normal page-click here

      "the trinity" heresy

 

 1. Who, or what, is "the trinity"?
'The Athanasian Creed', which is accepted by most churches that profess to be "Christian", gives an authoritative response. It declares:

"We adore a God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity ... There is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit; but the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is all one...Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, however, there are not three Gods but one God...And in this Trinity no one is before or after the other. No one is greater or less than the other. Rather, all three people are co-eternal together, and co-equal."

(note: 'The Athanasian Creed' was only settled in AD381, after centuries of argument by so-called "learned" men...and even then it was subject to  further revision in AD451, which now forms the doctrine of "the trinity")

2. Are people expected to use the mental powers given to them by God, and apply the test of reason to their beliefs?

Although there are undoubtedly things that the finite mind of man cannot fully grasp, we are not asked to imagine & believe things that are contrary to reason. This is evident from passages like Isaiah 1:18, in which God, through the prophet, exhorts Israel, saying: "Come now, and let us reason together".

 

Most importantly,  consider John 17:3 - "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent".

 

3. Was this practice followed in the time of the apostles?

Yes. Acts 17: 2 tells us: "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (see also Acts 18: 4 and 19) . Furthermore, he exhorted the converts, saying, "Prove all things" in connection with their beliefs (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

He neither asked nor expected that his followers blindly accepted his teachings as a principle of faith. On the contrary, he praised those of Berea because "they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11) - a process that required considerable intelligent reasoning. Paul advised believers to be "renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him" Colossians 3:10 - in contrast to those whom he called "superstitious" (sig. 'believing in what is unknown or mysterious') - Acts 17:22 cp v16).

 

The apostacy is termed "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT" in Revelation 17:5, and one of its most fundamental teachings is "the trinity". Asked to explain, its "ministers" advise that this cannot be done - it is termed "a mystery", and the reason is obvious. Kept under the bondage of fear of the unknown by this superstition, and the threat of eternal punishment by another heresy, "the immortal soul", myriads are thus turned away from the Scriptures which alone can save them. Paul wrote "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" - 2 Timothy 1:7. 

 

4. What do the Scriptures say regarding the claim of 'The Athanasian Creed' that He (God) consists of three persons - the Father, the Son (that is, Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 8: 6 very categorically specifies that the only God is the Father, NOT a combination of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; in fact, to eliminate all misunderstanding, Paul proceeds to show that the Lord Jesus Christ is a totally different person from God the Father, and also that He is not God at all. "But to us there is but one God. the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ". Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 2: 5, Paul confirms this, saying: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus."

 

5. Are the Father and the Son coeternal?

God (that is, the Father - 1 Corinthians 8: 6) has always existed (Psalm 90:2), and thus the word 'eternal' can be properly applied to him, but not to His Son; in fact, the word itself, 'Father', means one from whom life proceeds, and 'Son' means one to whom the Father gives life.

Therefore, there must have been a time when the Father existed, but not the Son. The Scriptures repeatedly refer to Jesus as "begotten" of God, for example, John 3:16 & 1 John 4: 9. Therefore, since (as even Athanasius' own Creed defines it) Jesus was
begotten of the Father, it is evident that only God (i.e. the Father) has always been eternal. It is unscriptural to assert otherwise.

6. Are the Father and the Son the same?

In 1 John 4: 9 (cp v14) we are told that God (the Father) "sent his only begotten Son into the world." It would certainly be an unreasonable proposition for one 'co-equal God' to  decide that another 'co-equal God' should suffer and die.

Jesus Himself said "I can of mine own self do nothing" (John 5:30)..."My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Furthermore, Jesus knew and taught that there is only one God: the Father. That is why Jesus said to Mary: "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). This definitely contradicts the idea of ​​equality. The inferiority of Jesus compared to 'the Father' is corroborated when we read in connection with the resurrection - "This Jesus hath God raised up...Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted..." (Acts 2: 32-33).

If Jesus Himself was God (something He never claimed to be), how could He be exalted
at his side? The 'trinitarian' absurdity is further emphasized in Philippians 2: 9, where we read: "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name". And furthermore, in Hebrews 1: 3-4, we read that Jesus "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels."

