The Trinity doctrine is often called the central doctrine of the Christian faith but not every Christian believer supports such theology and some even question its importance. A battle between Trinitarian Christian believers and Non-Trinitarian believers persists. Christian denominations separate and even persecuted other Christians because of their disagreement over such positions on this doctrine? While such disagreements are not limited to this one doctrine alone, it is still a major reason for their separation. This divides Christianity, thereby destroying the bond of love (John 13:34, 35) and unity, the oneness our Lord expected of his brothers (Matthew 23:8). Something like this also took place in the Faith over keeping the Law in the Apostles day and this also divided Christianity into opposing camps at that time. Since Christians have also been commissioned by our Lord to go on “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;” (Matthew 28:20 NKJV), we should carefully examine the Scriptures on this subject to determine which view we are to “observe.” Did Christ teach the Trinity doctrine and is it among the many things that he commanded us to observe? The Jews did not teach it so where did it come from if not from Christ then? What should matter to a Christian is the truth of Scripture, as this is what sets him apart or makes him holy. Let the doctrine fall into whichever camp it wants to as long as it is the truth.

Freedom to interpret Scripture on an individual basis is often opposed when such interpretation disagrees with their denominations position. Sects result and denominations flourish which is the reason why the apostle Paul appointed competent Church leaders early in the faith. Individuals who attempt to correct doctrinal errors found in such denominations should be heard and not suppressed. After all Jesus did this very thing in his day with the Jewish leaders he confronted. When praying to his Father He said:

“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.” (John 17:17-19, NKJV).

In these verses, Jesus stressed several times that Christians were to be “sanctified” by the truth, of Scripture. To be sanctified means to be made holy or “saved” and this promise is assured for us since our Lord fulfilled his responsibility in this regard and became our Savior. He sacrificed himself so that we may be “sanctified” if we adhere strictly to what is actually taught or commanded in “Your (God’s) word.” Such variations in doctrine should not exist. Unscriptural definitions and interpretations of the nature of God corrupt the “truth” and do not “sanctify us.” And since we are dealing mostly with translation and the work of predisposed translators, simple words and phrases like God, Heaven, Spirit, one, him, it, all things, visible, invisible, earth and others may not properly depict what is really meant. When closely examined the interpretation of such words often belittle or misrepresent the God that they pretend to explain. For example take the simple words “all things” and the text in which it is used. Such words appear in John 1:3-4, and Paul’s letters as well as other texts that apply to mankind. Do they mean everything without regard to what is being discussed like the life that is the light of the world as used by John?

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:3-4 KJV)

Trinitarians insist that it does and apply “all things” to the universe but Strong’s dictionary defines the expression all things like this:

3956 pav pas pas

including all the forms of declension; TDNT-5:886,795; adj

AV-all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243

1) individually

1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

2a) some of all types

++++

..." the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children," and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts —some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... (C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption)

So what does this mean to you? That the expression all things must be qualified, understood contextually, as it is an explanation of what was made by this light, the light that was given to all men, the human race in all its complexity. It is this light of men that this Word now came to redeem. John is discussing nothing else animate or inanimate in his gospel. Translators have concealed this truth so well defined by John. So insisting that the words all things means the universe, the angels and everything that can be called or thought of as created misses the very point of John’s words. They also teach things like this:

The common analogy that GOD is like ICE, WATER, and STEAM is often used to demonstrate that there can be three forms of the same substance. The fact that these three substances are not living beings, cannot reason, and do not exist together in the same space is not considered. They are not representative of the God of creation and are certainly not truly three in one. Such allegories belittle the true God, likening him to a physical substance of his own creation. This is an unacceptable and unscriptural way to describe GOD, especially since sufficient information is contained in the Bible to describe HIM, his relationship to HIS beloved Son, and to mankind in general.

One would think that the testimony of our Lord would be sufficient to establish the context in which the more difficult texts involving the word “God” or “Holy Spirit” should be defined, for he said to the rich young ruler:

“Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One that is, God. (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18 NKJV)

In this text Jesus specified that he was not GOD or true God as the young ruler would understand the term. He was not GOD manifest in the flesh or even “good” in the sense of the young ruler’s application of the word “agathos” (Strong’s 18) used in Scripture as the opposite of evil (Matthew 12:33,34). In such a simple and straightforward way Jesus pronounced to the world that the “One that is God” is someone other than himself. This text shatters the concept of a Trinity and does not allow for such thinking as “GOD died for us,” a phrase not found in Scripture but one often voiced by Trinitarians. You see the word God has many meanings and does not in itself denote identity since it can also be used of humans or others in authority.

The apostle Paul also stated that Jesus is not GOD nor does he now exist in the person of GOD, for he said:

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle-I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying-a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1 Timothy 2:5-6 NKJV).

Yes, Jesus the Man, a human being in his own right was and still is the Mediator between the “one God” which of course means all of God and not just one person or part of him, and “men” or mankind. What confuses most students of Scripture is the fact that Jesus Christ is also called God in a few verses and they cannot conceive of two or more individuals sharing this word. This is taken to mean equality somehow and not appointment. Such use in the Hebrew Scriptures is seldom examined or explained. It therefore appears to be polytheism on the surface and Trinitarians today tend to make this an issue by amending it to mean a single identity, although in their own theology they actually have true polytheism with three persons sharing this identity as God. To understand this more clearly and how more than one Being can properly share the term God, Strong’s definition of the word God should be examined. In it we learn that the term God identifies to no-one specifically. It is not identity, this is important to realize and is properly used to describe someone in authority other than the true God. Context determines which definition applies in any specific text and the reader must determine which definition is meant based upon their overall knowledge of such use in scripture.

In Hebrew 0430 Myhla ‘elohiym el-o-heem’

AV-God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 04136 1, godly 1; 2606

1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods

2) (plural intensive-singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God

In Greek 2316 yeov theos theh’-os

of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; TDNT-3:65,322; n m

AV-God 1320, god 13, godly 3, God-ward + 4214 2, misc 5; 1343

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity

2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God

3a) refers to the things of God

3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

4a) God’s representative or viceregent

4a1) of magistrates and judges

So it is not that easy if we have only a modern day or poor scriptural history of such use. Just how the word God is used in Scripture is a contextual problem and which definition should be pulled with each use must be understood before a yes or no decision on identity or Trinity is made. In Strong’s you can see that context does matter, and this will determine the truth, (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12). Since false doctrine is considered to be Satanic in origin there is no excuse for the continued propagation of it once it has been brought to our attention. If we were to say that the President of any country is the God of his country this would be blasphemy for many individuals even though the people ruled by him appointed this president. The thought of such usage was even repulsive to the Jews who lived in the days of our Lord (John 10:31-35), but, this important word “God” had been so used in Scripture by the Hebrew prophets to properly designate individuals like their Judges and Kings. The man Moses was appointed God to Pharaoh by God himself (Exodus 7:1). While some translations may render this verse, “as God” the word “as” is usually in italics meaning that it was presumed and added and is not a part of the original Hebrew text. Yes, Moses was actually God to Pharaoh by God’s expressed permission. This does not make more than one true God or Supreme Being as another definition and use is here intended. This is why word matching as proof of identity fails when closely examined. The thought is much the same in the relationship between Moses and Aaron his brother (Exodus 4:16). This verse designates Moses as being God to Aaron, that is, for all practical purposes there would be no essential difference to the man Aaron in the way that he viewed God, or Moses his chosen representative. It would be most unwise for him to challenge the authority of this man who God himself appointed and made to be his God.

Since Judges of Israel were called “Gods” in Scripture (Exodus 22:28; Psalm 82:6) and even a King of Israel is called God at Psalm 45:6, the Scriptures allow this word to be used in regard to persons who were not actually the true God. They were appointed by Him or represented Him even as angels appeared many times using something even more important like His personal name when performing such official duties in His behalf just as if the Supreme Being was doing them personally. Understanding how such authority is passed to others is a biblical truth that forms a foundational reality that will impact on this subject throughout scripture.

Ex 3:2 KJV And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Our Lord even evoked such usage in his defense when he was accused of making himself God, but, it required an understanding on the part of the listener that went a bit beyond the common teachings that were the norm in his day.

The word “God” is also applied in Scripture to evil forces, idols or persons worshipped as such. Therefore the apostle Paul could properly say:

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:5,6 NKJV)

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:3,4 NKJV)

Use of the word “God” in a verse therefore does not constitute proof of identity or that the individual under discussion is the same Being or person and identical somehow to another person by another name using this word in another text. Such use of the term God to others as the scriptures sometimes does therefore does not mean that we believe in multiple God’s as our Supreme Being and really violates the definition that our Supreme Being is only one God. Such use is not identification and can be applied to others authorized to use it or not. But Trinitarians have used the word Persons to get around this very argument of there is only one God by making three presumed Persons out to be one this one God. And they do word matching for proof ignoring historical evidence that it was not taught in old testament times by faithful men. Also the word Son us used in much the same way even though we all know that a Son is not identically the same entity as its Father. Language and reality must be violated to teach such things. Context does make a difference and relationships should be established using words that do not apply so freely to others. The personal name of God (YHWH or LORD in the KJV) or the expression “true God” should make this a clear distinction but because angels when representing the true God properly used this personal name as shown earlier. So even this does not constitute proof. It will, therefore, take a little time and some careful reflection of Scripture if this subject is to be understood properly.

2. DEFINITION OF THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines the Trinity doctrine as follows:

The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such unBiblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine. [ISBE, page 3012, par 1]

No mention of the fact that it was not taught by Jews or any Christians until after all the apostles were dead. Only then would the texts be assembled from the disjecta membra to support it.

Definition used by CARIS

Within the nature of the only true GOD there simultaneously exists three eternal persons, namely, GOD the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The three are co-equal in all the nature and attributes of God.

FATHER

* | *

IS IS IS

NOT | NOT

* | *

* GOD *

* / \ *

* IS IS *

* / \ *

* / ** IS ** \ HOLY

SON ********************NOT**************** SPIRIT

The preceding chart diagrams this doctrine of the Trinity: The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son nor The Spirit, The Son is not the Father nor The Spirit, The Holy Spirit is not The Father nor The Son. All three, collectively and individually, are the One God.

Is the nature of God revealed or concealed by this concept that all three Gods when taken together are really one God? More that that are these three persons really only one Being one divine entity? Why does the Logos that was with God suddenly become the Son, which was only so named later after his birth as a human? Should it not say the Father, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit? Does this explanation support the clear Biblical texts that teach us that there is but one BEING who can in the absolute sense be called God? For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5). Can it be that the word God, as it is so often used in Scripture, has a multiple application that escapes the modern theologian today? Is the Trinity doctrine really supported and taught in the Bible?

Why when some are not able to explain this after intense discussions is the idea that our God is so incomprehensible used? Why would they say that the solution is a mystery to the human mind? For such reasons, the book entitled The Teaching of the Catholic Church states:

We speak of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, because clearly we are stating a truth, which is above or beyond reason, when we say that in the same divine nature there are three distinct persons. As far as our experience goes, wherever we have a plurality of persons, we have also a plurality of individual natures. Apart from revelation, we should never even have conceived the possibility of such a thing as absolute identity of nature in three distinct persons. [The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume 1, page 112]

Another word for mystery is ignorance. Trinitarians openly admit ignorance on this subject and use it to defend their position when embarrassing questions are asked of them. It relieves them of the responsibility of considering every detail of their philosophy. Yet the truth of such matters was never concealed in Scripture. Ordinary Hebrew or Greek words were used to describe the nature of God. They should have been understood according to the everyday usage of the time. Clearly, and without reservation, the Bible states, “we know that there is only the one God.” (1 Corinthians 8:6 TEV) If one were to add to such a clear statement the thought that this was to include three persons, then proof texts must exist that will establish the claims of the Trinitarian without question. If we must resort to a formula in order to establish the truth of this matter, then every ingredient in this formula must contribute to the solution of it. It is not a matter of use this verse and ignore that one. Clear statements like this one cannot be denied.

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ “ (John 20:17 NKJV)

The God of everyone, including the resurrected and glorified Jesus, is the Father. The Father is God to Jesus in the same way that the Father is God to Mary. This verse establishes this relationship without question. This is foundational in scripture. All authority would soon be transferred to Jesus, which if He were already true God and our Supreme Being would be pointless, but our Lord knew that this would happen while still on earth and stated:

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. (John 13:3,4, NKJV)

Trinitarian theology is not supported by such texts, but Trinitarians insist that the Father and Son are one and the same Being of God. Never mind those angelic sons of God that also came from God and returned to God as well. Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. So there must be positive (not cryptic) evidence somewhere else in Scripture that confirms their theology and explains their views. Let us examine, then, some of the scriptural arguments that are offered in defense of this doctrine and consider, in all fairness, alternate views.

Prophetic Scriptures taken as proof of identity as in Zechariah chapters 11 and 12

Scripture is which the LORD (capitals denoting the name of God) is speaking is sometimes used to show that this LORD was personally pierced as in the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus (implying the same Being). It is argued that this use of God’s name in prophecy identifies the Christ that was crucified one and the same in this prophecy. Further evidence that the thirty pieces of silver or coin mentioned in chapter 11 confirms what event was meant and who was involved in it. Never mind that the verse is prophetic and does not describe any actual crucifixion of the one being pierced. And never mind that the verse is not discussing nature since human and non-human natures would be involved in such a fulfillment. Trinitarians simply establish personal identity without contextual evidence. Words that seemingly match become proof. That God used angels to represent Him as if he was with man personally is also ignored.

Zechariah 11:12 KJV And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So hey weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Are such verses in Zechariah teaching Trinitarianism? After all Matthew referred to this event at Matthew 27:9 “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;” On the other hand John used texts in the Psalms at, John 19:33-37, that were more to the point of this execution. But how else would one expect a Father to react to events that involved His own Son. Would such a father not take them personally as if this happened to Him? And is this not the way the scriptures dealt with such matters throughout as our Lord explained? Mt 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. So take a closer look at such verses and see if someone else like his only son for example was really meant by such prophecy.

