge no one. Yet evenifI do judge, myjudgment is true. . . . Inyour law it is writtenthat the testimonyoftwo menis true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." Iftheywanted two witnesses, Jesus gave themtwo witnesses—God and himself. We might ask, whydidn’t he give themthree witnesses, as provided for inDeuteronomy19:15, byaddingthe holySpirit? Evidentlybecause the holySpirit was not a person. God and Jesus together make two, no more, no less:1 + 1 = 2. That is pure math as taught byJesus.
"They Have Taken Away My Lord"
Remember Mary, standingat the emptytomb. As she stood there weeping, two angels asked her, "Woman, whyare youweeping?" She said to them, "Because theyhave takenawaymyLord, and I do not know where theyhave laid him"(John20:13, RSV). Now, she was not lookingfor her deceased God. God does not and cannot die. She was lookingfor her Master or Teacher, or at least for his remains. Her onlymistake was to look for the livingJesus amongthe dead after he was resurrected. We might saythe same. The Trinitarians have takenawaythe livingLord and we do not know what theyhave done withhim. Ifhe is the God ofMoses, thenwhat has happened to our Lord Jesus? We would not have an elder brother. How could the Absolute God say, "I willproclaimthy name to mybrethren"(Hebrews 2:11, 12, RSV)? OnlyJesus could speak ofus as his brethren, and onlyhe is privileged to thus proclaimthe Father’s name to us.

God never ever called anyone His brother. He has no brothers or sisters. Jesus taught us to address God as "our Father."Our resurrected Lord Jesus is not "ashamed to callus brethren."God has givenus the "Spirit ofSonship"—that makes Him"our Father." God is not our "brother."The Trinityconcept has takenawayour Lord Jesus—our Elder Brother, and we do not know what they have done withhim. We cannot find himinthis doctrine. God’s voice intwo Gospels said, "This is mybeloved Son"(Matthew 3:17; Mark 9:7). IfJesus is a Sonand we are sons ofGod, thenwe are brethren. Whyhave theytakenawayour brother? What have they done withhim?
Will a "Holy Quaternity" Replace the "Holy Trinity?"
In431, the CouncilofEphesus issued the dogma that Marywas to be honored as Theotokos, the God-bearer or Mother ofGod. The Nicene, or semi-trinitariancreed, was formed in325. A century later theydeclared Maryofficiallyto be the Mother ofGod. Once Jesus was declared to be God, it is onlylogicalto conclude Maryto be God’s mother. Ifthat be so, thenKingDavid was a great, great grandfather ofGod. CommentingonMary’s elevated positionof worship, KennethL. Woodward ina Newsweek article wrote:"In place ofthe HolyTrinity, it would appear, there would be a kind of HolyQuartet, withMaryplayingthe multiple roles ofdaughter ofthe Father, mother ofthe Sonand spouse ofthe HolySpirit."5 Dr. R. C. Wetzelsays inhis evaluationofthe CouncilofNicaea called by Constantine in325:"The Trinitywas established as:God the Father, the VirginMary, and Messiahtheir Son."6 Strange that Maryshould be replaced bythe holySpirit and now resurface againwitha view ofbeingpart ofa "HolyQuarternity."
Today, Maryis againonthe minds ofmanyCatholics. The Pope receives anaverage 100,000 requests a monthrequestingthat he exercise the power ofpapalinfallibilityto proclaimthat Maryis "Co-Redemptrix, MediatrixofAllGraces and Advocate for the People ofGod."Ifthe present pope yields to religionbypolls and consensus, rather thanbyScriptures, perhaps he willmake sucha proclamation. However, Catholic theologians wishthis whole idea would just go away. It is Scripturallyindefensible. In1 Timothy2:5 we are told:"There is one God and one mediator betweenGod and man, the manChrist Jesus."That says it all. Ifthe Pope makes Mary a "Co-Redemptrix"theywillbe equallyhard pressed to defend it Scripturally.

Protestants know the Bible does not saythat Maryis the mother of God, yet iftheyteachJesus was God thenMarymust be God’s mother. Theyare uncomfortable withthis. The best answer they have is that the Bible does not sayMarywas God’s mother. But then, the Bible does not saythere is a Trinity. Note the insightful quote fromNewsweek Magazine:

"Prof. Marguerite Shuster ofFuller TheologicalSeminaryin Pasadena, Calif., analyzed more than3,000 sermons. . . . Out of this huge sample, only20 sermons focused onthe Trinityitself. The sermons, Shuster says, revealconsiderable confusioninthe preachers’ understandingofthe Father, Sonand HolySpirit. Many preachers, she finds, confuse the work ofthe HolySpirit withthat of Jesus. Others collapse the Trinityinto one God who operates in different modes—anancient Christianheresy. Stillothers preachas ifChristians worshiped three gods, not one—a heresythat the stringentlymonotheistic Muslims have always accused Christianityof teaching. As particularlyegregious examples, Shuster cites such sermontitles as ‘YouNeed Three Gods inOne’ and ‘God Speaks ThroughManyVoices.’ Inone sermon, BillyGrahamhimself confesses that while he believes inthe Trinity, ‘Don’t ask me to explainit. I can’t.’"7

Ifthe trinityteachingis so important, whyis it that so many preachers can’t seemto get it right? Ifthe preachers seemed to be confused, what about the congregations? What ifthe Pope adds Maryas the "Co-Redemptrix?"How willthis affect Protestants? This is fallout fromthe trinitytheology. Cananythingso complicated and incomprehensible be true?

Chapter I Let Us Reason Together
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." (Isa. 1:18, KJV)
John1:1 is the rallyingpoint ofTrinitarians. But indefense ofthe Bible Students’ non-Trinitarianreadingofthis verse, we quote from The Bible Translator, a periodicalsent to Trinitarianscholars:

"Ifthe translationwere a matter ofsubstitutingwords, a possible translation. . . would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-forword translationit cannot be faulted, and to paganGreeks who heard earlyChristianlanguage, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectlysensible statement. . . . The reasonwhyit is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current ofJohannine thought, and indeed ofChristianthought as a whole."1

Please note their observationthat, as a word-for-word translation, "it cannot be faulted."As a matter offact, inActs 12:22 (Herod’s voice is a god’s voice) and Acts 28:6 (Paulis called a god), the translators supplied the article "a"to the word theos inboth instances. Theyjust happento think this would be contraryto John’s thought inJohn1:1. That is a verysubjective conclusion.

John1:1, 2 reads:"Inthe beginningwas the Word, and the Word was with[ton, the] God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginningwith[ton, the] God."A word-for-word Greek renderingofJohn1:1, 2 is:"In[a] beginning[arche] was the Word, and the Word was withthe God, and [a] God was the Word. This was in[a] beginningwiththe God."Trinitarians tried to levelthe field byleavingout the article (ton) "the."Inthe KingJames, as inmany other translations, allreferences to God are equalto the English reader. Youdo not get the contrast betweenthe emphasized God spokenoftwice and the unemphasized God referringto the Logos.

Yet consider how later inthis chapter (John1:18), inthe same context, a clear distinctionis drawnbetweenthese Gods apart from mere grammaticalemphasis:"No manhas seenGod at anytime; the onlybegottengod, who is inthe bosomofthe Father, He has explained Him."(New American Standard Bible, Marshall Interlinear, etc.) Clearly, there is a "begottenGod"and a begetter "God."Hence, John1:1 must be understood ina manner that harmonizes withthis verse.

To be convincing, the Trinitarianmust prove that "God"inJohn1:1 has supreme significationinallthree ofits uses. We quote froman orthodoxTrinitarian, Dr. G. C. Knapp:"It (the appellationLogos, here translated Word), signifies, amongthe Jews and other ancient people, whenapplied to God, everythingbywhichGod reveals Himselfto men, and makes knownto themHis will. Inthis passage the principalproofdoes not lie inthe word Logos (‘revealer of God’), nor eveninthe word theos (‘God’), which, ina larger sense, is oftenapplied to kings and earthlyrulers, but to what is predicated ofthe Logos."2

Usingsuchreasoning, is it possible to prove Jesus is the supreme God fromthis passage? Does the passage infact saythat the Logos God has paritywiththe God? Without parity, he cannot be the God, nor canhe be one-third God. What beginningis Johntalkingabout? God has no beginningor end, for He is "fromeverlastingto everlasting"(Psa. 90:2). So what "beginning"is the Logos identified with? Rev. 3:14 supplies the answer:"The Amen, the faithfuland true witness, the beginning[arche] ofthe creationofthe [ton] God."

Some saythat the word "beginning"( arche) is rendered "principality(ties), magistrates, at the first, first estate, corners,"etc. and that this gives Rev. 3:14 a different meaning. Whether our Lord was the beginning, first, or principal"creationofGod,"how would that change his beinga created beingbefore allothers? Inthe King James, the Apostle John’s use ofthe word arche is consistently translated "beginning."Inthe Appendixwe submit everyusage of arche inthe New Testament byJohnand other New Testament writers as listed inThe Englishman’s Concordance. Please note its uses and how "beginning"is anappropriate translation. It is only because translators have seenthe threat this poses to the Trinitythat theyhave labored to change the intent ofthat word inthis verse.

But, let us assume that the Trinitarians are correct onJohn1:1. Let us presume the Logos was Jehovah(or YahwehGod). What is Johnthentelling? IfJohnbelieved the Logos was the God of Moses, whywould Johnsaythe "Logos was withGod, and the Logos was God"? What God was the Logos with? Whyplace a mark oneternityand saythat was the beginningand the Logos was there? Ifhe reallywanted to prove the Logos was God, he should have said, "See this mark. It is the beginning. Now, the Logos was here before that beginningas the God, for He was the God."To place the Logos at the mark called beginningand not before the "beginning"weakens their whole position.
The followingtexts delineate this truth—that God always existed and that a beginningintime is associated onlywiththe Logos:
God "from everlasting to everlasting." Ps. 90:2
Christ Jesus "in the beginning was the Word . . ." John 1:1
"The Lord created me at the beginning of his work." Prov. 8:22, RSV
Furthermore, John1:1 could not be a proofofthe Trinity, for no mentionis made ofthe holySpirit. That is most embarrassingwhen the keyscripture to the whole Trinityconcept omits one-third ofthe Trinity. Therefore, whatever John1:1 proves, it does not mention the holySpirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessaryto support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed throughthe Bible using everypossible text to prove their point. Inthe overwhelming majorityoftexts used, youfind themdoingthe same thingas inJohn 1:1, usingarguments that God and Jesus are one, hopingwe willnot notice that none oftheir proofverses include the third part necessary – the holySpirit. The idea is to get people so involved inthe discussionthat theywillforget the holySpirit is not mentioned. Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rationalproof. Inorder to prove the Trinitydoctrine, it is necessaryto find Biblical statements ofthe oneness ofbeingofFather, Sonand holySpirit. Evenifwe could prove the Father and Sonwere one being, would it give us a Trinity?

To callGod "Christ"gives thema name but not a Christ [an Anointed One]! We ask again, "What have youdone withChrist?" Where is he? Youcannot have three absolute Gods and one absolute God. The moment youdo, youmust redefine absolute. The moment youdefine God as Christ, youreplace Christ. God can never be less thanGod!
Why Must the Savior be a God-Man?
The Trinityconcept insists that Jesus had to be a God-manto be the Savior. Ifhe was a mere man, theysay, how could he take upon himthe sinofthe whole world? It sounds good to make such extravagant claims about Jesus. Generally, we cannot paysufficient homage to our Savior for his great sacrifice, so whynot go allout in our claims for him? To some extent that is how the Trinitywas started, counteringclaims that Jesus was just a mere man. As the defense ofour Savior was made, so the claims for himgrew and became exaggerated – frombeinga perfect manand SonofGod, untilat last the ultimate claimwas made that he was infact God. Thenfollowed the super patriotismand the cry"To the fire"with those who dare claimJesus someone less thanGod. Historyrecords JohnCalvinburned (roasted) MichaelServetus at the stake for not believingthe Trinity. As theylit the flames, MichaelServetus cried out, "OhthouSonofthe eternalGod have pityonme."One observer said, We might have had pityonhimifhe had said, "Oh EternalSonofGod."Whyis churchhistoryso lackinginmercyand kindness and so mean?

"Bythis shallallmenknow ye are mydisciples, ifye have love one to another"(John13:35). IfonlyGod’s people had served their God as wellas theyhad their Churchorganizations, how much kinder Churchhistorywould be. Ina Churchbent onworld conquest, there is little love or kindness to be found. Our country was bornto provide refuge fromreligious persecution.
Jesus Christ the "Ransom for All"
We read in1 Tim. 2:5, 6:"The manChrist Jesus; who gave himself a ransomfor all, to be testified indue time."What is the ransom? The Greek word for ransomis antilutron – defined byDr. Young as "a correspondingprice."3 One perfect manwas a substitutionary sacrifice for the perfect manAdam, who forfeited his life alongwith the humanrace inhim. However, the Churchfathers lost sight ofthe true meaningofthe ransom. Whenthis happened, there was no holdingback the ground swellofextravagant claims about Christ. Anythingless thancallingJesus God was considered demeaning.

For the sake ofargument, let us go alongwiththis exalted claimthat Christ is God—a claimneither he nor Scripture makes. Let us accept their claimthat he was God and, therefore, God died for us. Maywe ask, How could animmortalGod die?
Did the Absolute God die? The creed maintains Christ was "very man."Hence, to callGod "Christ"gives thema name, but not a Christ. It was the "veryman"Christ who died. No matter how they define it, theyhave onlya "veryman"who died. How, then, did "veryGod"die? God is immortal, death-proof. God could not die; onlysome fleshformcould die. Despite the semantics, theycome awaywithonlya perfect "humansacrifice."That is exactlywhat we believe and claim.

Dr. AdamClark, a Trinitarian, says, "Two natures must ever be distinguished inChrist:the humannature, inreference to whichhe is the SonofGod and inferior to him, and the Divine nature whichwas frometernity, and equalto God."4 He also disallows that Jesus could be begottenfrometernity, saying:"To saythat he [Christ] was begotten fromalleternity, is, inmyopinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternityis that which has had no beginning, nor stands inanyreference to time. Son supposes time, generation, and father."5 Inother words, it was onlythe humanfleshofChrist that died. Hence, theydo not have an infinite sacrifice, because it was the inferior Sonwho died. So where, ohwhere, is the infinite sacrifice ofGod?

Unless the complete Trinitydied onthe cross, Trinitarians have but a verymanfor their savior. While Trinitarians insist Jesus was wholly God and whollyman, their burdenis to prove this and also to show that bothGod and mandied onthe cross. The Bible does not say this. Theologians have labored longand hard to compensate for what is not clearlystated inthe Word. Did Jesus ever sayhe would give his fleshand deityfor manas a ransom? No. He said, "The bread that I willgive is myflesh, whichI willgive for the life ofthe world"(John6:51). Thencould he take his fleshbodyback after givingit? What would have become ofhis ransomiftakenback after it had beengiven?
Dr. AdamClark renders Psalm8:5:"Thouhas made himlittle less thanGod."He refers to this verse inHeb. 2:7, and applies it to Jesus, saying, "For a short while, he was made lower thanthe angels, that he might be capable ofsufferingdeath."6 IfDr. Clark’s assertionwere true, Jesus was less thanGod or lower thanthe angels. How could he be "less thanGod"and stillbe Absolute God? This presents a probleminlogic.
A Mighty and Infinite Sacrifice With Small Results
Let us allow that Christ’s sacrifice was infinite as claimed. We are allowingthis without a Scripturalbasis, for nowhere does the Bible sayJesus’ sacrifice was infinite. It does not sayhe suffered more thanallmankind. It does not evensayhe suffered more thanany man. EvenIsaiah52:14, whichspeaks ofhis "visage"and "form" beingmarred "more thananyman,"does not fulfillthe infinite sufferingassertion. It is not wise to saymore thanthe Scriptures say. We are allowingsuchreasoningonlyto see where it leads.

Now, allowingfor the most extravagant sacrifice for sin, we ask, How come so few are saved? How come, whensalvationhas been reduced to just makinga "confessionfor Christ,"the vast majorityof mankind are not acceptingChrist? The churches, for some 1500 years, have entreated the world. Theyhave carried onbloodywars, imposed the "holy(?) inquisition,"employed the powers ofthe state, threateningdamnationand eternalfire onthose slow to respond— torturing, killing, maiming—allinvain. The vast majorityofthe world is not Christianinanysense ofthe word, and the part called is not Christianinanysense ofthe word, and the part called 30). Would God provide sucha powerfulsalvation, requiringonly the faintest acceptance, and stillsomehow failto save the vast majorityofthose purchased?

Evenwhentellingpeople that Christ has purchased their ticket to heavenand alltheyhave to do is accept it, stillthe world at large is unsaved. How come this mightysalvationfails? More thantwothirds ofthe world are without Christ. And the part that accepts Christ might have a goodlynumber of"tares"amongthem, who are the plantingofthe Wicked One. How could somethingso overpoweringbe so ineffective? Withsuchanoverwhelming salvation, how is it that most people are lost?

The claimthat Jesus had to be God to payfor everyman’s sins, who, accordingto their theology, is to be tortured forever and ever ifunsaved, means that Jesus would have endured the fires of theologicalhellfor everyman, womanand child that eternitywould inflict uponthem—a verysadistic concept. Theyclaimhe had to be God to do this. This whole claimis totallyunscriptural. The Bible says, "For the life ofthe fleshis inthe blood:and I have givenit to youuponthe altar to make anatonement for your souls:for it is the blood that makethanatonement for the soul"(Lev. 17:11). Again we read:"Without sheddingofblood is no remission"(Heb. 9:22).

This sheddingofblood requires the deathofthe victim, not merely suffering. Ifpeople could atone for their sins bysuffering, thenthe Hinduand Easternreligions, whereinpeople afflict themselves, layingonspikes, puttinghooks intheir fleshand staringat the sun untilblind, would certainlycommend themselves to God bybuying remissionfor their sins. Eventhe pre-reformationChristiantheology withits flagellations should not thenhave beendiscarded. The world alreadyendures suchgreat sufferingbecause ofsin. As we look out into the world, our hearts ache for humanity. How theyneed the hope ofChrist’s glorious Kingdomonearth, whenallmenwillbe lifted up and blessed as God pours out His "spirit uponallflesh" (Joel2:28). Allofthis willbe possible byChrist’s deathonthe cross. Let us see how.
Our Claim!
Our understandingofScripture is that Jesus died as a perfect man providinga "correspondingprice"for father Adam. He died a substitutionarydeathfor Adam. Allwho are inAdam, therefore, will be ransomed, released fromthe condemnationofdeath. It stands to reasonthat ifAdamdid not possess everlastinglife (and he didn’t because he died), thenChrist’s ransomsacrifice canrestore to Adamand allmenonlywhat he lost before he sinned. Adamhad an opportunityto live everlastinglyifhe obeyed God, but failinginthis, he died. Christ’s ransomsacrifice canonlybringAdam, and allin him, another opportunityto attaineverlastinglife.

