It is also counterproductive to Christ’s glory. I really believe in trying to exalt Christ by saying he is God; Trinitarians actually diminish and even get rid of his accomplishments and achievements. Let’s now transition into the next topic which is the importance of Christ as a man.

(Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:)

Again notice that Christ was a man. Also, if he had been in heaven for billions of years prior, why would he be Jesus of Nazareth and not Jesus of heaven? And again, why go through the semantics of being approved of God if he was God? Obviously God approves of himself. It should be obvious to Israel that God can do signs and wonders. The point was that this man could do these things because he was working for God. This in the entire thrust here. If Christ were God why not just say “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; your God was among you.”

(Acts 3:20-23 And He shall send Jesus Christ, Which before was preached unto you: Whom the heavens must receive until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, ‘A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.’)

Prophets were men who spoke the word of God. Their purpose was to pass the message from God to man. Whenever God spoke directly to man, no prophet was involved or needed. This would be like hiring a bike messenger to get something across to someone standing right next to you. You wouldn’t need a messenger because you would tell them directly.

Jesus was yet another man who spoke God’s holy word. He is accurately called a prophet here. A prophet isn’t to be confused with God. If Christ were God, when he spoke to men he wouldn’t be a messenger for God or a prophet but God himself personally addressing men. I know: just another pesky word which should be reassigned.

Beyond the title “prophet” being assigned to Christ he is directly compared to Moses as a brother in the nation of Israel. It says “raise unto you of your brethren, like unto me.” Was Moses part God also? Would that then make God a quaditity?

(Hebrews 10:10-14 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.)

The first part of the tenth chapter gets into a discussion on how the sacrifice of bulls and goats couldn’t ultimately cover the sins of men. This is what Israel was given to do but without Christ no one could be saved. Only by a sinless man being sacrificed could all other men be saved.

Beyond Christ being called a man he had to go through things that God simply couldn’t go through. Being a man encompasses more than just having flesh and blood. I will not only show some differences between Christ the man and God but show the importance of these differences. The first huge difference is that Christ was tempted with sin while God cannot be.

(Matthew 4:1-10 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He was afterward and hungred. And when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, 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.’” Jesus said unto him, “It is written again, ‘Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.’” Again, the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And said unto Him, “All these things will I give Thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” 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.’”)

In order for Christ being without sin to mean anything, he had to be tempted with sin. Being tempted is being drawn toward something and being enticed to follow through in your mind. God simply can’t be drawn into doing anything wrong. Men can be enticed to break away from God’s will for them. Being disobedient to God’s rules or commandments is the very definition of sin.

This whole exchange reminds me much of the story of Job. Satan felt that Job was hedged in from the true trial of temptation so God allowed Satan to test him directly. Job proved himself worthy by not cursing God. In this case Christ had something to prove. He could have been led astray had he made the wrong choices. God has nothing to prove as all his actions are just and perfect. What in the world could Satan tempt God with?

The first thing Christ was tempted with was hunger from fasting for such a long time. Hunger and wantonness are human conditions. This goes beyond God putting on a flesh suit and masquerading as a human being. This is a real test given the human condition and need for food for survival.

The next thing Christ was tempted with was basically trying to kill himself and expecting God to intervene. Verse 7 does not contradict my point. God would not be tempted with unrighteous sin here but with letting nature take its course through physics and letting someone die.

My point isn’t that God can’t be tempted to do or not to do anything but that he can’t be tempted to do wickedness. Christ’s answer in this very verse as well as the others show that Christ was being tempted to break God’s rules. Each time he quoted which commandment would be broken should he follow through with the devil’s cunning suggestions.

In this case I suppose God was not to tempt himself or something. This shows Christ’s limitations. I’m sure God would see no internal conflict in jumping off something high as he has the power to overcome anything and not die. Christ could only count on God and felt this too vain and bold a show. It was a presumptuous spot to put his father in.

Next the devil tempted him with all the kingdoms of the world. This was ingenious. Tempting God with one small part of what he already has which is the entire universe. I can just feel the internal struggle and pull within God err Christ here. I’ll leave my own will and bow to someone I created to get something I already own. Where do I sign up? This makes perfect sense. He must have really, really, really been tempted here.

The point is that Christ really was tempted here. Overcoming means nothing if you are overcoming nothing: which is what all these vain things would have been to God. To a man however, they had meaning and could have set Christ off course from God’s will and plan. Christ deserves credit and glory for not giving in. God simply wouldn’t because he couldn’t.

It would be like discussing if God were a great basketball player. Of course he would be the best ever. End of discussion. He could just naturally take over the game given his power and attributes. It would take no effort.

A man like Michael Jordan had to work to become great. He had to believe in himself despite having limitations. Of course God is greater than any ball player but there would be no particular glory or credit for him to take over a vain basketball game. It would just be too easy. As a sports fan, comparing Jordan to other players is interesting as it really is a game and challenge to them. If Jordan were really God capable of perfection but just dumbing his game down and purposely missing some shots to act human I wouldn’t respect him. This would be descending instead of rising to the challenge.

As a man, I know how difficult and challenging overcoming sin is. Christ has all my respect for rising to a real challenge given who and what we are as humans. He had a real choice to make between following what he personally wanted versus worshipping God and doing his will. For God the son to do his own will and follow his own rules as part of God takes all the conflict and competition out of the situation. It would turn into a simple and one-sided decision. It would be like complimenting a train for staying on perfect tracks it was designed to stay on. This is really a given isn’t it?

(Hebrews 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.)

Verse 14 identifies this as Christ. Christ was much like us in a way God cannot be. He felt a real desire to do things contrary to what God expected and had to turn from these things. Sin is to be disobedient to God. God has no reason to be disobedient to himself. As humans with a carnal and self serving mind, we do. This verse simply couldn’t apply to any part of God under any definition of who God is.

God’s will is to do his own will without exception. There is no pull to do wickedness with him so he can’t truly feel temptation. He is not like us. He wouldn’t descend himself into being like us. This would compromise his greatness. The whole idea is for man to try and be like him. The game is trying this despite being pulled the other way by an imperfect mind. This is what Christ did in the greatest way a man ever has. He overcame true temptation to be very Godlike.

This verse really hits home the importance of Christ being like us and therefore understanding the struggle. It is easier to have compassion and understanding for someone when you have been through the same things. If God were our high priest he would be the one that “cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.” As hard as God might try to understand, he just doesn’t know what it feels like to suffer temptation.

(James 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished bringeth forth death.)

This is a direct and obvious contradiction to trinity. Beyond my discussion of what sin is and why God can’t be tempted above, it says so right here: point blank and outright. This after I showed verses that plainly stated that Christ was tempted with sin. This is when Trinitarians start to spin and make completely inconsistent arguments where God is 100% one way and 100% the other.

This was a complete statement about God. It didn’t qualify God not being tempted in any way. It didn’t say God the father can’t be tempted. It didn’t say God can’t be tempted in one form versus another.

If God could be tempted in any of his forms or if he could choose to let himself be tempted then he could be tempted. In the end it is one way or the other. Trinitarians’ side again reminds me of a schizophrenics’ side of an issue.

Say someone with multiple personalities murdered someone on tape and out in the open. When detectives come the person might say they didn’t do it based on their perception that it was someone else inside them. However, all reality and the perception of everyone else says that they did it. All the parts the mentally ill person wants to identify inside are still a part of them. They ultimately do whatever any personality inside them does. Saying “I didn’t do it: he did” just wouldn’t play to anyone else. Only the schizophrenic could never put this together.

Do these conflicting arguments sound familiar? I say if any part of God can be tempted then he can be tempted. It may be only a fraction but it would still be a part of him. When we are tempted it is really just a small part of our brain. Could you accurately state that you weren’t really tempted because it was just part of you? Trinitarians like to create an alternate and insane universe where he was tempted and yet he really wasn’t as some alternate form of him isn’t really him but still really is him all at the same time.

To all Trinitarians; you must either conclude that God can’t be tempted and throw away Christ’s temptation by Satan and his understanding of our position. Or, you must conclude that he can be tempted and quickly forget this verse in James because God really can be tempted and drawn away of lust to commit sin. You just can’t have it both ways all at once. Even you like to say the three correspond to one. One being either can be tempted or can’t be.

Ultimately you must get to a place where all three parts are God or they aren’t. If Christ is God then God was tempted. If you are saying they are ultimately separate then you agree with me. True blue Trinitarians will flip flop like a politician as the argument proceeds. Christ is God when they need him to be and isn’t God when it no longer makes any sense.

Telling a lie is a sin. Please see (John 8:44, Acts 5:3, 4 Colossians 3:9, 1 Timothy 4:2, James 3:14, 1 John 1:6, Revelation 21:27) if you don’t believe me and think I’m lying. Lying is quite a common sin in my estimation. It is hard to see how Christ could be tempted in all points without being tempted to lie.

(Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began ;)

(Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:)

It is impossible to be tempted with something which is impossible for you to do. I can’t be tempted with jumping over the moon or lifting a million pounds. God can’t be tempted to lie because he just can’t do it. Lying isn’t even a possibility for him.

Our sure hope in eternal life rests on the sure promise of a perfect being whose word and honor are more perfect than any man. In this way our faith can be perfect as there can be no doubt that God will come through on his promise. This was the point of these verses.

If you start jerking with God’s perfection and making up your own sub rules you can render these verses irrelevant. If you say God can change and allow himself the ability to lie and sin so that he could be tempted; then he could just change into a liar and take back everything he promised if he so chose. If God can change into something less than perfection why can’t he change into an evil monster? Why not change into someone who no longer cares about us or his promises? The point here is that he can’t. In trying to cover trinity’s inconsistencies you diminish God’s greatness. You also call into question God’s absolute promise as described in these scriptures.

There is no authority given to start segmenting God into parts with less perfection. To say that any part of God can lie if he chooses opens up a door that is very dangerous. Once you start, what’s to stop you from going another step? Why not say that another part of God isn’t perfect or that God has lied? There is as much authority for this as saying any part of him could lie in the first place. If God couldn’t lie and if God was Christ then Christ wasn’t tempted in all points. If any part of God could lie then it isn’t impossible for him to lie. My lips lied but not me!

In trying to exalt Christ by saying he was God you make his perfect walk of no real consequence. You also have to diminish who and what God really is in part and in whole. The whole of anyone or anything is the sum of the parts that make it up. If one or more of the parts are imperfect then the whole is imperfect. One small broken belt in a large and complex machine can cause it to break down. The machine itself can then properly be called broken even though only one part is. It would no longer be able to fulfill its function.

Even after all this I can still hear those who believe in trinity. God can’t be tempted but he was. Christ was God but he wasn’t. It was impossible for God to lie but he could have anyway. Double talk and ultimate inconsistency of thought define this belief.

(Matthew 19:16, 17 And behold, one came and said unto Him, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” And He said unto him, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”)

I don’t see how you can enter into eternal life if you are born with an immortal soul but that is best left for another paper. The point here is that Christ didn’t see himself as good. This couldn’t have been based on his actions and achievements as they were perfect. It must go back to the point that he did have a carnal and imperfect nature as a man.

God does not have this nature. God is naturally perfect and inherently good. This is a key difference between the two which Christ was quick to point out. There is only one that is good as there is only one God.

Notice also that Christ doesn’t say that God the father is the one that is good. He just says that God is good and that he isn’t and exactly no one else is either. In doing this Christ makes it quite clear that he isn’t God. Whoever or whatever you want to make God to be and however many schizophrenic bodies he is; God is good. Christ says he is not. He is not a part of God or God would be less than good in whole. They are two separate beings with a clear line of separation drawn here by one of them.

If Christ was God; why in the name of all that is holy would he stop to correct this man who was asking a question about eternal life? This would be some kind of cruel game of semantics and technicalities. If he was God then he was good. Why say he wasn’t only to later say that God or actually him really was good. This again would be ridiculous double talk unworthy of our Lord. If it’s beyond understanding then why even mention it in the context of a question on how to receive eternal life?

All this has a greater point beyond the inconsistencies between God and Christ which I will explore more later. The fact that Christ was a man who could really feel temptation and struggle will help in his current job. Beyond being a perfect sacrifice God had another purpose for Christ.

(1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,)

(Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel.)

A mediator is a go-between that helps settle an issue between two parties. It is without exception a third party. 1 st Timothy even uses the phrase “between God and men.” This is another word and verse which helps explain the relationship between God and Christ if you pay attention.

Since each man is a different being men mediate between other men or groups all the time. Christ was the perfect mediator since he was a man as described here and could represent mankind. He was also perfect in his actions and had no sin and could therefore relate to God. These verses make perfect sense when looked at properly.

This word goes far beyond physical differences or abilities. This shows that Christ has an identity separate from God. They are two different parties coming from two different angles of perspective in this discussion.

These verses quickly fall apart into oblivion and become meaningless when you try to make Christ out to be God in any way. How are you a third party to yourself exactly? How do you get between yourself and anyone else? Please try and explain this.