Zechariah 12:10 KJV And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Zechariah 12:10 NIV "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

It is his only Son, the Son of this LORD that they mourn. The Father takes this personally and is pierced as if it happened to Him much as a human father would feel as well. But more to the point, did this Father, the LORD of us die at the event or did His Son die during it? Two beings, both of a different nature in diverse places at the time cannot be merged into one God as the Trinity doctrine teaches when they say GOD died for us? And words like pierced can be applied differently in different texts as shown even to the same event. Another reference of interest is:

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

The verses in this case are found in the Psalms where they say:

Ps 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. 16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: [they look and stare upon me.] 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Ps 34:19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

As you see this reference to the piercing more directly supports the one sacrificed. They were not written in the more prophetic way Zechariah was. The Matthew reference is more cultural for another reason since even the reference to Jerimiah is disputed. Jerimiah did not make such comments but Zechariah did. We must do a little thinking here and put ourselves in the place of such writers sometimes. This is not a contradiction and scholars have resolved this discrepancy like this:

Verse 9. Spoken by Jeremy the prophet. The words quoted here are not to be found in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Words similar to these are recorded in #Zec 11:12,13, and from that place this quotation has been doubtless made. Much difficulty has been experienced in explaining this quotation. Anciently, according to the Jewish writers, Jeremiah was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed first in the Book of the Prophets: thus Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. Some have thought that Matthew, quoting this place, quoted the Book of the Prophets under the name of that which had the first place in the book—i, e., Jeremiah; and though the words are those of Zechariah, yet they are quoted correctly as the words of the Book of the Prophets, the first of which was Jeremiah. Others have thought that there was a mistake made by ancient transcribers, writing the name Jeremiah instead of Zechariah; and it is observed that this might be done by the change of only a single letter. It was often the custom to abridge words in writing them, Thus, instead of writing the name of Jeremiah in full, it would be written in Greek Iriou. So Zechariah would be written Zriou. By the mere change of Z into I, therefore, the mistake might easily be made. Probably this is the correct explanation. Others have supposed that the words were spoken by Jeremiah, and that Zechariah recorded them; and that Matthew quoted them as they were, the words of Jeremiah. The passage is not quoted literally; and by its being fulfilled is meant, probably, that the language used by Zechariah on a similar occasion would express also this event. It was language appropriate to this occasion. (Barns New Testament notes.)

3. IS JESUS OUR GOD? (JOHN 1:1; 10:30-36)

Often the opening statement of the beloved apostle John is called into any discussion of the Trinity doctrine. It is believed by Trinitarians that John’s use of the word “God” in regard to “the Word” at John 1:1 proves that Jesus was and is the same God as Jehovah or Yahweh. Few realize however that this opening statement proves the opposite. And fewer still realize that like the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, John here provides another way to trace the life and genealogy of this Son back to its non-human source identified as the Word. The apostle John will explain exactly what he means by ‘in the beginning.’ He will explain who ‘God’ is and identify the relationship between ‘God’ and the ‘Word.’ He will also explain in detail the relationship between the ‘Word’ and mankind to whom this text is directed. John will therefore put this title into proper perspective bringing out detail not covered in the other gospels.

The word “God” as it has already been shown has multiple applications much as the word ‘spirit’ does. We learn in John’s gospel that “God” when applied to Jesus the Son of God is appropriate and does not conflict with the word “God” when it is applied to the Father. In fact this word can be used nearly side by side regarding separate BEINGS practically in the same breath as in John 1:1. This is why tampering with the Tetragrammaton, which represents the proper name of God (Jehovah in some Bible versions and Yahweh in others), and mistranslating it LORD or GOD is so important. Such tampering with the text tends to conceal the proper Scriptural and varied application of such words such as “Lord” and “God.” This makes it more difficult to understand their proper use. Let us see how John used the word “God” in such a situation.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1, 2 KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. (John 1:1, The Four Gospels - A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, second edition of l947)

John was not teaching us that this Word was the same God as the God that he was with. They were not God beside each other. John was teaching us that this Word that was with God, during such a beginning was appointed as God to man, revealed now as the organized world existing in John’s day. The world that this Word created, the ones that were his own in fact to whom John was writing his gospel. John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. This is not something new, but it is something not understood by many in the Faith. John knew this Word personally after he became flesh. Jesus and others used the term Logos so often in regard to His Father and Himself that John could now use it especially since our Lord revealed it to him in the Revelation. Translators concealed this in scripture but such common use of logos is very visible throughout New Testament texts. John would use it as the non-human name for the now human being that was this Jesus Christ, this man he knew. You see. John received the Revelation in which Logos is also given as a name for the non-human Jesus. Revelationi 19:13, “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” We may not notice it because Logos is often translated as sayings and in other ways that hides this mannerism from us. Notice also that the Spirit is not mentioned in such context. Why? Because the term holy spirit is not a person or God, and could not be used in such a way. The holy spirit does not even have a name in scripture. It is the office and function of the Word, his history and his relationship to mankind and the Faith that John is describing. Thus we then learn how mankind in all its complexity actually came into existence. Such office as the Word held in the beginning made Him God to us. God the ‘Supreme Being’ and the appointed office of God held by the Word are truths and John specifically made this the theme of his gospel. Such use of the title God should not be confused with the ‘BEING’ the Father also called God when He is discussed. The use of a capital or small ‘g’ in this verse of which so much is made in endless arguments is therefore not an issue. The “beginning” identified in this verse refers to the creation of all things human here on earth, vs 3-4 and not to the beginning of the universe as in Gen 1:1.

During this beginning, long after the creation of the universe began the apostle John teaches us that there existed God, and the Word, which designates the specific office of the Word or Son under discussion. This does not mean that other Sons of God did not also exist for other purposes. While both are called God in verse 1, they are shown as being together and are clearly not one and the same ‘BEING,’ as they have separate identities and are not the same God. A differentiation between our thinking ‘true GOD’ and someone designated to be God and oversee man is here established. The holy spirit is missing because it is not God nor does this spirit occupy any office as it is not a ‘BEING’ in or of itself as the ‘WORD’ is. John used the term ‘Holy Spirit’ or “Ghost” in his writings of course but he certainly does not identify it as a person living with God nor does it occupy a throne. Understanding how John used the word “God” in this Gospel, and especially in this verse, is fundamental to the Faith. An argument can be made to the effect that God as it is used in regard to the Word should have been translated with a small g. This we shall see is nothing more that a distraction from the real point being made by John regarding Jesus. Notice that the word “God” as it applies to “the Word” is translated with a small “g” by Professor Torrey in his work, while most Bible versions use a capital “G.” In the Greek text the definite article “ho” does not precede the word “theos” or god in the case of “the Word” therefore the capital “G” may not be appropriate. This is more clearly visible in translations that use the word “divine” (An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed and A New Translation by James Moffatt). Such translations recognize a difference in John’s use of the word “theos” in this text. However they fail however to recognize that it is a designation of oversight, and in this case the oversight of mankind. A capital “G” in the word “God” is properly used when referring to Jesus Christ as in the case of Thomas (John 20:28), and a small “g” can be properly used in regard to the Father (John 1:6,12,13,18) as the Greek language and context allows for this. Yet such use does not prove identity as if the individual under discussion is true God. In the specific instance of Thomas, this comment was recorded to make an entirely different point, which specifically identified Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. Notice:

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

Designation of Godship is not determined by or proven by capitalization or punctuation or use. Professor Anthony A. Hoekema made the following statement on this subject:

In the article on theos in the most recent Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, it is said that theos is used in the New Testament “quite predominantly of the true God, sometimes with, sometimes without the article.” [The Four Major Cults, Second Printing page 333].

While translators capitalize such expressions at will based on their judgment, the Greek text actually left the matter up to the reader. Punctuation is therefore of no value in determining the nature of God. John said just a few verses further:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 KJV)

John calls this human Son the “only begotten of the Father.” This completes John’s history lesson regarding the genealogy of this flesh giving us essential detail regarding the non-human lineage of this Son as compared to the human lineage recorded elsewhere. Where then does the Spirit come in? This relationship of the ‘begotten’ in which the Spirit (never identified as begotten) plays no part occurs during a time when Jesus was born as a man and further establishes the context of John 1:1.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. (John 1:18 KJV)

The now human "Word" is the begotten god of God himself and He was begotten in the flesh for our benefit. This is not visible in most English translations because the Greek word “theos” appearing in approved Greek texts on this verse has been altered and translated “Son” instead of “god.” This conceals the office of the Son both in his past and present, yet this is what John meant by his use of this same word “theos” in verse one. Trinitarian doctrine, and not Greek grammar, influenced the way this and many other translations have rendered John’s Gospel, concealing a truth that John was explaining to his Christian brothers. To see this it will be necessary to consult The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament published by Zondervan, or similar works notice:

God no man has seen never; [the] only begotten God the [one] being in the bosom of the Father, that one declared [?him]. (Interlinear of Nestle Greek text)

John knew that the word “god” as an appointed position had such applications since he was familiar with such use in the Hebrew Scriptures. The word God meant all of the person or Being described by it and this is true of every verse in scripture in which it is used without exception. It is not divisible from the entire Being anywhere in any text. This is true wherever it is used even to appointed ones be they human beings like Moses or non-human beings. Like the Supreme Being, the Word that this Supreme Being appointed over us or the one called Satan that appointed himself over us means the entire being described by theos or God. The word God properly applies but in its own context as meanings like vice-regent are meant by it. Regarding Moses, appointed officials and Judges in Israel or Satan we have.

And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, [even] he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. (Exodus 4:16 KJV)

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Exodus 7:1 KJV)

Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. (Exodus 22:28 KJV)

I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. (Psalms 82:6 KJV)

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Jesus and his apostles would have understood such use of the word “God” in Scripture, as a designation of authority, or office even if most Jews did not. While not part of the normal vocabulary of most Jews living in Jesus’ day as they preferred to use the word heaven in place of the word God, visible in Matthews Gospel, our Lord could use this in his defense as in:

John 10:31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:34-36 KJV).

Thus even with such use the Jews had no basis to stone him since such use was permitted under the Law. Trinitarians often defend the Jews instead of Jesus in such verses. Matthew, who knew the writings of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14), explained it to the Faith like this:

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23 KJV)

What our Lord was telling the angry Jews confronting him was that in their own law God himself called other humans “gods” (Psalm 82:6), notably the judges of Israel, so that the use of this term in this capacity was Scriptural if used in proper context. They had no legal basis for stoning him. In addition, he corrected their erroneous assumption that he was calling himself “God.” Jesus did not say “I and my Father are God.” What our Lord did say was “I and My Father are one,” vs 30, which conveys the thought of working together towards a common goal or purpose much like a married couple described in Scripture as one flesh (Matthew 19:6). Our Lord explained to us exactly how such an expression should be understood.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: (John 17:21-22 KJV)

Now we see how easily his words are taken out of context and misused. We do not expand some Deity or Godhead. Furthermore, he told them that he had always identified himself as the “Son of God,” thus correcting their error. Anyone using such verses to teach that Jesus here identified himself as “true God” would be making the same mistake that the Jews did in his day and do not understand the oneness of the Faith. The Jews who should have known this erred, as our Lord’s rebuttal to them indicated.

Jesus came in an official capacity to the Jews and in this sense actually deserved to be called “God” by the people who followed him. He was their foreordained King and Savior. Thomas now recognized this and confessed this fact to the resurrected Lord, as recorded at:

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

After all, it was prophesied long ago in Scripture that he would be called:

and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6 KJV)

Such verses as John 1:1,18 and 20:28, therefore, served the purpose of fulfilling this promise made in prophecy to the Jews and informed them of this fact. Furthermore, such use of the word “God” does not contradict Scriptural passages that clearly teach there is but “one God,” since it is the modern and not the ancient use of this word that has become so confusing.

NOTES: ONLY BEGOTTEN HUMAN SON

The beginning under discussion in John refers to the beginning of the creation of Man, the world of mankind, not the beginning discussed in Gen 1:1. It is this world of man already formed into nations when John wrote that was created by Him at such a beginning and to which the Word came. It was only to the world that would receive him and become sons of God themselves that John said: John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

When we look at John1:1 we should see this if we also include all the introductory verses that set the theme for John's Gospel.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Common man, the various races, the governments, authorities like Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Rome, ALL such things were made by Him and he is over such things. See Col. 1:15,16. The authority that made this Word, God to the world of man that was created by Him was given by the God towards which the Word was with. You see the word in itself means all of God and applies that way not just to the Supreme Being but to the Word that was with this Supreme Being when the authority over man was passed on the this Logos. And it applied to all of Moses, the Judges and Kings of Israel and even Satan and not just imagined persons within them. Such use of this word God to designate this responsibility is perfectly scriptural, well within its definitions and should be understood in this context. This does not make two God’s equal in status existing as one Being but clearly shows how a specific assignment and authority can be passed to the Word or others by the Supreme one. This is also why Thomas could correctly identify the human Lord as his God, that is someone with authority over his life and his future existence. Not one scripture in the entire Bible using the word God is used of a portion of the one so designated as this God, be they human like Moses, Kings of Israel, Herod, Jesus or the Devil. It is always used of the entire entity; the whole Being, that is identified by the term God. However the one thing that can be extracted from them is life.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. {comprehended: or, did not admit, or, receive}

John was not discussing all or the entire creation in his introduction to his Gospel. He was simply discussing how man came to be and the relationship that the Word appointed over us as God or our Lord Jesus Christ who later was our human God was to such mankind. Therefore John said:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word made man for his Father and Adam’s life can be attributed to Him. Our Lord on the other hand is the only other human being whose life can be traced directly to this Word. This makes him the only human being or only begotten of the Father as it was this Father and not the Word that transferred such life for him. How this Word came to exist in the first place is not discussed in John’s Gospel.

Jesus was the Logos of God and God to us in his own right. Logos is a functional identity that John used not the literal name for this God that created us. This Logos was with God that is naturally understood to be the Supreme Being. Therefore our literal creator is not the same God, being or person as the God that he was with. Does this break some rule like the verse in Genesis that says:

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

Not if we understand how such things were done in more detail. We now know how and when such things were delegated to others and this simply teaches us how God functions in the vastness of the universe. And in this case the one authorized to do the work of creating man for Him was this Word in much the same way that God appeared to us through angels that represented Him.

Since Adam was created by the Logos and not by the Supreme Being directly that this Logos was with, Adam could be called a son of God but was never called only begotten since someone else namely the Logos himself was actually our creator and performed this task for Him. When the Logos a true Son gave up his life to become flesh then the human that resulted was not the product of an intermediary but was someone we can trace directly to God's own activity and thus an only begotten Son, or Son of God in a real human sense, sinless and un-condemned.

