Sequel # 7 to The Trinity, So Called The Central D

[iris89]

Sequel # 7 to The Trinity, So Called The Central Doctrine of Christianity Is NOT As Billed:

INTRODUCTION:

The Trinity, the “three-in-one-god’ is called the Central Doctrine of Christianity, but the fact is that I nowhere appears in the scriptures. If it were as its adherents claim the central doctrine of Christianity it would obviously have been mentioned in the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, but it is not.

In addition, neither Jesus (Yeshua) Christ or his apostles and disciples in the first century knew anything about it. Now as we all know, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the Son of Almighty God (YHWH), and claimed part of this mythical Trinity; now if it existed, certainly one of its claimed members would have known about it!

<<<”The first recorded use of the word "Trinity" in Christian theology was in about AD 180 by Theophilus of Antioch who used it, however, to refer to a "triad" of three days: the first three days of Creation, which he then compared to "God, his Word, and his Wisdom."[4][5] He compared the fourth day to humanity, as a needy recipient of the first three, forming a tetrad. The creations in the fourth, fifth, and sixth days are said to intimate both righteous and unrighteous members of humanity. God rested in the seventh day, the Sabbath.

Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century, is credited with using the words "Trinity" and "person" to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were "one in essence- not one in Person."[6]

About a century later, in AD 325, the Council of Nicea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed that described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father."[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on 11/28/2007]>>>.

Now a quick definition of Trinity given by a poster on an Internet forum is,

<<<”Trinity Definition: Within the nature of the One True God, there simultaneously exists three eternal Persons, namely, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three Persons are co-equals in all the attributes of the Divine Nature.”

A more technical definition is,

<<<”The orthodox definition of the Trinity is:
“A three-fold personality existing in one divine being or substance; the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite, co-equal, co-eternal persons; one God in three persons.”
“God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all of which make up our ONE true God.”[source - What is the definition of the Trinity? By Biblical Unitarians, www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=203 on 11/29/2007]

<<<”When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian [meaning, they believe in one deity, not two or three]. On the other hand, we must honestly ADMIT that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message, nor has it been a central article of faith in the religious life of the Christian Church as a whole at any period of its history. Thus we are forced to ask: Is this truth the center of Christian Theology, but not the center of the Christian faith? Or is it due to erroneous development in the formation of the doctrine of the Church as a whole? Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but ,b.even the EXPLICIT IDEA of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith; it is equally certain and uncontestable that the best theological tradition, with one accord, certainly points to the Trinity as its center. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine.” [The Christian Doctrine of God By Emil Brunner]>>>.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IS UNSCRIPTURAL:

Since the doctrine is unscriptural, it took an emperor to make Christianity start embracing the concept. <<<”It was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance"). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different sense, its use by Paul of Samosata had been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural.” [The Christian Doctrine of God By Emil Brunner]>>>.

To understand how the Trinity wormed its way into so called Christianity we need to know the political and social climate of the first three centuries after the passing of Jesus (Yeshua) and his apostles, and why true faith deteriorated into compromise; and then total acceptance by the mainstream so called Christian groups, not withstanding its violation of the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Now let's look at that period and try an insert ourselves mentally into it.

In the early church the apostles needed to refute another rising belief system gnosticism. It considered matter to be evil and sought salvation through knowledge. Gnosticism also focused on the "mysteries" meant only for the intellectuals to understand. Christ, the gnostics said, entered Jesus at baptism and left just before he died on the cross. The Apostle John particularly addressed this budding heresy: "Many false prophets, have gone forth into the world, You gain knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the anti-christ's [inspired expression] which you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world." [source - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 revision, (pages 1517 and 1519, 1 John 7; also 1 John 4:1-3)]. Jesus' humanity was repulsive to gnostics. After the Apostles died, Christians responded to gnosticism by claiming not only did Jesus Christ come in the flesh as the Son of God.

By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Pagan persecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative"[source - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6]. Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" "[source - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6].

Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential [source - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366)].

Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree
that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. [References - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75].

So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).
Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation. [References - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75].