Two classes, the Churchand the world, willbe privileged to benefit fromChrist’s death. Duringthe GospelAge, the True Church receives justificationto life and, upon"overcoming,"willreceive a heavenlyreward. The world willbe released fromAdamic condemnationduringthe Millennium. Christ willbe their Mediator (1 Timothy2:5, 6). How canhe mediate betweenGod and manifhe is God? A Mediator must always be a third party! Whenthe world is nurtured back to humanperfectionand their reconciliationwithGod shallhave beenaccomplished, theywillthenbe delivered to God, the Father. WhenChrist’s mediationis completed, thenshall"The Kingsayunto themonhis right hand, Come, ye blessed ofmy Father, inherit the kingdomprepared for youfromthe foundationof the world"(Matt. 25:34). The Mediator’s work shallhave been accomplished. See 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.

Mankind, whichhad beendrivenfromEden, willreturnto anEdenic Paradise onearth. We have allthat is required—the perfect man Christ Jesus as our Savior and tremendous results fromtwo salvations—the Churchnow, and the world ofmankind inChrist’s kingdomhere onearth. Therefore allmenwillbe benefited from Christ’s sacrifice. That is as it should be.
And inthe finalpicture, the Divine Christ willbe subject to the Father, withall"overcomers"ofboththe GospelAge and the Father, withall"overcomers"ofboththe GospelAge and the 28). ThenGod willbe allinall. What could be sweeter?
"Are You the Christ?"
InJesus’ illegaltrialat night, while Peter was stillthere, theyasked Jesus –"Are youthe Christ, the Sonofthe Blessed?"And Jesus said, "I am"(Mark 14:61, 62). IfJesus was trulythe Absolute God, didn’t Jesus owe themthat information? The reasonJesus was crucified was because he was the "Christ, the Sonofthe Blessed."If Jesus proclaimed himselfto be Absolute God, theywould have had a perfect right to put himto deathaccordingto their understanding ofthe Mosaic Law:"Youshallhave no other Gods before me"(Ex. 20:3). Oddly, theycrucified Jesus for claimingto be the "Sonof God,"exactlywhat he admitted being, while theythemselves claimed, "We have one Father, evenGod"(John8:41).

Ifthe disciples believed Jesus was God, theywould not have believed his death. How could theyiftheyheld anyconcept ofhis beingGod? God is eternal! Their immediate problemafter his death was acceptingthe truththat God raised Jesus fromthe dead— Thomas beingthe last to believe. Later, theybecame witnesses to his resurrection, sayingto the Jews, "Ye denied the HolyOne and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince oflife, whomGod hathraised fromthe dead"(Acts 3:14, 15).
"Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen."—The Jerusalem Bible
The above quoted subhead is fromRomans 9:5. Severalinteresting commentaries onthis verse maybe found inthe literature. A Catholic Dictionary states:"We have the strongest statement of Christ’s divinityinSt. Paul, and, indeed, inthe N[ew]
T[estament]."7 But establishingChrist’s divinityis not the same as establishingthe Trinity. The KingJames reads, "Whose are the fathers, and ofwhomas concerningthe fleshChrist came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."No one would argue Jesus is not "God blessed."To argue that this statement makes himGod the Father is pressuringthis verse to saysomethingmore thanit does.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology comments onthis verse:"Evenso, Christ would not be equated absolutelywithGod, but onlydescribed as beingofdivine nature, for the word theos [God] has no article. But this ascriptionof majestydoes not occur anywhere else inPaul. The more probable explanationis that the statement is a doxology[praise] directed to God, stemmingfromJewishtraditionand adopted byPaul."8 A Catholic Dictionary comments:"There is no reasoningrammar or inthe context whichforbids us to translate ‘God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.’"9 The Revised Standard Version so renders it—"God who is over allbe blessed for ever. Amen." Hence, we see, there are rationalthinkers who tryto prevent the spread ofhastyand unwarranted conclusions. Some Trinitarians are inconstant and labored activityreadingTrinityinto verses so eagerly that it is needfulfor their fellow theologians to tryto temper some of their excesses.

There is another strange fact ofTrinitarianbehavior. Theyseldom informthe laityofthe host ofcriticisms and corrective evaluations fromwithinthe walls ofreligious academia. Theyvent most oftheir anger and frustrationuponthose who openlyand honestlyconfess not believingthe Trinitybased onpersonalBible study. They endeavor to malignthese bycallingthemimproper names or even failingto recognize suchas Christians.
InActs 11:26 we are told the disciples ofJesus were "called Christians first inAntioch."Ifthis be so, how could theybe called Christians who knew nothingofthe theologicalTrinitywhichdid not become defined untilthe fifthcentury? How is it that those who believe inthe Father, the Sonand the holySpirit are not recognized as Christians todayiftheysaytheydo not believe the
"incomprehensible"Trinity? Perhaps the old desire to persecute and stigmatize those who differ stillexists latentlyinthe hearts ofsome. Insecuritycansurelylead to unchristianbehavior.

Chapter II The Trinity Emerges Gradually

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

After the Churchlost the pristine visionwhichit held inthe beginning, these last two creeds were formed. The Athanasian, or TrinitarianCreed, became the largest and most confusingcreed of all. It became necessaryfor salvationto believe this creed—making this a threateningtheologicalstatement. Please notice the unitarian concept ofGod was a statement ofbeliefwithout threatening overtones. Notice how the Creed becomes more foggyand "incomprehensible"as it endeavors to incorporate Trinityconcepts. Additionally, as it swells to more thana statement ofbelief, it then threatens anynot acceptingthis foggyconcept withperishing "everlastingly."

WhenJesus rendered his finalreport to his Father, it onlyrequired three words—"It is finished"(John19:30). Nothingmore needed to be said. Notice, however, whenthe one-talented, unfaithfulservant rendered his report, it required 43 words, and he was just as much a failure after his explanation(Matt. 25:24, 25). The Unitarian Creed required only115 words to make itselfknown; the Nicene Creed required 230 (twice as manywords to make God and Christ one); and the AthanasianCreed required 702 words to explainthe "incomprehensible"Trinity. Ifthe number ofwords used proved the case, the latter is clearlythe winner. But it is not bymuchspeaking that we shallbe heard.

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary states:"The word Trinityis not found inthe Bible. . . . It did not find a place formallyinthe theology ofthe churchtillthe fourthcentury. . . . AlthoughScripture does not give us a formulated doctrine ofthe Trinity, it contains allthe elements out ofwhichtheologyhas constructed the doctrine."1 That is partiallycorrect. Theologyindeed is responsible for constructing the doctrine. But we firmlybelieve that the "elements"ofScripture alluded to here were never intended to provide a framework for sucha dogma.
The followingis found inThe Book ofCommonPrayer onThree Creeds of the Church of England:
The Apostles’ or Unitarian Creed
Beingthe Creed ofthe first two Christiancenturies.
"I believe inGod, the FatherAlmighty, Maker ofheavenand earth:
"And inJesus Christ, his onlysonour Lord:who was conceived by the holyghost (spirit), bornofthe virginMary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he descended into hell(the grave); the third dayhe rose againfromthe dead; he ascended into heaven, and sittethonthe right hand ofGod, the FatherAlmighty: Fromthence he shallcome to judge the quick and the dead:

"I believe inthe holyghost (spirit); the holycatholic (general) Church; the communionofsaints; the forgiveness ofsins; the resurrectionofthe body, and the life everlasting. Amen."
The Nicene, or Semi-trinitarian Creed:
Principally drawn up by the Council of Nice in A.D. 325, the clause concerning the Holy Ghost in brackets [ ] having been affixed to it by the Council of Constantinople, in A.D. 381, except the words [and the son], which were afterwards introduced into it."
"I believe inOne God, the FatherAlmighty, Maker ofheaven and earth; and ofallthings visible and invisible.
"And inone Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begottenSonofGod; begottenofhis Father before allworlds; God of(or from) God; Light of(or from) Light; VeryGod of(or from) Very God; begotten, not made; beingofone substance withthe Father; by whomallthings were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came downfromheaven; and was incarnate bythe HolyGhost of the virginMary; 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, accordingto the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sittethonthe right hand ofthe Father: and he shall come againwithgloryto judge boththe quick and the dead; whose kingdomshallhave no end.

"And I believe inthe HolyGhost, [the Lord and Giver oflife; who proceedethfromthe Father [and the Son]; who withthe Father and the sontogether is worshipped and glorified; who spake bythe prophets].

"And I believe one catholic and apostolic church:I acknowledge one baptismfor the remissionofsins:and I look for the resurrection ofthe dead; and the life ofthe world to come. Amen."
The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed
Long ascribed to Athanasius, a theologian of the fourth century, but now generally allowed not to have been composed until the fifth century, by some other person.

"Whosoever willbe saved, before allthings it is necessarythat he hold the Catholic Faith; whichfaithexcept everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shallperisheverlastingly.

"And the Catholic Faithis this:that we worship One Godin Trinity, and Trinity inUnity; neither confoundingthe Persons nor dividingthe substance. For there is one personofthe Father, another ofthe Son, and another ofthe Holy Ghost. But the Godhead ofthe Father, ofthe Son, and ofthe HolyGhost, is all one; the gloryequal, the majestyco-eternal. Suchas the Father is, suchis the Son, and suchis the HolyGhost, the Father uncreate, the sonuncreate, and the HolyGhost uncreate; the Father eternal, the Soneternal, and the HolyGhost eternal; and yet theyare not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three
incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the HolyGhost Almighty; and yet theyare not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Sonis God, and the HolyGhost is God; and yet theyare not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the SonLord, and the HolyGhost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled bythe Christianverityto acknowledge every personbyhimselfto be God and Lord; so are we forbiddenbythe Catholic religionto say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made ofnone, neither created nor begotten. The Sonis of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is ofthe Father and ofthe Son; neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one HolyGhost, not three HolyGhosts. And inthis Trinitynone is afore or after another, none is greater or less thananother; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that inallthings, as is aforesaid, the Unity inTrinity, and the Trinity inUnity, is to be worshipped.
He, therefore, that willbe saved, must thus think ofthe Trinity.
"Furthermore, it is necessaryto everlastingsalvation, that he also believe rightlythe incarnationofour Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faithis, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the SonofGod, is God and man; God ofthe substance ofthe Father, begottenbefore the worlds; and man, ofthe substance ofhis mother, borninthe world; perfect God, and perfect man; ofa reasonable souland humanfleshsubsisting; equalto the Father, as touchinghis Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touchinghis manhood; who, althoughhe be God and man, yet is he not two, but one Christ; one, not byconversionofthe Godhead into flesh, but by takingofthe manhood into God. One altogether, not byconfusion ofsubstance, but byunityofperson. For as the reasonable souland fleshis one man, so God and manis one Christ:who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose againthe third dayfromthe dead; he ascended into heaven, he sittethonthe right hand ofthe Father, God Almighty, fromwhence he shallcome to judge the quick and the dead; at whose comingallmenshallrise againwith their bodies, and shallgive account for their ownworks. And they that have done good shallgo into life everlasting; and theythat have done evil, into everlastingfire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a manbelieve faithfully, he cannot be saved. Glorybe to the Father, and to the Son, and to the HolyGhost. As it was inthe beginning, is now, and ever shallbe, world without end. Amen."

"The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."—Article VIII. of the Church of England: taken from the Book of Common Prayer. [In the Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Article VIII. reads as follows: "The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Scripture."]2
Dual Natures
Greek philosophywas a serious threat to the earlyChristianChurch. Paulsaid, "Greeks seek wisdom"(1 Corinthians 1:22, RSV). To counter this, Paulsaid, "I did not come proclaimingto youthe testimonyofGod inloftywords or wisdom"(1 Cor. 2:1, RSV). Apparently, there were those who did. Greek philosophywas kept out ofthe Bible, but not out oftheology. As the churchfathers strove for preeminence, theyfound the high-soundingwisdomof Greek philosophya cuttingedge for distinguishingthemselves. When the religious debates spilled over before the Romanemperors, what better toolcould be used thanHellenistic philosophyinterwoven withChristiandoctrine? Greek and Mid-easternphilosophies were pervasive, and whensomeone like Constantine listened to the controversybetweenArius and Athanasius, the strongpagan influence was certainto have aneffect.

Constantine had ostensiblyconverted to Christianity, and he intended to use the new religionto solidifythe empire. Earlier he had raised a symbolofChrist seenina vision("P"fixed inthe center of an"X"—the first two letters of"Christ"[ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ] inthe Greek) as a new imperialstandard and used it to gainvictoryina keybattle against paganforces. He believed he had heard a voice fromheaven saying, "Inthis signconquer."3 Ifthe symbol(also called a "Christogram") actuallyrepresented two gods, he might have thought it allthe better. IfChrist were reallybothmanand God, fleshand spirit, that would be closer to Greek philosophyand the pagantrinitymodels. It would make the new religionallthe more attractive to the masses.

The Nicaean Council
QuotingBruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read:

"The CouncilofNicea, (was) summoned byEmperor Constantine and held inthe imperialpalace under his auspices. Constantine viewed the Arianteachings—that Jesus was a created being subordinate to God—as an‘insignificant’ theologicalmatter. But he wanted peace inthe empire he had just united throughforce. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally acceptable definitionofJesus Christ.

"The expression homo ousion, ‘one substance,’ was probably introduced byBishop Hosius ofCordova (intoday’s Spain). Since he had great influence withConstantine, the imperialweight was thrownto that side ofthe scales. . . . As it turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next centurythe Nicene and the Arianviews ofChrist battled for supremacy. First Constantine and thenhis successors stepped inagainand againto banishthis churchmanor exile that one. Controlofchurchoffices too often depended oncontrolofthe emperor’s favor."4

Whywould anyone look to the fourthcenturyfor truth, particularly inview ofour Lord’s great prophecycoveringthe period ofhis absence and return, saying, "Take heed that no mandeceive you" (Matt. 24:4)? Without a doubt, this was where the Churchhad lost its way. It was shamelesslyprostituted before the ambitious Roman emperor. It is important to know that while Constantine accepted Christianityand became the Pontifex Maximus ofthe Church, he also continued to functioninallthe paganceremonies, as paganism had deep roots inthe RomanEmpire and would not pass away overnight. Juliansucceeded Constantine to the throne, and he was a devout pagan, althougha noble one. Rome became a meltingpot of paganismand Christianity—not a good mix.

Wrongconclusions are easilyreached about the NicaeanCouncil. It is easyto conjure up images ofa united group ofbishops withonly two indissent, endorsingwholeheartedlythe Athanasianproposition unitingthe Father and Soninto two parts ofone deity. Nothing could be further fromthe truth. We quote the following:

"Theyrejected the formulae ofArius, and declined to accept those ofhis opponents; that is to say, theywere merelycompetent to establishnegations, but lacked the capacity, as yet, to give their attitude ofcompromise a positive expression. . . . True, at Nicaea this majorityeventuallyacquiesced inthe rulingofthe Alexandrians; yet this result was due, not to internalconviction, but partlyto indifference, partlyto the pressure ofthe imperialwill—a fact which is mainlydemonstrated bythe subsequent historyofthe Arian conflicts. For ifthe Nicaeansynod had arrived at its finaldecisionby the conscientious agreement ofallnon-Arians, thenthe confessionof faiththere formulated might indeed have evoked the continued antagonismofthe Arians, but must necessarilyhave been championed byallelse. This, however, was not the case; infact, the creed was assailed bythose verybodies whichhad composed the laissez-faire centre at Nicaea; and we are compelled to the conclusionthat, inthis point the votingwas no criterionofthe inward convictions ofthe council. . . . For it was the proclamationofthe Nicene Creed that first opened the eyes ofmanybishops to the significance ofthe problemthere treated; and its explanationled the Churchto force herself, byanarduous pathoftheologicalwork, into compliance withthose principles, enunciated at Nicaea, to which, inthe year 325, she had pledged herselfwithout genuine assent."5
This tells us, ineffect, the bodyofbishops who voted for this Creed were not unanimouslybelievers init. Hence, the vote testified to weakness ofcharacter and the humantendencyto get onthe bandwagonfor the sake ofexpediency. What else would make one vote for somethingnot trulybelieved and whichwould later be assailed bythem?

Whenthe NiceanCouncilended onAugust 25, 325 A.D., Emperor Constantine delayed the festivities ofhis twentiethanniversaryuntil the close ofthis council. We quote the following:

"A magnificent entertainment was provided bythat prince, ‘for the ministers ofGod’ . . . No one ofthe bishops was absent fromthe imperialbanquet, whichwas more admirablyconducted thancan possiblybe described. The guards and soldiers, disposed ina circle, were stationed at the entrance ofthe palace withdrawnswords. The menofGod passed throughthe midst ofthemwithout fear, and went into the most private apartments ofthe royaledifice. Some of themwere thenadmitted to the table ofthe emperor, and others took the places assigned themoneither side. It was a livelyimage of the kingdomofChrist(?), and appeared more like a dreamthana reality."6

We cannot help but contrast this event withthe occasionwhen Satanshowed Jesus allthe kingdoms ofthis world and their glory and thensaid, "Allthese I willgive you, ifyouwillfalldownand worship me"(Matt. 4:9, RSV). It seems the Devilhad more success withthese bishops thanhe did withour Lord. Yes, Constantine now had most ofthe bishops inhis pocket, and fromthere we see the churchmerged withthe kingdoms ofthis world, tryingto make believe that this was the kingdomofGod.
Pagan Models of Trinity
The Trinityconcept presented byAthanasius was essentially borrowed fromother ancient religions. JohnNewton(Origin of Triads and Trinities) writes:"Withthe first glimpse ofa distinct religionand worship amongthe most ancient races, we find them groupingtheir gods intriads."He thenproceeds to trace the strong Trinitarianbeliefs whichwere commoninancient India, Egypt, and Babylonas examples.

Regardingancient India he states:"The threefold manifestations of the One Supreme Beingas Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva was thus sung ofbyKalidasa (55 B.C.):

"‘Inthese three persons the One God is shown,
Eachfirst inplace, eachlast, not one alone.
OfBrahma, Vishnu, Siva, eachmaybe
First, second, third amongthe Blessed Three.’"

Inspeakingofancient Egypt, Newtonquotes Professor Sayce (Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures) as follows:"‘The indebtedness ofChristiantheologicaltheoryto ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more strikingthaninthe doctrine ofthe Trinity. The verysame terms used ofit byChristiantheologians meet us againinthe inscriptions and papyriofEgypt.’"Newtoncontinues:

"And now we see some meaninginthe strange phrases that have puzzled so manygenerations inthe Nicene and AthanasianCreeds, suchas ‘Light ofLight, VeryGod ofVeryGod, Begottennot Made, Beingofone Substance withthe Father.’ These are all understandable enoughiftranslated into the language ofthe Solar Trinity[worshipped inancient Egypt], but without this clue to their meaning, theybecome sheer nonsense or contradictions. . . . The simplicityand symmetryofthe old sunTrinities were utterlylost in formingthese new ChristianCreeds onthe old Paganmodels. . . . The [pagan] trinities had allthe prestige ofa vast antiquityand universaladoption, and could not be ignored. The Gentile converts therefore eagerlyaccepted the Trinitycompromise, and the Church baptized it. Now at lengthwe know its origin."7

What a revelation—that portions ofthe Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were plagiarized frompagansources—word for word and exact phrases, lifted right offthe papyriand inscriptions ofancient Egypt! Should this knowledge not leave a little chillamongthose subscribingto these creeds?