IN THE BEGINNING

A beginning of the creation of matter when there existed only God who:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

This He did alone and without the assistance of His Son or angels notice:

Ne 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

The hosts came to exist as a result of this creation along with the earth and all things therein. One such Son came to be identified by John as the WORD of God who would become God to man, the literal creator of man and so we now have:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing that exists came into being. (John 1:3 WEY)

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:15-17)

Such verses by John and Paul, now deal specifically with human life on earth, rulers (in heaven) and common man (in earth) both nearby (visible) and far away like in Rome (invisible) the varied humanity which contained this life that existed in John’s and Paul’s day but at least we also now know when additional life, living (see Strong’s) things, angels, and finally man were created during such history when the universe with all their hosts came into existence. With so many living invisible BEINGS now under God’s direction before mankind came to be formed in the garden, events could be described using the word “Spirit” even as the Faith, the body of Christ is described in this way. [1 Co. 6:17, Eph 4:4, Php 1:27]

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

A work force now existed that could perform such tasks, some of them could be delegated to others and such complexity explains why neither the Son nor the Spirit (Trinitarian God) knew the Day or hour since only the true God, the Father knows such information.

But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32)

All life that exists in the universe, BEINGS and individuals in their own right, are included in this verse. Man to whom it is written, the angels which are in heaven, the Son giving the message and the Father who knows. No Holy Spirit that can know such a thing is identified and this is the teaching of our Lord Himself. In such context the Holy Spirit is always excluded from the text. And since not everyone was given the same task we have to be careful of how much authority any single one of them had. For example which one of such Sons created the animals? We do not know but we do know that the one called the Devil and Satan had control over one of them at least.

THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF MAN ONLY

This is a good example where context makes a big difference. To understand the text we need to know what the author is talking about and when. In this case it is the world of mankind not the universe.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (John 1:10)

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24)

This Logos or Son of God mentions nothing but life in such verses, not planets or trees, but simply such life that would be redeemable by him. All things does not mean everything and we can see this even if we had no further references but were paying attention. The world that was made by him did not include the planet, trees or animals. It was the world of man that knew him not.

GOD IS SOMEONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF

Another example is this one. The claim that Jesus is God as a human being cannot be made the way Trinitarians do when they say, God died for us. And this is just as true for the equality they claim for him. Restrictions and/or limitations are not always visible at first glance.

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. (Mark 10:18)

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5:19)

Thus Jesus personally excluded himself as being God in the sense of their supreme being. Using the word God in other ways however was perfectly acceptable and would be used that way in some texts.

GOD AS A TITLE OF AUTHORITY IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT

Scripturally the correct use of this important word “God” can be shown from such texts. A Trinity however is not implied by such use.

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) (1 Corinthians 8:5)

and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

GOD IS NOT ONLY A BEING WITH HIS OWN DISTINCT SHAPE, BUT THE WORD/TITLE GOD ALSO DESIGNATES AN OFFICE OF OVERSIGHT.

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (John 5:37)

Being sent is another way to say Apostleship. And it can also be called God. Neither use supports Trinitarianism.

And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you. [Exodus 3:14, Septuagint version, Zondervan].

The true God is not divisible into persons. This was learned very early in scripture and such verses become root texts for the faith. The Being here mentions has a name, a personal name given in verse 15 and that name was not Father.

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Exodus 7:1)

I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. (Psalms 82:6)

Humans therefore could be called God without contradiction as the readers at the time would have know this difference in use.

Notice how just a little clarification and recognition could have saved Herod from death. That is all it takes to err on such words with fatal consequences. So a correct understanding of such use matters to us.

21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. 22 And the people gave a shout, [saying, It is] the voice of a god, and not of a man. 23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. (Acts 12:21-23)

Jesus is GOD to men of Faith,

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed. (John 20:28-29)

And what did John see? A human Being with wounds of his death still visible upon him.

GOD is Father to Jesus and man and greater that Jesus.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

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

Again that in such context Jesus admits that he is not God. Who should we believe? Jesus or Trinitarians?

The Sons relationship to Man took on more responsibility after becoming flesh.

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. (John 5:21)

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: (John 5:22)

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. (John 3:35)

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; (John 13:3)

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)

It is not as if we did not have adequate information to make such a decision.

THE FATHER TEACHES THE SON WHO OBEYS HIS FATHER’S INSTRUCTIONS

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. (John 12:49)

And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. (John 12:50)

Further differences support the realization that we are dealing with an appointed official.

THE FATHER LOVES THE SON BECAUSE OF HIS OBEDIENCE

That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. (John 5:23)

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:17-18)

And now we see that this distinction is not something to ignore. Our life depends on it. Like Moses, it would be foolish for us to disrespect someone with such power.

THE FATHER SENT THE SON WHICH MAKES THE SON AN APOSTLE OF GOD

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. (John 8:42)

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Galatians 4:4)

Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Such verses put the story together for us. What happened and why.

The word ‘Spirit’ or ‘Holy Spirit’ is a biblical term that has no definition. I t’s meaning like the wind it represents must be discerned on a verse by verse basis.

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. (John 4:23)

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. (John 6:63)

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13) The spirit is not self aware but dependent on someone else.

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15)

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:1-3) Humans identified as spirits must be tested. No relationship to the nature of God is implied.

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. (Mt 12:31)

The complexity of the word Spirit or Holy Spirit makes it difficult to explain. No definition explains its use. As a consequence of this warning given by our Lord, it would seem reasonable to conclude that if we do not know what we are teaching, then it would be best not to say anything at all. This verse does not exclude anyone simply because they may not be aware of it. The Holy Ghost is knowledge and is the free gift of God. It is not given to anyone simply because they claim discipleship. The Father must provide it to us. How this is done technically and/or physically is simply described as the holy Ghost. And translation hides the fact that words like him could and perhaps should have been rendered as it. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. It then becomes discernable to us and others by what we teach. It is something that we can posses even is the rest of the world is in darkness.

4. 2 PETER 1:1

If the Trinity doctrine was truth as claimed by those supporting it, then it would not be dependent upon a play on words or tricky interpretations as is the case. To demonstrate this, the inspired words of the Apostle Peter are often cited as proof that Jesus our Lord is true God for he said:

Simon Peter a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:1 NKJV)

The words “God” and “Savior” in this verse are interpreted to be the same individual or person, making the Savior “God.” While it would not be incorrect to call Jesus our “God,” and Savior, Trinitarians cannot draw much comfort from this verse in support of their doctrine, the question remains, did the Apostle Peter refer to one person or two in 2 Peter 1:1? To answer the question simply read the very next verse which states:

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. (2 Peter 1:2 NKJV)

When Peter referred to “God and Savior” the statement was in reference to two persons and not one. It is the “knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,” shown here to be separate and distinct individual BEINGS and not one and the same BEING that we as Christians have come to know and understand. We can compare Titus 2:13 with Titus 1:4 where the apostle Paul also used similar wording to demonstrate that two persons (Beings) and not one BEING was meant by the expression “God and Savior.” It is nothing more than tricky translation and interpretation that support the Trinitarian view. Capitalization, punctuation, and style play a leading role in Trinitarian theology.

Person of God or maybe not?

The human Christ was of course a man a person. The New Testament and the AV in particular used the word “person” in regard to the Father or the Son in a way that some think also identified their nature. But they are translation dependent words that do identify the nature of the ones addressed. As Christ’s representative the apostle Paul could forgive brothers with the same authority as Christ, as if Christ was present and observing and so we have:

To whom ye forgive any thing, I [forgive] also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave [it], for your sakes [forgave I it] in the person of Christ; (2 Corinthians 2:10)

If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven— if there was anything to forgive— I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, (2 Corinthians 2:10 NIV)

Therefore person is also translated as sight in the NIV as it did not indicate the nature of Christ. And in Hebrews we learn that the Son is the image of God, but not by nature or in the way most expect of someone on a separate throne alongside God. The word hupostasis <5287> translated person is otherwise translated as confidence and the word image is character making His glory, character and confidence the theme of Hebrews.

Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, [hupostasis] and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:3)

And it was translated as confidence in other texts including Hebrews 3:14. So we know what the writer of Hebrews really meant. This confidence is the substance of our Faith as well. Christ had the exact same confidence and image that God had regarding the outcome of events the Fathers and prophets of times past under discussion had or hoped for. That is what Hebrews was talking about and illustrated further in chapter 1 where such prophets were called angels out of respect for their mission and purpose. As to the Nature of the Son, the scriptures accurately described the Nature of the Logos, both in times past, after becoming a man and afterward in other texts. Therefore no foundation exists for such use of the word “person” to describe the nature of God, and the holy spirit is never identified as a person in its own right. How such a doctrine that such so called persons made up God ever originated in the first place is the real mystery. A complete list of this word hupostasis or <5287> used in the NT is:

2Co 9:4 Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you
unprepared, we (that we say not, ye should be ashamed in this same
confident <5287> boasting.

2Co 11:17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were
foolishly, in this confidence <5287> of boasting.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his
person <5287>, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he
had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
on high;

Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of
our confidence <5287> stedfast unto the end;

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance <5287> of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen.

5. EXODUS 3:14,15 AND JOHN 8:58

Often Exodus 3:14 is used to prove that Jesus is Jehovah or Yahweh. This is because the King James Version translates the Hebrew “hayay” that occurs three times in this verse as “I AM.” The Greek words “ego eimi” (not related) that occur at John 8:58 are also translated as “I am,” so an attempt is made to word match the English translation of these verses in both texts. Such word matching theology totally ignores the context and meaning of the original words given in different languages on different subjects thousands of years apart. It is translation dependent as there are other equally descriptive English words that are used by translators in their place. Since Trinitarians also teach that the expression “I AM” as translated at Ex 3:14 also stands for the proper name of God, or at least can refer to no other “BEING” or “PERSON,” then a simple examination of these texts will expose this error. Exodus 3:15, a text in which the actual name of God does appear, should be considered as well, since it refutes this doctrine regarding the “I AM.” It is an introductory remark that represented something quite different than the name of God and its meaning has eluded Trinitarian theologians. Notice how these verses are translated:

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel. ‘I AM has sent me to you’” Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial unto all generations.’ (Exodus 3:14,15, NKJV)

Concealed in the text is the proper name for God translated in all capital letters as “LORD” in verse 15, as shown in this and many other Bible versions. It is translated in this way to distinguish it from the Hebrew word “Adonay,” also translated Lord, in lower case which is commonly used by the Jews to indicate someone of importance. This Sacred Name, which was to become a memorial to God unto all generations, appears over six thousand times in the Hebrew text. It is derived from what is commonly called the Tetragrammaton, or the four Hebrew letters YHVH (Strong’s Yehovah), that properly represent the name of God in Scripture. The expression “I AM” (HYH Strong’s hayah) never represented the name of God and is not used as a name anywhere in Scripture. While trinitarians insist that it is God’s name, the inspired Jewish authors used it many times to express a quality or characteristic of the Hebrew words it modified. The Jewish translators of the Hebrew text recognized this fact, and when translating this text into Greek prior to the days of our Lord rendered the first two occurrences of “hayah” together with their corresponding Hebrew “Qal” by the phrase “ego eimi ho Ohn” translated “I am THE BEING,” and they rendered the third occurrence (shalach) ‘sent’ with its corresponding “hayah” as “THE BEING has sent”-“ho Ohn,” NOT ‘ego eimi’ or “I am” as trinitarians teach. There is therefore no basis for word-matching the English translation “I AM” with John 8:58 where the Greek “ego eimi” is used and not the Greek “ho Ohn” of Ex 3:14. This is a Hebrew idiom recognized by the Jews and rendered as such. Such use pushes words beyond the norm to their extreme of meaning and application. Notice how the English translation of the Jewish Greek text renders the verse:

And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you. (Exodus 3:14, The Septuagint version, Zondervan)

The idiomatic “hayah” is properly rendered as “THE BEING” and not “I am,” which is merely used to complete the thought (The Septuagint Version published by Zondervan publishing house, 1975 edition, page 73). The Hebrew word “hayah,” on the other hand is not rendered “ho Ohn” or even “ego eimi” by the Jewish translators in the many other texts in which it appears. Further evidence is not required to prove that it is not the name of God and never was used as such. In regard to the man Job at Job 12:4, the English rendering or “hayah” is again “I am” [See The Interlinear Hebrew Greek English Bible by Jay Green, Vol II, page 1339] Certainly Job is not God or Jehovah and John 8:58 would never be word-matched with this text. In such verses the character of the individual is being questioned and the use of this word as a designation of character, good or bad, is established. Jay Green shows the Hebrew “hayah” three times at EX 3:14 in his interlinear and renders it “I AM” just as it appears in the King James bible. (See The Interlinear Hebrew Greek English Bible by Jay Green, Vol I, page 146.) Capitalization as in Exodus 3:14 is simply the opinion of the translator and is not derived from the text. It is the very existence of God as an entity that is being discussed with Moses at Exodus 3:14, not His name and the Hebrew idiom used, be it rendered as “I AM” or “the Being,” expresses this fact. Notice how the Amplified Bible renders this text:

And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE; and he said, You shall say this to the Israelites, I AM has sent me to you! (Exodus 3:14 Amplified Bible)

While Trinitarian convention was still followed in this translation much more of the import of the Hebrew expression was brought out. The proper name for God was revealed in the very next verse in the form of the Tetragrammaton. The distinct four letter Hebrew word that represents the name of God has no other application. It does not mean God or Lord but once again superstition that developed early in Jewish history corrupted this name and it had been altered to read GOD and LORD in many of the over six thousand texts in which it appears. In later years the Jews avoided even using such substitutes in place of the Tetragrammaton due to the obvious connection that such words had with the Sacred Name and would use the word “Heaven” in place of the word “God.” Thus in Matthew’s Gospel account written primarily for Jews we read of the “Kingdom of the Heavens,” (Matt. 11:11) while in the other Gospels and letters we see the expression “Kingdom of God,” (Luke 7:28) except in texts where Jewish Christians specifically are being addressed and then the expression “Kingdom of the heavens” reappears as it is the more familiar term for them.