Contrary to popular belief, it was not Constantine's fourth century Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that formalized the "Doctrine of the Trinity." The Athanasian Creed in the fifth century finally included the three, "the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal So likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Furthermore, this creed added that belief in the trinity "is necessary to everlasting salvation." Strong belief led to action. "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years ([A.D.]342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome." [source - Durant, Will, "Age of Faith,"].

TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE TRINITY:

Interestingly in 1827 a Mr. I. R. Butts of Boston, wrote a tract taken from a lecture delievered in 1827 by the Unitarian Association of York County, Maine, and here it is, and it is most informative:

<<<”Why do we not believe the doctrine of the Trinity? Because it is not the doctrine of the Bible.

This is our reason. Not because the doctrine is a mystery that is, if you mean by mystery something which we cannot fully understand or explain. This circumstance may create a difficulty in many minds; but notwithstanding this, if we found it testified to in Scripture, as an unquestionable and essential doctrine, we should not hesitate to believe it, any more than we hesitate to believe that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, or that God foreknows all thing, and that yet man is a free agent. We only ask for PROOF that it is taught in the Bible. We have looked for it, and do not find it. We do find that God is revealed to be ONE, but we do not find that he is reveled to be THREE neither three 'persons,' nor three 'subsistences,' nor three 'distinctions,' nor three 'somewhats;' for each of these words has been used to explain the doctrine. Therefore we cannot believe it.

That God is revealed to be One is a proposition which I need not stop to prove; for no one denies it. It would be consuming time to no purpose to quote passages in support of it. I therefore pass to the other proposition -- We do not find in Scripture that God is revealed to be Three. This is the doctrine opposed to our faith, and which it is necessary for us, in upholding the truth of the Bible, distinctly to disprove. In doing this, we make our appeal to the Bible; and may He, who blessed man with that precious volume, aid us in so unfolding its testimony, that we may 'speak concerning Him the thing which is right.'

We refer principally, in this brief outline, to the testimony of the New Testament. If it appear that this is decidedly against the doctrine, it is enough. No one will pretend to prove it from the Old Testament alone. If Jesus and the Apostles deny it, no one will think that Moses and the Prophets assert it.

I. The terms which are necessary to the very statement of the doctrine, and which cannot well be avoided by them who hold it, are not found in Scripture.

The words Trinity, triune, Jehovah-Jesus, God-man, are not in the Scriptures. We nowhere find the expression God the Son, but always the Son of God; nowhere God the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit. The expressions first person, second person, third person, three persons, are not found. Now if the very words, which are necessary to express the doctrine, are not in the Scriptures, how can we suppose the doctrine itself to be there? If the sacred writers meant to teach this doctrine, how is it possible they should not sometimes have used the words which are now used in regard to it?

II. The doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in express terms, while that of the sole divinity of the Father is taught in language the most explicit and direct.

There are only three texts which speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit in formal connection, and neither of these declares them to be three equal persons in the Divinity. Now is it possible this should be the case if the doctrine were true? Is it possible that the Apostles should never name them together but three times, and then not speak of their being one God?
Indeed I am wrong to say that there are three texts; there are only two; for one of the three passages to which I referred is well known to be no part of the Bible: I John 5:7.[]. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (Vol. 5, No. 58.) This verse, every body knows, was not written by St. John, but has been added to this epistle since his day. John wrote in Greek; but the old manuscripts of the Greek New Testament do not contain it. It is found only in the Latin. It has therefore no right to a place in the New Testament, and ought to be rejected. It is rejected by all impartial scholar of every denomination, who have inquired concerning it. There are therefore only two texts which formally name the Father, Son, and Spirit in connection with each other.
The first is the form of Baptism, Matthew 28:19. Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Here the three are placed in connection. But observe the mode of expression. Does it say that they are three persons? No, it does not say that they are persons at all. Does it assert that they constitute one God? No. Does it say that each is God? No such thing. Does it say that they are all equal? No such thing. Does it say they are all to be worshipped? No. Then it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. If it neither declares them to be three persons, nor equal to each other, nor each to be God, nor each to be worshipped, then it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.[[In fact, Jesus (Yeshua) testified that only his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), should be worshipped at Matthew 4:9-10, “and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (American Standard Version; ASV) ]]. The same is true of the other text, II Corinthians 13:14. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. It is not here said that each is God, nor that all are equal, nor that all are to be worshipped, nor that all together constitute one, Therefore it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Nay, it virtually denies it. For, as you observe, it does not speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but of Jesus Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. Observe the difference, and consider what it implies. Would a Trinitarian express himself in these words and in this order, when intending to express his doctrine? If it were Father, Son and Spirit, we should of course regard them as three and not one, unless expressly instructed to the contrary; how much more when the words run, Jesus Christ, and God,and the Holy Spirit. So that there is only one text which unites the term Father, Son and Spirit, and that one says nothing of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now I ask seriously, if it had been intended to teach that doctrine, is it possible that this should be the case?