Edward Gibbonsays, inhis preface to History of Christianity: "If Paganismwas conquered byChristianity, it is equallytrue that Christianitywas corrupted byPaganism. The pure Deismofthe first Christians . . . was changed, bythe ChurchofRome, into the incomprehensible dogma ofthe trinity. Manyofthe pagantenets, invented bythe Egyptians and idealized byPlato, were retained as beingworthyofbelief."8 Gibbonis anhistorian’s historian. He would not speak so forthrightlywithout anenormous basis for his evaluations.

Commentingonthe state ofaffairs inthe earlyChurch, H. G. Wells writes:"We shallsee presentlyhow, later on, allChristendomwas tornbydisputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles ofJesus entertained that doctrine."9 The fact that the Trinitydid not originate withthe Apostles should be ofgrave concernto allChristians. The ChurchofEngland freelyadmits the UnitarianCreed was believed inthe first two centuries. Inview ofall these facts, we cannot help but wonder whyanyone would feel secure inacceptingthe doctrinaldevelopments ofthe fourthand fifth centuries and forsake the pristine teachings ofour Lord and the Apostles.
InMatthew 13:24, 25 we read:"The kingdomofheavenis likened unto a manwhichsowed good seed inhis field:but while men[the Apostles] slept, his enemycame and sowed tares amongthe wheat, and went his way."How canone leave the Apostolic Era to find truthwithout riskingbeingcontaminated and choked by"tares"? The "tares"sowed were the work ofthe enemy. The "tares"that sprouted and grew were results offalse teachings that begat "tare" Christians. Hence, allBible-believingChristians need to be aware of the risks involved inleavingthe Apostolic Era ofdoctrinalpurityand ofcomingunder the influence ofthe "tare"seeds oferror spread by the Adversary.

Chapter III The Holy Spirit Misunderstood

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

Ofthe three components ofthe Trinitydoctrine, the so-called holy Ghost (or Spirit) is certainlythe least understood. The holySpirit is assigned equalityinrelationship withthe Father and the Sonand is spokenofas "God the HolySpirit."As such, it is necessaryto conceive ofthis entityas a distinct person—the Third Personinthe Trinityequation—withattendant powers and capabilities to distinguishit fromthe others. Yet sucha concept is impossible to prove fromthe Scriptures and certainlywas not held byearly Christianbelievers for three hundred years after the deathofChrist.

JeremyTaylor has written:"That the HolyGhost (Spirit) is God is nowhere said inScripture; that HolyGhost (Spirit) is to be invocated is nowhere commanded, nor anyexample ofits being done recorded."1 Wellspoken. Who has a right to saywhat is not stated inScripture? One clearlystated Scripture verse would have more weight thana mountainoftheology. Untilsucha verse canbe produced, Trinitarians have animpossible burden. Anincantationof words and never-endingtheologyis no substitute for a weightyBible text or a "thus saiththe Lord."
Biblical Designations of the Spirit
Inthe Bible, there are various titles and definitions that are applied to the holySpirit. As these are carefullystudied, it becomes evident that allofthemdescribe characteristics that stemfromGod and Christ and do not necessitate anadditionalpersonality. Manyare also reflected inthe life ofthe Church. Note these examples.

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

Eventhe most avid Trinitarianwould find it necessaryto define "Spirit"inmost usages as aninfluence or power. Personhood ofthe Trinityjust does not fit into these descriptions. So the Trinitarian must use two definitions whenreferringto "Spirit"inthe Bible:one meaningthe Third Personofthe Trinityand the other as aninfluence or power. Unless the meaningis continuallydefined ineachverse, the reader is left uncertainas to what is meant.

There is another side to this matter whichis veryrevealing. There is also an"unholyspirit"that is referred to frequentlyinthe Scriptures. This spirit is described inopposite terms to that ofthe holySpirit. Note the following:

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

Would anyone propose to add personhood to these spirits or to suppose that these various designations, unitedlyconsidered, prove there is another evilbeingapart fromSatan, the adversaryofGod? Not verylikely, because it is commonlyrecognized that these terms, whichgenerallysignifythe wrongspirit, allhave their chief exemplificationinSatan. A separate personalityis not required, nor are a host ofpersonalspirits needed to justifythe listings. We submit that for consistencya similar conclusionshould be drawninregard to the various references to the holySpirit as well.
A Variety of Operations
InScripturalusage, various actions and operations ofthe holySpirit are illustrated. Some were manifested fromearliest times, suchas in creation; others became evident insucceedingages as God’s planof salvationunfolded. Yet allofthemcanbe shownto emanate from God Himselfor fromHis SonChrist Jesus and do not require an additionalpersonality.

EarlyinGenesis, this Spirit was evidenced inGod’s creative power, as He brought into existence the earth, the oceans teemingwithlife (Gen. 1:2), plants and animals, and finallymanhimself. Inlater times, the operationofGod’s Spirit expanded invarious ways, especially as it was directed toward the Church. Believers inChrist were begottenofthe Spirit as theyentered their new consecrated life and were privileged to become the sons ofGod (John3:3, 7; 1 John 5:4, 18). Other manifestations ofthe Spirit are seeninits thoughtcreatingpower (2 Pet. 1:21), its life-givingor quickeningpower (Rom. 8:11) and its transforminginfluence (1 Cor. 6:11). Innone of these instances is a separate personalityrequired to carryout these functions.

Other usages ofthe Spirit inScripture are equallyrevealing. Joel 2:28 reads, "I willpour out myspirit uponallflesh."This is a wonderfulreference to that future daywhenGod’s Kingdomis fully established onearthand allmankind willhave the opportunityof growinginthe knowledge ofGod and His ways ofrighteousness. Does this meanthat a personis to be poured out? Ifthe Trinityis inseparable as anentity, does this meanthat God and Christ and the holySpirit are to be poured out onallflesh? Surelynot! Sucha usage helps us to grasp the correct meaningofthe holySpirit as the power or influence ofGod.

The believer is also admonished to be "filled withthe Spirit"(Eph. 5:18). This is certainlycommendable, and allofus should desire to have more and more ofthe Spirit that we maybe drawninto a closer relationship withour Lord. But how could we be filled with another person? One might be filled withsuchqualities as wisdom and faith, but hardlywiththe Spirit ifit were anactualperson. Note how the Scriptures treat allofthese as qualities (not persons) and relate themto eachother:"Look ye out amongyousevenmenof honest report, fullofthe HolyGhost [Spirit] and wisdom. . . . and theychose Stephen, a manfulloffaithand ofthe HolyGhost [Spirit]"(Acts 6:3, 5). Joyis another qualitywithwhichthe believer is to be filled, and it likewise is linked withthe fillingofthe Spirit (Acts 13:52). To insist onthe personalityofthe holySpirit inthese examples merelyproduces one paradoxafter another, allofwhich are whollyunreasonable and unnecessaryinthe light ofBiblical truth.

We could also saythat it is entirelyproper to pray for the holySpirit to operate inour lives (Luke 11:13), but not to prayto it! Never once inScripture is anexample givenofsomeone prayingto the holySpirit, and never once is anyone urged to do so. Jesus taught clearlythat prayer was to be directed to the Father inheaven, and he provided a modelofsuchprayer for his disciples to follow. (See Luke 11:1-4.)
A Missing Factor in the Equation
The efforts ofTrinitarians to give personalityto the holySpirit has proved to be anextravagant and futile exercise. Most oftheir writings expend nearlyalltheir energyintryingto prove that certain Bible texts equate God and Jesus. Verylittle canbe found to defend the holySpirit directlyintheir Trinityconcept because it is nearly impossible to do.

Byfar, the one text most alluded to and thought to be a "Trinity fortress"was 1 John5:7. However, eventhe most ardent Trinitarians must concede that the words "The Father, the Word, and the HolyGhost:and these three are one"are not trulythe Word ofGod but are spurious—merelyaninterpolation. The Revised Versionand allmoderntranslations omit the verse, since it is not contained inanyGreek manuscript prior to the fifthcenturyand is not quoted byanyofthe earlyChurchfathers. Evidentlyit was added byanover-zealous scribe who thought the Trinityconcept needed a substantialboost inthe Scripturalrecord; but surelythis attempt merelybetrays the weakness ofthe argument.

Unless Trinitycanbe Scripturallyestablished withallthree persons inone entity—includingthe holySpirit—the case simplysinks beneaththe waves.
Use of the Personal Pronoun
It is noted bysome that there are abundant references inScripture where the holySpirit is referred to usingthe personalpronoun"he." Evenour Lord Jesus, inalludingto the work ofthe holySpirit, accordingto the KingJames Version, used these words:"I willpray the Father, and he shallgive youanother Comforter, that he may abide withyoufor ever. . . . But the Comforter, whichis the Holy Ghost [Spirit], whomthe Father willsend inmyname, he shallteach youallthings"(John14:16, 26, italics supplied byus). Does this not prove that the holySpirit is a person? A studyofthe Greek text in this and other instances shows this not to be the case. Here the word for Comforter is parakletos, whichinthe Greek language is masculine ingender and, therefore, needs to be placed witha masculine pronounfor grammaticalpurposes only.

John16:13 is another text whichproperlyengages masculine pronouns to describe the holySpirit. It reads:"Howbeit whenhe, the Spirit oftruth, is come, he willguide youinto alltruth:for he shallnot speak ofhimself; but whatsoever he shallhear, that shall he speak:and he willshow youthings to come"(italics supplied). Again, this gives the impressionthat the Spirit is a person, designated with"he"and "himself."But this is not the correct thought, for it is simplya follow-up ofgood Greek grammar matchinga masculine subject withequivalent pronouns. Inagain referringto the "comforter"or "helper"aspect ofthe Spirit, there was a consistencyinusingthe masculine pronoun"he"rather than the neuter "it."This usage shows adherence to the rules ofGreek grammar and provides no proofthat the holySpirit is a person.

Onthe other hand, whenthe word "spirit"is fromthe Greek pneuma, the grammaticalapplicationchanges, and the neuter pronoun"it"is appropriatelyused. Whereas this rule is generally hiddenbythe translators, the Catholic New American Bible says, regardingJohn14:17:"The Greek word for ‘Spirit’ is neuter, and while we use personalpronouns inEnglish(‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek MSS employ‘it’" (bold supplied). Note the following Scripturalexamples where the Greek pneuma is used and is referred to bythe neuter pronoun"it":John1:32—"Johnbare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descendingfromheavenlike a dove, and it abode uponhim."InRom. 8:26 (ifthis passage is applied to the holySpirit) —"Likewise the Spirit also helpethour infirmities:for we know not what we should prayfor as we ought:but the Spirit itself maketh intercessionfor us."

Thus seen, the attempt to prove the "Spirit"is a personbecause masculine pronouns sometimes are used inreferringto it is neither scholarly, consistent, nor honest.
Possible Personality Traits
Finally, due to the wide-rangingapplications ofGod’s Spirit, there are some Bible texts that at first might be construed as endowingit withpersonality. The Spirit, for example, is portrayed as "speaking" inHeb. 3:7, and "bearingwitness"inHeb. 10:15. Nonetheless, other Scriptures clarifythe matter for us. Whereas the Spirit maybe described ina loose sense as speaking, inrealityit does this through actualpersons, suchas God or the believer. The warningagainst provokingGod throughunbelief, whichis ascribed to the holySpirit inHeb. 3:7, is clearlyshowninPs. 95:6-11 to have beenthe voice ofGod originallyraised as anexpressionofGod’s anger against the Israelites intheir wilderness journey. Likewise, the lovelypicture of the establishment ofthe New Covenant withthe house ofIsrael, whichis attributed to the witnessingofthe holySpirit inHeb. 10:15, is reallyshownto be a consequence ofa direct "thus saiththe Lord" inJer. 31:31-33. Hence the holySpirit has no personalvoice ofits ownand must operate throughother personalities, suchas God, Christ and the believer.

Anapproachsimilar to this canbe used inproperlyharmonizing other texts that invaryingdegree mayappear to endow personhood to the Spirit. For example, compare "tempt the Spirit ofthe Lord" (Acts 5:9) withthe clearer "tempt the Lord thyGod"(Matt. 4:7); and again, "filled withthe Spirit"(Eph. 5:18) withthe more understandable "the Spirit ofGod dwellethinyou"(1 Cor. 3:16). It is onlyreasonable to expect that ona matter ofsuchweighty consequence, bearingonthe true nature and identityofthe holy Spirit, the Scriptures themselves canbe relied uponto furnish satisfyingtruth. And thus we actuallyperceive examples ofGod’s Spirit at work, inso arrangingthe holyScriptures and grantingthe needed guidance and help inproperlyunderstandingthem, for which we are grateful.
Some Notable Admissions
Insummingup our case for the holySpirit as the power or influence ofGod, we would like to quote fromsome Catholic authorities:
A Catholic Dictionary: "Onthe whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks ofthe spirit as a divine energyor power particularly inthe heart ofman."2

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The OTclearlydoes not envisage God’s spirit as a person. . . God’s spirit is simplyGod’s power. Ifit is sometimes represented as beingdistinct fromGod, it is because the breathofYahwehacts exteriorly. . . . The majorityof NTtexts revealGod’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especiallyseeninthe parallelismbetweenthe spirit and the power of God."3
The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nowhere inthe Old Testament do we find anyclear indicationofa Third Person."4
Catholic theologianFortman:"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there anysolid evidence that anyOld Testament writer held this view. . . . The HolySpirit is usuallypresented inthe Synoptics [Gospels] and inActs as a divine force or power."5

Placingthese comments into the overallcontext ofCatholic belief, we appreciate the sincerityofthese admissions, while at the same time recognizingtheir acceptance ofthe Trinitydoctrine, as based uponchurchauthorityand tradition. We quite agree that God’s Spirit is "something, not someone."Our purpose inexcerptingthese quotations is to point out the candid admissions that are made in respect to the lack ofBiblicalevidence to support the personhood ofthe holySpirit.

Chapter IV Further Scriptural Harmony

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of God." (2 Tim. 2:16, NIV)
God (‘Elo-him’) in Plural Form
The reasoningis presented that the Old Testament Hebrew word for God is ofteninpluralform. To the Trinitarianmind, this is supposed to prove that God is a composite ofthree beings somehow congealed into one identity. It never had sucha connotationto the Jewishwriters ofthe Old Testament. Theydid not believe ina Trinity. It is anenigma to themthat, after the fact, some Christians come alongand prove the Trinitywhere none existed inthe minds ofthe writers ofthe Old Testament. Trinity never was intheir thinking, and therefore it was not intheir ink quills.

CommentingonGen. 1:1, where God is mentioned inthe pluralas ‘elohim,’ Dr. Rotherhamsays:"It should be carefullyobserved that, although‘elohim’ is pluralinform, yet when, as here, it is construed witha verb inthe singular, it is naturallysingular insense; especially since the ‘pluralofquality’ or ‘excellence’ abounds inHebrew in cases where the reference is undeniablyto somethingwhichmust be understood inthe singular."

Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone writes onthis matter inhis Synonyms of the Old Testament: "Manycritics, however, of unimpeachable orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where suchdivines as Cajetan[a theologian] inthe ChurchofRome and Calvinamong Protestants were content to stand, and to take the pluralformas a plural of majesty, and as indicatingthe greatness, the infinity, and the incomprehensibleness ofthe Deity."1 The truthonthis matter is clearlyperceived bymanyscholars, but it is hard to restrainsome hard-pressed Trinitarians fromstretchingthe truthto prove the unprovable.

It should be mentioned also that the Hebrew "elohim" is used to describe pagangods suchas Dagon(1 Sam. 5:7) and Marduck (Dan. 1:2). These were singular gods. No one has claimed they were triune gods. Hence, it seems manyTrinitarianscholars wince at excesses oftheir brethren. The higher ground for the Trinitarianis stillthat the Trinityis not understandable, nor explainable, and must simplybe accepted as a theologicalmystery. This is especially difficult for fundamentalist Bible believers to accept. Theyfind this anuncomfortable posture inwhichto be.
"Immanuel" and the "Mighty God"
Isaiah7:14 reads:"Behold, a virginshallconceive, and bear a son, and shallcallhis name Immanuel."We shallnot enter the discussion as to whether this verse mayhave had a fulfillment other thanto our Lord Jesus. Be that as it may, we have Matthew’s applicationofthis verse beingfulfilled inJesus’ birth(Matt. 1:23). It is, therefore, on Apostolic authority, applied to our Lord, and that should be the end ofallstrife. However, whenit came time to give our Lord a name, he was not called Immanuel, meaning"God withus,"but Jesus, "Savior"(Matt. 1:25). Hence, the name is a title, verymuchas the SonofGod or the SonofMan. IfGod was sendingHis only begottenSonto dwellwithmen, that surelywould be a signthat God was withus, liftingup His countenance uponus and being gracious to us. Eventodaywe use the expression, "God be with you."No more thanthis need be implied inIsaiah7:14.

Isaiah9:6 gives our Savior the title, "The mightyGod."But the Jewishwriters were not sayingthat the Messiahwould literallybe Jehovah. Ifjudges ofIsraelwere called "gods,"as inPs. 82:1-7, what would be earthshakingabout callingJesus the "mightyGod" (Hebrew, ‘El Gib-bohr’)? Notice, he is not called ‘El Shad-dai,’ a termexclusivelyapplied to Jehovah. Further, "God"inthe Isaiahtext is the Hebrew EL, defined byDr. Strongas "strength; as adj[ective] mighty; espec[ially] the Almighty(but used also ofanydeity)."2 The fact that the same word (EL) is used inIsa. 57:5 indescribingidols shows indeed that it is a generaltermused to describe anymighty beingand, hence, quite appropriatelymaybe applied to our Savior, Jesus, inIsa. 9:6.

The followingsources offer additionalcomments onIsa. 9:6 and Ps. 82:1-7:The Catholic Encyclopedia states:"Eventhese exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other thanGod Himself."3 And the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, byMcClintock and Strong, says:"Thus it appears that none ofthe passages cited from the Old Test[ament] inproofofthe Trinityare conclusive. . . . We do not find inthe Old Test[ament] clear or decided proofuponthis subject."4
Scriptures with Groupings of Three Titles
Some Bible texts mentionthree subjects incontinuityand have been seized uponas proofofthe Trinity. In1 Corinthians 12:4-6 are found Spirit, Lord and God; 2 Corinthians 13:14 lists Christ, God and the HolyGhost [Spirit]; Galatians 4:4-6 lists God, Sonand Spirit ofhis Son; Ephesians 4:4-6 lists Spirit, Lord and God and 1 Peter 1:2 lists God, Spirit and Jesus Christ. Ifwe were to accept suchlogic as proofofthe Trinity, thenwe would be led to believe that Peter, James and Johnare a Trinitybecause theyare listed together. (See Luke 9:28.) 1 Timothy5:21 says:"I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels."Does this make angels a part ofthe Trinity?