Many have objected to translating the Tetragrammaton as “Jehovah” due to the fact that it places restrictions on how certain Bible texts can be used in support of the Trinity doctrine. The expression LORD, and in some cases GOD, does not properly reflect the correct pronunciation of this name either. In fact, the pronunciation of many names in Scripture, even the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, deviate considerably from their Hebrew and Greek counterparts when rendered into the English language. They are translated or transliterated, which fact alters their pronunciation considerably. We do not erase them and substitute “Lord,” but use an acceptable form suitable for the language in which the Scripture is translated. Such names as Jeconiah, Jedaiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, Jeremiah, and many others are actually based upon the Tetragrammaton or Sacred Name and are used today without alteration. Mispronouncing a proper name is therefore not a sin, nor is an issue made of it in Scripture. The name “Jehovah” is a distinct and acceptable translation of God’s name as is “Yahweh.” They are used to represent the Tetragrammaton and have been used in the King James and other Bible translations. Tampering with the text by inserting LORD or GOD to conceal the proper name of God is unjustified, and such unauthorized tampering reveals the true character of the translators. Concealing truth is NOT a function of the Faith.

Since the rendering of the Hebrew “hayah” into the English “I AM” is not representative of the Jewish use of the Greek expression “ego eimi” in Exodus 3:14, one may wonder why theologians and ministers alike dare to make such an application in regard to the use of the common Greek term “ego eimi” as it appears in John 8:58. Notice how this verse is translated.

Jesus said to them. “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58, NKJV)

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58, KJV)

Some Bible translations, such as the New King James Version and Phillips Modern English, improperly capitalize the “I AM” as if it were a proper name. It is correctly rendered “I am” in the KJV, designating that it is nothing more than a common Greek expression as used by our Lord, the kind used in everyday speech. Other Bible versions attempt to translate the thought of Jesus’ words in this verse saying:

Jesus: “The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!” (John 8:58, The Living Bible)

The Living Bible correctly translates the sense of Jesus’ words into English since our Lord was simply telling the Jews there present that he lived, his life existed (without revealing its non-human nature at the time) even before the days of Abraham. His comments project through time “before Abraham was” and his existence “I am” was a reality prior to such years in history. John 1:1 established this fact as well. Yes life, like this sinless human life now before them existed before Abraham, we can grasp how this same life after being passed to Adam came to exist with sin and condemned. This life exists in all mankind with this one exception. This sinless life of Jesus therefore can be used to redeem us. It can be used as sinless a replacement for the sinful life we received from Adam. No other human life could do this. Separating life from nature is the context here, the purpose of our Lord’s testimony just like it was in John 1:1-4. There is no relationship between Exodus 3:15 and John 8:58 that can properly be used to show that Jesus was actually saying or teaching that he was the same as Jehovah. Some translations may use words similar to those used in Exodus, but their meaning and context are vastly different. It is not the continuity of his nature, but the continuity of his life that is being revealed at John 8:58.

There is not much difference when non-human life falls into sin, but in their case no ransom was provided. The final destruction of them is assured.

“Ego eimi” can also be used as an abbreviation to express a thought that had been impressed on the hearer’s mind, especially if such a thought has just been made in running conversation. At John 8:16-19 Jesus stated that he did not judge alone but judged with the Father who sent him. In fact, according to their own law his testimony and his Father’s testimony constitute proof of this relationship. Furthermore, he told them that he was not of this world (vs 23), indicating that he had a much higher position from that which can be attributed to man. It was for such reasons that he said:

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am HE, you will die in your sins. (John 8:24 NKJV see also vs 28).

The reference for the “I am” in verses 24 and 28 is of course the earlier verses with which our Lord identified himself and not some specific text in Exodus 3:14. He was the one to whom the Father bore witness. He was the judge, the one from above. This does not imply that he was also the God of Israel as Trinitarians teach, and, the simple Greek expression “ego eimi” does not represent a name in these verses. Turning to John 13:19, we see another example of this. The reference in this case is back to vs 13 and the implication is that our Lord was more than just “Teacher and Lord” but that he was also the intercessor between God and man (John 13:20), in effect stating that “I am that person.”

Another text in which the words “ego eimi” appear can be found recorded at John 18:5-8. In this text Judas and a band of armed men approached Jesus and he said to them, “Whom are you seeking?” Notice the answer and the way that “ego eimi” is rendered in such verses where it appears three times:

They answered Him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am He.” And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. Then-when He said to them, “I am He,”-they drew back and fell to the ground. Then He asked them again, “Whom are you seeking?” and they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I have told you that I am He. Therefore, if you seek Me, let these go their way.” (John 18:5-8, NKJV).

The boldness of Jesus and his reputation as a Prophet, worker of miracles and the Son of God frightened the soldiers who were with Judas, but the answer that Jesus gave was in direct response to the question, and the common Greek expression “ego eimi” rendered “I am He” is a direct reference to “Jesus of Nazareth” and not the name of God.

The inspired verses of Mark 14:61-62 also use “ego eimi” to refer back to prior statements made in the text and even the King James translators recognize this as the truth, translating a lower case “I am.” Only a few Trinitarians dare to use such verses out of context to teach that Jesus was identifying himself as God. Such disregard for truth is unworthy of the Christian faith and a re-evaluation of this area of Christian theology has been long overdue.

NOTES:

In the Old Testament the word for “God” is usually “Elohim,” which is plural and literally means “Gods.” In “You shall love the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:5) “God is actually “Elohim” and so means “Gods.” “Elohim” occurs over 2,000 times in the Old Testament! Trinitarians use to (and many still do) claim that the plural implied that God is a Trinity. It is almost certain, however, that the plural denotes excellence and power - not trinity. Other Gods are also called “Elohim” including Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7); Baal (Judges 8:33); Chemosh (Judges 11:24); Misroch (2 Kings 19:37); Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); Milcom (1 Kings 11:33); Even Moses and the judges of Israel were called “Elohim.” (Exodus 7:1; John 10:34-35; Psalm 82) Clearly “elohim” does not mean “trinity.” [The Investigator Magazine No. 42, May 1995 Page 13]

Similarly the Bible teaches that angels appeared to humans on occasion and such angels would declare: “I am God.” (Acts 7:38, 53; Compare Genesis 32:24-30 with Hosea 12:4) This meant that the angel was acting and speaking directly on God Almighty’s behalf. [The Investigator Magazine No. 42, May 1995 Page 15]

John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Our Lord not only agreed with the conclusion reached by the Jews questioning Him, as shown by Verily, verily, (Amen, amen) but verified this truth, this fact to them which angered them further. Verily, verily or amen, amen at the beginning of a statement means surely, truly, of a truth

6. JESUS RAISES HIS BODY FROM THE GRAVE. JOHN 2:18-22

Shortly before His arrest and subsequent execution our Lord prayed to His Father and said:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:5)

What our Lord was praying for and fully expecting to happen was for his restoration to the same glory that our Lord had with his Father when he was known as the WORD of God. This glory is recorded at John 1:1 and 14 and his nature at that time was not of human nature not of flesh but was of a nature quite different than mankind. As such it did not qualify as like Kind and therefore was not suitable as a sacrifice for mankind. This is why John 1:14 states that; "And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." What our Lord expected and received at death was the same glory and nature he had as the “WORD,” as he was before he took on the form of a man and dwelt among us. Furthermore our Lord as mans creator was God to man as John teaches in this same verse of John 1:1 and would continue to exercise authority over us as mediator and savior. The Father honored this prayer and raised Jesus from the dead in fulfillment of these inspired words.

To you first, God having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities. (Acts 3:26 NKJV)

Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. (Acts 10:40-41 NKJV)

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Galatians 1:1)

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:9 KJV)

The Hypostasis Nature of Christ

Besides its simpler scriptural meanings, the term hypostasis is also a Trinitarian term but is used here only in its generic form as the basis for this discussion. So a hypostatic union is simply defined as “The union of two natures in the one Person or hypostasis of Christ.” Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary Standard Edition. Since the scriptures clearly teach that Jesus DID NOT raise himself and we know that God, raised Jesus from the dead on the third day, what happened so that such human disciples could see our Lord openly even to the point of eating and drinking with him? What then is meant by the prophecy that our Lord gave to the questioning Jews when he said:

---- “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “it has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. (John 2:18-22 NKJV)

Our Lord prophesied that as a sign to the Jews he would raise up his own body or temple as he called it (not his life to existence) from the dead. This prophecy is often used by Trinitarians as proof that Jesus is God and that he raised himself up from the dead. Verses from diverse places are combined to reinforce not only this thought but the concept that the holy spirit is also Jesus or God since such terms are used in connection with the resurrection of Jesus. But the fact is that Jesus had the right to lay down his life and take it again and he knew that. Just how did this happen and why?

John 10:17 KJV Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

This power would be provided by God in answer to the prayer our Lord offered before his death.

John 17: 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Not to human life but to life as the Logos once again and the creator of the human race in the first place. Now it would be a simple matter for him to raise his body from its grave. A seamless resurrection would then take place as the non-human glory and the human nature took on this hypostasis union. History did not change, the ransom was still valid and could be presented up as proof of our redemption and the human body our Lord raised would be needed in the Kingdom of God, when our Lord returns to earth in order to administer it with his disciples. Acts 1:11.

But notice now how Trinitarians who cannot grasp this will mis-apply a verse to support their theology. Mistranslation is used to force the thought that Jesus was the one rendered God in Timothy. They do this by intentionally inserting God in the text.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

[*God] was manifested in the flesh Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

· NU-Text reads who (1 Timothy 3:16 NKJV)

who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:16 NKJV)

It was not until after his resurrection that our Lord achieved this hypostasis nature to which the verse mainly refers. It is the nature of human and non-human nature combined. This was the result of His confidence in the scriptures written about him. This is what he understood was promised by them. So using the expression hypostasis for it seemed fitting to me. But I also understood that our Lord received this immortality at his transfiguration and not at his resurrection. The transfiguration is the only suitable event in his life that would describe that. This was discussed in chapter XV of the book. Attaining to what was available to Adam who failed us by not eating of the tree of life was crucial to our future existence. This immortal human nature is the only nature that concerns us in regard to our future life in Christ. It is this immortal human nature sacrificed for us that makes our immortal nature possible in the Kingdom at the resurrection. This nature, the immortal human one is the one that will be used to replace Adam. This is what we hope for and this is the nature that will be restored to us at that time. Arguments that an immortal human cannot be killed have no support in scripture. And since mortal humans cannot approach or see the God where Jesus dwells our Lord would require it as well. Such life is not attainable by mortal man so our Lord’s existence with God as an immortal human being shown in scripture is unique. But the nature of the Word that he also has and could use would explain this as well and this may be the case but our Lord continued to be spoken of in scripture as human long after his death. So this humanity was not lost in the process. Knowing then that in order to be visible to the Jews after his resurrection from the dead by God, Jesus did say to the questioning Jews that he would raise up his body on the third day as a sign (Mark 16:5-7). Yes, like the example of Lazarus, Jesus did raise the dead body buried in the tomb with the nail holes, spear opening and all the marks of his suffering still visible upon it (John 20:20). It was not a “spirit body” but it was an immortal body of “flesh and bone” (Luke 24:39), using real physical terms to settle the arguments and disbelief the disciples had over the manner of his being raised up. Its life force its blood was poured out in our behalf, and this in itself was sufficient to provide a ransom for us but afterwards it could be and was brought back to life in obedience to the commandment of the Father, and as testified to by many witnesses (John 20:27.)

John 10:18 "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."

There is no evidence that this would in some way nullify the sacrificial value of his death, as the Watchtower teaches and he could certainly appear in human form in any body of his choosing. [Luke 24:16,31; John 20:14-18; John 21:4-7] The angels can do this, (John 20:12; Acts 1:10-11) and, the Scriptures teach that our Lord enjoys a position where they now serve him (Matthew 28:2-4). The term spirit with all its complexity is a fitting term to use to describe the dual nature of the resurrected body of our Lord.

1Pe 3:18 YLT because also Christ once for sin did suffer—righteous for unrighteous—that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit,

As to whether this human body was transported all the way to heaven when our Lord was lifted up, we know that our Lord can use whichever nature is appropriate for the occasion. When our Lord appeared to the apostle Paul after his ascension to heaven it was not in human form. Paul was blinded by this appearance (Acts 9:3-9) and our Lord was not seen by all present. Human use of his nature at this time would surely have been understood as his second coming. Such a return in human form in the flesh during this coming was expected and promised to the disciples at Acts 1:11 so it was not used at Saul’s conversion.

NOTES:

For some time I have used Hebrews 1:6-7 to demonstrate that our Lord is superior to “angels” or “spirit creatures.” This was and still is Watchtower theology and looked good if only given a casual glance. Careful reading of Hebrews chapter’s 1 and 2 and 12 will reveal that this is nothing more than a sacred Jewish term for “Prophet” (Hebrews 1:1), who were nothing more than human beings known to the Jews who studied the inspired record. It also takes into consideration the elevated status such “Prophets” had in the Jewish mind and the relationship that Jesus had to them. They were in effect superhuman as far as the average Jew was concerned. After all, could not Moses and others perform miracles unattainable by an ordinary mortal? Was not Abraham equated with God to them? Such human angels will inhabit the city if the living God heavenly Jerusalem, not non-human beings. Sorry I missed this for so long. They were of course full of “Spirit,” “flames of fire” so to speak, as they served God’s interests. They were also our Lord’s “brothers” or “partners,” “fellow angels” over which He has gained pre-eminence (Hebrews 1:8-9). This thought will take on special significance when the resurrection of such “partners” takes place.

7. WAS JESUS CREATED? Colossians 1:14-20

Trinitarians insist that Jesus was not created but always existed, even as the Father has. The Greek word “prototokos,” translated “firstborn,” used by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Colossians chapter 1, verse 15, is taken to mean “heir, a begotten one, first in rank,” and this verse is used by them in this way:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:14-15 KJV)

In part they are correct because the apostle Paul is not discussing the creation of this redeemer. He is now identifying our literal creator and revealing his historical record from the supernatural perspective he personally experienced. He could speak in the present tense when saying this redeemer “ is in the image of the invisible God” since this is the way he appeared to Paul. He could now also reveal a pre-existent history of this image for remarkably we learn that this image of the invisible God, this creator, is the same life that died for us and became our firstborn, the firstborn of every creature (as in the resurrection and justification of the human race by the redemption of the world through his blood). This identification, this redeemer is not God the Supreme Being, but the image of God and will be further identified by Paul as the literal creator of the human race in much the same way that John did using the word “Logos” for such historical identity.