 

These passages clearly show that Jesus is neither God nor equal with God, and it is especially important to note that the words above "on the right hand of the Majesty on high" prove that Jesus is not the Majesty on high, who is God, that is, the only God - the Father. Note also that the words "being made so much better than the angels" definitely indicate a power greater than He, who actually "made" Him at His resurrection "so much better than the angels". At His birth, by the spirit of God, Jesus had been "made a little lower than the angels [that is, a man], that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Hebrews 2: 9).

Furthermore, when Jesus instructed his disciples on how to pray, He addressed His prayer to the Father: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name...Thy will be done..." (Matthew 6: 9, 10). Surely this omission would be extremely inconsiderate for 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit', if such "gods" existed and were equal with the Father -

(we only use such blasphemous terms for the illustration of apostacy). However, we can be absolutely sure that Jesus knew that there is only one God, the Father, and that our prayers should be directed to Him, through the Saviour and Mediator, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.


We can also reasonably ask ourselves: If Jesus was God, why did He say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). He could not help Himself; and how could one 'God' forsake another 'God'? It is written in John 17: 1-3 that Jesus said in His prayer to the Father: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent". In this way, Jesus tells us that He was not God, but was sent by the only true God - the Father. Therefore, all other imaginary "gods" are false  and cannot save anyone.

Many other passages show that Jesus is not equal with God, but two more will suffice for our purpose. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15: 24-25, tells us that after Jesus Christ has reigned over the Kingdom of God on earth until all enemies have been placed under his feet, then He will hand over "the kingdom to God, even the Father". Note that He does not hand over the Kingdom to 'God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'. Furthermore, it would be unreasonable in any case to suppose that He would hand over the kingdom to Himself, which He would have to do if He were God. It should also be noted that the very act of handing over the kingdom to God, the Father, shows that He is not equal with the Father. And the words "God the Father" verify 1 Corinthians 8: 6 (cp v4) in Paul's statement that "there is but one God, the Father". Finally, to round off the subject, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:28 tells us: "then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (i.e. the Father) may be all in all" . Therefore, we conclude that Jesus Christ: (1) is not God (who is ONE, the Father)... and (2) is not equal with God, but He is the Son of God, second in rank to the Father.

 

7. Is the Holy Spirit a God equal with God the Father?

If this spiritual power is actually a separate person, called "God the Holy Ghost", then it necessarily follows that when the virgin Mary conceived, as described in Luke 1:35, he (God the Holy Ghost) would be the father of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, it was the only God, the Father, and not another person, who, by His unlimited power or holy spirit, implanted the necessary seed of life in the Virgin Mary. He did not implant in her another 'co-equal God'.

8. Since the doctrine of "the trinity" is not biblical, how is it that so many professed Christians believe it? How did it originate?

Mr. Donovan Cox, in his work entitled 'Who is the God of the Bible?' says the following about the origin of trinitarian doctrine:

"In Hislop's remarkable book, 'The Two Babylons', we see that false papal doctrines are based on the doctrines of Babylon; and, as might be expected, we find that ancient Babylon had its 'trinitarian' doctrine. To express the theory of the (
i.e. 'their') 'trinity in unity', they used the equilateral triangle, as some Roman churches do today. The "Papacy" has in some of its churches an image of  'a triune God', and one with three heads on the one body. The Assyrians also had a 'triune' emblem, and one with the head of an old man (the Father), a zero or circle for 'the seed' (the  Son), and the wings and tail of a bird to represent the spirit."   The process of departure from the Truth in the early centuries AD, and the links with paganism, are traced out in 'departure'- pages 1 & 2.

 

'The Religious Dictionary', of which Dr. Lyman Abbott, a professed "trinitarian", was one of the compilers and editors, says on page 944:

 

"It was not until the beginning of the fourth century that the trinitarian view began to be elaborated and formulated as doctrine, and an effort was made to reconcile it with the church's belief in one God in an attempt to solve this problem of the trinity...The trinity is a very marked feature in Hinduism, and can be perceived in Persian, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Indian mythologies, and in the oldest Greek beliefs..."The trinitarian doctrine with its three gods in one god was an idea that the Church of Rome took from Babylon to attract the pagans, who already had a trinity of pagan gods, while avoiding conflict with the Christians, who believed in one true God."