This word is so simple that it is hard to believe it could have been so misused by a wise man like Paul writing by the spirit of God. To say that something between “a” and “b” will be mediated by “a” is a complete misuse of the word. If the two parties can come up with a solution by themselves then no mediator is needed. This would include God splitting into three or one hundred pieces like say if you dropped a big crisp cookie. If any part of him served his side it wouldn’t be a mediator. It would be him taking his side and men taking there own side. This would not be any sort of mediation but two sides finding common ground.

Maybe after all the great things Paul had to say he just choked here and totally misused yet another word when describing God and Christ. Maybe the trinity was so mysterious that Paul just couldn’t grasp it. Maybe the word “mediator” has one meaning during the thousands of times it has been used and then suddenly takes a secret definition when speaking of Christ.

Or maybe we all need to take the Bible’s description of him for what it really says. When language like this is used it can only mean one thing. Only through insanity or complete redefinition of words can you find something else here. Christ was a different being than God. This is the only way he could mediate between God and anyone. Just open a dictionary and look up the word. If words can in no way describe Christ: why even read the Bible at all?

(Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.)

To intercede is to act between disputing parties in an attempt to settle their differences. It is synonymous with mediating. Since all men are individuals and all other men have sinned, Christ was distinct from men. He also had to be a different individual from God in order for this word to fit in any way, shape, or form. I know, I know, this word is just a mystery as it is used here about Christ. Trinitarians can’t be wrong so the word must be twisted into something else.

(1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous.)

An advocate is one who pleads or argues the case or cause of another before a court or the public or someone in power. Again, in general when this word is used, the advocate is a separate being from those he argues for and to. He or she is not one of the parties generally. Do we have yet another word which must take on some radical new meaning here? If Christ were God, why not just say we have God on our side from the beginning? God is not an advocate but the final word, power, and authority. Why bring up an advocate who simply tries to influence someone or a group that has power over something. Again Christ is a separate identity from God in this conversation.

Words and phrases have to have meaning. Their meaning can’t be completely reversed on a whim or covered over with some strange argument of what God is: which is supposed to confound all logic and verses which point to the opposite. The purpose of Christ in his position between mankind and God is clearly spelled out. To say that he is God in any way you want to explain it is to contradict the entire point of these verses and words.

It’s not that I don’t understand how three can be one in general although this is rather ridiculous to me. My problem is how you see them as one when verse after verse and analogy upon analogy paint them as separate using any word or picture possible. How many times can you say that God and Christ are a mystery when their relationship is being defined by the Bible in many synonymous ways, all leading to separate beings? The whole Bible becomes a mystery when you don’t pay attention and make up your own analogies and doctrine and then compare it to verses on the subject.

I could swear that God is a ham sandwich. This would confound all logic and scripture. Saying it is a mystery doesn’t really cover all the problems created in trying to justify my position. God has already been defined as something far greater than a ham sandwich in the Bible.

I could swear that God is really a sculpture, carved from a large block of ice, who sits on the surface of the sun. All practical experience and reason say that this is impossible. Pure ice would instantly melt on the surface of the sun. Ice and the sun both have meaning based on language and learning. The only reasonable thing to do is reject this ridiculous hypothesis. It flies in the face of all logic.

The point is that you have to use your experience with words and some logic to come to conclusions about who God and Christ are. To disarm yourself of these is to fly blind and ready to be duped by anything or anyone. All practical experience tells me what an advocate, intercessor, or a mediator is to mean. These words were used by Paul and John to illicit a response and paint a picture. To ignore this and say they aren’t a third party is about as out there as believing God is pure ice on the surface of the sun. I would have to quit being me and quit speaking English to go along. If I can’t use any logic or practical experience with words what does any of the Bible really mean?

Christ had to be a man to face the temptations that men face. Because of this he can facilitate a greater understanding between God and man as a mediator. There is another good reason why Christ had to be a man and not part of God.

(Romans 5:18, 19 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.)

This discussion actually starts in verse six but I felt these two verses kind of encapsulate Paul’s point. When the man Adam was disobedient to God the punishment of death took effect to all other men who were disobedient to God. Since all have sinned, this includes everyone.

What mankind needed was a man to live without sin to counteract Adam’s punishment. The whole thing started with a man and was based on his obedience to someone other than himself (namely God). Obedience is a word that really only has meaning when dealing with someone else. To be obedient to one’s self is obvious and therefore meaningless. What was necessary in Christ was a man who would be perfectly obedient to God which would lead to life and no reason for the punishment of death.

All who lived and sinned after Adam became just another example of the first man who sinned. The punishment of one man was then spread to all other men. God’s perfection during all this time was irrelevant. God doesn’t need to worry about being obedient to himself or whether he will live forever. He therefore couldn’t impute his righteousness to man because he wasn’t in the same boat. It simply wouldn’t be just or make sense to compare himself to mankind.

When Christ came he gave a balance to mankind. As a man who never sinned he was the opposite example when compared to Adam. Just as Adam’s actions lead to death, Christ’s perfection could lead to life. To say that Jesus wasn’t a man takes him out of the chain of mankind and leaves all men doomed with no savior to receive imputed righteousness from.

I don’t want to hear about how one-third of God became a man either. Because two-thirds of him still wouldn’t be a man. We would still be talking about someone who is majority God. We would still be talking about someone only obeying themselves. How do you compare that with the whole of mankind? To compare any part of God to this discussion of the state of man is ridiculous. His righteousness was never in question.

No other men are two-thirds’ God. If any were I guess that the righteousness of God the son could cover and represent them. However, we are speaking of real and whole human beings here needing a real man to represent them. Adam wasn’t part God. We needed a savior other than God. That is what this whole chapter is about.

(1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.)

See here again the importance of Christ the man. To say God was a man is impossible. If God is three coequal and coeternal parts then two of them were never a man.

It would be like comparing three different paint covered canvasses. Two are all red completely covering the canvas. The other has three equal stripes of the base colors red, blue, and yellow. Only two paintings are red. If you try to say the other is red you are simply ignoring the other two-thirds of the canvas. No matter how long you try to imagine and pretend the other colors aren’t there, you’ll never convince me that they have just disappeared to justify your argument. Christ was all man. So was Adam. They would represent the pure red paintings. Even by your argument God was never all man. To call God a man because one-third of him somehow changed into one is to ignore the still majority of who you say he is. Therefore Christ can’t be called a real man if he was also God. If I poured 1/3 orange juice, 1/3 milk, and 1/3 water in a glass could I just call it water?

(Hebrews 2:11, 16-18 For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of One: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren,------For verily He not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted.)

Christ had to truly be one of us in order to represent and save us. We are not part God. He wouldn’t be one with his brethren if he were two parts God. He would be something completely different.

The fact that he calls them brethren also flows with the true idea of what a father and son are. Christ was the best son. However, he was a son in the same way all men who accept God are. They are therefore his brethren with God as their same father. There is no way for God to look at his creation as brethren. We all came from him.

It behooved Christ to be made as a whole man. For one, it goes back to the key point that after being tempted he could better appreciate others temptation and struggle to live a Godly lifestyle. Because of this it would be easier to have mercy on those who have fallen short.

It is like the understanding one combat veteran has for another. One could try and explain to me what it is like but I wouldn’t really know what it feels like to be in battle. Another veteran has a true appreciation that I just can’t fully comprehend. But I guess God can be tempted but can’t and therefore understands and doesn’t all at once.

To succour is to help or assist. Christ couldn’t help us if he wasn’t like us. The blood of bulls and goats couldn’t ultimately cover the sins of man. Animals are innocent of sin because God’s laws were not given to them to follow. Also, they can’t make a choice to follow God or to sin. They just are how they are.

God also doesn’t have to make a choice to follow after his own perfect will. He also is not under his own law to man. Men are in the unique position to have to choose to do right or wrong. A man can only be compared to another man ultimately in regards to their place in the grand scheme of things. Only another man could be a sacrifice for mankind.

God doesn’t know what it feels like to tempted. This is why he made Christ. Also, it would make no sense for God to punish himself for the sinful actions of man. Then it would be a punishment to God and not to mankind in any way. This would be like a teacher sending himself to detention or a judge sentencing himself to the electric chair to condemn a murderer brought into his court.

God punished a man for the sins of mankind. It was painful for him to do and painful to think about but this was the way it had to be. Christ had to be a man for the punishment to make sense. A man was the only valid sacrifice for all men. A man really had to die to sin for God’s justice to be appeased. God had no reason to kill himself. God just isn’t a man under the law of God. To say he is would be a bizarre and circular argument.

People act as if God dying for man would have been this great and noble thing. It just wouldn’t have made any sense or served any purpose. It would have rendered justice backwards and incomplete. A man had to undo what other men did with the help of God. This brings us to my next topic.

---------------------Christ really died for us---------------------

The fact that Christ died for our sins is a cornerstone of the gospel story. The four gospels each go into great detail about this. See also (Romans 5:6, 8 ; 6:10 ; 14:15 ; first Corinthians 8:11 ; 15:13 ; 2 Corinthians 5:14 ; 1 Thess. 5:10 ; 2 Thess. 1:9). To miss this fact is to misunderstand the gospel.

Another key part is that God raised him from the dead. Please see (Matthew 17:23; Luke 9:22; Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 34, 37; 17:31; Romans 4:24, 25; 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:15; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Galatians1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Col. 2:12; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2 Timothy 2:8; 1 Peter 1:21). Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection were the example of what believers hope for. Please see (Acts 1:9-11; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 4:14). This hope of resurrection from death is the symbolic picture of baptism.

You undercut the entire story by believing God was Jesus. Let’s start with the ultra important fact that Christ died for our sins. Christ could not be God because God can’t die.

(Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge,---)

(Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.)

(Isaiah 40:28 ---the everlasting God-----)

(Isaiah 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty one That inhabiteth eternity,----)

(1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen)

To inhabit eternity or to be everlasting is to live without ceasing. To be immortal is to be incapable of death. If God were able to die, even by choice, he wouldn’t be immortal. God simply couldn’t die for our sins just like he couldn’t be tempted or lie. God does have positive limitations.

This again is good for us since I want to know with great certainty that God is alive. If he is capable of dying in some way, maybe he is dead right now. How can he keep his promise to the righteous if he is dead? Maybe all who follow him are out of luck. This would be a daunting possibility if you want to say that God can die. I go by the Bible which states that he can’t die.

If God can’t die and Christ is God then who died for our sins exactly? I really need a good answer because the fact that Christ actually died for our sins is a crucial part of his story and our salvation. Double talk really can’t cover this one. Some quasi, partial, or fake death argument doesn’t really work either.

If you believe that Christ died for our sins and that Jesus is God, you believe that God died for our sins. This is basic deduction so don’t try and spin around it. If you say that Christ isn’t really God and is a separate being then you agree with me. Don’t try and go back at some later point in the debate. You can’t have them be separate entities and one being depending on where the debate goes. Double tongue arguments are the surest lie going.

You go against basic deduction with any argument that in some way God was Christ but Christ wasn’t God. This is like saying “my name is Matt but Matt isn’t my name,” or “Visa is a credit card but there is not a credit card called Visa,” or “ Toyota makes cars but there are no cars made by Toyota.” If it goes one way it has to go the other. If God is in part Christ then Christ is a part of God. To say that Christ died is only to say that a part of God died.

No one died for your sins if you are waiting for God to do it. There would be no reason or way for God to accomplish this. This is why he made Christ. Christ was a mortal man who could die. This is contrary to God’s nature. Christ was not God.

This is when Trinitarians love to go to some split or partial argument. If one part of God died contrary to his nature and two parts were still quite alive, did he really die? What in the world is death to you? This would be some kind of token act. It would belong on the movie screen or something. This would not be a real death.

This would be like cutting the lower third of your body and getting on in a wheelchair afterward. Could someone accurately say that you were dead when your legs fell off and shriveled away? As long as you can still think and function you are very alive. If you could do anything you would be alive.

God resurrected his son. He didn’t just move or think. He performed a miracle. Was he dead when he did it? Can a being that is dead perform a spectacular act like raising someone from the dead? I wouldn’t mind being dead if you can do things like that. Why be alive?

God was very alive during the three days after the crucifixion of Christ. He had to be in order to raise Christ as Christ believed that he would. This brings us to the next phase of the gospel destroyed by the trinity.

The story of Jesus was a tremendous story of faith. Even though he did everything the right way, he was asked to die for the sins of others. The only solace he had was in the faith that God would raise him from death. He had to believe in God’s word.

This was a great example to the church. Even if you follow God you will still surely die. Your faith is grounded in the story of Christ. Just like in the symbolism of baptism, you believe that sometime after your death you will be raised up by God as Christ was unto everlasting life. You have to believe in someone you have never seen. You have to believe he has the ability to raise you and that he is good to his word.

The story Trinitarians tell is radically different. Two parts of God sent another down to earth. This part quit living while the others kept right on. Then God simply raised part of himself back up.

Where exactly is the faith in this story? Are we part God too? How could this bizarre show be any kind of example to us?

By trying to make Christ God you rob him of his overcoming of tremendous trials through faith. You don’t make him greater but a boring less. You also drag God down to the level of man. And finally you don’t give the church an example of what can happen to them through faith in God’s power. It’s great that God can rise back up but what about a truly dead man?