The word “prototokos” also means “firstborn” which goes further as it identifies this image as this resurrected Christ in the sense of “firstbegotten” and is used in this way in the case of Mary when she had her first child.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2:7)

The evidence therefore also supports the thought that this firstborn human is our Savior Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins by someone who was at the time in the nature of a human. Such a human being came into existence as the firstborn son or Mary just as the every creature that came after him did. In this way, simply and quickly the human and non-human life of this redeemer “Who is the image of the invisible God,” is summed up for us.

The proper Greek word for “first created” would be “protoktistos,” and since Paul did not use it, this text cannot be used to prove that Jesus himself was created. Nor can it be used to prove that Jesus always existed like the Father. A child that is born is not created, but is procreated or merely assembled from materials that already exist within the parents. The same is true in the case of our Lord. He is the firstborn human to come into existence by God (begotten god, John 1:18) since all other humans were created by this “image” and not by God. It was the life of this “image” a life that already existed that with God’s personal intervention became human. This “image of the invisible God” now the firstborn of every creature and resurrected also lives in His image. The human nature that was sacrificed can therefore be passed on to us in a resurrection. As creator of us in the first place this image of the invisible God has already demonstrated his ability to create and resurrect human life. All this is stated in another way at Hebrews 1:3 as “the express image of His person.”

Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:3)

Yes, our Lord is a BEING in his own right with His own throne and is before all creatures and upholds them by His word. In addition, Paul continues and teaches that our Lord created all human life that exists like this:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16-17)

He uses words such a heaven to designate higher authorities and words such as earth to designate common man. Such higher authorities can be visible (nearby) or invisible (far away as in Rome) and all things such as thrones, dominions, principalities and powers are identifiable as human.

The earth, the planets and the entire cosmos already existed at such a time Gen. 1:1. All things does not mean everything as a study of the Greek word Pas will show and the scriptures teach that the Father created the cosmos, not the Son.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; (Isaiah 44:24)

The all things discussed by Paul deal with life, thrones, dominions, powers, and would not include things that were already in existence at the time of such creation.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)

Our Lord is also “the head of the body, the church,” which exists as an entity unto itself. Once again the apostle Paul uses the word “prototokos” as in “the firstborn from the dead.” Our Lord was actually re-born at this time as He was truly dead and set the precedent for the rebirth or re-creation that would follow. Therefore the scriptures teach that our Lord was dead and did not exist for 3 days and 3 nights until He was firstborn once again. Such non-existence was not a problem in the case of the Son as it would be if this same Son was actually the eternal God and inseparable from His BEING. The Father of Jesus did not die and is responsible for this rebirth and so we learn:

For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; (Colossians 1:19)

The fullness Paul is discussing is life, and the opportunity that our Lord had to preserve that which was lost.

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1:20)

To the Hebrews, words mean something very different than what they mean to non-Hebrews. The position of our Lord to the Faith and to the world at large was stated like this:

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrews 1:10-12)

Is this a discussion of the planet, the stars that our Lord made with his own hands as the creator? Will such planets and stars perish before our Lord who remainest and who will fold them up? Trinitarians tend to give such an application to make our Lord “true God,” but could the verses on the other hand mean something like this to the Jewish ear?

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; (mankind) and the heavens (those that have ruled over it) are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; (at Armageddon) but thou remainest; (because He sets up His kingdom in their place) and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; (because mankind was worn out with such stewardship) 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, (for He will take careful interest in and examine such worn out assets) and they shall be changed: (worthy ones will be resurrected) but thou art the same, (faithful to the promises made) and thy years shall not fail. (the last days Heb 1:2 will accomplish their purpose).

You decide.

7.1 SON OF GOD

The Scriptures never intended for such a simple statement, or confession of our faith as the words “Son of God” to be taken in some mystical way. It was never intended for them to be a half truth or partial representation of the facts as the Trinity doctrine suggests. In every case, and there are a vast number of such Scripture texts, the expression “Son of God” conveys all the information about Jesus Christ our Lord that we need to know. Such texts properly identify his position in relationship to God, and the words holy spirit are visibly absent in such context, as they should be.

Consider just a few of the many Scriptures that use the expression “Son of God” or similar words and you will quickly see how adding to such verses the concept of a Trinity somehow concealed in the words “God” or “Son” is a contradiction of thought and has no place in Scripture.

For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:10 NKJV).

The expression “God died for us,” as many Trinitarians teach is not found in Scripture, nor is the expression “God the Son.” Reversing the order of such terms is wrong but it is done in some translations and what we do learn from this verse is that his Son died for us. No one has the authority to alter such clear statements of truth.

But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us-by me, Silvanus, and Timothy-was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us. Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit. (2 Corinthians 1:18-22 NKJV).

While the word spirit in this text is improperly capitalized in violation of the grammar of Paul’s work, the relationship that we as Christians have with God and Christ and their relationship to each other is clearly visible. Our decision is to be a resounding Yes for Christ as this is what God himself expects of us.

Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. (2 John 3, NKJV).

NOTES:

The Father is actually given credit for all creation in scripture including man. This does not mean that the creation of life which includes man was not delegated by Him and actually accomplished by His Son as we now learn in New Testament texts such as Heb 1:2 and Heb. 1:10 or John 1:3. The Son is not given credit for any creation other than human life forms in such texts. Furthermore the scriptures teach under inspiration that the earth cannot contain the Father for the reasons given in them while it accommodated the Son easily.

And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest [between] the cherubims, thou art the God, [even] thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. (2 Kings 19:15)

Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? (Malachi 2:10)

But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built! (2 Chronicles 6:18)

8. DEITY IS NOT TRINITY

The word “deity” does not appear in all Bible translations, and it is not defined in most Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias, yet Trinitarians have consistently used this word to describe the nature of God, Christ, and the holy spirit. Denying the deity of Christ or the holy spirit therefore becomes blasphemy to many who hold such thoughts as sacred. Deity has grown to mean “trinity” to such persons, and most of them are not aware of the fact that the word “deity” merely means “divine nature or status,” which could apply to an “angel” or even a “human being” if such individuals are deriving their authority from God as Moses did. (Exodus 7:1) The most common use of the word “deity” is of course used in regard to God himself, and only in proper context should it be used in describing Christ Jesus. Deity is not Trinity and no evidence exists in the Bible to support such a conclusion. Jesus is, of course, of divine nature in that he is a spirit BEING and as a result deity in his own right, but this does not mean that he is “true God” simply because he is similar to God in many ways.

8.1 DEITY AND GODHEAD AS INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS

While the word “deity” does not appear in the King James version of the Bible, the word “Godhead” does. This word appears in just three texts, and by comparing such texts with other versions of the Bible we can come to a better understanding of what “deity” and “godhead” really mean. Consider the way Acts 17:29 is translated in several Bible translations:

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. (KJV)

“Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.” (NKJV)

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. (RSV)

“We are also his offspring.” As God’s offspring, then, we ought not to suppose that the deity is like an image in gold or silver or stone, shaped by human craftsmanship and design. (NEB)

If then we are the children of God, we ought not to think of him in terms of gold or silver or stone, designed by human art and imagination. (Phillips Modern English)

The Greek word “theios” (Strong’s 2304), an abstract form of the word “God,” is rendered as Godhead, Divine Nature, Deity, deity, and him, to make more of it than it really is since the verses simply stands for any man made appearances of God, or qualities of God which cannot be rendered into artwork some kind of human artwork. God is a Spirit BEING and Spirit BEINGS cannot be artistically defined. Such artwork is in effect idolatry and has no place in the Christian faith. We are not to visualize God in this manner nor depict His qualities in such ways. This word “theios” then should not have been capitalized as it it was a Being or Majestic word for this complex God in support of the Trinity doctrine, The study of other translations and uses of this word reveals this. Capitalization is nothing more than a form of punctuation, and, in this case, misrepresents what is said in the original Greek text.

Two other places where this word theios is used are:

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine <2304> power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine <2304> nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Here you see that we also can be partakers of this Godhead, this “theios” or divinity as it is also made available to us. The word is not identification as such but an indefinable characteristic of knowledge, goodness and incorruption.

Another text where the words “deity” and “godhead” are used interchangeably is Romans 1:20. But here another similar but more exclusive Greek term is used. Here we read:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (KJV)

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, (NKJV)

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; (RSV)

In this example it becomes apparent that the words “deity” or “godhead” simply mean that not only the power of God but the very existence of God should be perceived by every human being simply by viewing creation. To come to any other conclusion is inexcusable and the Greek word “theiotes” (Strong’s, 2305) translated as “Godhead” and “deity” is nothing more than a variation of the word “God” or authority and used to designate this fact. In this case the word is used exclusively of the Father. God lives, and all those rejecting him by forming human images of him will be judged in this regard. (Romans 1:21-25) “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” The power and invisibility of God, indefinable in human art form, is therefore once again taught in Scripture.

Since such verses are dealing with a quality of God, or attribute, as some translations render it, the use of the word “Godhead” or “deity” as such words are translated in regard to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, should not be surprising. One would expect such qualities to be passed on to an only begotten Son such as our Lord is. The Apostle Paul therefore wrote concerning him at Colossians 2:9:

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (KJV)

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, (RSV)

Yet it is in him that God gives a full and complete expression of himself in bodily form. (Phillips Modern English)

In his body lives the fullness of divinity, and in him you too find your own fulfillment, (Jerusalem Bible)

Yes, our heavenly Father has indeed expressed himself and revealed himself through his beloved Son. Another or third Greek word “theotes,” (Strong’s, 2320), again an abstract derivative of the word “God,” is now rendered as Godhead, deity, expression of himself, and divinity. It expresses the thought that within Jesus are to be found once again the transferable qualities of God. It is necessary therefore to conceal from the reader the fact that the true meaning and use of such Greek words has been altered to fit Trinitarian theology. Consider what the apostle Peter said at 2 Peter 1:2-4 where the same Greek word “theios” (Strong’s 2304) that appeared in Acts 17:29 is used twice. Peter stated:

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His [divine <2304>] power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the [divine <2304>] nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Peter 1:2-4 NKJV [Brackets and Strong’s number added])

In this text “theios” is shown in brackets and translating it as “Godhead” would be destructive to Trinitarian theology. Such a rendering would indicate that we become virtually part of “God” as each person expanded the “Godhead.” The apostle Peter on the other hand was simply teaching us that we will partake of the divine nature as promised because we will attain the good qualities essential “to life” as stated, provided of course that we have the “knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” The attribute of the Son that Peter was stressing was the one of “eternal life and godliness.” This we will attain if we take advantage of “all things” including “knowledge” and act upon such information. Our understanding of “theios” is therefore enhanced and no basis exists for using this or similar derivatives of “theos” to prove a Trinity doctrine.

8.2 HOLY SPIRIT Revealed

The word spirit or holy spirit is simply a scriptural term that has no clear definition like the breath or wind that it represents. It is a word that conveys thought without providing specific detail, a word that we do not define but which teaching we comprehend in the context in which it is given. Such use avoids explaining how things are done scientifically, or literally. You will find it translated as “wind” and “it” or “Spirit” and “he” notice:

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)

the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.’ (John 3:8-YLT)

It is neither “deity” nor a “person” nor a “power” although all of these qualities and more are ascribed to this word at times. It is a variable term like the letter (X) in an equation for which we solve, and in scripture it appears in many such equations. Notice how our Lord used the word spirit and the importance that he attached to it. It is up to us to live by and resolve such truth. Human reasoning (the flesh) will not gain us the desired life:

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. (John 6:63)

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. (John 6:63 NIV)

The apostles and disciples of our Lord were also Holy Spirit to the Faith and are identified as such just as unfaithful ones are identified as the spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:1-3). An example of this is found at Acts 13:2. When the brother rendered his statement “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (NKJV) based in part on the miraculous conversion of Paul and the Lord’s stated purpose for him, he was speaking for the assembled congregation that came to this conclusion while fasting, praying and ministering on the matter and this brother is identified as speaking for them. His words were based on information that would become scripture. Luke’s writing of the book of Acts was not yet completed, but the information contained in it was known and this brother could draw upon our Lord’s own testimony where he said:

Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. (Acts 9:15 NKJV).

Note the circumstances:

Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrach, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” (Acts 13:1-2 NKJV)

This thought was nothing more than an extension of our Lord’s stated purpose for Paul. When assembled this way and contemplating the problem, the Scriptures identify the disciple, the one taking the lead in speaking for the assembly as “Holy Spirit. It was after all this Holy Spirit that replaced the nation of Israel into which he was baptized. The brothers in Antioch came to the conclusion that they should not confine Paul to Antioch but should help him to spread the good news about the Christ to other parts of the world as well. To assist him with such a task they commissioned Barnabas to join him. It is only at such times that the words “holy spirit” should be capitalized as if they represent personality. Individuals such as the brother in Antioch and the Faith can properly be called “Holy Spirit” and such persons are not God. God also speaks to us through Scripture (Hebrews 3:7) and such writings are called Holy Spirit and given personality at such times. Such mannerisms and use of words are common. They were used then and are used for inanimate objects like ships and other things in our society as well. Amazingly the Holy Spirit can contain apostate and faithful elements and we may find ourselves in such a situation trying to help them. Notice:

But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And on some have compassion, making a distinction, but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. (Jude 20-23 NKJV)

Jude was written to identify such apostate’s vs 4, 12. He knew that some holding to the most holy faith would find themselves praying with such ones but he still called all such association Holy Spirit as this is simply another name for the Faith good or bad. Tampering with the Greek grammar regarding these words is unjustified and the New American Bible in a footnote on John 14:14,17 states:

“The Greek word for “Spirit” is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English (“he,” “his,” “him,”), most Greek MSS (Manuscripts) employ “it.””

This is because the term “spirit” is not a person in itself and it is wrong to refer to it as “He,” “His,” or “Him.” It is often used in Scripture to abbreviate circumstances too lengthy to describe in full. The Father often used angels to do his will and the scriptures are filled with such examples. The use of masculine nouns in verses where the word spirit occurs therefore would not make this spirit God. Yet in texts where the makeup or nature of God is not being described, some insist on doing that and attempt to use the words in such texts as proof. Spirit possession is not being implied either as if something abnormal non-human is or will be present in us. Take this verse in John for example.