Thenthere is the great commissiontext, "Go ye therefore, and teach allnations, baptizingtheminthe name ofthe Father, and ofthe son, and ofthe HolyGhost [Spirit]"(Matt. 28:19). However, sentiment is mountingthat this text is a forgery. Ineveryother instance where baptismis mentioned inthe New Testament, it is shownto be inthe name ofJesus. Further, manyofthe earlyChurchfathers, inquoting this passage, leave out the Trinitarianformula and saysimply"inmy name"; that is, inthe name ofJesus alone the baptismwas to be carried out. In1960, The British& ForeignBible Societypublished a Greek Testament, and inMatt. 28:19 the phrase "inmyname"is givenas analternative reading, withEusebius cited as the early Churchauthority.
Let us note what some theologians have to sayonthis matter:
Dr. AdamClark, a Trinitarian, incommentingonMatthew 28:19 as proofthat the Father, Sonand holySpirit were three persons, says: "‘But this I cannever believe.’ I cannot help that—youshallnot be persecuted byme for differingfrommyopinion. I cannot go over to you; I must abide bywhat I believe to be the meaningofthe Scriptures."He thenshows how the New Testament believers in Acts 2:38; 8:16 and 19:5 were baptized inthe name ofthe Lord Jesus alone.5 Also, G. Kittel, inhis Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, states forthrightly:"The N[ew] T[estament] does not actuallyspeak oftriunity. We seek this invaininthe triadic formulae ofthe NT."6 Hence, there is sucha thingas tryingtoo hard to use Scriptures to infer meanings not intended, and some scholars refuse to do that.
"My Lord and My God"
One verse oftenused inanattempt to prove the Trinitydoctrine is
John20:28. "And Thomas answered and said unto him, MyLord and myGod."First, let us notice Thomas did not mentionthe holy Spirit. He would have needed to do so for this verse to sustainany Trinityconnotation. Failinginthis, it becomes, at best, a stoolwith onlytwo legs—not good to stand on. This verse reveals Thomas’ happyresponse onfindinghis Master appearingbefore him. He was slow to believe inJesus’ resurrection, and it took this personal interchange withthe Master to make a true believer out ofhim. He was the last ofthe Apostles to have beenhonored witha visit from the Master after his resurrection. This probablyhurt his feelings to think that so manyothers had met withthe resurrected Lord and he had not beenso blessed.

Thomas resolved:"Except I shallsee inhis hands the print ofthe nails, and put myfinger into the print ofthe nails, and thrust myhand into his side, I willnot believe [inhis resurrection]"(John20:25). Did Thomas believe that it was God the Father who was dead? Surelynot. But ifhe believed Jesus was God, how could he believe that it was Jesus who was dead? Yet ifanythingat allis clear, it is that Thomas did believe Jesus was deadand was overjoyed to find himalive.

WhenJesus offered to fulfillallthe necessaryconditions to make himbelieve his resurrection, Thomas cried out, "My[the] Lord and my[the] God"(John20:28). God here is a translationofthe Greek THEOS, whichis defined byDr. Youngas "God, a god, object of worship."7 It is a generalterminthe New Testament, used frequentlyto denote the HeavenlyFather (suchas inMatt. 27:46, "MyGod, myGod, whyhast thouforsakenme,"and inmany additionalplaces). However, it is also used to depict other beings, whether good or bad. THEOS is used to describe Satan, "the god ofthis world"(2 Cor. 4:4), the saints, "gods, sons ofthe Most High" (John10:34, 35, fromPs. 82:6, RSV), idols, or fabricated "gods who willgo before us"(Acts 7:40), and heathengods, "the gods have come downto us inhumanform!"(Acts 14:11, 12). Hence, THEOS is quite generalinits applicationinScripture, and the fact that it is occasionallyused ofJesus should not be takenas proofthat he was God the Father. Suchusage alone is not conclusive to warrant sucha distinction.

The Jews had earlier accused Jesus ofblasphemybecause, beinga man, he made himself"God"—but this was a false and exaggerated accusationagainst Jesus whichhe never is recorded as saying. Jesus’ response was, "Is it not writteninyour law, I said, Ye are gods? Ifhe called themgods, unto whomthe word ofGod came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; sayye ofhim, whomthe Father hathsanctified, and sent into the world, Thoublasphemest; because I said, I amthe SonofGod?"(John10:34-36). Evento be called God was not earthshaking. Jesus pointed out that those to whomthe Word ofGod came were called "gods."(The originalearly manuscripts were writtenwithallcapitals. Hence, translators must decide whether to capitalize or not.) But Jesus did clarifywho he was. He said, "I amthe SonofGod."

Did Thomas now believe somethingdifferent thanJesus claimed for himself? Ifthose to whomthe word ofGod came were called "gods,"what would be extraordinaryabout Thomas callingJesus "MyLord and myGod"? Herod’s voice was called "god’s"voice, and Paulwas called "god"(Acts 12:22; 28:6). This, undoubtedly, was a veryemotionalmoment for Thomas and certainlynot an attempt onhis part to offer advanced theology. The fact that he says "the Lord"and "the God"seems appropriate to his emotionalstate whereinhe accepts Jesus as his resurrected "the Lord"and "the God."His veryJewishness prohibits us fromconcludinghe thought Jesus was "God the Father."He could not possiblyhave fused Jesus and God the Father into one. Jesus had beenhis "Lord"(or "Master"), and now, believinghis resurrection, he accepts himas his "God"(or "mightyone").

Inadditionto the foregoing, there is analternative explanationthat should be considered. This was anemotion-filled moment for Thomas, a moment about whichhe had spent muchtime inprayer to God. It maybe that Thomas was merelycryingout to God, his Father, "MyLord and myGod"as anexclamationfor answeringhis prayers. Today, people cryout "MyGod"inmoments of overwhelmingsorrow or joy. Jesus cried out, "MyGod, myGod" onthe cross. This maybe what Thomas meant byhis expressionon this occasion. There is nothingto preclude this thought. One thing we know, his assertiondid not include the holySpirit, and therefore the Trinitycannot have beenimplied.

The Apostle John, who wrote his Gospellongyears after Pentecost, likewise did not believe Jesus was God. Johnquotes Jesus’ reminder to Mary, saying, "I ascend to myFather, and your Father; and to myGod, and your God"(John20:17). Jesus had the same Father and God as Mary. Additionally, Johnsums up his lesson coveringthese momentous events, saying, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the SonofGod; and that believingye might have life throughhis name"(John20:31). The Apostle Thomas was a Jew who held to the view that the "Lord our God is one."To argue that he forsook his Jewishreligious trainingat the moment inquestionand received Jesus as (the) God the Father is anunlikelyscenario. John, who is aged and serene while writing his Gospel, summarizes this entire chapter saying, "Jesus is the Christ, the sonofGod."That’s what he wanted us to believe—and that’s what Thomas believed as well.
"In Three Days I Will Raise It Up"
InJohn2:19 we read:"Destroythis temple, and inthree days I will raise it up."The argument is made that Jesus was God and that he raised himselffromthe dead. This is said inspite ofthe clear and oft repeated statement ofScripture that "God raised himfromthe dead."(Please see our Bible readings inChapter VI.) The testimony ofScripture is so complete and overwhelmingthat God raised Jesus fromthe dead that there cannot be anyshade ofdoubt about it.

Now let us examine some ofour Lord’s statements onthis to see if theycanbe harmonized. InMatthew 17:22, 23, Jesus said, speakingofhis approachingdeath:"The Sonofmanshallbe betrayed into the hands ofmen:and theyshallkillhim, and the third dayhe shallbe raised again."(See also Luke 9:22; Matt. 16:21.) The angels quoted our Lord’s words to the womenwho witnessed his resurrection, saying:"Remember how he spake unto youwhen he was yet inGalilee saying, the Sonofmanmust be delivered into the hands ofsinfulmen, and be crucified, and the third dayrise again. And theyremembered his words"(Luke 24:6-8). These verses fit inwiththe Bible testimonythat God raised Jesus onthe third day.

However, inJohn2:19, Jesus said, inresponse to the Jews’ request for a signfromhim:"Destroythis temple, and inthree days I will raise it up."Johnquotes Jesus and thengives the proper understandingofJesus’ words. He says, "But he spake ofthe temple ofhis body"(John2:21). Here the aged Johnis suggesting what Paulconfirms:"For as the bodyis one, and hathmany members, and allthe members ofthat one body, beingmany, are one body:so also is Christ. For byone Spirit are we allbaptized into one body. . . . Now ye are the bodyofChrist, and members in particular"(1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 27). Further insight is provided in2 Cor. 4:14, whichreads:"Knowingthat he whichraised up the Lord Jesus shallraise up us also by [with, through] Jesus, and shall present us withyou."InJohn6:44 we read a similar thought:"No mancancome to me, except the Father . . . draw him:and I will raise himup at the last day."This shows that God’s power would not be exercised independentlybut throughJesus inthe resurrection ofthe BodyofChrist.

Hence it is Jesus who willtake anactive role inraisinghis Church fromthe dead. Johnshows in14:2, 3 whenthat willbe. He says: "And ifI go and prepare a place for you, I willcome again, and receive youunto myself, that where I am, there ye maybe also."So it is at Jesus’ second advent that his faithfulfollowers willbe rewarded. Other Bible texts detailthe timingofthe Church’s resurrectionyet further. Peter declares that "One dayis withthe Lord as a thousand years"(2 Pet. 3:8). Ifwe divide the time from man’s creationinto one-thousand year days, Jesus was crucified and resurrected onthe fifth(thousand year) day. Ifhe returns in three days to raise his bodymembers, countinginclusivelyfromthe fifthday, we arrive at the seventh(thousand year) day, whichis the grand MillennialDayofblessing.

Now let us examine John2:19—"Inthree days I willraise it up"— fromanother standpoint. The disciples had come to regard Jesus’ deathand resurrectionas a precursor oftheir ownresurrection. Theyremembered his promise:"Because I live, ye shalllive also" (John14:19). Hence we read:"Whentherefore he was risenfrom the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and theybelieved the scripture, and the word whichJesus had said" (John2:22). We must remember that before Pentecost, Jesus’ disciples did not entertaina heavenlyhope. The last thingtheyasked our risenLord before he ascended was:"Lord, wilt thouat this time restore againthe kingdomto Israel?"(Acts 1:6). Subsequently, they came to realize theywere to be a part ofthe bodyofChrist and that God would "raise up us also byJesus"(2 Cor. 4:14). That is what theyremembered Jesus’ words to mean.
Challenges of Interpretation
Some while back, a 31-page booklet entitled "Should You Believe the Trinity?" was circulated, whichcaused quite a stir inTrinitarian circles. Robert M. Bowman, Jr., rose to the occasionand wrote an entire book inreplyentitled Why You Should Believe in the Trinity. His work enables one to see how a Trinitarianstudies the Bible and how he comes to his conclusions. It demonstrates that an effort canbe made to defend the Trinityand that Bible verses may be used inanendless arrayto justifysaid beliefs. Yet, despite a valiant overalleffort, Mr. Bowmanclearlyfalls short ofthe mark in at least one direction—and that is inclarifyingthe doctrine for us. After attemptingat lengthto explainthe unfathomable mysteryofthe Trinity, he finallyadmits insummary:"The choice is therefore betweenbelievinginthe true God as he has revealed himself, mysteryand all, or believingina God who is relativelysimple to understand but bears little resemblance to the true God. Trinitarians are willingto live witha God theycan’t fullycomprehend."8

Most ofhis arguments pertainto Bible verses where God and Christ maybe, witha little effort, fused into one Being. The hard part was inaddingthe holySpirit to make Trinitycomplete. He says, to lay the foundationfor his argument:"The HolySpirit is nothingless than God himself. God is present everywhere, so he has no problem controllinghis works. He needs no force outside himselfto do his works, nor does he need to emanate some ofhis ownenergyto places far fromhis presence inorder to ‘be there.’"9 Unfortunately, he asserts God is "everywhere"without a Bible citation. One must suppose this is accepted intheology. However, our Lord Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father, whichart inheaven"(Matt. 6:9). Jesus could have helped theologyifhe taught us to pray:"Our Father, whichart everywhere,"but he did not saythis.
Suchreasoningcomes close to New Age theologywhichteaches that God is everywhere and ineverythingand ifwe identifywiththe earth, sun, water, etc., we become a part ofGod. The wise man said:"God is inheaven, and thouuponearth:therefore let thywords be few"(Eccl. 5:2). WhenMoses wished to see God’s glory, God caused a representationofHimselfto pass before Moses. The restrictionwas that Moses would see God’s "back parts"(Ex. 33:23). How could a God who is everywhere be represented by God’s gloryas it passed by? How longwould it take for everywhere to pass before Moses? Also God is said to dwellin "light whichno mancanapproachunto"(1 Tim. 6:16). IfGod is everywhere, he must also be inthe dark holes ofthe universe. How could it be said:"God is light, and inhimis no darkness at all"(1 John1:5)?

IfGod is everywhere, thenJesus is everywhere and so also the holy Spirit. This raises a questioninlogic. InJohn14:3, Jesus promises: "I willcome again."How does someone who is everywhere come againto somewhere? Jesus also promised inJohn15:26:"But when the Comforter is come, whomI willsend unto you. . . he shall testifyofme."How do yousend someone who is everywhere? Why would youneed to? How caneverywhere be moved to somewhere?

Mr. Bowmanasserts God "needs no force outside himselfto do his works, nor does he need to emanate some ofhis energyto places." It is doubtfulifmanytheologians would back suchanextravagant assertion. This would seemto rule out anyuse ofthe holySpirit as the mind, influence, power, etc., ofGod. For a case inpoint, God says:"I willpour out myspirit uponallflesh"(Joel2:28). How could a God-person, who is everywhere, be poured out on"allflesh"? Logic and commonsense require evenTrinitarians to read certain verses withthe same meaningas non-Trinitarians. That is the hard part ofarguingagainst the Trinity; it seems everyone defendingit has some different ideas.

Greater minds thanhis have struggled to find the formula to merge three persons into one and have conceded that, after havingdone their best, their concepts were "incomprehensible."Mr. Bowman concludes the same, as we have observed:"Trinitarians are willingto live witha God theycan’t fullyunderstand."The Trinityis a doctrine ofinference—not ofBiblicalstatement. We doubt that many theologians would support his positionthat it is unnecessaryfor the Spirit ever to be a power or influence or the mind ofGod. His positionseems untenable here.

Finally, everyChristianmust realize that there is nothingtheybelieve that cannot be assailed bysomeone somewhere. The Devilquoted the Bible tryingto beguile our Lord. The JudaizingJews quoted Scripture verses to bringGentiles under the Law. Were they sincere? Probably, but misinformed. There is not a single doctrine believed byanyChristianwhichis not assailed withvigor and even sometimes withforcefulpresentations. What do we do insuchan event? We canclose our mind to alldiscussionand retreat to our trenches. That is probablygood ifindeed our beliefis well-founded inthe Word. There definitelyis a cloud over the Trinitywhichis very troublingto many, and we trust that suchwillbe blessed bythis presentation.

Chapter V Confronting Gnostic Heresies

"Turn away from godless philosophical discussions and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge[GNOSIS], which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith." (1 Tim. 6:20, NIV and NJB)

Whenthe Apostle Johnspoke ofthose who do not "abide inthe doctrine ofChrist"(2 John9), what false teachingwas he refuting? We believe he was confrontinga particular false teachingbeing advocated inhis time and place. As mentioned earlier, the Trinity doctrine was not yet formulated, and Johnwas not confrontingit. It was not troublingthe Churchat that time. InActs 15 the early Churchdid have a heated conference ofelders and Apostles, but it addressed the issue ofGentiles cominginto the Churchand being pressured to keep the JewishLaw Covenant. The councilended witha veryclearly-worded message:"For it seemed good to the HolyGhost [Spirit], and to us, to layuponyouno greater burden thanthese necessarythings; that ye abstainfrommeats offered to idols, and fromblood, and fromthings strangled, and from fornication:fromwhichifye keep yourselves, ye shalldo well"(Acts 15:28, 29).

Now, youwould think ifthe Trinitywas evenfaintlymentioned in Churchteachings, it would need some clarification. Certainly, those ofthe Priesthood (Acts 6:7) who had become believers and who were tryingto bringGentiles under the Law would have raised eyebrows at anyteachingbecloudingthe one-God concept ofthe JewishLaw. The leadership ofthe Churchwere allmainlyJews carried over fromthe Law arrangement. Yet not one word emerged about a tripersonaldeity. How could the Trinitynot have been mentioned inthis conference, or inthe Bible itself, ifit was an essentialdoctrine for Jews and Gentiles alike to believe?

John’s Gospel, as wellas his epistles, are believed to have been writtentoward the close ofthe first century. McClintock & Strong on"John,"says:

"Ephesus and Patmos are the two places mentioned byearly writers, and the weight ofevidence seems to preponderate infavor ofEphesus. Irenaeus . . . states that Johnpublished his Gospel whilst he dwelt inEphesus ofAsia. Jerome . . . relates that Johnwas inAsia . . . Theodore ofMopsuestia . . . relates that Johnwas living at Ephesus whenhe was moved byhis disciples to write his Gospel.

"The evidence infavor ofPatmos comes fromtwo anonymous writers. The author ofthe Synopsis ofScripture, printed inthe works ofAthanasius, states that the Gospelwas dictated byJohnin Patmos, and published afterwards inEphesus. . . . [Another] author . . . states that Johnwas banished byDomitianto Patmos, where he wrote his Gospel."1
QuotingMcClintock and Strong, on"John, First Epistle,"we read:
"It has beenconjectured bymanyinterpreters, ancient and modern, that it was writtenat the same place as the Gospel. The more ancient traditionplaces the writingofthe Gospelat Ephesus, and a less authentic report refers it to the island ofPatmos . . . it was probablyposterior to the Gospel, whichseems to be referred to in1 John1:4. Some are ofthe opinionthat the Epistle was anenvelope or accompaniment to the Gospel, and that theywere consequently writtennearlysimultaneously."2

These comments suggest John’s writings were the writings ofhis old age. Havingoutlived the other Apostles, Johncould see the essential fabric ofChristianitybeginningto be subjected to intellectual Hellenistic philosophyand gnosticism. Johnwas the last Apostolic outpost defendingthe "faithwhichwas once delivered unto the saints"(Jude 3). He was dearlyloved bythe brethrenofthat time, but not byall. "Diotrephes, who lovethto have the preeminence amongthem, receivethus not"(3 John9). It is hard to believe anyone would not receive Johninthe Christiancommunity. However, ambitionand power-lust were runninghigh, and hence eventhe beloved Apostle found himselfput upon. This should make us waryofacceptingbeliefs not originatinginApostolic times.
Confessing Jesus Christ Is Come in the Flesh
John, inhis epistles, as wellas inhis gospelwritings, was dealing withcertaingnostic heresies that had started to trouble the early Church. In1 John4:3, we read:"And everyspirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come inthe fleshis not ofGod:and this is that spirit ofantichrist."What was Johnaddressinghere? For an answer we quote McClintock & Strong:

"Irenaeus says, ‘Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but bya certainpower (Demiurge) separate from Him, and below Him, and ignorant ofHim. Jesus he supposed not to be bornofa virgin, but to be the sonofJosephand Mary, born altogether as other menare; but he excelled allmeninvirtue, knowledge, and wisdom. At His baptism, the Christ came down uponHim, fromGod who is over all, inthe shape ofa dove; and thenHe declared to the world the unknownFather, and wrought miracles. At the end, the Christ left Jesus, and Jesus suffered and rose again, but the Christ beingspiritual, was impassible.’"3

This view presents Jesus as a mere manfathered byJoseph, who later became possessed byChrist at Jordanand deserted byChrist before Jesus was crucified. Hence, Christ did not come inthe flesh, nor did he suffer inthe flesh, but simplytook possessionofa man named Jesus fromJordanand left himbefore he was crucified. Under this teaching, Christ neither suffered nor died. It was Jesus the manwho suffered and died and was resurrected. This concept mayhave arisenfromthe practice ofdemons enteringfleshlybodies to possess them, suchas evidentlywas fairlycommonplace inJesus’ day.
We refer againto McClintock & StrongonCerinthus:
"The account ofIrenaeus is that he [Cerinthus] appeared about the year 88, and was knownto St. John, who wrote his Gospelin refutationofhis errors. Irenaeus, onthe authorityofPolycarp, narrates that the Apostle John, whenat Ephesus, goingona certain dayto the bath, and findingCerinthus within, fled fromthe building, saying‘Let us evenbe gone, lest the bathshould fallto pieces, Cerinthus, that enemyofthe truth, beingwithin.’"4

This scrap ofhistorywould confirmJohn’s unwillingness to have any interchange or contact withone who was introducingsuchmindbeguilingerrors into the Churches. Yet, the point to be noted is that, evenwhile the Apostle Johnstilllived, various forms ofgnostic errors affectingthe nature ofChrist were indeed infecting Christianity. What would happenwhenallthe Apostles fellasleep? Surely, no one would logicallyexpect truthto triumph.