--------------------How were God and Christ one again?--------------------

Matthew (26:39 And He went a little farther, and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.)

To start, isn’t praying something man does to God? This whole verse would be more like talking to yourself if Christ were God. Also, Christ was asking permission to let the cup or his partaking of death to sin pass away. This goes back to John 10:18 which showed that God commanded Christ to lay down his life. Does God ever have to plead permission from anyone?

Ultimately, Christ didn’t want to die which is perfectly natural self preservation. His obedience to God’s will is what made him fulfill his great role for mankind. His will was not to die.

This is another major split between two different beings. Your will is the main underlying characteristic of who you are underneath. It is as fundamental as conscious thought to a being. It colors how you make decisions and what you try to accomplish. It’s at the heart of everything you do as an individual. Everyone is as much the product of their decisions as much or more as what they are physically or mentally. Your will ultimately steers your decisions. Your will is a huge part of who you really are.

Christ had his own will as an individual here which was separate from God. There is no other way to spin or understand this verse. This goes beyond physical differences right down to Christ’s essence. Right down to his core Christ was a different being than God. He had his own will and train of thought.

His own personal will or drive was at odds with God’s will. God wanted him to die for the sins of man. He did not want to. There is a huge difference between bending your will to God’s will and having his will to begin with. It is the classic struggle that men who follow God have to deal with.

This again shows the beauty of the story when Christ is seen as a man separate from God. Not only did he die for our sins but he made the decision to do it against his own original will. He died voluntarily in that he changed his will to that of God. He was not some robotic extension of God who would naturally want to follow one will. He made a decision to go against himself as an individual to sacrifice himself for the greater good of all men. This verse cements Christ’s individuality deep inside.

While directly talking to God he also uses “I” and “thou”. This is another classic tell of someone addressing someone else. In the history of the English language every time someone says “I” they mean themselves. When they say “you” or “thou” they are speaking of someone else. Is this another case where we should throw away the entire historical context of how words are used as not to get in the way of a “mysterious” belief system?

This is not just Christ speaking in a mysterious way. He speaks in a way which contradicts trinity. The mystery happens when you try and ignore this. It is mysterious in the same way which basic reality is to someone who is insane. There simply never should have been an “I” and a “thou” when a being supposedly one in essence addresses himself. This third person talk between God and Christ happens throughout the book of Matthew. It was no fluke or misstep by Christ.

(Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.”)

Even if you are a lifelong Trinitarian I beg you to take a step back. Don’t let the tail wag the dog. Form beliefs from scripture and don’t twist scripture to your preconceived beliefs. If someone calls someone else a son and then refers to them in the third person with the word “him” and the phrase “in whom” would you honestly believe they were speaking of them self?

These words just don’t belong given the trinity as a fact. Wouldn’t you rather just take the obvious meaning and picture given instead of automatically fighting against it to preserve some preconceived idea? You can either fight against all the language in his statement or you could just say that God actually used the best language that made the most sense given who Christ was to him. It is all up to you. Fight against God’s words at your own peril. It is one thing to have to come to a better understanding of a few scriptures which go against your side. It is quite another to have to bend clear verse after verse and word after word. If you believe in Trinity: aren’t you tired of it?

This is also a case where God is bestowing his authority onto Christ in the eyes of men. Christ should be heard because God is pleased with him. Isn’t this again watered down compared to just saying he is part of God and should automatically be heard. Why would God the son need this assistance and recommendation? His word should have been enough if he was God.

(Matthew 6:8 Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him.)

(Matthew 9:38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He will send forth labourers into His harvest.”)

Both of these are Christ speaking of God. Please answer why he didn’t use “me” and “I” instead of “him” and “he.” If you were God describing another part of yourself would you have used these words? Please answer honestly. Of course no one can pretend to be God but does this sentence make any sense given the trinity as fact.

In Matthew 6:8 why not just say “for I know what things ye have need of, before ye ask me?” Does only the father know and not the son? Wouldn’t this be an obvious difference and separation between the two if one knew something the other didn’t? HMMMMMMMMM ...

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

Did the son used to know and then forget? Did he never know? Does God the Holy Spirit know in part maybe? Does God simultaneously know and not know other things? I think I know the exact time right now and don’t have a clue what time it is. That is perfectly plausible isn’t it?

If you want to say one part of God can forget things, why can’t another part forget? Maybe God the father will just totally forget to send his son. Maybe he’ll forget the day and the hour but God the son will remember and remind him and all will be good after all.

Or you can go with the son never knew card. Then you have two beings with two different levels of understanding of God’s plan through the ages. That sounds just like one being to me. For one being to know something and not know the exact same thing eternally makes perfect sense doesn’t it. This couldn’t be indicative of two separate beings with two different minds at all.

This verse again shows a limitation of Christ. He was a key part of God’s plan. However, God was the planner. God knew something that Christ plainly didn’t. Christ will only return when God wants him to. This doesn’t sound very coequal to me. It again sounds like this is a hierarchy between God and Christ.

This verse leads to a more general point about God. God knows everything. Knowing everything is mutually exclusive to not knowing something.

(Job 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him which is perfect in knowledge?)

(Psalms 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite.)

(Isaiah 40:13, 14 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller hath taught Him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed Him, and taught Him in the path of judgment, and taught Him knowledge, and shewed to Him the way of understanding?)

(Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all His works form the beginning of the world.)

(Hebrews 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with Whom we have to do.)

(1 John 5:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.)

These passages aren’t just speaking of God the father. They are talking about God in a complete way as usual. God isn’t made of unequal parts. This split is something that only Trinitarians ever speak of in their made up understanding of God. If part of God doesn’t know all things why not qualify that better?

(Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.)

(John 8:26-29 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but He That sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him. They understood not that He spake to them of the Father. Then said Jesus unto them, “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things. And He That sent Me is with Me: the Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him.”)

If you know everything, is it possible to learn anything? If you have it all, can you increase what you have? Who hath taught God anything? Christ clearly did learn which proves that he didn’t know everything to begin with. Or do you want to go back to the God forgot argument?

Also, is it ultimately spiritually admirable to please part of yourself and increase in favor with you? If so, can you call that part of yourself “him” or “he” and claim you love your brother when you do self serving things? How about another set of roles always used for two different individuals which is perfectly understandable? Since God taught Christ you have a teacher/ student scenario here.

Christ also validates who he is here by pointing out that God sent him and that he speaks what God taught him. Say that underneath it all you were the ultimate king by your own power. Would you need to validate yourself by relying on the word of someone else? Would you name drop if the name was ultimately you? Instead of “I was sent by the king,” why not “I am the king?”

Is there ever any doubt that you are with yourself? Isn’t that what being alone is? How could God not be with Christ if he was Christ? I would like to point out at this time that I am with myself while typing and therefore I am not alone.

(Matthew 27:45, 46 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”)

My understanding is that the sixth hour was about noon. It shouldn’t have been dark so this must have been from God. To me this darkness represents God separating himself from Christ. Remember also that Christ had already been beaten and hanging for a while. He didn’t want or expect God to save him from death. I believe he felt very alone from God at this time. In that he wasn’t God he could feel separate from him.

However you want to see this I just don’t get to how “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” could be one being talking to himself. I just can’t get there. Asking God why something has happened or why to them is something people do all the time. To ask part of yourself why you forsook you is beyond strange behavior to me. If Christ were God he should have known why. He also shouldn’t have been able to forsake himself. Also note that Christ called him “My God.” God was his role to Christ. It is how Christ described God and never how God described Christ. Why would God forsake Christ at this time?

(Habakkuk 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity :)

God detests sin. He is so righteous and pure that he can’t look at iniquity. It is contrary to what he is. It is far beneath him and he keeps it far away. Christ actually became sin for us.

(Romans 6:10 For in that He died, He died unto sin once :--)

(Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.)

(2 Corinthians 5:21 For He hath made him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.)

(Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree :”)

Christ had no sin of his own. Just before he died he became the embodiment of all men’s sin. This is the sin he died unto. God could not be a part of him or even look upon him at this time.

God can’t even look upon sin. To say that he could become sin is a whole different level. It would be like saying “I can’t jump as high as five feet in the air but I’m going to jump five million feet up.” To actually become sin would be absolutely unthinkable and impossible for God. It would go against his very essence.

This is why Christ felt so separate from God at his death. God was a constant companion but a different being. When God pulled back, Christ felt this difference. The closeness between the two pulled far apart. How could this idea of forsaking emotional closeness apply to one being? This goes way beyond the obvious physical separation between God and Christ.

-Christ and God are physically two different beings

-They have separate wills

-One was tempted while the other simply can’t be

-They refer to each other in classic third person language

-Christ must have had a different mind as a human

-Christ’s mind had to learn and increase in wisdom

-God knows all things

-God is the only one who is good

-Christ said that he wasn’t good

-God knew the time of Christ’s return

-Christ didn’t know the time of his return

-God can’t even look upon iniquity

-Christ became sin for us

-God cannot die

-Christ died for our sins

-Christ was dead while God was alive

-God is above Christ in order of authority

-God empowered Christ to do miracles

-This shows Christ is inferior in power as he couldn’t do them on his own

-Christ is a mediator between God and man

-Christ is an advocate to God for man

-God is the father of Christ

-God made Christ

To sum up, Christ and God are different physically and mentally. They had different wills which goes right to the heart or essence of a being. They had different levels of ability. They had many different characteristics in general. I can’t think of one way you could say that they are literally one being. Soooooooooooo,

How were God and Christ one again?

John 10:30 does state that they are one. Trinitarians love to point this verse out. They then want to be left to their own devices to define and qualify how these two beings are one. They will go into some spiel about three in one, one in three, three times one, one times three, three plus one, five and dime, seven-eleven open twenty-four seven. Of course none of these numbers or phrases are anywhere in the Bible but they won’t let that get in the way.

The Bible talks about two or more being one in a much different way than this inconsistent nonsense. The Bible talks about one in terms of unity. In Romans 12:4 Paul speaks of the many members of the church being one body. Does this mean thousands in one and one in thousands we are all one freakish being? In Matthew 19:5, 6 Christ describes a man and his wife as one flesh. Later in John (the same chapter they quote) Christ explains his oneness with God as a situation of unity and not the freakish trinity.

(John 17:20-22 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word. 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. And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one :)

These words pretty much destroy the idea of trinity. Christ just defined how he and God are one. It is a spiritual unity just like the church can find with God, Christ, and each other.

Pay close attention to the last words “that they may be one, even as We are one.” Are we striving to all be one literal being at church? Should we try and invent some kind of atomizer to take our bodies apart and then try and reassemble ourselves as one being?

I must be missing something. I feel close to those I attend church with. I feel like we are part of something bigger and greater. However, I have never felt like I am one of them or all of them at once. I have never felt as though they are really me. I guess I need to try harder. Maybe churches that preach trinity get to this level where they are all the same being at the end of church. Maybe I should go there and not just join them but be them. Come to think of it, I think I like just being me.

“Even as we are one” sums it up real nice. You must avoid the temptation to add to Christ’s words. For you to privately define their oneness when it has already been defined by Christ is a great error. To make their unity more or less than Christ described it is to write your own Bible. The fellowship of the church is nothing like the zany definition of oneness I hear Trinitarians weave and spin. The church could never and would never want to get to this strange place where everyone is everyone else.

The church can have a feeling of togetherness and mutual purpose and belief. Being one as Christ and God are one is very achievable when you define Christ and God properly. When you don’t this verse is extremely strange and impossible to achieve.

I have gone over all the ways in which they are not one. They go far beyond superficial differences right down to the core of who they are. This verse now defines how they are one. Other than Trinitarian’s own words, where do you get more than their unity as defined here? If there was more to the story of their oneness it should be discussed and described more somewhere else in the scriptures.

----------Other verses in John which disprove trinity----------

(John 8:15-18 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, My judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father That sent Me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of Myself, and the Father That sent Me beareth witness of Me.)

The first thing Christ does is to compare himself to other men in judgment. You can see his humanity underneath this. God always has the right and authority to judge anyone. This is beyond question and has nothing to do with man’s ability to judge. Christ was gauging his judgment with other men.

He builds up his credibility in judgment by saying he is not alone. He is a worthy judge because the father is with him. This is much different than the automatic authority God has. He doesn’t need to explain himself and say something like “I can judge you because God the Holy Spirit is with me.”

How saying “I and the Father” proves you are not alone when you are the father is beyond me. The word “and” implies that you are speaking of someone else. Also, wasn’t God the Holy Spirit with him? Why wasn’t he mentioned?

Then Christ gets into the idea of two witnesses verifying something. When two separate individuals both testify to something the second person adds weight and credibility to the testimony. Two different people are less likely to lie, and if they do, there will usually be discrepancies in their account of what happened. God counted on this in the law.

If Christ is God then two individuals aren’t testifying to anything here. This would be like only me seeing something and claiming that three people witnessed it. I could say that me, myself, and I all saw it. This would rise above two and actually be a blessed trinity of me testifying. This would really prove my testimony, right?