“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17, NKJV)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:16-17 KJV)

Can you now pick out the words that could have been translated “it” in these verses? There are five of them. Some translations do not capitalize him and make this distinction. Is your God an “it” and can you truly respect individuals calling themselves Christians, theologians, or ministers who deliberately mislead you in such subtle ways? Does the “Spirit of truth” reside within you and do you know it? And after saying: 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. (John 14:23-24 KJV)

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:25-26)

The spirit is merely a word used to project thought, function, and concept, nothing more unlike the way some try to use it to define the nature of God. His nature cannot be defined by us artfully or otherwise. In this case we know that it is the Spirit of truth. But what kind of spirit of truth? They already had the truth and were witnesses of Jesus, enjoined into a new covenant relationship with him. But in fulfillment of this promise we learn that this spirit was a miraculous means for spreading this truth and would also be provided to those that received this truth throughout the existing population. In this case it provided something that would not be received by the world that did not have this truth. It gave to those receiving it the miraculous gift of language and improved memory. This is why we have a substantial account of our Lord’s sayings recorded for us even though such writers wrote down our Lords words many years later. But the abuse of the ability to speak in tongues did became a controversial issue later on in scripture. Something like this also took place in scripture long ago when the language of mankind was confused and something like this would also be involved in the resurrection of the dead when mental capability would have to be restored to the re-created ones so this is well in harmony with the scriptures and its examples. Now the event is not teaching us God’s nature in some way or naming a person that makes up the nature of God called Holy Spirit yet many insist that this is what is being taught. An angel or group of angels could easily have been sent to perform this task and there is no evidence that anything more should be made of it. Even the tongues of fire were familiar to such Israelites as such fire guided them in the wilderness. Words like he or him or some identification that this gift was from the Father would be appropriate for such an angel and this is nothing more than a specific selection process the world cannot receive that served the following purpose:

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4 KJV)

Things happen that may be perceived but not actually visible to us, such as described here and in John 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. The spirit that angels represent can and were sent by the Father in the Son’s name. The miracles that our Lord performed were accomplished under such circumstances. Such authority would soon be passed to the Son but until then the Father always took precedence as shown. Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. For such thought we have evidence in scripture and even the Devil acknowledged it when he said: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. [Matt 4.6] Now the scriptures do not actually discuss the nature of God. Ac 17:29 NAS "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. No not even in the following text, notice:

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)

If we balance the word Spirit in both half’s of the sentence we learn that we are to worship him the same way that He is. Not as God’s ourselves but intelligently, purposefully, truthfully. This contrasted with the rigid form of worship practiced in the mountain by the Samaritans, which would no longer be accepted and is the very purpose for this verse. It is like saying that God is an intelligent BEING and we must worship him with all of our mental faculties as well as in truth. This is the thought projected by the word Spirit in this text.

Careful consideration then must be given not only to such words but to the context in which the words “deity,” “spirit,” and “holy spirit” are used, since they are terms often misapplied by theologians. Words like deity are not identity either and can be applied to the Father and the Son. Do we see this word applied to Holy Spirit? No or course not since it does not have such an application. Take for example texts where the act of speaking is attributed to the Holy Spirit such as; Acts 1:16, 6:10, 28:25. You will notice that there is always someone else involved, such as David, Stephen or Isaiah respectively; and the term Holy Spirit is used to describe them or the Faith that they represent. It has no application to and is not describing another person making up the nature of God. Other texts that do not involve people simply show the varied use of this term and no-nature is implied by such use. There is no such thing as equality of persons either that make up the nature of God for our Lord himself said: 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28) How did our thinking get so confused?

NOTES:

Further information on the use of the words Holy Spirit concerning human beings dedicated to the Faith, be they Jewish or Christian brothers, can be found in subsequent chapters.

It should be evident from the Strong’s definition of this word that the spirit is not a person or BEING, nor is it the name of a person for if it was then it would never have been used in the many ways attributed to it in the KJV. This is why it can be misapplied or misinterpreted in ways making the arguments difficult to refute. It becomes a your word against mine type of thing. Notice also the contradictions given in this definition.

4151 pneuma {pnyoo’-mah}

from 4154; TDNT - 6:332,876; n n

AV - Spirit 111, Holy Ghost 89, Spirit (of God) 13,

Spirit (of the Lord) 5, (My) Spirit 3, Spirit (of truth) 3,

Spirit (of Christ) 2, human (spirit) 49, (evil) spirit 47,

spirit (general) 26, spirit 8, (Jesus’ own) spirit 6,

(Jesus’ own) ghost 2, misc 21; 385

1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son 1a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the “Holy” Spirit)

1b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work

and power (the Spirit of “Truth”)

1c) never referred to as a depersonalised force

2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated

2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides

2b) the soul

3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting

3a) a life giving spirit

3b) a human soul that has left the body

3c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel

3c1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men

3c2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the

highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ

4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one 4a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion,

desire, etc.5) a movement of air (a gentle blast)

5a) of the wind, hence the wind itself

5b) breath of nostrils or mouth

9. ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA LIE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT?

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. (Acts 5:3-5 NKJV)

This verse is often used by Trinitarians. They say that the Holy Spirit, to whom Ananias has “played false,” is here unmistakably designated as being “God,” as if it were another person of God. At first glance this may appear to be the case. The apostle Peter did say that the Holy Spirit was lied to, but the words “Holy Spirit” are being used in connection with human beings and it is such men Apostles in fact that are being identified as “Holy Spirit.” We know that Trinitarians would never tolerate the concept that human beings make up the “Holy Spirit” but this is exactly what is being taught by Peter. Understanding the relationship between this “Holy Spirit and God who they now serve in place of Israel is the problem presented by the text because lying to such men is the same as lying to God. Does such wording prove that the “Holy Spirit” is “God Almighty?” Do the verses actually say and teach that, or did some Trinitarian reason it out? The answer to these questions can be found just a few verses further when the issue raised here is once again discussed with Sapphira.

Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?” Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” (Acts 5:7-9, NKJV)

It becomes clear from this verse that Peter, when referring to the holy spirit, meant the “Spirit of the Lord” and not the “Spirit is the Lord,” as if Spirit is God in its own right and has no other possible application. There is a vast difference in meaning between being “God” and being “of the Lord,” or in using such words as a designation of authority given by Our Lord himself. The spirit of the Lord means truth and honesty, Godly devotion, all the things that Jesus stood for, not lies and deceit or the manipulation of the Faith for personal gain. Such thoughts apply to Biblical interpretation as well. If we consider verses 3 and 4 again we will see that when Ananias lied to the apostles, who were specifically appointed by holy spirit, 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4 KJV). This qualified them to serve as a foundation for the Faith in a God-given capacity transmitted to them by God in our Lord’s name, 29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:29,30; see also John 14:26). Such an act by Annanias therefore was not simply taken as lying to men but it was taken just as Peter stated as lying to God the God they served in this official capacity. If the Faith could be so corrupted at such an early stage of its development, and the men specifically responsible for it so easily deceived, then what was there to prevent it from being completely taken over by Satan? In verse 3, the Holy Spirit is directly equated to such men as Peter, the apostles, and the disciples present (verse 4), with one exception. Lying to such men in the Faith, or Holy Spirit as the apostles are called in this Scripture, is not considered a minor transgression easily overlooked. It is properly viewed as lying to God, evoking dire consequences and in this case death. Here we have and example of the judgment that awaits those that try to corrupt the faith and lie to it. Ananias and Sapphira could be judged by their words as a result. The account of Ananias and Sapphira therefore was not written to identify for us the nature of God or some part of him. It does not identify another person in his make-up ignored in more appropriate verses of Scripture. What it does do is establish a precedent for the kind of judgment that awaits all those who by word or deed attempt to tampered with or corrupted the Faith.

10. THE GREAT COMMISSION

Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20, NKJV)

Does this Scripture prove the Trinity doctrine? Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit now finally being identified by Jesus as separate and distinct persons that make up the One God?

Notice that the word God does not appear in the text, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not being identified as the one God. Did the disciples now define this text to mean a Trinity doctrine like a Trinitarian does today? Did they go about afterward and preach a Trinity doctrine or did they simply baptize in the name of Jesus? How do you think the Jewish mind, namely the disciples there present, interpreted this remark? Did they simply ignore it during baptism or did they use the information contained in it somehow and make this a part of their ministry? This text is a root text on baptism, (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48) a commandment of our Lord. We are not to conclude that they disobeyed our Lord’s instructions on baptism simply because they used another and simpler phrase like “baptize in the name of Jesus” to describe it. It cannot be shown that they never used such words as a formula for baptism simply because they were never repeated elsewhere. Not everything taught by our Lord was repeated. This is because the statement was a truth uttered from our Lord’s own lips and did not need further elaboration. One thing is sure however, never was such information used to establish what would be a new truth to the Jews as to the nature of God. By such instruction Our Lord passed on to the Faith the authority of the Father, His own authority, and the authority of this Faith, these human disciples of His now called Holy Spirit to expand and empower them to preach Salvation to the world. No longer would the Jewish Faith and its Priesthood serve this purpose as it did for some 1500 years under the LAW. Furthermore, our Lord here established baptism as a feature of this Faith, which feature they followed explicitly. While we may be aware of this and we may have been baptized ourselves, what do we understand “All authority” to be and what does this have to do with baptism? The statement “All authority has been given to Me,” establishes the context for the remaining text. This authority is now being passed on to his disciples and to the ones they baptize to expand it. Our Lord now had authority “in heaven” and “on earth” and it is this authority that is being conveyed by the words, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The words “in the name of” as used by Our Lord do convey authority, power or responsibility and do not necessarily designate a specific person when used. In another text Jesus expressed the thought like this:

He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you he shall by no means lose his reward. (Matthew 10:40-42 NKJV Italics added)

Jesus therefore used the expression “in the name of” to represent authority or position in the Faith. This authority becomes the basis for which the conduct of others can be judged. Ask yourself, what is the proper name for the Father? What is the proper name for the Son? What now is the proper name for the Holy Spirit? The answer to the third question is not “Holy Spirit,” even as the answer to the first two questions is not “Father” and “Son.” The Holy Spirit has no name in Scripture because it is not a BEING, a separate entity as the Father and Son are. How can this be if such a doctrine is central to the Faith and our salvation is somehow dependent upon our accepting it? This text establishes context and demonstrates that something other than the way we commonly understand the word “person” is meant by the expression “in the name of.” Jesus here passed on to his disciples the authority that would become the basis for judging the world to come but the Trinity doctrine and failure by many to understand this text has concealed this truth from us.

The term “Holy Spirit” is also used in Scripture as a synonym for truth (1 John 5:6) and has been used in many other ways to convey complex thought. What has gone unnoticed is the fact that it is also used as a synonym for the Faith (Acts 1:16), Jewish in the case of this reference, but applies to the Christian Faith as well (Ephesians 4:4-6) into which we bring such baptized ones and who are empowered with such gifts (Acts 1:5, 2:18). Notice:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? (Acts 5:3, NKJV)

Peter calls the baptized brothers there assembled “Holy Spirit” and rightly so for they are such. This is a direct application of Our Lord’s commandment “in the name of ... “Holy Spirit” and teaches us exactly what it means and how it is to be applied. This authority is implicit to the Faith and should not be confused with the free gift called Holy Spirit, something quite different which was also given during the first century to many who were baptized. Because of this Peter could go one step further and say:

. . . You have not lied to men but to God. (Acts 5:4, NKJV)

The Faith exists as an entity (slave Matt. 28:45) and its existence is not insignificant and powerless. Bringing newer ones into this Faith is not something to be taken lightly. It is Our Lord who gave us such authority when he commanded us to baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit. In this way, we in turn pass on such authority to others as Christianity progresses through history. We are anointing those we baptize with a commission to carry on this work of kingdom preaching and disciple-making.

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: (Acts 15:28)

The Faith, namely Paul and his delegation from Antioch now called Holy Spirit and the congregation in Jerusalem with James taking the lead arrived at a decision. Yet the letter and the decisions made at the time turned out to be an example of an error made by the Faith. Some would rejoice over it for a time, but the Faith, this Holy Spirit among them would have to correct this error in later years once its real intent was revealed. Can the Holy Spirit make mistakes? The Trinity doctrine would not permit any such speculation, but the Scriptures make a point of this and explain the consequences of this decision and Pails failure to recognize it later in the book of Acts by bringing this fact to our attention once again (Acts 21:21-25, 1 John 4:6).

“I have come in My Father’s name,...” (John 5:43).

Such authority Christ passes on to us as he would no longer remain to continue his Father’s work himself. For such reasons we in effect baptize in the name of the Father. We have heaven’s authority for this and for this reason Peter could say, “You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:4).

“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

Water baptism and Holy Spirit were separate events during such early years of the Faith. Our Lord’s great commission to us would include this feature missing in John’s baptism, (Acts 19:1-6). Furthermore, we would be baptized into Christ Jesus (Romans 6:3) and receive power from Him when such baptism was performed. This fact authenticates the text recorded at Matthew 28:19. We preach the kingdom message in the “name of the Son.” We tell others that through him the promised Kingdom has become real (Colossians 1:12-13), and because of the Son our salvation becomes possible (1 Timothy 2:5). We have dedicated our lives to become witnesses to Jesus (Acts 1:8) and should be found doing just that. We are baptized and in turn they baptize others in the name of the Son.

Thus our Lord was not discussing a Trinity in these verses, or considering the nature of God as if to say that there are three persons in the one God. He was instituting baptism as the basis for propagating the Faith in the years ahead. He gave such baptized ones authority to judge those who dishonored it. This is but an example of how a world will be judged that rejects the message.

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (1 Corinthians 6:1-2)

Most professing Christians are not doing such, leaving this to others and the Trinity doctrine which distorts the true meaning of this text is the main reason for such failure on the part of so many. If we are truly fulfilling this great commission as our Lord intended, then we have been baptized and in turn baptize others in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

NOTES:

The document “WAS THE COMMANDMENT OF CHRIST COUNTERFEITED OR NOT?” [Athens, March 1984] contains material that attempts to put the words “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in a class with 1 John 5:7,8. Since manuscript evidence does not exist to prove the point as it does in the case of 1 John 5:7, ancient historians such as Eusebius must be used as proof and their views then used to modify Scripture. Personally, I have no confidence in such ancient historians and cannot delete the disputed words as a consequence. It is necessary to interpret the work of such historians, and errors result in much the same way as they appear in Scriptural interpretation as we can no longer communicate with such men to get their exact views. Baptism is a feature of the Faith, proven in Scripture and since the disputed words make sense to me and do not establish a doctrine that somehow impacts on the nature of God, I must continue to offer this view, and in this case it may serve as an alternative to this document.