Jesus taught—"While menslept, his enemycame and sowed tares amongthe wheat, and went his way"(Matt. 13:24-30). What were the "tares"the enemysowed? Errors or false teachings whichwould subvert true Christianity. Yes. Evenbefore the Apostles fellasleep, the Devilwas busytryingto infuse gnostic beliefs amongthe people ofGod. Paulconfirms this, saying, "The mysteryofiniquitydoth alreadywork"(2 Thess. 2:7). We must always remember, these false teachings were kept out ofthe Bible, but not out ofthe Church. What was to be a "wheat field"turned into a field of"tares,"the plantingofthe Wicked One. The Parable ofthe Wheat and Tares (Matt. 13:24-30) was givenbythe Master to foretellwhat would follow the deathofthe Apostles. For anyone to go to the fourthand fifthcenturies to seek the truthis to ignore this clear warningof Jesus.
Docetae—Docetism
Docetismappeared inthe latter halfofthe second century. It was, in fact, onlyanother formofgnosticism. McClintock & Strong, commentingonDocetae, say:

"Inorder to remove the author ofallgood fromallcontact with matter, whichtheyconceived to be the same as evil, theycalled in the aid ofOrientalphilosophyinorder to people the space between God and matter witha vast successionofsuperhumanbeings as mediators betweenGod and the world. These, emanatingfromthe Deity, were called aeons; amongthese the highest rank was assigned to Christ. Here, however, theyseemto have split. ‘Many imagined that Jesus was a mere man, and maintained that the aeon Christ descended uponthe manJesus at his baptism, and left him immediatelybefore his crucifixion, so that Christ was not, infact, subjected to painand death; while others held that the body, with whichChrist appeared to be invested, was not reallyhumanand passable, but unsubstantialor etherial, or, at least immaterial:these last were called Docetae.’ (Waddington’s Hisory of the Church, p. 74, 75). Theydenied the whole humanityofChrist, regardingit onlyas a deceptive show, a mere vision.

"Docetismwas a most subtle element, whichwrought variously before it had anydiscernible concentrationinanyleadingmenor sects, and it infused its unrealand fantastic leaveninto various Gnostic sects, and other later ones whichgrew out ofGnosticism. It was a deep, natural, rationalistic, pseudo-spiritualistic, antiincarnationelement."5
The errors introduced byCerinthus did not disappear, but infected the Churchheavilyinthe second century. It was these errors that were leaveningthe lump, and to offset them, bothtruthand additionalerrors were used to put downthese gnostic teachings. The hardest thingis to defend the truthwithout exaggeratingmatters. The Devildoes not care whichditchone gets into, as longas one leaves the strait and narrow pathoftruth.
Gnosticism in the Church
The earlyChristians did seek knowledge ofspiritualthings. Paul says some were giventhe "word ofknowledge (gnosis) bythe same Spirit"(1 Cor. 12:8). There was a proper knowledge that came to saints ofthat day, and thenthere were supposed superior knowledge and insights that were nothingmore thanheretical gnosticism. The Churchwas put uponbythese claimants ofsuperior knowledge. McClintock & Strong, onGnosticism, say:

"The name Gnosticismhas beenapplied to a varietyofschools whichhad sometimes little incommonexcept the assumptionofa knowledge higher thanthat ofordinarybelievers. . . . Theyseldom pretended to demonstrate the principles onwhichtheir systems were founded byhistoricalevidence or logicalreasonings, since they rather boasted that these were discovered bythe intuitionalpowers ofmore highlyendowed minds, and that the materials thus obtained, whether throughfaithor divine revelation, were thenworked up into ascientific formaccordingto eachone’s naturalpower and culture. Their aimwas to construct not merelya theoryofredemption, but of the universe—a cosmogony. No subject was beyond their investigations. Whatever God could revealto the finite intellect, they looked uponas withintheir range. What to others seemed only speculative ideas, were bythemhypostatized or personified into real beings or historicalfacts. It was inthis waythat theyconstructed systems ofspeculationonsubjects entirelybeyond the range of humanknowledge, whichstartle us bytheir boldness and their apparent consciouness ofreality."6

Most ofthe controversies ofthe earlyChurchwere Judaistic in nature, but evidence is found earlyonofhereticalinfluences that affected the brotherhood. QuotingagainfromMcClintock & Strong onGnosticism:

"The hereticalgnosis did not make its appearance withan uncovered head untilafter the deathofthe apostles, but . . . that it previouslyworked insecret. . . . While most ofthe heresies ofthat period were Judaistic, there was anobvious difference between those reproved inthe Galatianchurches and those noticed inthe epistles to the Colossians and Timothy. The latter are treated much more mildly, and we readilyperceive that theymust have beenmuch less developed and less subversive ofthe Christiansystem. Theyare expresslycalled (1 Tim. 6:20) a false gnosis, and were characterized byemptysounds without sense and subtle oppositions to the truth, a depreciationofthe body, and a worship ofangels (Col. 2:18, 23), and interminable genealogies and myths (1 Tim. 1:4). These seemmore akinto Jewishthanto heathenspeculations, and implynot the completed Gnosticismofthe second century, but the manifest germs ofDocetic emanations and Gnostic dualism."7

It is easyto see how suchforces at work withinthe earlyChurch were like leaventhat needed anincubationperiod before it "leavened the whole."While the leavenwas rising, it induced a power struggle amongthe bishops, some for truthand some for error and, more oftenthannot, a struggle for preeminence and power. To secure these, one needed some platformthat played well and would seduce the largest numbers. Later, the seductionwas directed toward the Emperor Constantine, for the imperialpower would make or break the bishops. Those who contended for the faith"once delivered unto the saints"became merelyvoices cryingin the wilderness (Jude 3).

To believe that most Churchleaders were the great preservers of the "faithonce delivered to the saints"is to believe the unbelievable. The Great WallofChina was built to keep out invadingenemy forces. However, the wallwas breached three times withinthe first centuryofits construction—ineachinstance fromwithin. Once we leave the Apostolic Era and the Word ofGod, it becomes stormy and treacherous.
What John Was Confronting
The Apostle John, inhis Gospel, was fillingindetails left out inother Gospelaccounts as wellas lightlyaddressingsome subtle errors of that era. InJohn1:1-18, we find Johnrefutinggnostic heresies. He shows that Jesus was a spirit who was "withGod"and who subsequentlybecame flesh. He says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongus, (and we beheld his glory, the gloryas of the onlybegottenofthe Father,) fullofgrace and truth"(vs. 14). This is a plainstatement offact. Jesus was "made flesh."He did not possess another’s bodyor form, but he was, infact, "flesh."Neither was he a mixture ofnatures—spirit and flesh. He was "flesh."Peter confirms this truth, saying, "Beingput to deathindeed inflesh, but made alive inspirit"(1 Pet. 3:18, Rotherham). The gnostic teaching that Christ was a composite ofspirit and fleshdid finallyemerge. But the Bible is quite clear that Jesus was made "flesh."It does not sayhe assumed a fleshlybodyand thenleft it. He died onthe cross and was raised fromthe dead byGod onthe third day(Matt. 28:7; Acts 2:31, 32).

John1:18 reads, "No manhathseenGod at anytime; the only begottenson[some authorities read God], whichis inthe bosomof the Father, he hathdeclared him."Mendid see Jesus. No manhas ever seenGod, nor cantheyand live. Jesus, then, is the revealer of God, the one throughwhomwe mayknow the Father.

What did Johnmeanwhenhe said:"Whosoever transgresseth, and abidethnot inthe doctrine ofChrist, hathnot God. He that abideth inthe doctrine ofChrist, he hathboththe Father and the Son"(2 John9)? Whydidn’t he add:"haththe Father and the Sonand the holySpirit"? Obviously, Johnwas not dealingwithanypart ofthe Trinitywhenhe wrote these words. He was meetingthe errors of Cerinthus and gnosticism, whichwere beginningto surface inthat veryearlyera whenthe Apostles stilllived. He was endeavoringto prevent Cerinthus and his deceived followers frombewitchingthe Churchwiththeir Satan-inspired, beguilingerrors.

The battle did not cease after the Apostles fellasleep. The Church ofGod became infested withphilosophy, gnostic dualisms, docetic emanations, etc. The stage was beingset for the dualismofGod and Christ to be fused into one substance, composed ofspirit and flesh simultaneously. Because these earliest errors had to do withthe nature ofJesus Christ inhumanfleshand his relationship to God, it became increasinglydifficult to separate fact fromfancy. A thick cloud ofconfusionsettled uponChristians. As a result, theologians left the simplicityofthe unitarianGod ofthe first centuryand fused Jesus and God into one Beinginthe fourthcentury.

At last inthe fifthcentury, the Trinitywas bornevenwhile the ChristianChurchbeganits descent toward the Dark Ages. Ifat least we could see the Churchmovingtoward more brotherlylove and kindness after the Trinityconcept took root, we could sense that somethinggood had emerged. But suchwas not the case. The picture that emerges is ofa Churchsteeped inworldliness, pomp and ceremony, leavingthe purityand simplicityofits earlyfaithfar behind. Evenworse are centuries filled withbloodlettingand ruthlessness that followed, withthe Churchbent onworld conquest. Allcontraryreligious thought was stifled as the Churchgrasped for totalworld-control.

Hellenistic Influences in the Church
Hans Kungwrites:

"Ifwe take the New Testament as a criterion, we cannot denythat the CouncilofNicaea certainlymaintained the New Testament message and did not Hellenize it totally. But it is equallybeyond dispute that the councilremained utterlyimprisoned inHellenistic concepts, notions and thought-models whichwould have been completelyaliento the Jew Jesus ofNazarethand the earliest community. Here inparticular the shift fromthe JewishChristian apocalyptic paradigm[beliefs, values, techniques and so onshared bythe members ofa givencommunity] to the earlychurch Hellenistic paradigmhad a massive effect."8
There is little doubt that after the Hellenizationofthe Church, it would have beenunrecognizable to earlyJewishChristians. Whenthe Churchbecame Hellenized, it became a toolfor Constantine. Hans Kungsays:
"He not onlyconvened the ecumenicalcouncilbut directed it througha bishop whomhe had commissioned, withthe assistance of imperialcommissioners; he adjourned it and concluded it; byhis decisionthe resolutions ofthe councilbecame imperiallaws. Constantine used this first councilnot least to adapt the church organizationto the state organization. . . . It was now clear to Constantine, the politicalstrategist, that the imperialchurchneeded more thanjust the more or less varied confessions offaithofthe individuallocalor provincialchurches. It needed a uniform ‘ecumenicalcreed,’ and this was to be the churchlaw and imperial law for allthe churches. He believed that onlyinthis waycould he ensure the unityofthe empire under the slogan‘one God—one emperor—one kingdom—one church—one faith.’"9

While Constantine was usingthe Churchfor his ownpolitical agenda, it must be remembered that, althoughconfessingto be a Christian, he was actuallya ruthless opportunist. He stillpresided at allpaganfestivities, commissioned manyofthe new Churches to be adorned withpaganartwork, and was responsible for murdering members ofhis ownfamily. In326 A.D., longafter his "conversion," he had his wife, Fausta, and his eldest son, Crispus, put to death. Whenconvinced that his owndeathwas near, he received baptism fromEusebius ofNicomedia, in337 A.D. He had delayed baptism to the end, since he felt he could not avoid committing"mortal"sin duringhis lifetime, and suchsinafter baptismwas considered to be unforgivable.10 This was the manwho forced his willuponthe Nicene Council, dictated the wordingofits creed, and thereby directed the doctrinalcourse ofthe Churchfor centuries to come. But is this the kind ofmanto whomwe should be entrustingour most sacred beliefs?
Hans Kungmakes another observation:
"Nor did Paulwant to replace Jewishbeliefinone God witha Christianbeliefintwo Gods. Rather, he always regarded the Jesus who had beenexalted byGod’s spirit to God as subordinate to this one God and Father:as the Messiah, Christ, image, Son, ofthe one God. So his christocentricityremains grounded inand culminates in a theocentricity:‘fromGod throughJesus Christ’—‘throughJesus Christ to God.’ To this degree Paul’s christologyis directly compatible withJewishmonotheism."11

We realize, too, that Paulwas not opposed byhis JudaizingJewish brethrenbecause ofhis presentations ofGod. It was his opposition to bringingGentile Christians under bondage to the Law arrangement that incurred their ire.
We quote againfromHans Kung:
"We should note that whereas the CouncilofNicaea in325 spoke ofa single substance or hypostasis inGod, the startingpoint inthe 381 CouncilofConstantinople was three hypostases:Father, Son and Spirit. There has beenmuchdiscussioninthe historyofdogma as to whether the transitionfroma one-hypostasis theologyto a three-hypostasis theologyis onlya terminologicalchange or—more probably(as the temporaryschisminAntiochbetweenold and new orthodoxshows)—also involved anactualchange inthe conceptual model. At allevents it is certainthat we canspeak ofa dogma ofthe Trinityonlyafter the Second EcumenicalCouncilin
Constantinople."12

There is little doubt whenTrinitybecame a Churchdogma. For those willingto accept the CouncilofConstantinople as the basis of their faith, we wishthemwell, but our convictionis that Christians should be free to believe onlywhat was taught bythe Apostles.
Trinity a Recognized Stumbling Block
Whenthe Churchunited withthe Romanpowers, it seemed certain that the conquest ofthe world laybefore it. Rome was the leading power ofthe world, and the Churchwas able to marchunder two banners—Christ and Rome. It was seeminglyinvincible. Whydid it fail? Hans Kungsays:

"A maincause ofthe failure ofChristianityseems to have laininthe inadequate foundationofthe dogmas ofchristologyand the Trinity. The Catholic theologianHermannStieglecker, who gives an admirable account ofthe theologicalcontroversies between Christians and Muslims inhis book onThe Doctrines ofIslam, rightlyregards this lack as one ofthe most serious causes ofthe collapse ofChristianity, particularlyinits homelands, inthe Near East and NorthAfrica. It was infact simpler to believe inthe One God and Muhammad, the Prophet after Jesus. Inaddition, however, there were also the lamentable internaldivisions within
Christianity."13

Christianitywas borninthe Middle East, and for the churches to have lost that whole area is most painfulto them. While a few churches are now tolerated there, what hope is there inregaining what the Muslims have taken? The Trinity, whichseemed a popular route to take inconquest ofthe world, has turned out instead to be a great impediment. That is whyHans Kungand a host ofmenlike himare tryingto break out fromthis "incomprehensible"Trinity concept. No matter how it is explained, no matter how it is qualified, no matter how it is propped up, its inherent weakness remains—it is unreasonable and consequentlyincomprehensible.
An Overviewof the Controversies Concerning Christ
Let no one come awaythinkingthat onlytwo views ofChrist have existed. The controversies were many. We quote fromChristian History:14
Those Believing Jesus Was Either Divine or Human
"Docetists, e.g., Gnostics: The divine Christ would never stoop to touchflesh, whichis evil. Jesus onlyseemed (dokeo, inGreek) humanand onlyappeared to die, for God cannot die. Or, inother versions, "Christ"left "Jesus"before the Crucifixion.

"Apollinarians: Jesus is not equallyhumanand divine but one personwithone nature. InJesus’ humanfleshresided a divine mind and will(he didn’t have a humanmind or spirit), and his divinity controlled or sanctified his humanity.

"Modalists, a.k.a. Sabellians: God’s names (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) change withhis roles or ‘modes ofbeing’ (like a chameleon). WhenGod is the Son, he is not the Father. There is no pemanent distinctionbetweenthe three ‘persons’ ofthe Trinity, otherwise you have three gods."
Those Believing Christ May Be Special, But Not Divine
"Ebionites: For these conservative JewishChristians, God is one, and Jesus must be understood inOld Testament categories. Jesus was merelya speciallyblessed prophet.

"Adoptionists, a.k.a., dynamic monarchianists: No denying Jesus was special, but what happened is this:at birth(not conception) or baptism, God ‘adopted’ the humanJesus as his specialsonand gave himanextra measure ofdivine power (dynamis, inGreek).

"Arians: The Sonas Word, Logos, was created byGod before time. He is not eternalor perfect like God, thoughhe was God’s agent increatingeverythingelse."
Those Believing Christ Has One Nature
"Monophysites, e.g., Eutychians: Jesus cannot have two natures; his divinityswallowed up his humanity‘like a drop ofwine inthe sea.’

Those Believing Christ Was Two Persons
"Nestorians: Ifyoudismiss Jesus’ humanitylike that, he cannot be the Savior ofhumankind. Better to sayhe has two natures and also two persons:the divine Christ and the humanChrist lived together in Jesus."
The Orthodox View: (The Majority View, Right or Wrong)
"Trinitarians: Jesus is fullyhumanand fullydivine, havingtwo natures inone person—‘without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.’"

Everyinquirer for truthshould know how widespread, divisive and confusingthese controversies were before the Trinitarians were able to crushthe opposition, takingover schools oflearningmuchas evolutionists have done inour day. The law at work here might be likened to that ofthe Wild West, where the manwiththe fastest draw became the established authority. Historyrecords that the Church"was racked byfeuding, recriminations, and downright treachery. . . . Bishops turned against one another, oftenmounting intricate intrigues to promote their theologicalviewpoints. To winthe day, or just to survive, churchmenneeded botha theologian’s wisdomand a politician’s savvy."15

Athanasius, Bishop ofAlexandria and called a saint byhis followers, is anoutstandingexample ofa Trinitarianleader noted for his strong stand against Arianism. But consider the kind ofmanhe was— ruthlesslyand tenaciouslyopposingArius, the kindly, intelligent and popular presbyter inAlexandria, who courageouslydefended the earlyChurchview ofJesus as the onlybegottenSonofGod. Athanasius, incontrast, staunchlyupheld the Nicene Creed, "was incapable ofcompromise, and believed that anyone who disagreed withhimwas not onlywrongbut also evil."He was harshand acrimonious inmanner and was knownfor being"autocratic inhis dealings withdissenters inhis church."He was variouslyaccused of employingblack magic, attemptingto levyimproper taxes for priestlyvestures, and evenofrape and murder. Called before a full ecclesiasticalcouncilat Tyre in335, just tenyears after Nicea, he was deposed as bishop and thereafter was exiled no less thanfive times. Yet, despite allthis, he is considered one ofthe Fathers ofthe Church—solelybecause ofupholdingthe "faithofNicea."16

It is also commonknowledge that the victor inthe kind ofstrife that occurred here is the one who controls the historyofthe period. The evidence for the opposingview is methodicallysquelched or distorted. Inthis instance, aneffort was made to give the impression that Trinitywas the accepted Christianbelieffromthe verybeginning ofthe Church, rather thanthe labored product ofcenturies of theologicalsquabble and fusionwithpaganbeliefs.