It is thus plain that this doctrine is nowhere taught in express terms. You then say, it is perhaps taught indirectly and by necessary implication. I answer, it is impossible that this should be, because the doctrine that THE FATHER ALONE IS GOD is taught in the most direct and absolute terms that language will admit; so as positively to put out of the question every other doctrine, and to take away the liberty of inferring any other from indirect expression.
That this is so, may be seen at once from a few plain and explicit texts, which seem to be perfectly decisive.

(1) John 17:3. This is life eternal, that they might know THEE, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. This is the language of our Lord himself in prayer. Now that he was at prayer proves that he could not be God for God never prays. But besides this, he strongly asserts that the Father only is God. It could not be asserted more strongly. It never has been asserted more strongly.
(2) Mark 13:32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven; NEITHER THE SON; but the Father. This is the language of our Lord. he declares that he does not know the time of that day and hour; that the Father only knows it. Therefore the Father only can be God; for God knows all things.
(3) I Timothy 2:5. There is one God and, one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. What can assert more positively than this, that Jesus is not the one God? If not, then there is no Trinity.
(4) I Corinthians 8:6. But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things and we in Him; and ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him. This text is very positive. It declares that Jesus is our Lord; but that the Father only is our God. Can language be devised which shall declare it more positively?
(5) Ephesians 4:5-6. ONE LORD, one faith, one baptism, ONE GOD AND FATHER of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. What can the Apostle mean by this separation of our Lord from the one God and Father of all, if it do not intimate the Father's complete and unrivaled supremacy? What words can speak it, if such words as these mean anything else? Has it ever been asserted, by any Unitarian, more unequivocally?

I ask then, seriously , in the fear and presence of Almighty God, and in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord ,whether these five POSITIVE, EXPLICIT assertions that the Father only is God, ought not to set the question at rest in our minds? While we have these plain and intelligible declarations of the divine word, which never have been, and never can be, made consistent with the doctrine of three equal persons in the Godhead, ought we to be turned from our faith by any arguments which might be drawn from more obscure passages? Ought we to take up the opposite doctrine, because it may be ingeniously inferred from difficult and controverted texts? Are we not bound by these plain declarations? And while they stand in our Bibles, uncontroverted and unrefuted, shall it be said that we reject the testimony of God, and depart from the oracles of truth? For myself, so long as the glorious doctrine of the Divine Unity is built upon these FIVE SACRED PILLARS, I must confide in it as the truth of God. If the Holy Oracle can announce any truth plainly and unequivocally, it has so announced this. To my ear it speaks in language the most unambiguous and the least susceptible of perversion. While I abide by it in these plain texts, I know what I believe; I have the sure word of truth. If I forsake these, and attempt to reason out another doctrine from more difficult passages, I am not sure that my reason may not deceive me in the process, and lead me to wrong conclusions. I am safer therefore to abide by the testimony inscribed on these Five Pillars, which I can read as I run.

See Part Two of Sequel # 7 to The Trinity, So Called The Central Doctrine of Christianity Is NOT As Billed:

[iris89]

Part Two of Sequel # 7 to The Trinity, So Called The Central Doctrine of Christianity Is NOT As Billed:

III. As these fundamental texts most plainly teach the supremacy of the Father, so there are equally decisive texts respecting the character and offices of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, which go to confirm it. Let us attend to these.
(1) Let us consider, first, the language which is commonly used respecting our Lord Jesus. Is it such as implies that he is the same with Almighty God? Take his testimony respecting himself:
"I came not to do mine own will."
"I can of myself do nothing."
"The Son can do nothing of himself."
"The Father that is in me, he doeth the works."
He calls himself, "he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent."
He says, "I am come in my Father's name."
And after his resurrection he says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."
Ponder these expressions; weigh these words; and say whether they be the words of one who would represent himself as the independent God.
Take the testimony of the Apostles.
"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him."
"Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour."
"at the right hand of God exalted."
"made both Lord and Christ."
Because of his obedience unto death, "God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name."
In the end he shall "deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all."
Weigh these expressions deliberately, and consider whether it be possible that they should be used concerning Almighty God. Yet such as these are applied to Jesus in every part of the New Testament.