J. M. 4/14/91

11. IS JESUS CHRIST TO BE WORSHIPPED?

The Greek word proskuneoo [Strong’s 4352], usually translated worship, is used some sixty times in the New Testament. It may occasionally designate the deference given by one man to another who is his superior, as in Matthew 18:26, where the RSV translates “imploring him,” or as the word is used in Revelation 3:9 to describe the honor that will be rendered to the church of Philadelphia (specifically the members designated by the term “angel”) by those who were of the synagogue of Satan.

The word proskuneoo is, however, much more frequently used to describe the worship of God. It is so used in the following passages: Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8, John 4:21-24, 1 Corinthians 14:25, Revelation 4:10, 7:11, 14:7, 19:4, 10, 22:9. Christ Himself, in fact, affirms with unmistakable clarity that worship in the sense of religious veneration may be offered to God alone. When the devil asked Jesus to fall down and worship him (proskuneoo), Jesus replied, “It is Jehovah your God you must worship (proskuneoo), and it is to him alone you must render sacred service” (Matthew 4:10, NWT) . . [The Four Major Cults by Anthony Hoekema, page 339].

Because of such varied use context becomes very important wherever this word appears and a good understanding of the relative position in life of the ones being worshipped is essential.

Since it is both true and admitted by Trinitarians that the Greek word usually rendered “worship” has a dual application in Scripture, and since it is here proven that our Lord himself taught that worship in the sacred sense must be rendered to Jehovah alone, any use of this word in regard to Jesus Christ must as a consequence be understood in context within the framework of the teachings of Christ.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (2 John 1:9)

This means that when such verses as Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; and John 9:35,38, are considered the worship offered to Jesus is understood to be the honor befitting a Prophet, Messiah, the Son of God, the foreordained King of the Jews. Also the Holy Spirit is NOT something that we need to “hath” and is never worshipped in scripture as are the Father and Son. The concept of a Trinity is destroyed by our Lord’s and the apostle John’s own testimony on this subject, and the use of the word “worship” in regard to Christ does not constitute proof somehow that Christ is “true God.”

The Faith is no longer under Law, and Old Testament texts should be applied with care, for we have new regulations regarding the Faith in regard to the Son that did not exist in such old testament times notice:

That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. (John 5:23)

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; 11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9-11)

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Hebrews 1:6)

We are to honor the Son EVEN AS WE HONOR THE FATHER. God hath highly exalted him ‘That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,’ and the Father is glorified by such worship. The Father is really the one accepting such worship offered to His Son and mediator. The LAW and the ones who administered it no longer serve this purpose as they did in times past. When the resurrection takes place, all those “under the earth” now called “angels” in Hebrews will worship him at that time by God’s expressed edict. Therefore comparing old testament scripture texts in an attempt to prove by them that the Son is the Father is an exercise in futility.

While it is still true that the Father alone is to be worshipped as “true God,” it is also true that Kings can be worshipped “as Kings” and governors, prophets or important officials are all entitled to the use of this word “proskuneo” in their own context. See 1 Samuel 18:28, 24:20, and 1 Kings 1:16 where the Greek verb used in the Septuagint version is “proskuneo.” Jesus is our God, King, Messiah, and Mediator so He is therefore entitled to be “worshipped” in this way which does not violate texts that contain this same word or thought regarding the Father.

To get around this Trinitarians will use another Greek word usually translated as “serve” but is more directly used of the Supreme Being. The word is:

Strong’s <3000> latreuw latreuo lat-ryoo’-o

from latris (a hired menial); TDNT-4:58,503; v

AV-serve 16, worship 3, do the service 1, worshipper 1; 21

1) to serve for hire

2) to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen

2a) in the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship

2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship

2b1) of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office

Verses where God and Jesus are on the throne in vision are then used as if the word proves somehow that serving the one on the throne will prove Jesus who is also on a throne and beside God in fact would make him God. Now if you were sitting beside the President and someone offered him a gift, would you say that gift if mine? The idea is to confuse your mind as to what is really taking place. Why would they need that kind of evidence to prove the existence of a Supreme Being? It demonstrates the hopelessness of their view.

12. THE JOHANNINE COMMA Revised 6/17/95

Support for the Trinity doctrine is often drawn from 1 John 5:7,8, the heavenly witness text, also referred to as the JOHANNINE comma, where it says:

For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. (NKJV)

What teaching does this passage really establish? The doctrine of the Trinity is perceived to be established by it, because Father, Word and Holy Spirit are mentioned together with the expression these three are one, but the Trinity doctrine is not Word is God but the Son is God so how did this suddenly become proof? Why is the Trinity doctrine wrong then according to John? Did the apostle John actually write these words? What do scholars say concerning it? In The Teaching of the Catholic Church, volume one, on page 119, it states:

Nevertheless this statement as to the “Heavenly Witnesses” has been the subject of considerable controversy. The text itself comprises two verses of the First Epistle of St. John. The undisputed text reads: “For there are three who give testimony.” Then follow the disputed words: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth,” And then, again, we have the undisputed text: “the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three are one.” It will be observed that the undisputed words make sense in themselves if the disputed be omitted. Wescott and Hort, in their important edition of the New Testament text, state in the note on this passage that “there is no evidence for the inserted words in Greek, or in any language but Latin, before the fourteenth century”; and also that “the words first occur at earliest in the latter part of the fifth century,” that is, in Latin. This summary may be said to express the general view of the evidence, though there are not wanting scholars who trace the passage into earlier times, even to Tertullian at the end of the second century A.D. In any case it is evident that the textual case against the “Comma” is a strong one; no Greek manuscript of any consequence, for example, contains it.

The New King James Version, in a footnote on this text, admits:

NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late Greek manuscripts contain these words.

This and other Bible versions either admit that this text has been falsified or delete the disputed words.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8 KJV)

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (1 John 5:7-8 NIV)

Consider however for a moment the idea that the verse in the KJV is authentic. Argue the point as if it were true and belonged in the text. What then would it teach? Did it say, “these three are one ‘God.’” No; for it is discussing agreement, to bare record or witness in fact and not nature nor does not include the word ‘God.’ The Father, the Logos and the Holy Ghost (God’s heavenly host just like the earthly congregations) naturally bear witness and agree.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2:1-2)

Furthermore it is really truth, our beliefs, our salvation our love of God that is under discussion so how then can verse 7 be used to describe the nature of God? We know this from the surrounding verses like.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 1-6)

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1John 5:9-13)

The context in which verses 7 –8 are found establishes their use and application. We learn from such surrounding verses that the Spirit under discussion is truth verse 6, and this same Spirit, which Greek word for Spirit is now translated as Holy Ghost in verse 7, is stated as being one with the Father and the Word. This Truth is the sacrifice offered in heaven in our behalf where our Lord is with the Father. The Father, the Word and this Truth (sacrifice) testify to this fact in heaven. The death and resurrection of the Son did occur as prophesied and now all agree, or are “one” as stated in verse 7. This is what John would be teaching the Faith if the disputed words were true.

This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6 KJV)

The word Spirit, which has many applications in Scripture, and its use cannot be misapplied so as to indicate a person in this case. From our perspective and from our position in the Faith, verse 8 teaches the same thing. These three thoughts, the Truth of Scriptures, our dedication by water baptism and the blood of Christ in which we partake agree or testify to such a conclusion just stated by John.

So then, should this be considered a deliberate error and spurious text? Could it on the other hand be considered a correction made by someone with access to very early manuscripts now lost? We may never know but in either case it is the context in which the words appear and our understanding as to how they apply that matters, and this should be done with the utmost care.

When John uses the word ‘one’ as he does here what does he mean? Should the word “God” be added to his statements or should oneness in Faith and purpose be added instead? Consider his use of the word ‘one’ in his Gospel:

We do not become God or Gods as a consequence of our Faith, do we? We become one in Faith, love, morals, truth, good works, disciple-making, working together for the common goal of preaching and teaching the Kingdom of God. Are we then as Christians obligated to propagate an error and teach false doctrine that has been made by some individual or group in times past? Should we not both recognize and expose such error when it has been so clearly established? The book of Mormon contains material in support of the trinity which discredit it as a product of the Faith (2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7). Why continue to support or carry on a lie after it has been brought to our attention?

NOTES:

Another text considered spurious or adulterated by many translators is Rev. 1:11. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last; are the disputed words, notice:

Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1:11 KJV)

saying, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last; also, What you see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven churches of Asia: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea. (Revelation 1:11 LIT Greens Literal Translation)

saying, What thou seest write in a book, and send to the seven assemblies: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea. (Revelation 1:11 DBY)

which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” (Revelation 1:11 NIV)

It said, “Write forthwith in a roll an account of what you see, and send it to the seven Churches—to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyateira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” (Revelation 1:11 WEY)

13. PHILIPPIANS 2:5-7

The apostle Paul’s letter to the Philippian congregations contains a passage that is often used by Trinitarians to prove that Jesus is equal to God and therefore is God himself. Paul stated:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:5-7, NKJV)

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus who, though existing in the form of God, did not consider His equality with God something to cling to, but emptied Himself as He took on the form of a slave and became like human beings. (Philippians 2:5:7, The New Berkley Version)

In this verse the word translated “equal” or “equality” is “isos” (Strong’s 2470). It means “similar (in amount or kind) agree, as much, equal, like.” In this verse it means equal in the sense of “things,” “responsibilities,” “position,” and not in the sense of being the true God himself. (See the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Rev. A. Marshall) Paul was not teaching that our Lord is true God in this verse or that such equality as he discussed embraced every concept of God. What he was saying was that in many ways Jesus, (who appeared to Paul supernaturally in a form not human) while he existed in the “form of God,” possessed qualities that were equal to that of God. This is perfectly natural, since he was, after all, the Son of God (both in His human and non-human forms) who held the office of God as the Word of God to us humans, and participated in the creation of all human life. When confronted with the request to become a human being and die in man’s behalf, (at the foundation of the world) our Lord did not oppose such a request in order to retain his superior position as the WORD but allowed God to use him in the capacity of a servant. This humbleness exhibited by someone so great in the scheme of things was an object lesson for such Philippians to follow.

The apostle Paul’s purpose for giving such an illustration was to prepare the Philippians for the arrival of Timothy (Philippians 2:19), who would appoint overseers in their congregation. Paul could not yet determine who among them was knowledgeable enough to teach Christian doctrine accurately. There were many new ones in the faith and many deviations in doctrine to contend with propagated by men this apostle called “most eminent apostles” (NKJV) “very special apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5 TEV). There was also unchristian conduct taking place in some congregations. The mission of Timothy would be to determine who among them would be qualified in matters of faith and in morals. Paul’s instructions to Timothy were outlined in chapter three of his first letter to him and through such personal contact, men could be located for such a position (1 Timothy 3:10; Philippians 2:19-24). It would, of course, require humility on the part of many who would be passed over when such appointments were made. Paul’s use of the word “equal” therefore does not in any way imply that Jesus is the sovereign God that humbled himself and through whom he was finally exalted, (Philippians 2:9).

What Paul was teaching them was that they should exercise the same humble attitude that Jesus did. In all this Paul used the real human name that he now knew personally for the non-human identity John identified when this Word was asked to take a position that was not “equal” to the one he already held. To make matters worse, it would be in the form of human nature as a slave or servant (Philippians 2:7). The Philippians could well learn from this example. Many of them were now holding influential positions in the Faith that Paul identified as “most eminent apostles” or “very special apostles” in the faith. They would be passed over by Timothy as he made his decision and laid hands on those trustworthy enough among them for such a special honor or position.

14. PLURALS, TRIPLICATES AND SHARED TITLES

Often the Hebrew word “Elohim” translated as “God” in English is used to prove that the Trinity doctrine was taught in the Old Testament. This is because the Hebrew “Elohim” is actually plural, and is taken by some to indicate that more than one God is implied. Trinitarians therefore accept it as proof that God was revealing to them the Trinity doctrine in a cryptic form. This in effect implies that the true nature of God was not revealed to or understood by the Jews for their entire history making them false worshippers in this regard.

The Jews, despite the plural nature of this word, did not teach the Trinity doctrine or teach that God in some hidden or cryptic way was multiple persons. To them such plurality was custom and they used it to designate excellence or superiority the way we capitalize words like “He” sometimes. The Jews therefore were not ignorant of the true nature of God, nor was their God distant or impersonal to them as a result of such simplistic doctrine. He saved them from slavery and certain death as a people. He guided them through difficult periods of their history, fought their wars, healed their sick, blessed their crops, provided sound leaders for them, and gave them a set of Laws that would make them a unique people in a world of Trinitarian believers. The nations surrounding the Jews had a long history of worshipping multiple deities and triads of Gods and such thoughts were the norm rather than the exception. Yes, despite this supposed ignorance of the Jews, they were blessed by the very God they supposedly did not understand. He did not attempt to correct such supposed ignorance as Trinitarians interpret such texts today and nor should we.

When superstition finally took hold of the Jews to the point that they would no longer try to pronounce the Sacred Name or “Tetragrammaton,” they corrupted this name in their manuscripts to read “Elohim” or God plural or “Adonay” Lord. This name, which designates one individual, person or BEING was rendered into the word “God” in plural not because a Trinity was implied somehow but because this was the customary way for Jews living at that time to address God. Such alteration actually proves that the plural form of “Elohim” when compared to unaltered texts using this word represents one person with one name or identity and not a Triad as Trinitarians teach today.

The Scriptures also contain triplicates such as the expression “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts” (Isaiah 6:3, NKJV and Revelation 4:8) and such verses are also taken by Trinitarians to prove that the Trinity doctrine is taught in the Bible. That such emotional responses have nothing to do with the Person of God or the nature of His BEING can be easily proven by the many times that the word “holy” appears singularly in the Bible. A Trinity doctrine is not being established by such use. Such application ignores the clear Scriptural references in the Hebrew text that state, “Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me” (Isaiah 43:10 NKJV) and “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3, NKJV). All such texts clearly prove that triplicates when used have nothing whatsoever to do with some Scriptures supposedly teaching a Trinity doctrine.