Inretrospect, it seems odd that the one view whichseems least understandable, and the least logical, would be the one that claims orthodoxytoday. And yet we must not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed bywhat the Apostle Paultermed "the godless chatter and contradictions ofwhat is falselycalled knowledge [Greek, GNOSIS], for byprofessingit, some have missed the mark as regards the faith"(1 Tim. 6:20, 21, RSV). What a hollow victoryfor Trinityto have carried the daywithsuchanincomprehensible and mysterious teaching.

Finally, whenwe turnto artwork, we find that artists created other heresies whentheytried to illustrate the doctrine ofthe Trinity. Medievalart depicted God withthree faces and one body, which reallyis modalism, whichdenies differences betweenthe Father, Sonand holySpirit. Another medievalHungarianportrait showed God ona throne withthe holySpirit as a dove restinguponJesus, who is portrayed as a man. This shows God as three separate beings. Alas, nothingseems able to describe this mystery adequately, eveninartwork! Yet Jesus confidentlytaught us, "Unto youit is givento know the mysteryofthe kingdomofGod"(Mark 4:11). And the Apostle Paulsaid, "We speak the wisdomofGod in a mystery, eventhe hiddenwisdom, whichGod ordained before the world unto our glory; whichnone ofthe princes ofthis world knew . . . but God hathrevealed . . . unto us byhis Spirit"(1 Cor. 2:7-10).

Chapter VI Readings Fromthe Inspired Word of God

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for rebuking error, for correcting faults, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16, 17, KJV and TEV)

The followingScripturalreferences are a compilationofnumerous Biblicaltexts whichstate Jesus was the SON ofGod—not God Himself. The fervent prayer is offered that this studywillbe a valuable aid to those seekingto know the true identityofour Lord and Master, Christ Jesus. Weighthe evidence withBible inhand and a prayerfulhonest heart. Bythe Lord’s grace, youmaycome to see the facts longhiddenbycontrolled theology. We are no longer a "voice cryinginthe wilderness"onthe "doctrine ofChrist."Many voices are now beingraised together withclear Bible readings to depict the harmonyofthe Bible onthe nature ofthe manChrist Jesus.

Please notice that the verses cited also containtypicalTrinitarian "proof"scriptures, as wellas those ofour ownpersuasion. Most of the quotations are self-explanatorywhenone realizes the simple truth, that Jesus was God’s onlybegottenson—a Lord and a god— above allangels, who sits at the right hand ofGod. This should become obvious as one objectivelyreads the presentations below in their entirety.

Italicized words indicate the author’s emphasis to help the reader "keyin"onthe mainpoints. Sometimes a briefcomment is supplied to emphasize the scripturalpoint oflogic. "A good honest heart"is the prerequisite ofeverytrue Christian. (See Luke 8:15, RSV.) In Jesus’ time, manydid not follow their hearts, because theyasked, "Have anyofthe rulers or ofthe Pharisees believed onhim?"(John 7:48). Ofyet another class we read, "Manybelieved onhim; but because ofthe Pharisees theydid not confess him, lest theyshould be put out ofthe synagogue:for theyloved the praise ofmenmore thanthe praise ofGod"(John12:42, 43). We must be honest to God and to our ownhearts be true.
All the citations are fromthe King James Bible.
Exodus 33:20 "And he said, Thoucanst not see myface:for there shall no man see me, and live."(Manysaw Jesus’ face and lived; therefore, how could Jesus be God?) Compare John5:36.

Psalms 110:1 "The Lord [Yahwehor Jehovah] said unto my [David’s] Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, untilI make thine enemies thyfootstool."(We note here that the instructions were givenbythe Father [Jehovah] to the Son[David’s Lord]; this order is never reversed inScripture, withthe Father always preeminent. See p. 7 for comments onMatt. 22:42-43, whereinJesus discourses withthe Jews onthe meaningofPs. 110:1.)

Proverbs 8:22-30 "The Lord possessed [created, see Strong’s] me inthe beginningofhis way, before his works ofold. I was set up fromeverlasting, fromthe beginning, or ever the earthwas. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; whenthere were no fountains aboundingwithwater. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part ofthe dust ofthe world. Whenhe prepared the heavens, I was there: whenhe set a compass uponthe face ofthe depth:whenhe established the clouds above:whenhe strengthened the fountains ofthe deep:whenhe gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment:whenhe appointed the foundations ofthe earth:
then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." See Rev. 3:14.
Isaiah9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a sonis given:and the government shallbe uponhis shoulder:and his name shallbe called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mightyGod [El, Strong’s, #410, ‘strength, mighty, Almighty,’ applicable ‘to anydeity’], The everlastingFather, the Prince ofPeace."(Christ is appropriately called "Father"fromthe standpoint ofhis becomingthe second Adam—lifegiver to the race—and "source ofeternalsalvation"(1 Cor. 15:47; Heb. 5:9). Christ is no longer a branch(receiver) but the "root"(giver oflife) inthe regeneration(Rev. 22:16; Matt. 19:28).

Isaiah42:8 "I amthe Lord:that is myname:and my glory will I not give to another, neither mypraise to gravenimages."(God does not give His gloryto another. Incontrast, Jesus invites the saints to share his gloryas a bride.) See Romans 6:3-6; 8:17, 18; Col. 3:4; 1 John3:2.

Dan. 7:13 "I saw inthe night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him."

Matt. 3:17 "And lo a voice fromheaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, inwhomI amwellpleased."(We note that it was the Father, speakingfromheaven, who indicated His good pleasure in His Sonuponthe earth. Jesus always strove to be pleasingto his Father, to carryout His will, and to receive His commendationand approval. The Scriptures never reverse this relationship, always givingthe Father the preeminence.)
Matt. 4:1 "Thenwas Jesus led up ofthe Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted ofthe devil."(James 1:13 states "God cannot be tempted!") See Luke 4:1, 2, 13.
Matt. 10:40 "He that receivethyoureceivethme, and he that receivethme receivethhimthat sent me."
Matt. 16:16 "And SimonPeter answered and said, Thouart the Christ, the Son ofthe livingGod."
Matt 17:5 "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them:and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is mybeloved Son, inwhomI amwellpleased; hear ye him."

Matt. 18:10 "Take heed that ye despise not one ofthese little ones; for I sayunto you, That inheaventheir angels do always behold the face of my Father whichis inheaven."

Matt. 20:23 "And he saithunto them, Ye shalldrink indeed ofmy cup . . . but to sit onmyright hand, and onmyleft, is not mine to give but it shallbe givento themfor whomit is prepared ofmy Father."(Jesus lacked authorityinthis matter.)

Matt. 24:36 "But ofthat dayand hour knowethno man, no, not the angels ofheaven, but my Father only." (This demonstrates that God and Jesus are not equalinknowledge!) See also John7:16; 12:50; 17:8.

Matt. 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fellonhis face, and prayed, saying, O myFather, ifit be possible, let this cup pass from me:nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (This verse implies Jesus had one willand his Father had another. Two different implies Jesus had one willand his Father had another. Two different 22.

Matt. 27:46 "Jesus cried witha loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, La-ma sa-bach-tha-ni? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (IfJesus were God . . . had he forsaken himself? Is this logical? Clearly, Jesus was speakingto another being, his Father.)

Matt. 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me inheavenand inearth."(Jesus was given power not previouslypossessed.)

Mark 1:24 "What have we to do withthee, thouJesus of Nazareth? art thoucome to destroyus? I know thee who thouart, the Holy One of God." (The uncleanspirit knew Jesus was not God but rather the HolyOne ofGod.)

Mark 10:18 “And Jesus said unto him, Whycallest thoume good? there is none good but one, that is ‘God.’”(Jesus here refuses to be considered coequalwithGod.)

Mark 12:36 "For David himselfsaid bythe HolyGhost [Spirit], The Lord [Jehovah] said to my [David’s] Lord, Sit thouonmy right hand, tillI make thine enemies thyfootstool."(Hebrews 1:13 identifies the Lord Jesus as the one who sits onthe right hand ofthe Lord God.)

Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased inwisdomand stature, and in favour withGod and man."(How and why should Jesus increase in favor withhimself?)

John1:18 "No manhathseenGod at anytime; the only begotten Son [manymanuscripts read "onlybegottenGod"], whichis inthe bosomofthe Father, he hathdeclared him."

John3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believethinhimshould not perish, but have everlastinglife."(The followingverses confirmthat Jesus died for our sins! Rom. 5:10; Romans 14:9; Acts 3:15; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5, 18; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John4:9, 14; Rev. 5:9)

John3:34, 35 "For he whomGod hathsent speakeththe words of God:for God givethnot the Spirit bymeasure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand."
John5:26 "For as the Father hathlife inhimself; so hath he given to the Son to have life inhimself."
John5:30 "I canofmine ownselfdo nothing:as I hear, I judge: and myjudgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the willofthe Father whichhathsent me."(Jesus was seekinganother being’s will—not his own!)

John5:37 "And the Father himself, whichhathsent me, hathborne witness ofme. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."
John6:38 "For I came downfromheaven, not to do mine own will, but the willofhimthat sent me."(Two wills—two beings.)
John7:16-18 "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If anymanwilldo his will, he shallknow ofthe doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speakethof himselfseekethhis ownglory:but he that seekethhis glorythat sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is inhim."

John8:17-19 "It is also writteninyour law, that the testimonyof two menis true. I amone that bear witness ofmyself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Thensaid theyunto him, Where is thyFather? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: ifye had knownme, ye should have knownmy Father also."(Note there was no third witness—onlythe Father and the Son. Jesus omits the holySpirit. Why?)

John8:42-44 "Jesus said unto them, IfGod were your Father, ye would love me:for I proceeded forthand came fromGod; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Whydo ye not understand my speech? evenbecause ye cannot hear myword. Ye are ofyour father the devil, and the lusts ofyour father ye willdo."

John10:29 "MyFather, whichgave themme, is greater than all; and no manis able to pluck themout ofmyFather’s hand. I and my Father are one. (Note John17:21, 22.) Thenthe Jews took up stones againto stone him. Jesus answered them, Manygood works have I shewed youfrommyFather; for whichofthose works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, beinga man, makest thyselfGod. Jesus answered them, Is it not writtenin your law, I said, Ye are gods? Ifhe called themgods, unto whom the word ofGod came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Sayye ofhim, whomthe Father hathsanctified, and sent into the world, Thoublasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (This would have beenthe perfect place to state that he was, indeed, God the Father.)
John14:1 "Ye believe inGod, believe also inme."(Anunnecessary injunctionfor those who believe inthe Trinity.)
John14:20 "At that dayye shallknow that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (Would this make Jesus’ disciples a part ofthe Trinity? Shownhere is the oneness ofthe familyofGod —not a oneness ofperson, but oneness ofpurpose and will.) Compare John17:21-22.

John14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come againunto you. Ifye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:for my Father is greater than I." (How canthe Father be greater thanJesus, ifJesus and his Father are equal? Admittedly, some Trinitarians recognize Christ was inferior in flesh. Evenso, thenhis sacrifice onthe cross was less thanGod. How could Jesus infleshbe "co-equal"withGod?) See 1 Cor. 3:23; 11:3.
John17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the onlytrue God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
John17:11 "And now I amno more inthe world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. HolyFather, keep throughthine own name those whomthouhast givenme, that they may be one, as we are." (IfChrist’s true followers are to be "one"as are God and Jesus, could that oneness be anythingmore than"oneness"of purpose and will? Could we be a part ofthe Trinity? See also John 17:21-23.)

John20:17 "Jesus saithunto her, Touchme not; for I amnot yet ascended to myFather:but go to my brethren, and sayunto them, I ascend unto myFather, and your Father; and to myGod and your God."(Jesus had a God and brethren. God has no God and no brethren!) See Eph. 1:17; Rev. 3:12; Mark 15:34; 1 Cor. 15:24 (Rotherham’s).

Acts 3:15 "And killed the Prince oflife, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereofwe are witnesses."(Isn’t it logicalto conclude the one that was dead is separate fromthe One who raised himfromthe dead?) See 1 Cor. 15:12-21; Acts 2:24; 5:30; 7:56; 13:34 and Col. 2:12.

Acts 7:55, 56 "But he [Stephen], beingfullofthe HolyGhost [Spirit], looked up stedfastlyinto heaven, and saw the gloryofGod, and Jesus standingonthe right hand ofGod, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Sonofmanstandingonthe right hand ofGod."(God and Jesus are twice depicted separately. Stephen was "fullofthe HolySpirit"but did not see the holySpirit. God and Jesus were not everywhere either, but Jesus was "standingonthe right hand ofGod"inheaven.)

Acts 12:22 "And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god [theos], and not ofa man."(KingHerod was referred to as " [a] god"— "a"is supplied bytranslators and is not inthe text. This is the same Greek word for god [theos] whichinother places is used ofChrist. It is defined as "gods, objects ofworship, judges,"and is used variouslyto depict Jehovah, Satan, the saints, and idols, as wellas Christ.) See also Acts 28:6—inreference to Paul.

Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to allthe flock, over the whichthe HolyGhost [Spirit] hathmade you overseers, to feed the churchofGod, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (God is a Spirit and Spirits do not have flesh and blood [Luke 24:39]. Rotherham reads:"Withthe blood ofhis own[son]"; Revised Standard Version, footnote:"Withthe blood ofhis ownson"; Barclay: "At the price ofthe blood ofhis own One.") See also Marshall’s Diaglott and Concordant.

Rom. 8:11 "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell inyou, he that raised up Christ fromthe dead shallalso quickenyour mortalbodies byhis Spirit that dwellethinyou."See Rom. 4:24; 7:4.

Rom. 8:17 "And ifchildren, then heirs; heirs of God, and jointheirs with Christ." (Could Christ be his ownheir? How, then, could we be joint-heirs withhim?)

Rom. 8:29 "For whomhe did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image ofhis Son, that he might be the firstborn amongmanybrethren."
Rom. 10:9 "That ifthoushalt confess withthymouththe Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe inthine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thoushalt be saved."

1 Cor. 8:5, 6 "For thoughthere be that are called gods, whether in heavenor inearth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are allthings, and we inhim; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are allthings, and we byhim."(Allthings are OF the Father and BY the son. Jesus is the agent ofGod.) Compare Heb. 1:1, 2; John1:2, 3; Col. 1:16, 17; Gen. 1:26.

1 Cor. 11:3 "But I would have youknow, that the head ofevery manis Christ; and the head ofthe womanis the man; and the head of Christ is God." (God, Christ, manand womanare allseparate entities.)

1 Cor. 15:27, 28 "For he [God] hathput allthings under his feet. But whenhe saithallthings are put under him, it is manifest that he [God] is excepted, whichdid put allthings under him. And whenall things shallbe subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [God] that put all things under him, that God maybe allinall."(These verses distinguishtwo separate beings:namely, the Father and His son. How could God place all things under His feet to subdue allthings, and thenlater become subject to Himself? This defies reason.)

Eph. 1:20-22 "Whichhe wrought inChrist, whenhe raised him from the dead, and set himat his own right hand inthe heavenly places, far above allprincipality, and power, and might, and dominion, and everyname that is named, not onlyinthis world, but also inthat whichis to come:and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over allthings to the church."
Eph. 3:9, 10 "And to make allmensee what is the fellowship ofthe mystery, whichfromthe beginningofthe world hathbeenhid in
God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers inheavenlyplaces might be knownbythe churchthe manifold wisdomofGod."(IfJesus was God incarnate, what possible reasonwould God have had to create allthings fromthe beginningoftime byJesus Christ?)

Eph. 4:6 "One God and Father ofall, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (One God and Father of"all"—the "all" includes Jesus.)

Philip. 2:5, 6 "Let this mind be inyou, whichwas also inChrist Jesus:who, beinginthe formofGod, thought it not robberyto be equalwithGod."(Revised Standard Version: "Who, thoughhe was inthe formofGod, did not count equalitywithGod a thingto be grasped."Cananyone tryto be equalwithhimself? Rather, Jesus did not strive byvaingloryto grasp God’s preeminence.)

Philip. 2:8 "And beingfound infashionas a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death."(IfJesus were God, who would God have to become obedient to? No one! Therefore, this must be another entity, namely, his onlybegottenSon, clearly distinguishable fromthe HeavenlyFather.)

Col. 1:13-17 "Who hathdelivered us fromthe power ofdarkness, and hathtranslated us into the kingdomofhis dear Son:inwhomwe have redemptionthroughhis blood, eventhe forgiveness ofsins: who is the image ofthe invisible God, the first born ofevery creature:for by him were all things created, that are inheaven, and that are inearth, visible and invisible, whether theybe thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before allthings, and byhimall things consist."

1 Tim. 2:5-6 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the manChrist Jesus; who gave himselfa ransom for all, to be testified indue time."(A mediator is one who endeavors to reconcile two opposingparties. Could Christ be God and stillmediate betweenGod and men? Ransomhere means a "correspondingprice."How could a God-manbe the exact equivalent ofthe perfect manAdam?)

1 Tim. 3:16 "And without controversygreat is the mysteryof godliness:God [hos, who] was manifest inthe flesh, justified inthe Spirit, seenofangels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed oninthe world, received up into glory."(Nearlyallancient MSS, and allthe versions have "He who," [referringto Christ] instead of"God,"in this passage. Sir Isaac Newtonwrote a paper statingthat this verse is a false reading. The Concordant Bible, p.18:"Inthe Sinaitic there canbe no doubt that it originallyread ‘who.’ A late corrector has added ‘God’ above the line.")

Heb. 1:2-5 "Hathinthese last days spokenunto us byhis Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who beingthe brightness ofhis glory, and the express image ofhis person, and upholdingallthings bythe word of his power, whenhe had byhimselfpurged our sins, sat downonthe right hand ofthe Majestyonhigh; being made so much better than the angels, as he hathby inheritance obtained a more excellent name thanthey. For unto whichofthe angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (IfJesus was God, how could he have "byinheritance obtain[ed] a more excellent name?"Clearly, one does not inherit that whichhe alreadypossesses!)

Heb. 1:8, 9 "But unto the Sonhe [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thouhast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, eventhy[Jesus’] God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (What "fellows"was Jesus anointed above? Two Gods are involved here—the greater, Yahweh, anointingthe lesser, Jesus. This exaltationofJesus takes place after he demonstrates he "loved righteousness"and "hated iniquity."No one contests that Jesus is a God. Remember, the greater always anoints the lesser, as is here demonstrated.)

Heb. 2:10 "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, inbringingmanysons unto glory, to make the captainoftheir salvationperfect throughsufferings."(God the Father has always beenperfect and did not require the experience of sufferingto crystallize His character. Jesus, bywayofcontrast, did require this development.)