Consider the terms of faith in him which were required of his disciples. Were they such as implied his supreme divinity? Remember the confession of Peter -- "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God;" -- and with this Jesus was satisfied. Remember the confession of Martha -- I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God;" --and he required no more. Remember the reason which John gives for writing his Gospel; "These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Who does John say is born of God? "Whoso believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." Who does he say overcomes the world? "He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God." What was the preaching of the Apostles? Look through the book of Acts, and you will find the burden of it to be, "Reasoning from the Scriptures and testifying, that Jesus is the Christ." Now is it possible, that, in all which is thus said of the necessity and value of faith in Jesus, when believers were to be received into the church and their immortal interests were depending -- is it possible that they should not have been required to believe him the Almighty God, if he were so? Would he and the Apostles have so solemnly assured them that faith in him as the Son of God was sufficient, if in truth he had been the very God?

(2) The same conclusion may be as decisively drawn from the language perpetually used respecting the Holy Spirit --language, wholly inconsistent with the idea of a divine person distinct from the Father, and equal with him. The Spirit is said to be poured out -- shed -- given -- given without measure; men are said to be baptized with it, filled with it, to partake of it. But this cannot be said of a person. It signifies evidently, in such passages, a divine influence; an influence which may descend from the person of the Father, as well as from some distinct person. God does not become another person, because he gives his spirit to men. When Paul visited Ephesus, he found certain Christians there, and asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. They answered, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. How is this? The Holy Ghost a person in the Godhead, equal with the Father, and essential to salvation to know him, and yet these disciples never heard of him? Impossible -- and therefore impossible that it should be a third person in the deity, distinct from the Father, and equal in power and glory. No -- the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. Paul tells us what it is, when he says, "As no man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him; so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God." The spirit of God is God himself, just as the spirit of a man is the man himself. It is no more a separate person, than a man's spirit is a separate person. Thus the supremacy of the Father remains unaffected.

(3) There are also many expressions respecting Jesus and the Holy Spirit in connection with each other, which confirm the evidence that the Father alone is God. It will be sufficient to cite these without comment; since the mere reading of them will show how utterly irreconcilable they are with the idea of three persons, alike equal and supreme.
"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and with power."
"Jesus received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost."
"God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him."
"He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by the spirit that dwelleth in you."
Consider what each of these passages must mean if the doctrine of the Trinity be true, and you will perceive them to be utterly irreconcilable with it. Each of the sentences quoted speaks of God, of Jesus, and of the spirit; and this in such a manner, that, if each be God, they express a meaning which is absurd.

IV. Thus far we have looked at the testimony of Scripture as exhibited in particular classes of texts. We may now turn to some considerations drawn from the general style of the New Testament. Here we shall find that the doctrine of the Divine Unity so pervades and gives a complexion to the New Testament, that if we could conceive the doctrine of the Trinity to be true, it would alter the complexion of the whole. It would not be such as it is, if that doctrine were true.
This may be partially illustrated from the devotional character of the New Testament; from the conduct of the disciples toward their Lord; from the conduct of the Jews toward him, and his disciples; and from the controversies of that age.