(John 10:33-38 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.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, ‘Ye are gods?’ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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?’ If I do not the works of My Father, believe me not. But if I do, thou ye believe not Me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”)

Are Christ’s own words not good enough for you? He was directly addressing a statement here. The Jews claimed here the same thing that Trinitarians say all the time. They were asserting that Jesus was claiming to be God. I don’t see how Christ could have deflected or refuted this any more. Where in this whole answer could you get the idea that Christ believed he was God? This would have been a perfect time to say so or at least hint at it since that is the topic right here.

Christ does quite the opposite. He compares himself being God to all of Israel being called Gods. He is directly putting himself in the same boat as them in regards to being God. If Christ were God this was the worst answer maybe ever. It would also be a lie. Remember this verse for future reference. If someone is called God it doesn’t automatically make them some separate but equal part of the almighty.

All Christ is claiming is to be is the son of God. That is so much different than being God. A son is never his own father.

He is saying it is a lower degree even than Israel being called Gods to begin with. He does this in verses 35 and 36. If they were called Gods, how does he blaspheme by stating that he is the son of God? The whole subtext of this answer is that he isn’t claiming to be God. He is claiming to be less than what Israel was called so why get mad at him. Either Christ wasn’t God, didn’t know he was God, or this was a lie and a tremendously misleading statement.

Then he yet again relies on the true God for needed authority. He explains how even if they don’t believe him, they should believe that his works are of God. If he is part in parcel of God and they don’t believe him, they don’t believe God anyway. This would be totally meaningless.

Even though the Jews were the ones there, Christ was directly speaking to an assertion made about him today. After reading this answer, do you honestly believe that he thought he was God? If so, maybe you read different words than I did in John. This is the most direct answer he ever gave to the question of actually being God. I love to hear things right from the horse’s mouth. Where in the whole Bible is there a more direct chance to state the supposedly true answer?

(John 12:49, 50 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. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak.)

God gives commandments to men because they are below him. Notice also that Christ says he is not speaking of himself when he talks of the father. This again is Christ’s own words contradicting trinity. Trinitarians believe that the father is the son. Therefore, whenever Christ spoke of the father, he was talking about himself.

He says “For I have not spoken of Myself, but the Father Which sent Me.” The word “but” shows a change of direction from “myself.” The only way this sentence makes any sense given the way it is structured is for the father to be someone other than Christ. If not, this would not only be a general mystery but it would completely confound the English language I am reading it in. No matter how much you want to believe in trinity, Christ has to make sense when he speaks.

Even if Christ showed up at their door and said “I am not God and he is not me” Trinitarians would find some mysterious subtext in this sentence to continue to believe the same way. Maybe they think Christ meant the father is not “myself” but he is “me” or “I” in John. I am not speaking of myself but I am speaking of me. Or maybe he is God only when he chooses to admit it. Or maybe, just maybe, he actually meant what he said and when he spoke of God he wasn’t speaking of himself at all.

(John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me.)

What in the world does the word “also” mean? Language has to mean something. You can’t have private definitions of basic words. They knew who God was but didn’t know Christ.

All Trinitarians believe in the trinity and they also believe in the trinity. Also, they believe in trinity. Trinity is what they also believe in. I hear people talk like this all the time. It makes perfect sense that they believed in God and Christ is part of God and they also needed to believe in Christ. This would be like understanding what a loaded gun is but not understanding bullets. They wouldn’t really know either one if Christ were part of God.

(John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent.)

Here Jesus calls God the only true God. The word “only” implies one. “And Jesus Christ” could only refer to someone other than “the only true God.” There would be no “and” but only all or nothing if Christ was a part of God. It should have just said “know God” which should have encompassed Christ as well.

---------------The unchangeable God---------------

(Psalms 102:25-27 Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth: And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; As a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed: But Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end.)

(Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not ;)

(James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with Whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.)

(Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, “I AM THAT I AM :”)

The quote from Malachi was in the context of how Israel would turn aside and not follow God’s ordinances. They didn’t keep their end with their relationship with God. This is similar to another verse in Proverbs.

(Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: And meddle not with them that are given to change :)

I throw these verses in to supplement something I went into before. God cannot change. This is a very good thing. Men can change their minds and not keep their word but for God this is impossible. Much of what Trinitarians believe is based on the idea that God changed into something less.

Along with my discussion above I think these verses should put an end to that notion. To say that one part of God can change into flesh capable of sin is to say another part could. To regard the perfect God in this way is blasphemous to me. God is inherently and unquestionably better than man. To become a man would compromise his perfection.

If this isn’t enough I invite you to prove me wrong using scripture. Something so central to the argument for trinity should be there somewhere. Please show me where it talks about God himself changing who or what he is. Where does it talk of him being on the same level as man in any way? The Bible always speaks of his ultimate perfection and holiness. God is so far above man that he couldn’t be another man. There is no reason to change perfection.

I really don’t think you will find anything on God changing what he is. You especially won’t find an ultra radical change from the almighty king God to one of his own subjects. This is a fantasy story concocted as an argument for trinity by those who believe in trinity. Rather than quoting scriptures they just quote other Trinitarians. This idea is not supported by the Bible. There is no verse even remotely like “God changed into a man.” This is par for the course for Trinitarians and brings us to our next topic.

---------------The made-up language of trinity ---------------

Much like the “rapture” Christians often talk about, the word “trinity” is nowhere to be seen anywhere in the entire Bible. Feel free to look for it yourself if you must. Nor is there another word given to encapsulate God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit as one being.

There is never a reference to God the son or God the Holy Spirit either. Mary, the mother of God, is yet another example of a made up phrase you’ll find exactly nowhere in the Bible. Trinitarians use all these as though they are everywhere in scripture. It is second nature for them to repeatedly use all these. They justify themselves by quoting themselves. By repeating these things enough they become part of some greater truth in their minds.

(Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.)

The oneness of the church is taken to a higher level than God and Christ ever were. Note how they are to have “one mind and one mouth.” Trinitarians would have a field day if it said God and Christ had one mind. Along with the church being called “the body” and husband and wife being called “one flesh” it’s amazing how Trinitarians can’t see how far the scriptures go to show unity versus some freakish one entity with joint bodies situation.

The main point here, however, is that God is only referred to as the father. You just won’t find him called the son. God is the son of exactly no one. He is the father of us all.

(1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him;)

(1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and authority and power.)

(2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort ;)

(Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all.)

(1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father,)

(2 Thessalonians 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God even our Father,---)

(James 3:9 Therefore bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.)

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

Note that in several verses he is called the father of us all. This term “father” isn’t just in relation to Jesus Christ. He is our father as well.

Jesus Christ isn’t our father and he didn’t create us. Trinitarians like to use God the Father only in relation to God the Son. This leaves Christ free to be the creator and father of us all. Jesus is never called our father.

There are so many references to God being father and so few (namely zero) to God being a son. God just can’t accurately be called a son to anyone or anything. Being called a son to yourself just doesn’t make a lot of sense. This is why they never called him God the son anywhere in scripture.

This terminology is created by Trinitarians through the ultimate spin or just out of thin air. Jesus is called the son of God. However, you can’t just invert this phrase and call him God the son. This is a whole different phrase with a whole different meaning.

If you were an assistant or an intern to the President you wouldn’t call yourself President. You are not suddenly President the Intern: you are an intern to the President. If your name is Josh and you are the son of a guy named Rick: you are not Rick the son. Rick is the son of someone else entirely. You are only the son of Rick. The word “son” just shows your relation to the name in front of it.

I guess that we should yet again ignore how language is always used. Don’t let a little thing like that get in the way. Changing verses and ignoring basic language are a sure sign that someone will lose a debate when it is based purely on existing scriptures and logic. It is a desperate tactic.

This made up language exists because it didn’t exist in the Bible and something had to be invented to support trinity which is a made up word anyway. Trinitarians are consistent. They use made up terms and phrases to support a made up word and theory. They are quite creative and inventive. They should turn to writing fiction instead of rewriting the Bible though. The Bible stands on its’ own.

(Romans 8:14-17 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 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.” The Spirit Itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.)

(1 John 3:1, 2 Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God,----)

Along with inversion, Trinitarians claim that being called “son of God” makes Christ God or some higher form of creation. I have no doubt that he was the firstborn from the dead and the best but all who are God’s are his sons and joint-heirs with Christ. This phrase doesn’t make someone God but suggests the opposite.

Luke 3:38 calls Adam the son of God at the end of a long genealogy string because God was his creator. Paul states that all men are God’s offspring in Acts 17:29. This is completely consistent with my discussion on fathers and sons above. Trinitarians misuse and abuse this phrase in an attempt to prove something that isn’t there.

(Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord :)

(Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?---)

(Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord :----)

(1 Corinthians 8:4, 6 -----and that there is none other God but one. ------But to us there is but one God, the Father,----)

(Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.)

(Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all,---)

(1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,---)

(James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well :)

I have just shown several verses that indicate that God is one. Can you show me even one verse that specifically indicates that God is three? Good luck finding it in the Bible. The wording of God as three is another made up phrase which Trinitarians say all the time.

Aren’t these verses only telling half the story if God is both three and one? Where is the counterbalance verse or verses saying quite specifically that he is three? Why only specifically define him as one in scripture?

Of course Trinitarians like to recognize God as one and three. They love to hedge their bet. The problem is that I don’t see how anything or anyone could ultimately be both. One just isn’t three and three just isn’t one no matter how hard you try. One in three and three in one doesn’t change the fact that three isn’t one no matter how many times you say it.

The plural of “God” would be “Gods” which is never used for the true God anywhere. He just isn’t more than one God. If you want to say that “God” somehow refers to the sum of other parts like a complex machine you raise inconsistencies.

I understand how a car is made up of hundreds of parts. You can look at the church as a body. Or in a very simple example you could look at a man, his wife, and their son as a small family. None of these words need to be plural to recognize plurality in their nature.

However, you can’t refer to one part as the whole. I can’t call a steering wheel a car. I can’t look at one member of a congregation and call him the church. I can’t say I took the family with me if I only took the man without his wife and son.

Why is the father called God in the verses above? The father would only be one piece of what God really is. If God refers to three pieces then one piece isn’t God. The father wouldn’t be God but just a part. Either way you want to go there is just one God at the end of the day. This is if you only use scripture and look at language the way it is always used by rational people. Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Let’s delve into the fictional and out of thin air language Trinitarians use for God. They use:

God the father

God the son, and

God the Holy Spirit

If each part is God and there are three parts then there are three Gods. There just can’t be only one using this language. Note that the word God is used three times here. This is as simple as one plus one plus one equals three. This would be great except it never once says there are three Gods in scripture. If there are three Gods then there isn’t just one God. This would be like saying I have only one dollar but I actually have three dollars.

You just can’t bend three into one with any consistent definition of what God is. If the parts add up to one God then the individual parts are less than God. If each part is God then there are three Gods and not one.

What insane definition of what God is can make three be the same as one? Maybe this definition can also make red the same as blue or one exactly equal to ten million. All logic must be turned on its head or tuned out altogether to have both one and three accurately define the exact same being.

(2 Kings 19:15, 19 And Hezekiah prated 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.----- Thou art the Lord God, even Thou only.”)

(Nehemiah 9:6 Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all the things therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee.)

(Psalms 83:18 That men may know that Thou, Whose name alone is JEHOVAH, Art the Most High over all the earth.)

(Psalms 86:9, 10 All nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord; and shall glorify Thy name. For Thou art great, and doest wondrous things: Thou art God alone.)

(Isaiah 44:24 ---“I am the Lord That maketh all things; That stretched forth the heavens alone ;---“)

(John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent.)

(1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever.)

(Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.)

The word “only” means alone, solitary, apart, or by one’s self. These verses again point to there being one sole God and no one equal to him. Three Gods with three names with two of them speaking to each other is not a lone God. This would be a small group of Gods.

Notice closely the verses in both John and Jude. Both verses refer to “the only God” and “Jesus Christ.” There is only one God and it is not Jesus Christ.

To speak of someone in such a singular way and then use the word “and” can only mean one thing. The first subject is a different individual than the second. Otherwise the entire sentence and its’ structure are completely off. Would you say “James is the only one in charge and Jeff is too?” Sentences just have to make sense. This includes when they are about God or even something mysterious.

(John 20:17 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.’”)

Notice that Christ refers to God as “My God.” This again shows his position in relation the Supreme Being. He also refers to him in the context of being equal to those he is speaking to. Saying “My Father and your Father” and “My God and your God” puts him in the same position as those around him. Please just read Christ’s own words here. Do you really think he thought he was God?

He isn’t God speaking to men here but a man speaking to other men about their common God. If you were talking to someone of like faith wouldn’t it be perfectly natural to use the same words describing your shared faith of God? Would it sound natural or rational for God to speak to you in this way about himself? Is God one of the boys?

This isn’t the only time that God is shown to be the God of Christ. Going back, on the cross Christ said “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me.” Please read these verses as well.

(2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.)

(Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,-----)

(Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,----)

(1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.)

Is God the son the God of God the father also? It sure never says this anywhere in scripture. Try to prove me wrong and show where Christ was God to him. I’ve just shown several instances where this respectful title went one way after ascension. God is the God and father of Jesus. Jesus is not the God of JEHOVAH. No one is his God. He is the God of everything and everyone.