Heb. 5:7, 8 "Who inthe days ofhis flesh, whenhe had offered up prayers and supplications withstrongcryingand tears unto himthat was able to save himfromdeath, and was heard inthat he feared; Thoughhe were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things he suffered." (Again, Father vs. Son, clear-cut distinctions are very evident. The Father did not need to learnobedience; His Sondid. In his distress, Jesus prayed to his Father for strengthand grace; it is never the other wayaround.)

Heb. 9:14 "How muchmore shallthe blood ofChrist, who through the eternalSpirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience fromdead works to serve the livingGod?"(IfChrist was God incarnate, is it reasonable that he should offer himselfto himself?)

Heb. 9:24 "For Christ is not entered into the holyplaces made with hands, whichare the figures ofthe true; but into heavenitself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." (Jesus functions as our
Advocate before the Father.)
Heb. 11:17-19 "ByfaithAbraham, whenhe was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begottenson, ofwhomit is said, That inIsaac shallthyseed be called:accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; fromwhence also he received him in a figure." (Inthis scenario, Abrahamwas a type ofGod, and Isaac represented Christ. Abrahamthus pictured God’s willingness to sacrifice His Son, Christ, to provide the ransom(John3:16). Just as inthe figure Isaac was not Abraham, so Christ must be distinguished fromGod as a separate being.) See Gal. 3:29; 4:28.

James 1:13 "Let no mansaywhenhe is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (IfJesus was tempted, as inMatthew 4:1, and God cannot be tempted, clearlytheymust be two distinct and separate entities.)

1 Pet. 1:19-21 "But withthe precious blood ofChrist, as ofa lamb without blemishand without spot:who verilywas foreordained before the foundationofthe world, but was manifest inthese last times for you, who byhimdo believe inGod, that raised him up from the dead, and gave himglory; that your faithand hope might be inGod."

2 Pet. 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, whenthere came sucha voice to himfromthe excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, inwhomI amwellpleased."(Whose voice was this? Was God pleased withHimselfor His Son?)

1 John3:1 "Behold, what manner oflove the Father hathbestowed uponus, that we should be called the sons ofGod:therefore the world knowethus not, because it knew himnot."(We are sons of God, NOTthe sons ofJesus. Note carefullythis distinction. We are brothers ofJesus, NOTofGod. The Churchis never referred to as God’s brethren! Hebrews 2:11, 12; Romans 8:29).

1 John4:2, 3 "Herebyknow ye the Spirit ofGod:everyspirit that confesseththat Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and everyspirit that confessethnot that Jesus Christ is come inthe flesh is not ofGod:and this is that spirit ofanti-Christ, whereofye have heard that it should come; and evennow alreadyis it inthe world." (Could Christ inthe fleshbe half-humanand half-divine? This is what Cerinthus, a hereticalteacher inthe earlyChurch, taught! Does the Trinitycome dangerouslyclose to this teaching? Isn’t this a strongbasis for doubt ofthe Trinity?)

1 John4:12-16 "No manhathseenGod at anytime. Ifwe love one another, God dwellethinus, and his love is perfected inus. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath givenus ofhis Spirit. And we have seenand do testifythat the Father sent the Sonto be the Saviour ofthe world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwellethinhim, and he inGod. And we have knownand believed the love that God hathto us. God is love; and he that dwellethinlove dwellethinGod, and God inhim."(Mendid see Jesus, but not God. Those who love one another inChrist are privileged to share a similar relationship withGod as does Jesus. Do youconfess Jesus was God or the Son ofGod?)

1 John5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record [inheaven, the Father, the Word, and the HolyGhost:and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness inearth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood:and these three agree inone."(Words in brackets are spurious! Theyare not retained byanymanuscripts of earlier date thanthe seventhcenturyand are not inthe Revised Version. One hundred and twelve ofthe oldest manuscripts do not retainthem. Trinitythus loses its supposed mainScripturalsupport.)

Rev. 1:1 "The RevelationofJesus Christ, which God gave unto him [Jesus Christ], to shew unto his servants things whichmust shortlycome to pass; and he sent and signified it byhis angelunto his servant John."

Rev. 1:5, 6 "And fromJesus Christ, who is the faithfulwitness, and the first begottenofthe dead, and the prince ofthe kings ofthe earth. Unto himthat loved us, and washed us fromour sins inhis ownblood, and hathmade us kings and priests unto God and his Father."

Rev. 2:27 "And he shallrule themwitha rod ofiron; as the vessels ofa potter shalltheybe brokento shivers:evenas I received ofmy Father."(Jesus’ kingdomauthorityis received fromthe Father.)

Rev. 3:12 "Himthat overcomethwillI make a pillar inthe temple of my God, and he shallgo no more out:and I willwrite uponhim the name of my God, and the name ofthe cityof my God, whichis new Jerusalem, whichcomethdownout ofheavenfrom my God: and I willwrite uponhimmynew name."(Jesus, inresurrected glory, retains his relationship to his God and Father, highlyhonored but always subordinate.)

Rev. 3:14 "And unto the angelofthe churchofthe Laodiceans write; These things saiththe Amen, the faithfuland true witness, the beginning ofthe creationofGod."(Could God be the beginningof his owncreation? Clearly, youcannot create yourself! Refer to Col. 1:15 and thencompare God not havinga beginning. Ps. 41:13; 90:1-2.)

Rev. 3:21 "To himthat overcomethwillI grant to sit withme in my throne, evenas I also overcame, and amset downwithmyFather in his throne." (Jesus did not have a throne co-eternalwiththe Father. Onlyafter overcomingwas he enthroned, and thus also will it be withhis followers.)

Rev. 5:12 "Sayingwitha loud voice, Worthyis the Lamb that was slainto receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing."(Youreceive power, etc., from another, not fromyourself! Whyor how could yougive yourself somethingyoualreadypossess?)

Chapter VII Views of the Early Church Fathers

"To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and for whom we live; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and through whom we live." (1 Cor. 8:6, KJV and NIV)

IfJesus taught and revealed himselfto be anuncreated "God the Son"rather thanthe SonofGod, it should have beenuniversally accepted byour earlyChurchbrethren. Their writings should show the Trinityto be understood and developed fromthe verystart of the Apostolic Era. The fundamentaldoctrines ofthe Churchwere not to be originated bythose followingthe Apostles. God did not give further revelations after their passing. (See Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 John9, NAS.)

The doctrine ofthe Trinity, defined over a 264-year period from The CouncilofNice inA.D. 325 to The Third Synod at Toledo in A.D. 589, states that there are three distinct persons ofthe same spiritualnature—The Father, The Sonand The HolySpirit. It is claimed that allthree persons are uncreated and share in omnipotence, makingthemone. Therefore, the Trinityfails once it canbe established that (1) There was a time whenthe uncreated Father was alone, (2) The Son, Jesus, was produced fromthe first creative act ofGod, and (3) The holySpirit is not a person, but the power, the energyor force used byGod (and inthis sense is also uncreated).

Let’s examine what the students ofthe Apostles, their friends, peers and subsequent students had to saybetweenA.D. 96–A.D. 320. We present these historicalreadings, not as a foundationfor Truth, but simplyto show that these earlyChristians had not come to believe inthe Trinity. To those who feelcomfortable goingto the fourthand fifthcenturies to establishthis doctrine, we wishthem well, but we cannot leave the Apostolic Era to come over to them. Biblicallyand historically, this earlyperiod is just too important to abandon. We submit the following:

Clement of Rome: accordingto manyChristianwriters before the Nicene Council, he is the Clement ofPhilippians 4:3. He was an elder inthe Rome congregationfromabout A.D. 92-101. His CorinthianEpistle, writtenabout A.D. 96, was held inhighesteem, considered bymanyto be equalto the writings ofthe Apostles and was frequentlyused intheir Sundaymeetings. He was bornabout A.D. 30 and died about A.D. 100.

"We know youalone are ‘highest amonghighest’ . . . Youhave chosenthose who love youthroughJesus Christ, your beloved son, throughwhomyouhave instructed, sanctified and honored us. . . . Let allnations know that youare the onlyGod, that Jesus Christ is your sonand that we are your people."To The Corinthians, Chap. 59, vs. 3, 4.

Ignatius of Antioch: was surnamed "Theophorus,"meaning"Godbearer,"because ofhis gentle, kindlynature. He was anelder at the Antioch, Syria, congregationand was a student ofthe Apostle John. His authentic writings, beingthe short versionofhis sevenepistles, were writtenabout A.D. 110. He was bornabout A.D. 50 and was martyred A.D. 116.

"There is one God, who manifested HimselfthroughJesus Christ, His son, who beingHis Word, came forthout ofthe silence into the world and wonfullapprovalofHimwhose ambassador he was."To the Magnesians, Chap. 8, vs. 2.

". . . who also reallyrose fromthe dead, since his Father raised him up,—his Father who willlikewise raise us also who believe inHim throughJesus Christ, apart fromwhomwe have no reallife."To The Trallians, Chap. 9, vs. 2.

"Youare wellestablished inlove throughthe Blood ofChrist and firmlybelieve inour Lord. He is really‘ofthe line ofDavid accordingto the flesh’ and the sonofGod bythe willand power of God."To The Smyrnaeans, Chap. 1, vs. 1.

Polycarp: bornabout A.D. 69, was also a student ofthe Apostle John, as wellas a close friend ofIgnatius ofAntioch. He was an elder at the congregationinSmyrna, Asia Minor, and wrote his Philippianepistle before A.D. 140. He was burned at the stake February23, 155.

"Now, maythe God and Father ofour Lord Jesus Christ, and the EternalPriest himself, Jesus Christ, the sonofGod, build youup in faithand truth."To The Philippians, Chap.12, vs. 2.

". . . to Himwho is able to bringus allinHis grace and bounty, to His HeavenlyKingdom, byHis only-begottenchild, Jesus Christ, be glory, honor, might and majestyforever."Martyrdom, Chap. 20, vs. 2.

Justin: called "Martyr"because ofhis martyrdominA.D. 166, was bornabout A.D. 107 inRome. He was a heathenphilosopher converted to Christianityabout A.D. 130. His first work, Dialogue with Trypho, was writteninA.D. 135 as Trypho, a Jew, was fleeingJerusalemafter the Bar Kochba revolt. He wrote between A.D. 135 untiljust before his beheading.

"God begat before allcreatures a Beginningwho was a certain rationalpower proceedingfromHimself, who is called bythe holy spirit now ‘The Gloryofthe Lord,’ now ‘The Son,’ again ‘Wisdom,’ again‘anAngel,’ then‘God,’ then‘Lord’ and ‘Logos;’ and onanother occasionhe calls himself‘Captain.’"Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. 61.
"We follow the onlyunbegottenGod throughHis Son."First Apology, Chap. 14.
"We assert that the Word ofGod was bornofGod ina peculiar manner, different fromordinarygeneration, let this, as said above, be no extraordinarythingto youwho saythat Mercuryis the angelic word ofGod."First Apology, Chap. 22.

"The Father ofallis unbegotten. . . And His Son, who alone is properlycalled Son, the Word . . . was withHimand was begotten before the world. . . ."Second Apology, Chap. 6.

Tatian: borninAssyria about A.D. 110, was a student ofJustin Martyr. He wrote the earliest Bible commentaryofthe four Gospels knownto exist. Sometime he became the leader ofthe Encratite sect ofthe Gnostics. Despite this, his writings give a semi-fair view ofChristiandoctrines. He wrote betweenA.D. 161-170 and died about A.D. 172.

"The Lord ofthe Universe, who is Himselfthe necessaryground of allbeing, inasmuchas no creature was yet inexistence, was alone. . . . And byHis simple willthe Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not comingforthinvainbecomes the first-begottenwork ofthe Father and was the beginningofthe world."To The Greeks, Chap. 5.

Melito: bornabout A.D. 110, was anelder at Sardis, Asia Minor, fromabout A.D. 160-170 and a friend ofIgnatius ofAntiochas a youngchild. He wrote betweenA.D. 165-70 and was martyred A.D. 177. Onlysmallfragments exist.

"There is that whichreallyexists and it is called God . . . This being is inno sense made, nor did He come into being, but has existed frometernity."Apology 1: To Antonius Caesar.

"Jesus Christ . . . is perfect Reason, the Word ofGod, he who was begottenbefore the light, he who is creator together withthe Father."Apology 4: On Faith.

Theophilus ofAntioch:was bornabout A.D. 130 and was anelder at Antioch, Syria, around A.D. 170-180. He wrote before A.D. 175 and died A.D. 181.

"God, then, havingHis ownWord internalwithinHis ownwomb begat him, emittinghimalongwithHis ownWisdombefore all things. He had this Word as a helper inthe things that were created byHim, and byhimHe created allthings."To Autolychus, Chap. 10.

Athenagoras: borninAthens ofheathenparents inA.D. 134 wrote his work "Defense for the Christians"inA.D. 176 and presented it to the RomanEmperor Marcus Aurelius, a fierce persecutor ofChristians, inA.D. 177. He died A.D. 190.

"We acknowledge one God uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable, incomprehensible, illimitable . . . bywhomthe universe has beencreated throughHis Logos and set inorder . . . I say‘His Logos’ for we acknowledge also a SonofGod . . . He is the first product ofthe Father, not as havingbeenbrought into existence, for fromthe beginning, God, who is the eternalmind, had the Logos in Himself, beingfrometernityendowed withspiritualreason, coming forthas the idea and energyofallmaterialthings."Defense for the Christians, Chap. 10.

Irenaeus: one ofthe most recognized earlyChristians, was born A.D. 140 and was a student ofPolycarp. He was anelder at the Lyons, France, congregationfromA.D. 178. He was wellknown throughout the Westernworld ofthe time. He died inFrance A.D. 202. His writings canbe dated fromabout A.D. 180.

"Ifanyone, therefore, says to us, ‘How, then, was the Sonproduced bythe Father?’ we replyto him, that no one understands that production, or generation. . . no powers possess this knowledge but the Father onlywho begat and the Sonwho was begotten." Against Heresies, Book 2, Chap. 28, vs. 6.

Clement of Alexandria: bornTitus Flavius Clemens A.D. 150, was born, raised and became anelder at Alexandria, Egypt. He wrote betweenA.D. 190-195 and died about A.D. 220. His writings are valuable because once he was converted to Christianity, he traveled throughout the RomanEmpire to learnpure Christianity fromthe oldest and most respected Christians alive.

"The best thingonearthis the most pious:perfect man; and the best thinginheaven, the next and purer inplace, is anangel, the partaker ofthe eternaland blessed life. But the nature ofthe Son, whichis next to Himwho is alone the AlmightyOne, is the most perfect." Miscellanies, Book 7, Chap. 2.

"He [Jesus] commences his teachingwiththis:turningthe pupilto God, the good, and first and onlydispenser ofeternallife, whichthe Son, who received it ofHim, gives to us."Salvation Of The Rich Man, Chap. 6.

Tertullian: was borninCarthage, Tunisia A.D. 160, ofLibyan descent and a distant relative ofArius. His writings beganabout A.D. 190, about 10 years before he joined the Montanist sect of Christianity, who believed incontinuingrevelation[speakingin tongues, healing, etc.] and a life ofasceticism. He continued writing untilabout A.D. 210 and died A.D. 230 inCarthage, where he was also anelder.
"Before allthings God was alone—beinginHimselfand for Himself . . . the Word was inthe beginningwithGod althoughit would be more suitable to regard Reasonas the more ancient . . . For althoughGod had not yet delivered His Word, He stillhad him withinHimself. . . Now, while He was actuallythus planningand arrangingwithHis ownreason, He was actuallybringingforththe Word."Against Praxeas, Chap. 5.

"The Word, no doubt, was before allthings. ‘Inthe beginningwas the Word’; and inthat beginninghe was sent forthbythe Father. The father, however, has no beginning, as proceedingfromnone; nor canHe be seensince He was not begotten. He who has always beenalone could never have order or rank."Against Praxeas, Chap. 5.

Hippolytus: bornabout A.D. 160, was a student ofIrenaeus. He wrote about A.D. 220, dyingAugust 13, 235, after beingbanished to the Mediterraneanisland ofSardinia.

"Iftherefore, allthings are put under him[Jesus] withthe exception ofHim[God] who put themunder him, he is the Lord ofalland the Father is Lord ofhim. . . And this indeed is said byChrist himself, as wheninthe Gospelhe confessed Himto be his Father and his God. . . . He [Jesus] did not say, ‘I and the Father amone,’ but ‘are one.’ For the word ‘are’ is not said ofone person, but refers to two persons and one power. He has himselfmade this clear whenhe spoke to his Father concerninghis disciples [inJohn17:22-3] . . . For Christ had spokenofhimselfand showed himselfamongallto be as the Son. . . And as the author and fellow-counsellor and framer ofthe things that are informationHe begat the Word . . . He sent himforthto the world as Lord . . . And thus, there appeared another beside himself. . . For there is but one power, whichis from the All; and the Father is the All, fromwhomcomes this power, the Word . . . and was manifested as the SonofGod. Allthings, then, are byHimand He alone is the Father."Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, Chaps. 6, 7, 10, 11.

Origen: bornofChristianparents A.D. 185 inAlexandria, Egypt, Origenwas the most prolific ofallearlyChristianwriters. Trained by Clement ofAlexandria, he was elected elder at the age of18 when Clement had to flee for his life. He was a friend ofHippolytus and is distinguished for the first complete Bible commentary. InA.D. 253, at age 70, he was captured, tortured and one week later died for his faith.

"We next notice John’s usage ofthe article inthese sentences. He does not write without care inthis respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties ofthe Greek tongue . . . He uses the article whenthe name of‘God’ refers to the uncreated ofallthings, and omits it whenthe Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over allis God withthe article . . . allbeyond the OnlyGod is made god by participationinHis divinity, and is not to be called simply‘The God’ but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Himare gods, images as it were, ofHim, the prototype."Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2.

Novatian: who was bornabout A.D. 200 is knownfor his work that was posthumouslytitled Commentaryonthe Trinity. It was writtenabout A.D. 240, 18 years before his deathin258.

"God the Father and Creator ofallthings, who onlyknows no beginning. . . whenHe willed it, the Son, the Word, was born. . . But now, whatever he is, he is not ofhimselfbecause he is not unborn, but he is ofthe Father, because he is begotten. . . he owes his existence to the Father . . . He therefore is god, but begottenfor this specialresult, that he should be god. He is also the Lord, but bornfor this verypurpose ofthe Father, that he might be Lord. He is also anAngel, but he was destined ofthe Father as anAngelto announce the great counselofGod . . . God the Father is God ofall, and the source also ofHis sonhimselfwhomHe begot." Commentary on the Trinity, Chap 31.

Arnobius: bornA.D. 253 inSicca, Algeria, was first anenemyof Christianity. Whenconverted, he became a teacher to manynew Christians inthe West. He wrote Against the Heathen about A.D. 300 and died about A.D. 327.

"We Christians are nothingelse thanworshippers ofthe Supreme Kingand Head, under our master, Christ . . . O greatest, O Supreme Creator ofallthings invisible . . . Youare illimitable, unbegotten, immortal, enduringfor age, God yourselfalone, whom no bodilyshape mayrepresent, no outline delineate . . . ‘Is that Christ ofyours a god, then?’ some raving, wrathfuland excited man willsay. A god, we willreply, and a god ofthe powers ofheaven, and—what maystillfurther torture unbelievers withthe most bitter pains—he was sent to us bythe KingSupreme for a purpose ofthe veryhighest order."Against The Heathen, Book 1, Chaps. 27, 31, 42.