(1) Look at the devotional character of the New Testament. If the Apostles worshipped God in three persons, it will so appear in their conduct and writings; this circumstance will characterize their devout expressions everywhere. And this the more especially, because they were Jews, a people who worshipped God with a strict and most jealous regard to his unity. They could not have changed their practice in this particular without the change being most strikingly observable. Yet we have no intimation of such a change. They appear to have gone on with the worship of the One God of their fathers, without any alteration. Look at this fact. When Paul was converted, he must have passed -- supposing the Trinity to be a christian doctrine -- from believing Jesus a blasphemous impostor, to believing him the Lord Jehovah. Is there the least hint of such an amazing change? He speaks with admiration and rapture of the new views and feelings which he enjoyed with his new faith. But all the rest together was not so astonishing and wonderful as this particular change. Yet he nowhere alludes to it. Is it then possible that it could have been so? That so great a revolution of feeling should have taken place, and no intimation of it be found in any act or expression? He speaks frequently of his prayers. And how? "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom." It is plain therefore to whom Paul directed his worship. His epistles contain many doxologies and ascriptions of praise to God. And in what terms? Always to One person, God the Father. And not once, either in his epistles, or in any other writing of the Bible, is a doxology to be found, which ascribes praise to Father, Son and Spirit, or to the Trinity in any form. This fact is worth remarking. The New Testament contains, I think, twenty-eight ascriptions in various forms; and from not one of them could you learn that the doctrine of the Trinity had been dreamt of in that day.

Honor is doubtless ascribed to the Saviour in terms of gratitude, love, and rapture. It could not have been otherwise. How could they, who had seen him, avoid it, when we, who have not seen him, are constrained to love him, and through our faith in him to rejoice with joy unspeakable? Ascriptions of gratitude and honor to the Saviour, who will not render? But this does not prove him to be the Almighty God. When the company around the throne are represented in the Apocalypse as uttering a new song of blessing and honor and glory to Him who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, it never can be understood that they attribute divinity to the Lamb; much less that he is the same being with him who sits on the throne, for he is standing in the midst of the elders, and is praised because he was slain. This is not a description suitable to God. And thus while the New Testament overflows with warm expressions of reverence and gratitude toward Jesus, it is as to the Son of God and it reserves all supreme worship for the Father. Jesus himself worshipped the Father. The language of the Apostles was, "Giving thanks always to God, even the Father, through Jesus Christ." And when honor to the Son is spoken of, it is distinctly stated that it is "to the glory of the Father."
Such is the devotional aspect of the New Testament -- an aspect which it could not possibly present, if the disciples had practiced, and meant to teach, the worship of God in three persons.

(2) The manner in which the disciples conducted themselves toward their Master, is a certain proof to the same point. Conceive that they supposed him to be Infinite Jehovah, the God of their fathers, whom they had been adoring from their childhood in the strong and awful reverence of the Mosaic worship; and could they have lived and conversed with him freely as they did? Could Peter have rebuked and denied him -- Judas betrayed him -- and all forsaken him? Impossible -- perfectly impossible. Their whole intercourse with him must have worn a wholly different complexion. It is not in human nature to have lived with one whom they knew to be God, and yet to have conducted themselves as if he were not.

(3) The same thing may be said of the conduct of the Jews toward him. If they had supposed him to be the God of their fathers, is it possible that they should have treated him with violence and contempt? If they did not suppose it, yet knew that he claimed to be such, and that his Apostles so regarded him, they must have looked upon him with horror as the highest blasphemer. And would not this have sometimes appeared? This is a very strong point. When he was accused before their Council, and the charge was blasphemy, they were evidently at no small straits to support the charge. The only evidence which they could at last adduce was, that he had said he could raise up the Temple in three days. Now if he had ever claimed, in any way, to be Almighty God, or had given any intimation that he desired to be so considered, would they not have remembered it against him at such a moment? When they were eager to seize on the most trifling circumstance, when they sought long for false witness before they could find one; is it to be believed they would pass by such a charge as this? And as they were entirely silent concerning it, is it not certain that he could never have made any such claim?

Nothing can be more decisive than this consideration. Yet it may be corroborated, if not strengthened, by advertising to a remarkable event in his history. Some of the Jews, on a certain occasion, took up stones to stone him. He inquired the cause of their violence. They answered, "Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God." To this he replied by a positive denial, and by a full explanation cleared himself of the charge, saying that he claimed to be only "the son of God." After this they seem never to have repeated the accusation; -- not even when they were ready to take unfair measures for his condemnation. And yet, strange to say, this explanation, which satisfied his enemies, has not prevented his followers from still insisting to repeat the charge which he refuted -- that he, being a man, made himself God.