The uses of titles or descriptive terms such as Savior, Rock, First and Last, Creator, Light, Judge, etc. are also used as proof for the Trinity doctrine. It is assumed by Trinitarians that such titles are sacred terms and cannot designate anyone other than the ‘true God.’ Scriptures where such a title may clearly apply to the Father are matched with Scriptures where the same title is used in regard to the Son and this evidence is offered as proof for the Trinity doctrine. It has already been shown that the word God as used in Scripture is not a sacred term and it can be applied freely to persons other than the ‘true God.’ Descriptive terms are no exception. If titles are to be used as proof for the Trinity doctrine, then Scriptures must be provided that identify the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as the “First and the last” “Creator” “Rock” “Eternal Father” etc in the same verse. Only complete links, and not partial ones in random text of varied context would constitute proof in support of the Trinitarian view. Where in Scripture is the Holy Spirit called “eternal father?” Can a Trinitarian provide a verse that teaches that the Holy Sprit is the “first and last?” No, and we should not be tricked by such analogy. Furthermore a title can be passed from Father to Son as this is the Son’s inheritance (Isaiah 9:6; Hebrews 1:4). For example, the word “savior” is often used as proof for the Trinity doctrine. It is assumed by Trinitarians that there can be but one “savior” and this savior must be the same BEING due to the wording of certain texts. But is use of the term proof of identity? Look at Savior as it applies to the Father:

I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:11 NKJV)

But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour; (Titus 1:3 KJV)

Now the Son here identified as Savior sometimes in the same breath with God as in the case of Titus 1:3 above and vs. 4 below notice:

To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. (Titus 1:4 KJV)

whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (Titus 3:6 NKJV)

but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, To Him be the glory both now and forever Amen. (2 Peter 3:18 NKJV)

Finally we have texts that can be translated either way simply by adding or deleting the word “our” notice:

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. (2 Peter 1:1-2 NKJV)

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, (2 Peter 1:1-2 KJV)

Savior must therefore be understood in the context in which the word is used and either way Trinitarian theology is not supported. Our Lord is empowered by His office and can be properly called savior and/or God by man.

while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, (Titus 2:13 NIV)

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13 KJV)

Trinitarian translators make it difficult to distinguish between the Father and the Son so that they may use such combinations as proof texts. Authority, and yes, even the position of savior can be delegated to another person by the Father. In 2 Kings 13:5, Nehemiah 9:27, and Obadiah 21, humans were designated as “saviors” of Israel although this word has been translated “deliverer” in some texts to conceal this fact. In like manner the word “savior” can be delegated to the Son notice:

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. (1 John 4:14 NKJV)

In light of such truth, the real question to ask them is why do they do it? The random matching of Scripture without regard to context is of no value in proving the Trinity doctrine. The Father is our God forever and is called our Savior as he has arranged for and delegated salvation to His Son who now has this responsibility. He has and will always reign over us. Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is the instrument of our salvation and is called our Savior in his own right having sacrificed his life for us. He is described symbolically in the book of Revelation as reigning over man for only 1,000 years, after which the Apostle Paul stated that he hands over his kingdom to his Father.

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28 KJV)

To say that Jesus is Jehovah or Yahweh therefore is to miss the point of Scripture on this subject and such corruption or “truth” cannot set us apart or make us holy in the sight of God.

14.1 THE INCARNATION

The word “incarnation” is of Latin origin and means simply ‘becoming-in-flesh’. It is not a Biblical word, nor does it convey a Biblical truth if it is improperly used. In Trinitarian theology the incarnation of Christ is taken to be synonymous with the thought that Christ himself is God incarnate. It can just as easily be said to mean the Word of God incarnate, which is an entirely different thought with vastly different meaning. No proof exists in Scripture that God himself became flesh, but ample proof does exist that “the Word,” his “begotten god,” the “Son of God” did (John 1:1-18).

14.2 THE LOGICAL CONNECTION

Since no single text can be used to support the Trinity doctrine, methods that seem to establish a logical connection are used. One in particular that may be of interest are the verses of John 12:35-41. John used references from the book of Isaiah chapters 53 and 6 and alluded to them. The connection is then made that “the arm of Jehovah” in Isaiah 53:1 equates to Jehovah himself, whom Isaiah saw in vision (John 12:40-41; Isaiah 6:9-10 and surrounding texts such as vs 5). Therefore the Messiah in Isaiah chapter 53 is none other than Jehovah himself whom Isaiah saw in vision according to chapter 6. Did the apostle John deliberately assemble the verses in Isaiah for us in such a way as to establish and prove the Trinity doctrine?

In John 12:38 John was teaching us that the “arm of the LORD” (Jehovah in Isaiah 53:1) is indeed this Jesus whom the Jews (John 12:34) rejected. He was indeed this extension or body part (arm) described not only in Isaiah 53:1 but in the subsequent verses as well. The verses of Isaiah chapter 53 are supported also by the fact that this same author not only saw Jehovah in vision but predicted the blindness of the Jews and the lack of understanding they displayed. Therefore John referenced Isaiah chapter 6:9-10 for such support (John 12:39-40). Now in summation he could state:

These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him. (John 12:41 NKJV).

In this way the one inspired reference in Isaiah is verified by the other not because a Trinity doctrine was being preached or because Jesus is Jehovah, but because Jesus is truly the “arm of Jehovah,” the one to whom they have “blinded their eyes and hardened their heart.” Jesus did see the glory of Jehovah in chapter 6, but he also spoke of the glory of “Him” (Jesus) in chapter 53, so the truths stated when they are reassembled merely confirm what we already know, that Jesus is the “arm” of God the son of God rejected by the Jews as the Scriptures teach.

The logical connection which also includes word matches such as “God” and “Savior” is therefore dependent upon our ability to reason, and if we succumb to unscriptural reasoning then “darkness” has overtaken us as Jesus warned in John 12:35.

14.3 HEBREWS 1:8

A text often used to prove that Jesus Christ is true God is taken from the letter to the Hebrews where the Psalms are quoted and states:

But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God,

is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the

scepter of Your Kingdom.

You have loved righteousness and

hated lawlessness;

Therefore God Your God,

has anointed You

With the oil of gladness more than

Your companions.” (Hebrews 1:8-9 NKJV).

If we now combine the words “But to the Son he says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,” we may get the thought that Jesus is indeed ‘true God,’ but such a thought does not take into consideration the original application or context of this text. The remainder of the quotation ignored by Trinitarians states clearly in regard to Jesus Christ, “Therefore God Your God, has anointed YOU With the oil of gladness more than Your companions” (his fellow angels [Israelites] in this text), thereby proving that God Your God (true God) is the Father of Jesus Christ. What is being missed here? The one being referred to as God in this text is King David and the text is now being used prophetically and applied to Jesus Christ as God to man just as it applied to King David who was God to the nation of Israel. The reason for this is the way that the words of the Korahlite priests are being interpreted and applied. The text does not in itself apply directly as if the apostle Paul were originating them, but they should be applied as if spoken through the agency of the Jewish priesthood speaking in behalf of David’s lineage of which the Jews were so proud. The expression “But to the Son He says:” is a reference to Scripture much like the expression “the holy spirit says” and means in effect that God is directly responsible for such composition. The very next expression “Your throne O God is forever and ever;” is a song of Praise not to Jesus Christ but to King David as if the Korahlite priest recognized the office of this King as something more significant than simple ruler ship over the nation of Israel. Other translations miss the point and translate the text in a manner that avoids this doctrinal position concealing it saying:

he says of the Son,

‘God is thy throne for ever and ever,

thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity:

thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness,

therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee

with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades’

(Hebrews 1:8-9)

[The Bible, A New Translation by James Moffatt].

The apostle Paul (assumed by many to have written or authorized the book of Hebrews) was therefore not teaching his Hebrew brothers that Jesus was true God. His message was that Jesus Christ was anointed or consecrated by God as God to man, a level superior to that of the angels (Jews, God’s chosen people of old. Paul’s use of the word angels in the first few chapters of Hebrews is in itself interesting. He used it as a synonym for the prophets of old Hebrews 1:1 in a manner especially sacred to the Christianized Jews towards whom his letter was directed). This is quite a different picture than the one Trinitarians paint and it is the reason why verse nine is usually ignored and separated from verse eight as shown here when such theology is presented. Hebrews 1:9 established, verifies for us the context of verse eight.

NOTES:

The section on Hebrews 1:8 was revised in August 1995 as a result of the following article:

Benson (1970) wrote that: “The Son is God.” Benson cited Hebrews 1:8 which refers to Jesus and reads “Thy throne O God is forever...” The JW replies by citing his own Bible which retranslates Hebrews 1:8 as “God is your (Jesus’) throne” thus getting around the problem of Jesus being called “God”. Instead of retranslating the verse an alternative is to go the Psalm 45 from which Hebrews 1:8 is quoted. In Psalm 45 the person spoken of as “God” is King David! Hebrews quotes Psalm 45 because Jesus is said to have a similar role and position as King David. David, although called “God” is certainly not a member of a Triune God! Probably the title “God” is applied to David to indicate him as God’s (Yahweh’s) representative and therefore David’s actions were indirectly God’s actions. Similarly with Jesus - he is to be regarded as God’s representative and Jesus’ activities therefore count as if God had done them! [Article by Anonymous, Investigator magazine, P.O. Box 3243, Port Adelaide Australia 5015, No. 42, May 1995, pages 14-15] [Benson, C H, 1970 The Triune God, Evangelical Teacher Training Association.]

15. Thoughts on pre-existence

Life, something all living beings human or otherwise posess is the property of God and is accountable to Him. It pre-exits anyone that possesses it and is a divisible quantity of such beings. We may give little thought to it but without it we are simply dust. Found in the blood and powerful in its own right this life is capable of growing cells, dividing and maintainig them and is the foundation of our existence. It is neuter in Greek texts, a capable thing and yet without a brain as we know it. It is the impersonal “it” factor that is associated with words such as all things instead of everyone. This causes many to reject pre-existence. Humans fail to recognize its importance to God who established laws for it to live by. This is even true of the life given to animals and few grasp its significance in scripture. By God’s will we came to have this life and exist by means of it.

Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

This was done only once for this human race. Everyone else, Eve included received their “life” from this one source. We tend to think in terms of persons, beings human or otherwise. But God values the very life that makes such persons or beings possible. He preserved such life by passing it to Eve and holds all the possessors of such life accountable.

Thus Paul could say: Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

We are “one blood,” “the offspring” of God” and all share the same “breath of life.” We exist within the “bounds,” and “times before appointed,” for us. The “life” he giveth pre-existed us just at the “life” that becomes a child “pre-existed” the child that was produced by “it.” This is not Nature or natural but planned, intentional and maintained within “the bounds of their habitation” our humanity and the planet created to support it. This is why;

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

This life given to the first man could now be passed on to Eve by using this body part from Adam. While the reason may not be clear at first, this bone contained blood and manufactured blood for Adam. Such life is in the blood. This is why animal blood was used to teach us about the sacredness of life and demonstrated it in a real way. It would however take human blood from a life that was sinless and uncondemned to provide this hoped for atonement for our sins, a lesson we would learn in due time.

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Everyone that received human “life” was accountable to the God that gave it. Thus when sin entered into the world all mankind that received this “life” from Adam was condemned.

Ro 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

As sinners we could not redeem ourselves as animal blood was not satisfactory for anything other than an example to us.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

And it is not possible to offer animal sacrifices actually that take away sin.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

It would require a “life” one that was not passed from this “one man” Adam, a life that was without sin and uncondemned and yet human to redeem us. This “life” when it was finally provided for our sins did come from a source other than Adam.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Col 15: 20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

This “life” that qualified to bear the sins of many was isolated from the source the “being” that John called the Word, who became the God appointed over us by the Supreme Being. It was this Word that created us for him in the first place, a detail ommited in other texts. John knew this “Word” as a real living human being when it became flesh and could now give us a geneology lesson taking us to the Word’s pre-human existence and our beginning. The apostle Paul who had similar supernatural experiences and visions with this “life” could detail detail what John was saying like this:

Php 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

We have no way of knowing if any memories are actually involved when such life that at one time existed “in very nature God” was divested to human likeness. His human mother could have told him about his unique birth. However later when fully tested as a human and after being Baptized this Christ Jesus that resulted from such “life” was ministered to by angels and further information could have been passed on at that time. Paul's experiences and knowledge of Christ and John’s supernatural understandings were passed to them by such means. It is this “life” and the human that resulted that could now be called “the only begotten Son.” And it was this sinless “life”found in the blood of Christ that God accepts for the redemption of the human race. So we now have this detail:

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Some believe that the Word that became flesh did not pre-exist but was predestined to come purely through a line of human descendents. The existence of non-human entities at such a time such as Gabriel and Michael as well as many others is given little or no consideration. They do not accept the idea that someone un-condemned without sin with a non-human nature the very creator of the human race accepted the responsibility to redeem us when sin entered into the world. This is often done by re-defining words such as “origins” or “ancient times.” While such scrutiny is valid in some cases it often results in further misdirection while the overall plan for salvation of which such verses may only be a part are not taken into consideration.

Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans {2 Or <rulers>} of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins {2 Hebrew <goings out>} are from of old, from ancient times." {2 Or <from days of eternity>} [NIV with footnotes]

Micah 5:2 Predicts that Bethlehem in Judah will produce the ruler (Messiah) whose origins are of old (decision made and accepted for the redemption of the human race when sin entered the world) from such ancient times. [Not eternity, See also NIV footnotes and Php 2:6,7 1Pe 1:20]

This is only a piece a small part of the original plan of salvation decided on from the beginning of the human race from days of old or ancient times when the decision was made that the Logos that created man [John 1:3,4] would give up his life, his spirit to became man [John 1:14} and would come through the seed of the Woman [Eve] and then through the seed of Abraham and now through the line of Judah as shown here in Micah and then through the woman Mary. John’s unique use of Logos to identify the non-human entity that he knew personally as Jesus Christ was appropriate since Jesus said these truths to him: John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” [NIV] John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;” [KJV] John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.” [NIV] Therefore John could use “word” as identification for this pre-human entity that he knew became Christ whose word was so important to him. Such use is also found in all the Gospels as well but since it is translated as “sayings” or some other way we do not see it in the text. John selected this common word and used it as identity. He made it his theme for the history lesson he gave about such Logos, a lesson very visible in his Gospel and letters. Therefore when reflecting back to such earlier times he could say:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

This beginning this time when the already existing Word was commissioned by God to create the human race and become responsible for it as its God [Strong’s, God’s representative or viceregent ] is where John picks up our Lord’s history in his introduction.

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Such all things does not refer to everything as many surmise. Such all things refers to the humanity under discussion that was made with this life. Only human life, the light of men and it