If God the father and God the son were legitimate titles this should have never gone this way. Even if for the purpose of argument I concede that God is the father of God in some unexplainable and indescribable way they still share the title God. Note that it calls him the “God and Father” of Jesus. If both were God then one can’t be God over the other. This either shouldn’t have been mentioned at all, or mentioned both ways.

(Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that He should lie; Neither the son of man, that He should repent: Hath he said, and shall He not do it? Or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?)

(1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that He should repent.)

Decide for yourself where this chain of logic breaks. God is not a man. God is Christ. Christ was a man. Christ was also called son of man. God is not the son of man as the verse from Numbers points out quite specifically.

This is when Trinitarians will pull out a great card. God was 100% man and 100% God. It reminds me of an old joke where someone is 50% Chinese, 50% English, 30% German, 20% Russian, 80% Italian, and maybe 100% Korean. Of course the whole of anyone or anything is only 100% but who cares. That is why it is funny.

Along with all kinds of words, phrases, comparisons, and the English language itself; Trinitarians have to distort and rewrite mathematics in order to make their point. Even if you want to assign 100 points to the man part of God and 100 points to the God part that gives you 200 points. The only way to break God down into a percentage would be 50% man and 50% God.

If you want to make the Holy Spirit part you would have 33 and1/3% man, 33 and1/3% God, and 33 and1/3% Holy Spirit. I can see the USA Today making a pie graph out of this version of God. As you can see by looking at the chart, God is 33% man, 33% incorruptible and immortal God, 33% Holy Spirit, .5% ham sandwich, .4% ice on the surface of the sun, and .1% magic pixie dust. Or you can believe in the one true God.

(Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.)

God does not even want to be compared to a man or an animal. This is insulting to him. To say that he actually is or was a man is to take this insult to a whole different level that I don’t want to go to.

(Hebrews 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man that Thou art mindful of him? or the Son of Man, that Thou visitest Him?)

This verse speaks to the question of why almighty God even concerns himself with lowly man. If you make God a man then he is equal to men. The answer to the question would be obvious. He would be mindful of lowly man because that is who he is or was.

The verse in Romans in particular reminds me of a more general phenomenon. People go directly against exactly what the Bible says in trying to worship God. For now, I won’t name any churches’ names but one of the biggest supporters of trinity does this with other things.

This goes beyond being a potentially harmless made up language. We are now talking about going directly against the Bible. I use these verses as further proof that major churches actually actively do things against scripture. These things are ingrained in their worship of God.

---------------A religion opposite from God---------------

(Matthew 23:8-10 But be not ye called Rabbi: for One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for One is your Father, Which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for One is your Master, even Christ.)

You are not to call a spiritual leader father. If you read this chapter of Matthew, this is the clear context of this quote. Yet people do it all the time as part of a made up and anti scriptural practice. It becomes part of their spiritual lexicon. And yet it was something Christ told you not to do.

(1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.)

When a church tells any of their members that they can’t marry, they fall into this. This would include priests. The third chapter of first Timothy made it quite clear that bishops and deacons could be the husband of one wife. The first chapter of Titus also makes this clear.

Churches also fall into this by telling people to abstain from meats for any amount of time. Is it all right to go against the Bible, but only for a short time? Is it all right to fornicate, revel, abuse someone, lie, or commit idolatry if you only do it for a short time? This is clearly stating that meat shouldn’t be withheld from people based on spiritual or religious reasons. The idea is not to go against this at all. Don’t tell me it is all right to do this for a short time.

In general, when you add to God’s commandments you heap a load on people which will break their backs. The walk is difficult enough as is. There is no need to throw a stumbling block in someone’s path.

When churches do this they lose general credibility. I wish to ask them if they are having people do this for God’s will or their own. I really don’t need an answer because God made his will and plan for us quite clear in the Bible. There is no need or reason to add to it.

Beyond general credibility there is something more sinister in play here. These verses speak to more than placing stumbling blocks and what works to do to please God. They are a prophetic indictment against those who do these things. Note the powerful language like “depart from the faith,” and “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”

Decide for yourself who falls into this and who doesn’t. Those who do go way beyond making a scriptural mistake into having their entire doctrine wrong. This was a prophetic warning and something to watch for. There were a couple tells which were indicative of a much bigger problem.

Who preaches trinity and the immortality of the soul? Who does these things which were specifically talked about? We are not talking about a minor mistake here but a false system. These are powerful verses not to be ignored.

Of course, like many other groups, Catholics don’t like to admit they even could be the ones discussed in Timothy. They dismiss it out of hand and don’t even consider it. Even when the words fit like a glove, no one believes that a negative verse could be speaking of them. Gays won’t admit that the first chapter of Romans is calling them out. They will have some kind of spin such that the end of this chapter is really saying gay is ok. Many drunkards claim not to have a drinking problem and so on.

The point is that you have to use scripture and logic to come to a belief grounded in reality. Just because someone can weave an explanation doesn’t mean they are innocent of a charge. Catholics do forbid some members to marry and have rules about abstaining from meat for a time. This is a fact.

How exactly do they not fall in line with these verses? Are you looking for some other group that does it more? Who are they because I would like to hear about them?

(Hey, I just asked three questions with exactly three lines: there must be some hidden trinity subtext in my intentions.)

It’s as though people are waiting for the first Timothy, verses one through five church to open up. They will tell everyone that marriage is evil and they should abstain from eating anything. They will where t-shirts or signs around their neck explaining that they are the ones who believe doctrines of devils.

This was a very serious admonition. It had to apply to someone. Don’t try to pin it on a few small groups out in the middle of nowhere either. Would they be worthy of a prophetic mention?

When the New Testament talks about “the flesh” it is not just speaking of skin. If you have a concordance, go to the verses where it is used and grab the context in each case. It is used for the natural state of man or things on earth under man’s control. It can refer to family lineage as in (Acts 2:30, Romans 4:1, 9:3, 11:14, 1 st Corinthians 10:18). It often refers to man’s weakness or sinful nature as in (Romans 7:5, 18, 25; 8:3-12; 2 nd Corinthians 10:3; Galatians 2:16; 5:16-21; Ephesians 2:3; Philippians 3:3,4; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 st John 2:16).

(1 st John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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.)

This verse draws a dividing line between conflicting beliefs. It is another warning with something specific to watch for. There must be followers who fall into the spirit of antichrist category for this to mean anything.

People who don’t accept the Bible at all are easy enough to spot. Also, those who don’t accept Christ at all. This is a deeper and more detailed trial of someone’s faith. It involves who and what Christ really was.

Similar to my chapter on Christ as a man, you must believe that Christ came in the flesh. Again, the flesh refers to more than just skin. God putting on a flesh coat and still being any part God just doesn’t do this verse justice.

Christ came as a pure man and nothing more. He was 100% flesh and blood. If Christ was also anything else: he didn’t come in just the flesh. With this belief I feel totally confident that I am not on the wrong side of these verses. The spirit of antichrist as used here can’t refer to anyone who accepts that Christ was purely a man.

The Jews who don’t believe or anyone else that didn’t accept him are obviously left out of the church in general. There would be no need for this verse in addressing them. There are plenty of verses showing that you need to believe in Christ in general. If it was intended for those who don’t believe in him at all it could have stopped at “Christ is come.” Why bring up “in the flesh” to refer to them?

Who does this leave? Trinitarians will quickly say that when God came he partly became a man to try and cover themselves. If this does cover them then who in the world is this verse speaking of? No one says Christ wasn’t flesh at all because that would so obviously put them at odds with this quote.

False prophets don’t announce themselves in such a way that Captain Obvious or Simpleton Sam can quickly point them out. They masquerade as true professors of the gospel. The devil is in the details. When you make Christ out to be part of God you make him more than flesh. This is the ugly truth beneath a paper thin disguise.

---------------The ultra dubious history of trinity---------------

For thousands of years Israel and God’s chosen in the book of Genesis knew of only one being as God. Any research into history reveals that the Jews had one of the only monotheistic religions. Many of the false belief systems of the pagans which predated Christ involved polytheistic beliefs. Some accepted many different beings as God. This was completely foreign to Israel.

The presumptuous nature of the modern day Trinitarian kind of amazes me. They worship the same God of the Old Testament that Israel knew for millenniums and presume to tell the Jews who God is. Paul explains how Israel was the natural olive branch in the 11 th chapter of Romans. The gentiles were only grafted in to take their place after they were disobedient.

To say the original followers of the only true God didn’t really know who he was is rather ridiculous to me. He regularly talked to them in the Old Testament. Did they not recognize three different voices?

Moses, the main shepherd of Israel talked to God regularly. He went up into the mountain to commune with God. He actually saw the back parts of God at the end of the 33 rd chapter of Exodus. He never noticed that there were three of God? Do you really think you know who God is better than Moses? I think not.

The majority of Israel were blinded to God’s plan due to disobedience. They looked to fulfill their own notions of righteousness through the works of the law. They needed a deeper understanding that the law ultimately brought them to the logical endpoint of needing Christ because of their own imperfection. Their problem wasn’t that they didn’t accept Christ as God but that they didn’t accept him at all.

This is what and why they missed as Paul and others described it. They did not need to know who God was. Knowing the true God was only compromised by Israel when they let the gentiles notions of other or multiple Gods rub off on them. Does this sound familiar?

When Christ came, he came to save Israel first. This is revealed in Matthew 10:6 and 15:24. If Israel had such an obvious misunderstanding of who God is, why wasn’t this directly addressed by Christ? I cited two specific examples where the Jews directly said he was God and he only deflected it and wished to prove that he was sent by God. I am speaking specifically of John 5:18 and 10:33.

I guess God came down to address his chosen people who by some tremendous oversight didn’t know how many of him there were and just failed to mention it to them. When they accurately said he was God he deflected this truth about his nature to save these lost sheep. He then went out to prove that he was only sent by God in some dishonest show of mach humility. All this makes so much sense, doesn’t it?

Wouldn’t he at least have corrected the apostles who were all Jewish? A lot of time was spent in acts and in the gospels explaining a New Testament and debating dietary laws and circumcision. Wouldn’t the fact that there were really three Gods and Christ was one have been worth some amount of time? Maybe, just maybe, he spent absolutely no time explaining trinity to these naturally monotheistic men because they were right and trinity is false.

Along with the tribes of Israel, the early church did not believe in the trinity. For quite a long time after Christ’s death there was no mention of it. Then it was made up and backed by Rome and spread like a virus. This quote comes from the Encyclopedia Americana.

Unitarianism (belief in a one-person God) as a theological movement began much earlier in history; indeed it antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism, and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road which lead from Jerusalem to (the council of) Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary a deviation from this teaching. It therefore developed against constant Unitarian, or at least anti-Trinitarian opposition.

Trinitarians who know their history will not debate the premise of this quote. Trinity didn’t spring up as a theory until long after Christ had died. It was bolstered by the conference in Nicea in 325. It didn’t become dominant until later in the fourth century or even until the fifth century.

I can’t for the life of me see how these facts are so easily dismissed by some. If trinity were true, why wasn’t it taught to the early church by Christ and the apostles? Why did it have to rely on a very questionable and pagan oriented “Christian” like Constantine?

Trinity became very marketable and viable as it spread through areas with a pagan background who routinely believed in multiple Gods. It was unknown to Jews and the early church who were only grounded in scripture and what was taught by the prophets and apostles. This belief was part of the watering down of Christianity. Trinitarians treat this time of radical change, cultural morph, and compromise of doctrine as some great enlightenment. I see it as a great rotting away of what the Bible teaches.

Any deviation from the gospel message is not a good thing. You can slap the term “enlightenment” on radical change. I use the term “heresy.” Nothing needs to be added to God’s word or the gospel message. By adding something so different you take away something else and get subtraction instead.

(Galatians 1:6-12 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.)

A central part of the gospel is who Christ is. When you combine this verse with the history I have laid out, you begin to see how dangerous trinity is. Again, the early church was not taught, and didn’t believe in trinity. Paul clearly wasn’t taking some kind of liberal attitude toward adding to Christ or the gospel here.

Those who go against the original gospel of Christ as taught by Paul are said to be “accursed” here. This is a heavy condemnation against those who do this. There is no wiggle room or hidden message the church should be looking for after Paul. The church was admonished to stick dogmatically to the original message. It is the only truth.

Roman Catholics in particular act as though they have some special right to add to the Bible. This puts them at odds with this lecture from Paul. No angel or elected man has any right to try and change the basic teachings of the early church.

No manner of clever argument can change what is at the heart of the matter. The minute someone tries to go against the fundamental gospel, they fall right into this despite whatever credentials they claim. There was no authority given to change the story of Christ. If a snake could speak he could tell in a thousand ways why he was a man. But in the end I would know that my eyes don’t lie and it’s a snake.

Nothing further was needed because Paul spoke what was revealed to him by Christ. Anything outside of this would go against the truth and should be dismissed. There can only be one gospel. When you start changing it over the years it becomes like the old “telephone” game I played in kindergarten. The original point is inevitably lost when it is retold and spin is added by so called experts.