(4) The conduct of the Jews toward the disciples after their Lord's death, proves that they knew nothing of the Trinitarian doctrine. They were active in establishing a new dispensation of religion, and thus drew on themselves the obloquy, abuse, and persecution of their countrymen. Wherever they went, they were assailed by the Jews with outrage and violence. They were accused of speaking blasphemous words against the holy place and the law; of turning the world upside down; of designing to overthrow the religion of their fathers; and were scoffed at as followers of a master who had died the ignominious death of a malefactor. But they were never accused of worshipping him, or preaching him as God. Amidst all their enemies' accusations -- about the fairness of which we cannot think they would have been very scrupulous -- they never brought forward this. And yet, in the eye of a Jew, it must have been the most hateful thing in their system. To teach that that Nazarene enthusiast, whom they had despised and slain, was the very God whom they had always honored and worshipped, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! -- nothing could have so excited them against the new religion and its active propagators. Yet it never formed the ground of their opposition. Is it not therefore certain, that the Apostles never held such a doctrine?

(5) Of the same nature is the following argument. There arose several controversies in that age, especially with those Jews who had been converted to Christianity. Some of these are treated of in the Epistles. But it is very observable, that amongst the questions which thus arose and required explanations from the Apostles, there is no record of any question or controversy respecting the Object of worship. And yet, if the new religion was adding two new objects of worship to that of the old, this would have been, to a Jew, by far the most important, most interesting, and most perplexing of all the peculiarities of the gospel. No such doctrine could have been added to the ancient faith of the Jews, with whom the Unity of God was the proud and distinguishing tenet, without its occasioning some controversy, between those who received and those who persecuted the new birth. Yet no such controversy took place; neither is there the slightest appearance in the new Testament, that any objection, difficulty, or doubt arose in any quarter upon this ground. Is it not impossible, then, that any such doctrine should have been taught?

V. I have thus gone over a few heads of the Scriptural argument respecting the Divine Unity.

But in speaking thus decidedly respecting the testimony of the Scriptures, we must not be understood to assert, that there is nothing in this volume which seems to favor the Trinitarian doctrine, or that its advocates are altogether without plausible support. Far from it. There are undoubtedly many passages of difficult interpretation, and many expressions, more or less directly, which may be construed to assign Supreme Divinity to the Saviour, and personality to the Spirit. But there are two considerations which go to show, that although this be the case, yet the certainty of our doctrine is not in any degree affected by it.

(1) The first of these considerations is, that the texts which speak most directly and plainly on this subject are decidedly Unitarian. These we have already quoted, and no forms of speech could be selected more explicit and unequivocal. But this is not the case with those texts which are quoted in support of the Trinity. Not one of them states the doctrine in so many words The doctrine is made up by inference and argument from separate texts. Many of these texts are among the most perplexing and difficult passages in the Bible -- passages which have tried the skill of interpreters in all ages, and have received a variety of expositions. now it is plain that where such passages are cited in proof of the Trinity, the value of the citation must depend on the correctness of the criticism; that is, on the soundness of the reasoning by which the text is interpreted; that is, the doctrine is thus far supported by the power of reason simply. Need I say how different from the support which our principal texts give to the doctrine of the Unity? Thus it appears that the doctrine of the Trinity is mainly dependent for its support on processes of reasoning; processes, by which the most plain and decisive texts are made to bend to the less plain, and the easy are interpreted by the difficult. We think it safer not thus to trust our power of interpreting dark places, but to take the plain texts for our guide, and solve the dark ones by them. And if there be some which still remain obscure, and which we cannot satisfactorily clear up, we should esteem it safer to leave them as they are, unexplained, than to give them a meaning, and then find ourselves obliged to conform the plain texts to them. In the one case we should think that we followed our power of logic, and in the other the simple word of revelation.

(2) The second consideration to which I referred is this. The assumption, or supposition, which is resorted to in order to make these plain, decisive passages agree with the Trinitarian doctrine, is of a character to confirm us as yet more strongly in our belief. This assumption is that Jesus Christ possessed two perfect natures, the human and the divine; and that he sometimes speaks and acts as a man, and sometimes as God. Now if this were expressly asserted in Scripture, it would be very well. But it is not so asserted, and, what is more, it is by none pretended to be expressly taught there. It is argued that it must be so, because it is a supposition which serves to remove difficulties, and to reconcile the language which is used respecting the Lord. But we have no right, it seems to me, to reason out for ourselves a doctrine of such magnitude as this for such a purpose; especially when it creates difficulties quite as embarrassing as those which it removes -- it seems to me far more so. For look at the case a moment. The assertion is, that our Lord speaks and acts sometimes as God and sometimes as man. Accordingly when we argue thus:
"He declares that he does not know the day or the hour .”>>>.