 

"The general acceptance of this doctrine since those days, and the tenacity with which it is still maintained, is based on superstitious fear instilled first by the Roman clergy, and later by the Protestant clergy, under the threat that whoever denies the trinity is doomed. And in case there anyone might consider this to be an unreasonably strong and unfounded statement, just go to 'The Common Book of Prayers' and read 'The Athanasian Creed', which explicitly states that "whoever wants to save himself must believe in the trinity and would otherwise perish forever". So this doctrine is so firmly entrenched, that Protestants promulgated it as a legacy of the 'Papacy', and one that is still held so tenaciously, that belief in this incomprehensible and unbiblical doctrine is a basic requirement of popular Christianity. Whoever does not believe it is declared a heretic."

 

9. Do not 1 John 5: 7 and 8 clearly teach the doctrine of "the trinity"? The text reads:

 

Let it be clearly understood that the word 'trinity' does not appear in the Bible. And if (as claimed by its adherents) it is such an important concept, why is this the case? But let us examine the following quotation, to see if there is any vestige of support for this self-contradictory teaching: 

 

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

 

Perhaps it should be noted here that the well-informed "traditional church believer" rarely quotes this passage to support a belief in "the trinity", although it is the only place in the Bible where  its adherents appear to have any shred of backing for their strange theory. Why is this so? It is because the words from "in heaven" to "on earth" (inclusive) are a human interpolation. They are not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts, i.e. before the 15th Century AD. The 'Jerusalem Bible', the 'New International Version', and the 'Scofield Annotated Bible' include the original text and add an explanatory note in the margin. The 'Revised Version' simply omits the spurious text. A typical note appears in Scofield: "Almost everyone agrees that v. 7 is not authentic."

 

The 'Companion Bible' says on page 1876: "Omit all the words from 'in heaven' to 'on earth', verse 8 inclusive. Those words were not found in any Greek manuscript from before the 15th century AD. They were seen for the first time in the margin of some Latin copies. From there they were incorporated into the text." The Roman Catholic (Vulgate) version in Latin was the vehicle by which heretic translators introduced their devilish doctrine of "the trinity". Possibly the earliest extant copy of this deception is today preserved in the aptly named 'Trinity College' in Dublin, where such superstitious nonsense is interwoven into daily life. We thank God that this evil has been exposed for all the world to see (if they want to).

 

'The [Roman Catholic] Bible for Latin America' ​​expresses the passage in this way: "There are, then, three who bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood, and the three agree in the same". The 'New King James Version' renders the text like this: "Because there are three who bear witness: The Spirit, the water and the blood. And these three agree." Neither Dr. James Moffatt, nor Farrar Fenton, nor Dr. R. F. Weymouth, nor Dr. Robert Young, include this text in their translation. Such words do not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts, namely, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, nor the Sinaitic Manuscript, nor the Syriac. They are not found in any of the Arabic, Ethiopian, Coptic, Sahadic, Armenian or Slavic manuscripts.

 

The text is best rendered (without the interpolated words): "For there are three that bear record: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree to the one thing". That one thing has already been set out fully by John in v5 & 6 - i.e. that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God", who "came by water and blood", and "the spirit beareth witness, because the spirit* is the truth" (*there is no capital letter in the original text…'spirit' is not a person - it is simply the power of God - and where it is used for a specific purpose, such as the conception and the birth of Jesus "the Son of God" (Luke 1:30-35) - or the bestowal of the ability to speak in foreign languages on "the day of Pentecost" (Acts 2:1-4) - it is termed 'holy spirit')…link to 'spirit'. It is evident that the original text has been grossly corrupted, & the reason is obvious. This interpolation is similar to another in Matthew 28:19 - see the exposé of this fraud here.

 

      (this page to be continued)

                                        

         mobile site map

 

         home page-index

 

         page 1 (one God)

 

         page 2 (heresy)

 

         page 3 (Colossians 1)

         "the image of the

           invisible God"

 

         departure