(1 st John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.)

(2 nd John 7-11 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 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. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.)

History shows that the early church believed in Christ only as a man. Deceivers came in who preached something different. Decide for yourself who this could be talking about. I like being on the side of Paul, John, and the early church. Whatever they believed was enough to be saved during the church age.

John is emphatically trying to preach preservation and continuance of the basic gospel of who Christ is. In staying with the truth you cannot error. Leaving this basic reality in search of some greater spiritual enlightenment reminds me of those who use LSD. They claim to find some greater understanding but only reach madness in my estimation.

In trying to find something better you can lose what you have. Nothing is better or more enlightening than the story of Christ as told by his apostles. I don’t want a watered down or altered version thank very much. I’ll stick to the original.

<^>God is not a gift, a glass of water, or a television broadcast that can invisibly go in all directions at once and reach the entire world<^>

In my last topic before addressing verses used by Trinitarians I will show that God is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not God. The Holy Ghost or Spirit is an extension or manifestation of God’s power or will. This power or energy can help empower men or do what God needs to get done. It is not a person or any kind of being but God’s influence.

To start with, I take God as a literal being who occupies real space with a discernable form. I don’t see him as a concept or some kind of loose globule or nebulae floating around everywhere. The genesis of this belief can first be found in Genesis 1:26. God made man after his own image. I can only take this to mean that mankind takes on the same general shape and form as God does.

1 st Kings 1:30 identifies heaven as his dwelling place. Revelations 21:3 tells of when God will dwell with the saints on the earth. He isn’t dwelling everywhere all at once. Psalms 9:4, 7; 11:4; 89:14, 29, 36 and Revelations 22:3 all speak of his throne. What purpose would a throne have to some immaterial being without a form like ours?

(Ephesians 1:20 Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places,)

I suppose God set himself by himself here. However, the main point is that there is a specific place where God is. Christ is at his right hand which brings us to my next point.

There are numerous scriptures which speak of God’s hands, eyes, ears, mouth, feet, arms and face. This furthers the idea of God having a real form like ours. There are more but here are some you can look up if you must.

Eyes- Deuteronomy 11:12; 2 nd Chronicles 16:9; Psalms 17:2; 34:15; Proverbs 5:21; 15:3; Amos 9:8

Nose- Isaiah 65:5

Mouth- 1 st Kings 13:21; Isaiah 1:26; 40:5

Hands- Psalms 78:72; Isaiah 29:23; Hebrews 1:10; 10:31

Arms- Isaiah 51:5

Ears- Numbers 11:18; 1 st Samuel 8:21; Isaiah 5:9; 1 st Peter 3:12

Feet- Lamentations 3:34

Face- Lamentations 3:35; Matthew 18:10; Revelations 22:4

I don’t really see how it could use the singular face or nose for God if he were three. Shouldn’t faces plural have been used instead? Does he have one, two or three faces? Does he have two hands, four or six? I say he has the same structure as a man which would mean two ears, eyes, feet, hands, legs and arms and just one face, nose, and torso.

Once you see God as a definable being in form it is harder to spread him out into three beings or the entire universe. Even if you want to say the Holy Spirit doesn’t: God and Christ have faces. Even identical twins each have their own face. God has his own body and face. He is not literally outside of his own body.

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

So the thing that was compared to wind or a tongue of fire and filled the whole house and sat on all there was really God himself. So I guess God has no form at all but is actually more like an ocean wave that can just envelop an entire area with his body. It makes so much more sense to see the Holy Ghost the way I defined it here.

God was upon these people and this house through the power of his Holy Spirit which can manifest in many ways. God himself has an identifiable form. Also notice the impersonal “it” here describing the spirit instead of “God” or “he.” God is never called “it” as this would be insulting to anyone. This word describes a thing and not a person and certainly not the almighty being of the universe.

At worst, I might call an animal “it.” Also, wind is merely a force. It can’t be used for any living creature whatsoever. It does make sense to compare the force of God’s power upon these people to wind. Why not just say God is gravity, electricity, or propulsion while you are at it.

(Acts 2:17, 18 ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, ‘I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my hand-maidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophecy:)

Is God like a gallon of milk that can be poured? Is God himself really going inside people? Which part of his definable body do you get? This whole thing could start to sound like Thanksgiving where you argue over which part of the bird you get. Who gets God’s wishbone?

Also notice the way God speaks of his Holy Spirit as a possession here. He uses the word “my” instead of ‘myself’ or ‘me’. The Holy Spirit is not him but a power he possesses to do his holy will. He can choose to give it to people in order that they can use it for God’s purposes.

It also speaks of God’s spirit being poured in Isaiah 32:15 and 44:3. How can God’s literal body be described in any way as being poured? It also speaks of it being shed.

(Titus 3:5,6 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Which He shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour;)

Instead of the word “which” why not use ‘who’ or ‘whom.’ The Holy Ghost is again referred to in a very impersonal way here. I just can’t see the ultimate being and creator of the universe being poured like liquid or shed on someone or disrespected like this.

(John 7:38, 39 He that believeth on Me, as the scripture hath said, out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water.” <But this spake He of the Spirit, Which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.>)

There is something funny about God himself being given to someone. I understand coming to a greater understanding of him or building a relationship with God. However, I can’t see God literally being given to someone like a father gives their daughter to the groom at a wedding.

(Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.)

Here you can see a group receive the Holy Ghost through prayer. It again spreads out onto a group. It is used to help spiritually energize these people to do God’s will.

(Acts 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”)

The Holy Ghost is a gift which God bestows upon whom he will. This is the power he uses to arm people with the ability to prophecy, speak with tongues, understand scripture, and even perform miracles. It is fine to see it as an extension of his will. God’s power is not God however.

The electricity powering my computer as I am typing right this moment is provided by the electric company. The electricity is not the electric company. It is a gift or service they provide to whom they will. It is an extension of what they can do for me. The Holy Spirit is what God can give to you.

God himself can’t literally spread out over the entire world and literally go inside everyone he wants. He can do this through the extension of his spirit or power. This is a great gift he can give. God’s body is not the gift. He will stay in heaven until all is made right on earth.

(1 Corinthians 2:10-14 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 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.)

Look at the way God’s spirit is used here in a deeper context. Man has a natural spirit inside him. Note this is not some separate other being but a life force, feeling, or way of thinking inside man. It is quite natural and carnal in man’s original state.

God’s sprit is much more perfect and more powerful than man’s spirit. It is used to enlighten man and give him a better spirit for understanding. It is not God’s spiritual body kicking out man’s spiritual body like some ethereal landlord. If God’s body moved into all his believers how many bodies would he have?

See in verse twelve where it says “the spirit which is of God.” Things ‘which are of me’ are results of my actions, attributes, or possessions. They are not me. Why not just say “the spirit who is God” here. The language used of the spirit here is so impersonal and only related to God rather than actually being God.

Notice also in verse twelve that this spirit is being compared and contrasted with the spirit of the world. When someone has the spirit of the world in them do they have everyone in the world living in them similar to the movie “Being John Malkovic?” This is not speaking of a literal being dwelling inside you but an influence.

In verse thirteen the Holy Ghost is compared and contrasted with “man’s wisdom.” Man’s wisdom is an attribute or influence of man and not the man himself. God’s spirit is not God himself.

(1 st Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.)

Christ’s name is not him. It is something which identifies him. I am not my name but a real being. A name is just a title we put on something or someone.

Of course people are saved thanks to the real actions of Christ. However, this is speaking in the context of how you are saved through belief through identifying and recognizing Christ and his story. Doing something in the name of God hopefully positively represents him or his purpose.

Similarly, the “Spirit of our God” is not really God but something used by him to complete a goal of his. In this case it is part of how you are washed, sanctified, and justified. Of course you will only be given the spirit by God’s choice and this spirit represents what God wants but it just isn’t literally God. The flow of this verse just doesn’t support that.

God and Christ do save you. The point here is that something of theirs is vital to grab onto in order to be forgiven of your sins. The name of Christ and the spirit of our God are essential tools in building a relationship with the afore mentioned beings. They are a stepping stone but not the individuals themselves.

Notice the word “of” here. This word shows possession of something. Much like the ‘God the son’ discussion earlier; it just never says ‘God the Holy Ghost.’ You just can’t invert ‘the spirit of God’ to ‘God the spirit’ similar to ‘the son of God’ not equaling ‘God the son.’ Language and order can’t be rearranged to suit your needs.

(1 st John 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and he in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.)

Do you see how the connection here is a loose one versus being literal? God dwelling in us through his spirit is compared to us dwelling in him. Is there some other real part of you inside of God’s body right now?

God’s spirit is no more him than the part of you that is in God. It is a spiritual connection versus a physical union. If God’s spirit really was him; he really would be inside of you. It would not be comparable to you being in him unless you think part of you actually is.

This verse also starts to ask the question: how much “of” God do you get? Is there some portion or percentage of God’s body given? Let’s look at another verse which raises this issue.

(John 3:34 For He Whom God hath sent speaketh the word of God: for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto Him.)

What possible sense does this verse make if all three (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) are the same being? It is good to know that God doesn’t give himself himself just by measure. It is good to know that God doesn’t have just part of himself that another coequal part of himself decided that he could have. It is great that I have all of myself as well. I guess I gave all of me to myself.

Outside of the ridiculous silliness created when you try and juxtapose this verse next to trinity, it again brings up the idea of amount of the spirit. I can understand quantity in terms of something that powers or enables you to do something. It is measurable and understandable in things like gasoline, electricity, or strength.

How much of someone you get just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Measurable portions of the ultimate being in the universe getting doled out to people as needed sounds extremely strange to me. I can easily understand getting a portion of his power or understanding.

(Philippians 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,)

Spiritual A C T test:

Which of these doesn’t fit with the rest?

(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.)

I have a question for all Trinitarians everywhere. If the Holy Ghost caused Mary to conceive and it was a real being wouldn’t God the Holy Spirit be the father of God the Son? God the father wasn’t there was he?

You can see here that the Holy Ghost represents God’s power. God caused Mary to conceive through his power overshadowing her. God’s power and the Holy Ghost are used interchangeably here.

Beyond these uses in scripture of what the Holy Spirit is, pay close attention to how it is never used. God is Jehovah which is properly pronounced Yahweh. Jesus is our lord and savior.

I never see a name given to the Holy Ghost. Angels have names. Everyone on earth has a name. Even dogs have names. If this is a distinct being why is it never given a name?

Also notice that God and Jesus are mentioned in all the opening salutations in most all of the books of The New Testament after The Acts. God the Holy Spirit is never directly addressed. Was God the Holy Spirit just forgotten about or omitted? Do you think he got jealous? Was he jipped or jobbed or ripped off?

The Bible speaks of Christ being at God’s right hand. It talks about both of them reigning and having a throne. Where is God the Holy Spirit in all this? Why does no one ever directly address him in prayer in the Bible? Maybe it is because they would rather talk to God himself instead of his power which isn’t a literal being.

(Revelations 5:13-7:9, 10 And every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, “Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him That sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.”-----------After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God Which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”)

Why heap all this glory and honor on only two-thirds of God? Why does the Bible never tell you to honor, love, or worship the Holy Spirit? It is impossible for me to believe that any part of who God is could get this completely left out and shut out. Is God the Holy Spirit in the witness protection program or something?

There are any number of verses I could type where God or Christ are directly quoted. As in God said “yada yada” or Christ said “such and such.” The closest thing you will find to this with the Holy Spirit is “as the Holy Ghost saith” in Hebrews 3:7. This was referring back to something God said of Israel. You won’t find a direct quote from the Holy Ghost.

The Bible also talks about emotions and inner thoughts of God such as things angering him or being well pleased with Christ. In Genesis he repented of making man. Christ wept and showed emotions and state of mind in his words and in the record of his story. Please show me anywhere in the entire Bible where any emotion or state of mind is shown by the Holy Ghost. Please show me a verse that really shows it is a being in any direct way.

---------------Verses used by those who believe in the trinity---------------

My favorite argument used by Trinitarians could have easily been listed above in my case in chief. Enough of them point it out however, that I feel justified in using it in this category. I thank all Trinitarians everywhere for bringing this subject up and springing a trap.

They point to genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8. In these verses God says “Let us make man in our image,” “Man has become as one of us,” “Let us go down and confound,” and “Who will go for us?” They attempt to use these plural pronouns as evidence that there is a plurality of Gods. Unfortunately for them, the pronouns that refer to God all throughout the Bible only strengthen my side of the debate.

Before getting into that, note that all of these verses are at least somewhat ambiguous in terms of speaking of only God. God has used his angels to help carry out his will. They work in perfect unison with him and even represent him to mankind. Angels were also made in the same image as God. Angels were mistaken for men in Sodom in the 19 th chapter of Genesis.

Using plural pronouns to prove plural Gods is something like proving how easy it is to win the lottery by pointing to the few who have won: while ignoring the thousands who have tried and haven’t won. There are thousands of singular pronouns used to describe God in the Bible. Over and over he is referred to by “I, He, His, Himself, Me, and Mine.” I would rather glean a rule from thousands of verses than the anomalies used by Trinitarians.