THE MYTHICAL TRINITY – THE BIBLE’S TAKE ON IT:

Now lets see what the Bible (King James Bible; KJB):

First, it says at many places the following:

Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: 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.
Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Matthew 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mark 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Luke 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
Luke 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 10:36 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 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31 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.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
2 Corinthians 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

See Part Three of Sequel # 7 to The Trinity, So Called The Central Doctrine of Christianity Is NOT As Billed:

[iris89]

Part Three of Sequel # 7 to The Trinity, So Called The Central Doctrine of Christianity Is NOT As Billed:

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 John 5:10 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.
1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1 John 5:13 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.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Now we noted in all the above Scriptures it calls Jesus Christ (Yeshua) the Son of God; interesting since for if the Trinity was true, it would read God the Son instead of the Son of God. Since it reads the same in every translation I know of except one "feminists" biased Bible, where it reads Daughter of God which I am sure none of you would agree with. Therefore, it is self evident that Jesus is God's (YHWH) son and not God the Son as would be technically necessary for the trinity to be true.

Second, the Bible explicitly says:

Colosians 1:12-18, “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
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.
18 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.”

We see here that Jesus is God’s (YHWH) dear son and that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature; whereas, God clearly had no beginning as you all well know. Once again the Trinity is shown as impossible of being true, thus it is false dogma.

Third, The Bible explicitly shows Jesus (Yeshua) asking his father, Almighty God (YHWH) to glorify him in a prayer as follows:

John 17.5-12, “These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

Here Jesus is clearly praying to his Father as a more powerful one and not to another part of himself as would be required by false Trinitarian Theology.

Fourth, the Bible clearly says "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."This scripture clearly shows Jesus (Yeshua) to be an obedient Son to his Father (YHWH).

Philippians 2:1-11, “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
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.”

And verse 11 clearly shows hierarchy of power in Heaven since it says we should confess Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. Showing that recognizing Jesus as the Son of God brings glory to his Father (YHWH). Clearly, therefore, Trinitarian theology can not be true, hence it is therefore FALSE.

Fifth, as we all know the giver and the receiver can not be the same, the Bible shows that Jesus (Yeshua) was given power by his Father (YHWH).

John 8:49-59, “Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
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.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

Once more Jesus (Yeshua) says, “Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.”; Clearly showing his Father (YHWH) was a distinct entity and that Jesus (Yeshua) was doing works to honor his Father (YHWH). Once more it is explicitly shown that the Trinity doctrine is false and a messed up belief.

Sixth, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly said he could do nothing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father (YHWH) doing:

John 5:7-23, “The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.
12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 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.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 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.”

Clearly, Jesus (Yeshua) is obedient to his Father (YHWH) a superior one and by being obedient brings honour to his Father (YHWH). Also, in this situation, Jesus (Yeshua) once more is shown to be the receivee and his Father the giver. This would be impossible under Trinitarian Theology as it maintains they are one Godhead so either the Bible is wrong or Trinitarian Theology is wrong. I am as a true follower of Jesus (Yeshau) taking the Bible, God's written word for our guidance, as correct; whereas, many wrongly take the false doctrine of the Trinity as correct. Now stand up and show whether you are for the Bible or for the Trinity.

Seventh, now the Bible explicitly shows the chain-of-command; from Almighty God (YHWH) on down as follows:

1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God"

This scripture clearly shows that the 'head of Christ is God' so the Trinity is once more shown to be false and the Bible shown to be true.

As we can now all see we should stand up for the Bible and not the false doctrine of the Trinity.

CONCLUSION:

The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from the foregoing evidence from logic and the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, is that the Trinity is NOT SCRIPTURAL, and only a devil inspired myth to mislead per 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;” (American Standard Version; ASV).

To learn a lot more, go to,

[go to] religioustruths.proboards59.com/

Your Friend in Christ Iris89