Lactantius: Lucius Coelius Firmianus Lactantius, borninRome A.D. 260, was a student ofArnobius. He was the teacher of Emperor Constantine’s oldest son, Crispus. His work entitled The Divine Institutes was writtenabout A.D. 320. Eventuallymovingto France, he died about A.D. 330.

"God, therefore, the contriver and founder ofallthings, as we have said inthe second book, before He commenced this excellent work ofthe world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit whomHe called His Son. And althoughHe had afterwards created byHimself innumerable other beings, whomwe callangels, this first-begotten, however, was the onlyone whomHe considered worthyofbeing called bythe divine name."The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 6

Summary and Conclusions

Some 1600 years have passed since the Trinitywas forged. Inall that time, no one has beenable to provide a clear and logical statement ofit. It has begged anexplanationineveryage. Oddly enough, no scholar or groups ofscholars have beenable to coina clear and workable formula that is anacceptable standard for all time. Everyexplanationis flawed and needs more theologyto clarify it. Endeavors at clarification, more oftenthannot, lead into a labyrinthofwords withthe fog-levelindexgoingout ofsight. And there we would be left—hopelesslylost and strugglingfor truth.

The Trinitarians paradoxicallyoperate ontwo levels. Whenreading or quotingthe Bible, bothTrinitarians and non-Trinitarians sound alike. Bothrefer to the same verses, and their readings are similar. As longas the Bible is adhered to, theyare hard to tellapart. But whenthe Bible is departed fromand philosophicalarguments are introduced, a wide gap soonappears. Because the Trinityis a doctrine ofinference, and not ofstatement, it canbe sustained only as longas it is continuallyinferred fromthe Bible. Whenever the Scriptures are merelyread and quoted, the Trinityloses ground. Hence, everyso often, the doctrine must be "injected"into the consciousness ofthe hearers lest theyforget. The Trinityhas to be piped into Scripture before it canbe piped out.

Everyone knows youdo not get cider fromcotton. Yet, infact, you cansqueeze cider fromcotton. However, youmust first soak the cottonwithcider, and then, lo, and behold, youcansqueeze cider fromcotton. That is how youmayextract the Trinitydoctrine from the Bible. First, saturate the Bible texts to be used withthe concept; thensqueeze it out. That is whyDr. Pelikan, who has beencalled "perhaps the foremost livingstudent ofChurchhistory,"said, in effect, no one could find the Trinitybyjust readingthe New Testament (see p. 8). Youneed the theologians to superimpose their theologyuponthe Word before youcanfind it there.

Inour briefconsiderationofthis subject, we have found the Scriptures unequivocallyteachthat "to us there is but one God, the Father, ofwhomare allthings, and we inhim; and one Lord Jesus Christ, bywhomare allthings, and we byhim"(1 Cor. 8:6). These are the two great personalities ofthe Bible, withthe holySpirit an expressionoftheir power and influence. The Father, always supreme and preeminent, exists "fromeverlastingto everlasting." The Son, the direct creationofthe Father, was highlyexalted for his faithfulness inbecomingthe world’s redeemer; yet he always remains inharmonywithand insubmissionto his Father’s will.

It was also shownthat Trinityas a concept was anintegralpart of heathenreligions manycenturies prior to Christianity. The idea was borrowed bysome later theologians, who, duringthe third to the fifthcenturies, developed it into a basic dogma ofthe Christian religion. The gradualemergence ofthe Trinitydoctrine is freely acknowledged bymost historians, attested byits lack ofScriptural support and demonstrated bythe evolvingsequence ofthe basic creeds ofthe faith.

Hence, rather thanbeingpure truthtaught byJesus and his Apostles, the Trinityturns out to be Churchdogma arisinggradually fromthe philosophyofmenwho attempted to fuse certainheathen and Christianideas together. It required manyyears to fashionand shape it against the objections ofmanyofthe outstandingleaders of the earlyChurch, as we have noted. Inthe end, the effort prevailed, a doctrinaltheorywas created, and it was giventhe blessingof orthodoxybyofficialChurchcouncils. Yet allofthis does not make it valid, for eternaltruthis not the handiwork ofmanbut stems only fromour immortaland all-wise God.

We opened this treatise witha discussionofthe "doctrine ofChrist." We found this to meanthat Jesus had come inthe fleshand died in the flesh. It holds that he was the "Anointed"ofGod, anointed King ofKings and Lord ofLords, and also the abidingMelchizedek priest. He is the glorious Bridegroomfor whomthe HeavenlyFather is selectinga bride duringthis Gospelage. As Christians, we hope to be joined withour Master inthe marriage ofthe Bride and the Lamb. No Christiancananticipate marriage to God, but onlyto God’s dear Son. Inanother figure, he is the vine and we are the branches (John15:5). And inyet another, he is the head ofthe body ofChrist ofwhichthe faithfulbelievers are members (Col. 1:18). In contrast, God is spokenofas being"the head ofChrist"(1 Cor. 11:3).

Repeatingour openingtext, 2 John9 (RSV)— "Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide inthe doctrine ofChrist does not have God; he who abides inthe doctrine has boththe Father and the Son."The lessonis clear. We cannot have access to the Father apart fromthe doctrine ofChrist—that he is the Anointed One of God. Whenwe accept the singular personhood ofJesus as God’s Anointed, thenbyaddition, we have two—boththe Father and the Son. Let us thenabide inthe doctrine ofChrist. Inso doingwe shall have the extravagant blessingofhavingboththe "Father and the Son"—and that is everything!

The Trinitywas a theologicalattempt at fusion. Somehow, withthe incantationofwords, the effort was made to fuse God, Jesus and the holySpirit into one. We get the feeling, sometimes, that many scholars wishtheyhad not done this, but like the leaningTower of Pisa, it willjust have to remaina religious wonder untilit falls ofits ownweight and imbalance due to anunscripturalfoundation.

Appendix

Translations ofthe Greek αρχη ( arkee, arche) initalics. (fromEnglishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament)

Here are the complete uses of the Greek word αρχη mentioned in Chapter I. The reader may see how the word is used throughout the New Testament. Please note how John 1:1 and Rev. 3:14 use the word "beginning" in common usage. By studying the various uses of the Greek word αρχη, the reader may be properly informed.

Mat. 19:4 whichmade (them) at the beginning
8 fromthe beginning it was not so.
24:8 these (are) the beginning ofsorrows.
21 since the beginning ofthe world
Mark 1:1 The beginning ofthe gospelof
10:6 fromthe beginning ofthe creation
13:8 these (are) the beginnings ofsorrows.
19 as was not fromthe beginning
Luke 1:2 fromthe beginning were eyewitnesses,
12:11 unto the synagogues, and (unto) magistrates,
20:20 might deliver himunto the power and authorityofthe governor.
John1:1 Inthe beginning was the Word, 2 The same was inthe beginning
2:11 This beginning ofmiracles
6:64 Jesus knew fromthe beginning who
8:25 I said unto youfromthe beginning. 44 was a murderer fromthe beginning,
15:27 withme fromthe beginning.
16:4 not unto youat the beginning,
Acts 10:11 knit at the four corners, and let
11:5 downfromheavenbyfour corners, 15 as onus at the beginning.
26:4 whichwas at the first among
Ro. 8:38 nor principalities, nor powers, nor
1Cor.15:24 have put downallrule and all
Eph. 1:21 above allprincipality, and power,
3:10 now unto the principalities
6:12 against principalities, against powers,
Phil. 4:15 that inthe beginning ofthe gospel,
Col. 1:16 dominions, or principalities, 18 who is the beginning, the
2:10 the head ofallprincipality,
15 havingspoiled principalities
2Th. 2:13 God hathfromthe beginning chosen
Tit. 3:1 subject to principalities and powers
Heb. 1:10 Thou, Lord, inthe beginning
2:3 whichat the first beganto
3:14 ifwe hold the beginning of
5:12 the first principles ofthe oracles
6:1 leavingthe principles ofthe doctrine
7:3 havingneither beginning ofdays
2 Pet. 3:4 fromthe beginning ofthe creation
1 John1:1 whichwas fromthe beginning,
2:7 whichye had fromthe beginning.
-- ye have heard fromthe beginning. 13 him(that is) fromthe beginning.
14 knownhim(that is) fromthe beginning. 24 have heard fromthe beginning.
-- ye have heard fromthe beginning
3:8 the devilsinnethfromthe beginning. 11 that ye heard fromthe beginning,
2 John5 whichwe had fromthe beginning,
6 as ye have heard fromthe beginning, Jude 6 angels whichkept not their first estate,
Rev. 1:8 the beginning and the ending,
3:14 the beginning ofthe creationofGod;
21:6 the beginning and the end. I will
22:13 Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

Endnotes
Introduction
1. Christianity Today, Mark A. Noll, "The Doctrine Doctor,"Sep. 10, 1990, p. 26.
2. Ibid., LarryPoston, "The Adult Gospel,"Aug. 20, 1990, p. 24.
3. Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 765.
4. The Voice ofProphecyradio broadcast, H. M. S. Richards, speaker, Los Angeles, Dec. 20, 1958.
5. Newsweek, Aug. 25. 1997, p. 49
6. A Chronology of Biblical Christianity, Dr. R. C. Wetzel, p. 84
7. Newsweek, Apr. 13, 1998, p.58

Chapter I
1. The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977.
2. Beach vs. Hickey on the Trinity, W. B. Beachand Y. Hickey, quotingG. C. Knapp, pp. 60, 61.
3. Young’s Concordance, "Ransom,"#3, p. 794.
4. Clarke’s Commentary onLuke 1:35, p. 360.
5. Ibid., p. 361.
6. Ibid., onHeb. 2:7, p. 696.
7. A Catholic Dictionary, onRom. 9:5, p. 809.
8. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, onRom. 9:5, p. 80.
9. A Catholic Dictionary, ibid.
Chapter II
1. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, R. A. Finlayson, "Trinity,"Vol. 3, pp. 1597-8.
2. Some Account of the Origin and Progress of Trinitarian Theology, James Forest, p. 9.
3. After Jesus. The TriumphofChristianity, Gayle Visalli, editor, p. 209.
4. Christian History, Bruce L. Shelley, "The First Councilof Nicea,"Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), 1990, p. 11.
5. Encyclopedia Britannica, "Nicaea, Councilof,"Vol. 5, p. 410. 6. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, The CouncilofNice, Isaac Boyle, p. 27.
7. Origin of Triads and Trinities, Origin of Triads and Trinities, 27.
8. History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, preface.
9. Outline of History, H. G. Wells, p. 421.
Chapter III
1. Beach vs. Hickey on the Trinity, [authors are alreadylisted above], quotingJeremyTaylor, p. 70.
2. A Catholic Dictionary, p. 810.
3. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, pp. 574, 575.
4. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 49.
5. The Triune God, Edward J. Fortman, pp. 6, 15.

Chapter IV
1. Synonyms of the Old Testament, R. B. Girdlestone, p. 22.
2. Strong’s Concordance, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, #410.
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 49.
4. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, McClintock and Strong, Vol. IV, "John,"pp. 551-2. 5. Clarke’s Commentary onMatt. 28:19, p. 284.
6. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel, p. 108.
7. Young’s Concordance, "God,"#8, p. 419.
8. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., back cover.
9. Ibid., p. 13.
Chapter V
1. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, McClintock and Strong, Vol. IV, "John,"p. 949.
2. Ibid., "John, First Epistle,"Vol. IV, pp. 951-2.
3. Ibid., "Cerinthus,"Vol. II, p. 191.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., "Docetae,"Vol. II, p. 844-5.
6. Ibid., "Gnosticism,"Vol. III, p. 891.
7. Ibid., p. 893.
8. Christianity: Essence, History and Future, Hans Kung, p. 182.
9. Ibid., pp. 180-1.
10. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, pp. 231, 233, 236.
11. Christianity: Essence, History and Future, p. 113.
12. Ibid., p. 187.
13. Ibid., p. 343.
14. Christian History, Robert Payne, "A Hammer Struck at Heresy," Issue 51 (Vol. XV, No. 3),1996, pp. 20-21. 15. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, p. 225. 16. Ibid., pp. 225-6.
References
Addis, WilliamE. and Arnold, Thomas. A Catholic Dictionary. St. Louis:B. Herder Book Co., 1960.
Beach, W. B. and Hickey, Y. Beach vs. Hickey on the Trinity. Dayton, Ohio:ChristianPublishingAssociation, 1867.
Bowman, Robert M., Jr. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity. Grand Rapids, Mich.:Baker Book House, 1989.
Boyle, Isaac. The Council of Nice. Philadelphia:J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1879. FromEusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1984.
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Edited byCharles G. Herbermann, et al. New York:Robert AppletonCo., 1912.
Christian History. CarolStream, Ill.:ChristianityToday, Inc. Payne, Robert. "A Hammer Struck at Heresy."Issue 51, 1996. Shelley, Bruce L. "The First CouncilofNicea."Issue 28, 1990.

Christianity Today. CarolStream, Ill.:ChristianityToday, Inc. Noll, Mark A. "The Doctrine Doctor."Sep. 10, 1990. Poston, Larry. "The Adult Gospel."Aug. 20, 1990.
Clarke, Adam. A Commentary and Critical Notes on the New Testament, New York:Abingdon-CokesburyPress, (n.d.). Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology. Edited byJohn H. Blunt. London:Rivingtons, 1872.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago:Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 edition.
Forrest, James. Some Account of the Origin and Progress of Trinitarian Theology. Meadville, Pa.:TheologicalPress, 1853. Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God: A Historical Study of the
Doctrine of the Trinity. London:Hutchinsonand Co., Ltd., 1972. Gibbon, Edward. History of Christianity. New York:P. Eckler, 1923.
Girdlestone, Robert Baker. Synonyms of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Mich.:Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCo., 1951. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. J. D. Douglas, organizingeditor. Wheaton, Ill.:Tyndale House, 1980.
Kung, Hans. Christianity: Essence, History and Future. New York:Continuum, 1995.
McClintock, Johnand Strong, James. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York:Harper & Brothers, 1890.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, EditorialstaffofCatholic University ofAmerica. Washington, D.C.:McGraw-Hill, 1967.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. ColinBrown, generaleditor. Grand Rapids, Mich.:Zondervan PublishingHouse, 1976.
Newton, John. Origin of Triads and Trinities. Liverpool:Henry Young& Sons, 1909.
Richards, H. M. S. The Voice ofProphecyRadio Broadcast. Los Angeles, Dec. 20, 1958.
Strong, James. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. New York: AbingtonPress, 1890.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel, primaryeditor, GeoffreyW. Bromiley, editor and translator. Grand Rapids, Mich.:Eerdmans, 1965.
Visalli, Gayla, editor. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity. Pleasantville, N.Y.:The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 1992. Wells, H. G. The Outline of History. Revised byRaymond Portgate. GardenCity, N. Y.:GardenCityBooks, 1920. Young, Robert. Analytical Concordance to the Bible. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1936.
"Adding up the Trinity"

In Christianity Today, April28, 1997, p. 26, inanarticle entitled, "AddingUp the Trinity,"ImmanuelKant and Thomas Jeffersonare quoted onthe subject ofthe logic and practicalvalue ofthe doctrine ofthe Trinity. "Kant, for example, argued the doctrine had no practicalsignificance. ‘The doctrine ofthe Trinityprovides nothing, absolutelynothing, ofpracticalvalue, evenifone claims to understand it; stillless whenone is convinced that it far surpasses our understanding. It costs the student nothingto accept that we adore three or tenpersons inthe divinity. . . . Furthermore, this distinctionoffers absolutelyno guidance for his conduct.’"

"Jeffersonseems particularlyirritated bythe complexities of ‘Trinitarianarithmetic,’ as he called it, a theologicalmathematics that onlyserved to blur our visionofwho Jesus trulywas:‘Whenwe shallhave done awaywiththe incomprehensible jargonofthe Trinitarianarithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; whenwe shallhave knocked downthe artificialscaffolding, reared to mask fromview the verysimple structure ofJesus; when, inshort, we shall have unlearned everythingwhichhas beentaught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall thenbe trulyand worthilyhis disciples.’"

The same article quotes Roderick T. Leupp onhis book, Knowing the Name of God: A Trinitarian Tapestry of Grace, Faith and Community. "For most people and, sadly, for most Christians also, the Trinityis the great unknown. The Trinity, to use a familiar equationis viewed as a riddle wrapped up inside a puzzle and buried inanenigma. A riddle, for how cananyentitybe at the same time multiple (three) yet singular (one)? A puzzle, for the Trinityis so clearlycontraryto anyrationalthought as not to warrant a second thought fromsensible people. Anenigma, for evenifthe Trinity could be understood, ofwhat practicalvalue, evenwhat religious value, would it have for ordinarypeople?"

The article continues:"Not much, manyofus might be tempted to say. As KarlRahner notes, ‘Despite their orthodoxconfessionof the Trinity, Christians are, intheir practicallife, almost mere monotheists.’"So we find the Trinitarians verymuchinthe same posture as the evolutionists. The evolutionists controlthe schools, the media and allthe mind programmingareas, but whenallis said and done, most students go to ChurchonSundayand sing, "How great Thouart."Theyare not true believers inthe evolutiontheory. So withthe Trinity, people are programmed to believe the Trinity, but worship God ina monotheistic wayand praise Himfor sending His sonto be our Redeemer.

ONCEinallhistorywe meet a beingwho never did aninjury, and never resented one done to him, never uttered anuntruth, never practiced a deception, never lost anopportunityofdoinggood; generous inthe midst ofthe selfish, upright inthe midst ofthe sensual, and wise far above the wisest ofearth’s sages and prophets, lovingand gentle, yet immovablyresolute; and whose illimitable meekness and patience never once forsook himina vexatious, ungratefuland cruelworld. —Selected

Publications

Where are the Dead?
This 105 page booklet examines every Scripture in the Old and New Testaments that contain the word “hell.” Gives original Greek and Hebrew word definitions. $1.50

Why are you a Christian?
This 28 page booklet discusses the purpose of the Christian Walk and the preparation of the Christian for future service to the world during Christ’s reign. 75¢

I Will Come Again
This 79 page booklet presents a scholarly approach to the subject of our Lord’s return. It lists the current signs of Christ’s return, including Israel. 75¢

What’s this World Coming To?
This 39 page booklet examines the prophecies in Daniel 12 relevant to current events today and outlines the outcome of present world troubles and conflicts. 75¢

Studies in the Scriptures
This 6-volume set takes a refreshingly clear and unprejudiced approach to studying the Bible. $15
• 5800 Scripture quotations
•Demonstrates the difference between symbolic and literal verses
•Covers every important topic in the Bible
•Brings out pertinent Hebrew and Greek word meanings
•Harmonizes history and science with the Bible
•Examines time prophecies already fulfilled
•Considers in detail a scriptural and common sense approach to daily
Christian living
•Clearly brings to light the beautiful and precious promises
Available from the Publisher: Associated Bible Students
P. O. Box 92
Clawson, MI 48017 USA
or order online at:
http://www.bibletoday.com/booklets/litlist.htm