Ultimately, these pronouns either refer to one God or multiple Gods. I will take my thousands over your few any old day of the week. It is the difference between an obvious and telling pattern and the exception to the rule. Feel free to stake your argument and credibility on pronouns.

Along with this, Trinitarians use the plural word Elohim used for God in Genesis 1:26 to show he is actually more than one. I guess they understand the Hebrew language and how words are used better than the entire tribe of Israel who knew it and lived it. Israel never took this reference to mean more than one God. I need someone who doesn’t actually speak fluent English to explain how words are used in English to me. This makes perfect sense.

The Jewish people were chosen by God through Abraham. They knew their own language quite well. Also, implying the word proves more than one doesn’t stand up to further scrutiny when you investigate how it is used in other places in the Bible. The word is also used for men who exercise authority and for angels.

(Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy God<Elohim> giveth thee to possess?--)

(1 st Samuel 5:7 And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, “The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our God <Elohim>)

In both of these instances Elohim was used to describe a single pagan God. You just can’t offer a word up as proof and then ignore how it is actually used in scriptures. This narrow and limited view doesn’t lead to enlightenment.

The word itself actually means “the Strong One.” When it applies to God it is usually accompanied by singular verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. The plural nature of the word refers to God’s many perfect qualities or attributes or his power over everything. It doesn’t apply to how many of him there are or denote quantity of beings.

(Colossians 1:12-22 Giving thanks unto the Father, Which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; 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: 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: And he is before all things, and by Him all things consist. 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 preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell; 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. And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight :)

The earth and mankind who inhabit it are all part of a master plan of God. He is in the business of creating sons. This process starts by forgiving some men of their sins. It ends when all that are his are changed to be like him and are given the kingdom on earth. An innocent man dying for sins was a completely necessary part of this plan. There ultimately would have been no reason for his creation without Christ.

This is the context in which Paul speaks here. These verses begin and end with this idea. Trinitarians like to look at only verse sixteen out of any context or flow of Paul’s greater point. By only looking at this verse they claim that Jesus has always existed and that he actually physically created everything.

Verses twelve through fourteen make it clear that salvation comes only through the death or blood of Christ. Verses twenty through twenty-two do the same. To me these are bookends of the point Paul is establishing in the middle.

The whole idea of the word “born” shows a start point. I take “Firstborn” in verse fifteen as still being in the context of salvation. This idea is expanded upon in verse eighteen.

In eighteen it qualifies Christ firstborn status as “Firstborn from the dead.” This gave him preeminence in being changed first of all the church of which he is the head. He was not the first of God’s children before this. He did not pre-exist all other men but was the first one to be changed and saved.

According to the information I have the first “by” in verse sixteen should have been rendered “in” and the second “through.” All things were created in him, through him, and for him. However you would like the words translated the idea still falls in line with Paul’s greater point here.

Only by, through, or in Christ could God’s plan happen. He is a crucial part of the entire thing. Without him there would be no salvation. Without a chance for salvation, why would God create a doomed mankind with no possibility of reward or a long term relationship with their father? By Christ God did create everything as hopefully by God I create this paper you are reading.

Another place Trinitarians go coincides with this idea. Go for yourself at this time to the first seventeen verses of the gospel of John. The first verse sets the stage and shouldn’t be misunderstood.

A word is a collection of letters that define an idea. Words help build concrete and complex thought. A word is not any kind of living being. The word “being” definitively describes a concept. What brand of metaphysical nonsense are people selling who claim that God is literally just a word? They are the same that claim God is the emotion love or some invisible force.

Someone’s thought is a big part of who they are. Your faith and actions spring from your inner thoughts. Everyone and everything you see are God’s ideas made into physical reality. This is how this chapter starts.

To take “the word was God” in some simple, primitive, and literal way is to miss the picture John paints here. He was building on what words were in God and how they translated to creation. The light in verses 4-9 isn’t just like a flashlight but used to show the enlightenment of the knowledge of the gospel and how it leads to life. All men weren’t in God in verse four but all their lives were planned out and brought into being by him.

God’s plan of life through Christ was revealed to the world in verses eight through thirteen. The light, the word, and the lives of all men were in God’s mind when he created all things. By these things God created the world. However, none of these things are God. Verse ten can only be looked at in this context.

Verse thirteen furthers this idea. The importance of this idea of John isn’t literal creation but the plan and significance behind it. It doesn’t matter so much how men were created procreated or who their parents were. It is deeper than just having skin and breathing air.

This is speaking of being born again into God’s plan. It is what was behind all creation. This isn’t speaking of the physical act of creation. By Christ’s life and the believer’s knowledge of it he can enter in to God’s family and be part of a plan of eternal creation born of God.

This all leads to verse fourteen where God’s thought of a messiah became real living flesh. All God needs do is speak the word and use his power for his thought to become real. It is so easy for him that in his mind reality is whatever he wills and speaks.

This is how the word became flesh. It wasn’t God going through some metamorphosis from God to word to change into a man. God didn’t change into light or the lives of men either. He gave these things to mankind. These things weren’t him. They were his plan manifested into reality.

In verses 6-8 and 15 John is making it clear that John’s job was to be a witness to Christ and explain his part in the plan. What do Moses and the law compared to grace and Christ in verse seventeen have to do with the physical creation of the world. This whole thing was not an exposition on how the world was made but why it was made. Christ was a huge part of the why. The creation was just a part of a larger plan. The plan is what is being described here.

I invite you to read the first chapter of Genesis. This is where it speaks of God physically creating the earth. Did Moses know which God actually did it? He only knew of the one true God which Israel worshipped.

(Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein :)

(Isaiah 45:5-8, 12, 18 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside Me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known Me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it.----I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.-------For thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord; and there is none else.)

Do these verses in Isaiah sound like God was leaving any room whatsoever for another God who created all? Can you see why Jews or people familiar with the Old Testament in general have such a hard time with trinity? This is talking about who created the heavens, the earth, and mankind thereon. It is only speaking of the one true God who Israel knew as such.

Notice specifically in verse five that Israel does know God. In twelve he uses the phrase “even My hands” which I take to mean God directly created. He didn’t even want them considering that something or someone other than the God they knew had created all things. Where could God the Son creating all be in any of this?

(The Acts 17:22-26, 31 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an alter with this inscription, TO THE UNKOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 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; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 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;---------Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man Whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath Raised Him from the dead.”)

This is Paul expounding about God to people who are completely ignorant of the gospel; and completely unfamiliar with the God Paul believes in. To start with, where is trinity in all this? Paul doesn’t talk anything about God the Holy Spirit or God the Son. He only speaks of one God and the man he ordained and raised from the dead. Are they to mystically divine that this man was actually also God?

More to the point however, this clearly identifies who made the earth and all the nations who dwell here. Paul is very specific when he points out that God will judge through Christ. God’s judgment will ultimately be prosecuted by the man he ordained. While it comes from the almighty, it is Christ who will actually carry it out.

Nothing like this is said about creation here. Did it slip Paul’s mind that Christ really made the world? Was Paul detail oriented about judgment and sloppily unspecific and vague about creation in the same speech?

I see Trinitarian’s angle when trying to use verses saying that Christ actually physically created the world. If they prove this; they can say Christ was there in the beginning and co-eternal with God and that he is God. The problem is that this chain of logic breaks down with the first link. God created the world and not the man he ordained and raised from the dead.

(John 20:27, 28 Then Saith He to Thomas, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said unto Him, “My Lord and my God,”)

This is the story of “doubting Thomas” who didn’t believe that Christ had risen from the dead. He was obviously stunned to not only see Christ but be able to physically verify his resurrection. He didn’t call him “My Lord and my God” or say “you Christ are my Lord and my God.”

To me Thomas wasn’t identifying who he was talking to. He was showing his emotion upon seeing the one he claimed hadn’t risen from the dead in a very basic way. This sounds like a shocked exclamation. How many times have you heard someone say “my God’ when they see something big that they can’t immediately process?

In addition to this general phenomenon, we are dealing with an according to Hoyle miracle here. Thomas, as a believer in Christ and his teachings, had to know that seeing Christ alive directly confirmed the power and promise of God. The whole thing went back to him. It would be natural in both these ways for him to say “my God” upon seeing Christ.

Say you died a very public and painful death. If you three days later showed up and presented yourself to friends would you not expect them to say pretty much the exact same thing Thomas said? Would this mean that they think you are God?

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

(2 nd Peter 1:1 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 :)

Trinitarians try to use an unsure rule to retranslate these verses. Even if you want to place the “our” before God there is still an “and” in between God and Christ as I read it. If you knew the president you could call him “my president and friend” and designate that he is both to you. I suppose this is the way Trinitarians use “and” here.

However, God and Christ are separated by the word as I see it. If I said “I can’t wait for the arrival of Rich and Jenny” would I be proving that they are one in my mind? “God and Christ” are as separate as “me and you” or “you and I.”

This is another case where people use something which could easily be looked at either way as sure footed proof of something else. If you only had these verses to go by to understand God, you could go either way. I can use these verses to prove my side just as easily as others can use them to prove the other side. I just used the word “and” with two names in a sentence speaking of two different individuals. These verses are completely indecisive and inconclusive given what we are debating.

Is this really proof of anything? You trot out “God and Christ” used in a sentence and that proves that God is Christ? God and Christ, God and Christ, God and Christ, God and Christ, me and you, me and you, me and you, me and you. You got me; I guess you are me and Christ is God after all. That is really powerful stuff.

The next thing I would like to discuss is the first chapter of the book of Hebrews. At first glance, a few verses are the closest thing to proving trinity in the Bible. However, when you look at the chapter as a whole and go beyond a first glance; I can point out several things which make this fall far short of proving trinity and actually help my case.

This chapter is comparing Christ to the angels of God. To start with, God is clearly above his angels. If Christ were God, he would obviously be above them. This would be plain and simple and unworthy of a long discussion and quotations from other scriptures.

In verses 1 and 2 he is first compared with the prophets as a mouthpiece for God. God “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.” Of course if Christ were God, wouldn’t God have been directly speaking to us and not by someone as in “by the prophets” like verse 1.

Then, Christ was “appointed Heir of all things.” Note the word “Heir.” Also, who can appoint or disavow God? This again shows God’s superiority over Christ. Do you believe in a God who relies on someone else to appoint them? Who and the world could do that: wield that kind of power? What if they take it back?

Verses 3 and 13 answer the question of when Christ sat by God. Verses 3 and 4 state “when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Closely notice the word inheritance.

God isn’t greater than the angels by inheriting anything from anyone. He can’t inherit anything because everything was his to begin with. He also doesn’t need to “obtain” a more excellent name than the angels. His superiority is unquestioned and unmistakable.

(Romans 8:16, 17 The Spirit Itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.)

Christ, as an heir of God, inherited everything God has. We are in exactly the same boat and are “joint-heirs with Christ.” We will ultimately be glorified as he was. This isn’t to say that anyone in the church measures up to the example of Christ, but the inheritance is the same.

How in the world could God be an heir of anything when he created everything? How could someone in the same position as us, a joint-heir, be God? What possible comparison is there between us, who are all trying to receive what is God’s, and God the giver? Is Bill Gates an heir to the Microsoft fortune? No, it is his to begin with. The words “heir” and “inherit” would have no place in relation to the everlasting and almighty creator of the universe.

Verse five shows that there was a time when God became Christ’s father. Notice “this day have I begotten thee,” and “I will (future tense) be to Him a Father.” Given this, and given the theory that they have both always been, what were they called before they were father and son? What was God the Son called before he was God’s son? Was he God the one day Son or something?

Verse six again shows that Christ had a starting point. The angels were to worship him when God brought him into the world. If Christ were an everlasting part of God, shouldn’t this have been the case long before? The angels have always been in a position to worship God.

The spin begins in verses eight and nine. The son is called God here. However, does this really prove that he is God? Let’s look deeper into this.

I invite you at this time to carefully read the third and fourth chapters of the book of Exodus. In 3:2 “the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him (Moses) in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush.” The fact that this is an angel is reconfirmed in The Acts 7:35.

Read in verse four “God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.” In verse six He said “I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The angel speaks to him as God through verse ten.

In verses eleven and thirteen it says “And Moses said unto God.” In verse fourteen “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM.” The conversation goes on but I am confident I have made my point.

This angel was not only called God. He spoke directly as God. His words were ascribed as God’s own words. Moses addressed him directly and repeatedly as God. This is far more powerful and direct than a single verse calling someone God. Does all this prove that the angel was literally God?

If it doesn’t, why does Christ being called God prove that he is God? When compared to the verses in Exodus, the single verse in Hebrews is left wanting. Is it some sort of fielder’s choice or something? Is it because you say this verse does prove it but these verses over here don’t? Are we dealing with concrete proof or selective interpretation to bolster a case for something?

In Exodus 4:16 Moses is given to be “God” over Aaron. In Exodus 22:28 the word “gods” refers to human judges. In Exodus 21:6; 22:8, 9; and 1 st Samuel 2:25 the word “judges” is translated from the Hebrew elohim or God. Along with these I have already pointed out John 10:34-36 from Psalms 82:6, 7 which refer to Israel as Gods. But I guess when the title is given to Christ it absolutely proves that he is literally God.

With all these angels, judges, and Israel being called God or Gods; I would have only been surprised if Christ wasn’t also called God. He was the most perfect man to ever live. His actions and character matched God. Because of this, he represented God to mankind. This does not make him the almighty and eternal creator of the universe; Jah.

Much of the books of Genesis and Exodus were given as not only a true story but an allegory of something else. They were physical and temporal examples of a far greater and eternal situation. By way of for instance, I think the story of Joseph in Genesis closely shadowed the story of Christ.

Joseph was sold out by the then small tribe of Israel. He rose from a pit of near death. He went through suffering to eventually be exalted at age thirty. He then saved Israel and Egypt (a picture of the world) with his understanding given of God of a famine. Those who sold him out eventually repented and acknowledged they needed him.

The final point which will get us directly back to the discussion is that he was made ruler of Egypt by Pharaoh. People were to bow to him and reverence him as though he was Pharaoh. Only in throne was Pharaoh greater. I believe this describes why Christ was called God. Like the angel who appeared to Moses, he directly represented God.

To get back to the first chapter in Hebrews: closely look at verse nine. Because Christ had “loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” As a reward for his actions, Christ was anointed above his fellows. God doesn’t need to prove anything and he has no fellows to be raised above in any way.

Think again of the order laid down: woman is to man as man is to Christ as Christ is to God. 1 st Peter 3:5, 6 show that Sarah called Abraham lord to show reverence as her husband. It is also natural for all mankind to call Christ lord because of the order given or even God due to his perfection.

However, Joseph was called Pharaoh, but he still had a Pharaoh to answer to ultimately. Moses might have been God as to Aaron, but Yah was still his God. Of Christ it says “even Thy God” showing he still had the one true God above him. He might be God to us but his God is still Jah. I’m not sure where God the Holy Ghost is to fit into any of this by the way. Maybe he is invisibly in the margin in between God and Christ.

Again, this whole chapter is showing how Christ is greater than the angels with verse four showing he was made that way by God. In verses five and six notice how it carefully designates multiple references to Christ with the word “again.” This word clearly shows that the next quote is again speaking of Christ. The angels are then specifically addressed in 7. Then it specifies that it will roll back to Christ in 8.

Notice that there is no “again” in between the quote in verses 8 and 9 and the one in 10-12. To me this pattern shows that verses 10-12 aren’t speaking directly about Christ. Verses 8 and 9 show where God put Christ and 10-12 show that God is the eternal creator whose foundation and decisions shouldn’t be challenged.

Say we are on a worksite. I might say “Tom says that Jeff is in charge and he (Tom) has always been the owner and head manager of the company.” I would not only be giving a quote as to why Jeff is in charge. I am showing the ultimate authority from whom the quote comes and why it should be respected.

This chapter is showing Christ’s superiority through quotes. It is perfectly natural to show the power and authority behind these old references to Christ. Christ is above the angels because God put him there and God is the one who sets up everything forever.

Verse thirteen again clearly shows it is speaking of Christ by again contrasting this quote about him with the angels as it did in verse five. If ten through twelve were speaking of Christ, why not just say “and again”. He uses the word “but” and resets the original comparison with angels. This is a tell that we are switching back to Christ here and not continuing with more about Christ from ten through twelve as I think these verses don’t directly refer to him. Every other quote for Christ is clearly set up and designated in this entire chapter. The pattern breaks in verse ten for a reason.

Without a clear reference to Christ or an “again” before the quote starting in ten, I don’t see clear proof that it is directly speaking of Christ. To me, the pattern of the chapter shows that it isn’t. It is ambiguous at worst. To use 10-12 to show that Christ has always been is a very shaky and unstable way to try and prove anything.

(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, Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.)

This whole thing is a look at how being humble and serving others can lead to receiving glory and being exalted. As men we do not start out very glorious. If you try to esteem yourself high and become selfish you will only lower yourself in the end.

Christ said in Matthew 23:12 “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” In Mark 10:42-45 he said “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

This general rule for mankind also applied to Christ. I never in scripture see God talked about in this way. God is to be served: he is no one’s servant. God and his prophets freely speak of his greatness. He doesn’t need to hold himself low to one day be exalted because he is automatically the most exalted being possible.

As men, we are not to think of ourselves as God thinks of himself. This just isn’t realistic or healthy. It is great to strive to be like God but you must realize that you will fall short at times. This is where repentance, another act of humility, comes into course.

We are to follow the living example of another man: namely Christ. He was made as a man. Even though God had a great plan for him and he represented God’s perfection, he humbly served God and mankind through his actions and his attitude.

If Christ could serve other people, surely you or I can as well. However, it just isn’t God’s place to do this. There is no comparison between our position and that of God. I just can’t think of my self as the eternal, infallible, and all powerful being of the universe and then go from there. This just wouldn’t be instructive or helpful.

In verse five in Philippians Paul is instructing you to have the same mindset as Christ had. Verses six and seven further explore this state of mind which Christ had. They look at his view of self compared to others or his place in the world. The phrases “form of God” and “form of a servant” were conflicting roles he could have played out with his actions and attitude while on earth. He chose to be a servant.

In six it is important to see “equal with God” in this context. His place compared to all the powers and powerful in the world was as God. However, when compared to God, I believe I have already demonstrated how God is ultimately above him.

Also, if he were God, how could he possibly choose to be above or below himself? It is just impossible to be unequal with yourself. My goal today is to be equal with me. How ridiculous does that sound? This whole part of the conversation would be wasted Babel.

Verse eight shows how Christ humbled himself and showed obedience through his death. Notice the word “Wherefore” in verse nine. Because of his actions as described in verse eight he was exalted by God. This is an example to us. God being exalted by God is an example for no one but God.

Yet again I have no possible idea, clue, or vague thought of how or why God would be exalted. HE IS ALREADY GOD FOR GOD’S SAKE. You can’t exalt the greatest. He doesn’t need his own approval to be great. He can’t become any greater.

Men do need him to be great. He is in a position to give men everything or take everything including life itself away from them. No one is in a position to give God anything. God giving something to himself is idiotic nonsense.

I started this section with my favorite argument. I shall close it with my least favorite verse used by those who oppose. It is a verse best known as “a spurious text.” I am of course speaking of 1 st John 5:7.

This forgery of a verse wasn’t found in any manuscript before the sixteenth century. This, of course, was long after John was dead. Someone tried to become an illegitimate author of scripture. They have been caught and discovered by anyone who makes any effort to know the true history of this verse.

To their credit, in an attempt to maintain a shred of credibility, most Trinitarians who have studied this out will agree with me on this. It is widely accepted that this verse was added and is not part of John’s work but an imposter verse masquerading as something to be seriously considered. I refuse to play along with the charade.

As there is no real doubt that this is a phony verse, I really don’t feel the need to type it or further discuss the details of it. This would give the imposter who wrote it too much credit. Why dignify a lie? Those who actually want to continue on about this passage past this point only prove me right about the made up language of trinity to the hundredth power. Using this made up verse is the zenith of a made up doctrine.

As long as we are making up verses, I can make one up too. How about 1 st John 5:22. “And, little children, read Disproving Trinity by Matt Andrews and believe all he says on the matter and everyone pay him a tithe of all you have while you are at it.” See! See! I must be throwing straight dice and telling the truth because it says it right there in 1 st John 5:22. COME ON. You only look desperate by trying to use this.

The basic story of Christ is that he was a man who came about in the flesh through a virgin birth and was tempted with all manner of sins. Through God’s power and authority he overcame all sin, did miracles, and preached of a coming kingdom and a new testament. He then became sin and died on the cross to the sins of the world. One man for all men! God raised him from the dead after he was dead for three days. He then ascended to God to be a mediator or advocate to God for those who accepted him.

This entire story is undone at virtually every turn by believing that Christ was actually one part of a three part God. Birth doesn’t have any meaning if it is not the start of life. God had been around long before Mary. God can’t be tempted with sin. He needs no one to give him power to perform miracles. He can’t even look upon sin or much more actually embody it. God can’t die. A part of him can’t serve as mediator between himself and mankind because of the English language. The only way Christ could be given power or authority or made Lord is if he was a man without these to begin with.

I see no meeting of the minds or partial acceptance in something which contradicts the basic story of the gospel. This is why this paper was so brutal toward this belief and the inevitable arguments that come with it. I don’t mean to demean people who do believe this way but I have to strongly go against what I see as a doctrine of devils.

When debating those who believe in trinity using scripture some will stand by inconsistent and incomplete arguments. This is because you can show huge inconsistencies between this belief and how the Bible describes God and Christ. This leaves them with old favorites like Christ was 100% man and100% God or God died but he didn’t really die at exactly the same time. If Christ was one third of God and he was tempted: God was tempted and if one third of God dies the other two parts were still alive. This is very basic deduction which can’t be overwhelmed with silliness.

Others will see the complete lack of logic and coherent argument on their side and resort to something different. They will say it is all about faith or this is a mystery of the faith. Faith is an essential part of inheriting the kingdom of God. But my question is faith in what?

You must have faith in a God, messiah, and kingdom which you haven’t directly seen. I understand faith when it comes to how God does miracles. There is no scientific or deep nuts and bolts way to understand how God makes things happen. You just need to trust that he can and will live up to his word.

However, I don’t understand blind faith in regards to the most basic story of Christ. If you are blind how this jives with scripture you have a fundamental problem on your hands which shouldn’t be so easily dismissed. I don’t see anything glorious or noble about putting the faith label on something at odds with the Bible.

Many pagans and heretics may have had tremendous and unquestionable faith in what they believed. Do you really think it gets them anywhere? Maybe it is best to actually put your faith in what makes the most sense given what the Bible has to say. This is faith well spent. Faith which opposes this is a stubborn way to try and overwhelm God’s word and basic logic applied to it.

You might try to explain to a petulant child that two plus two equals four. They could believe with all their heart that it equals five or Jell-O. Does their faith win the day or are they just stubbornly wrong? When verses, language, and all logic add up to a truth of the Bible: it is not faith to ignore them.

If trinity makes the most sense to you after reading this paper and carefully considering it: I’m big enough to say that you should reread and reconsider and even think again and maybe pound your head into the wall to straighten up your brain. If it still makes the most sense, I guess it makes sense to go on believing. However, if my thesis makes more coherent and consistent sense given the Bible’s descriptions of God and Christ: you are obliged to believe it. Not because I said it, but because it is the truth of the Bible.

From the time we begin growing into adults, through examination and experience we come to certain truths which weren’t with us as children. I really believe a large majority of people who believe trinity haven’t really done a thorough search of scripture to come to establish this belief. The whole idea is to come to conclusions based on research and soul searching if you will. To just blindly go against my conclusions because that is how you were raised or that is what your church teaches is very dangerous.

No matter how hard you try, you can’t make something which is clearly wrong actually be right. You also can’t bend the inaccurate into accurate or fantasy into fact. There is no way to change basic reality into making you right. You can only change your mind and become in the right by accepting the truth. You have to change when you see the truth. The truth won’t change for you.

(Luke 8:10 And He said, “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.)

(Ephesians 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,)

(Colossians 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to His saints,)

The gospel story of Christ, God, and the coming kingdom have been revealed. When people say these things are a mystery to them, unfortunately, I think they are more right and honest than they know. It is extremely mysterious and baffling how the story of trinity could possibly fit in with the gospel story and the letters in the New Testament. The mystery happens as a result of incongruity between different scriptures or the gap between their story and logic.

All kinds of versions of Christ and God can and have been asserted by all manner of people. All those which don’t jive with scripture could say they are right in some mysterious way. The whole thing reminds me of moral relativism as taught by ultra liberals. When you follow their way of thinking to a logical endpoint, no one and nothing is really right or wrong. The psycho, who for no good reason, suicide bombs a bus full of people going to work is exactly identical to a United States soldier.

This same way of thinking leads to people not wanting kids to fail in school or even be graded. Red lines by the teacher through test answers are considered harsh and inappropriate. I’ve even heard of how sports shouldn’t keep score as not to stigmatize those on the losing side.

This whole everyone wins and everyone is right mindset just can’t really exist outside of Disneyland. It certainly has no place in the Bible. A select few will believe the gospel message and follow a straight and narrow path to salvation. Many others will not see the gospel and not do right by God and will ultimately be destroyed. They will have all sorts of spin and justification but it won’t cover this ultimate reality.

All this takes me back to the alternate title of this paper. When something doesn’t make sense; it is to be rejected and not followed. God is not a sculpture, carved from pure ice, that eternally rests completely still and immovable on the surface of the sun while simultaneously jumping rope on the surface of the moon only and also plays pinball on Saturn while never jumping rope or being on the sun. Why not?

God isn’t something which doesn’t make sense.

He isn’t part of a story that doesn’t add up.

This is not just a mystery. A mystery is something beyond someone’s understanding which could ultimately make sense to someone else with greater understanding of the subject or greater wisdom. Nonsense and contradiction are why this statement couldn’t describe God.

Is trinity really so different?