TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

This thread is an open discussion in response to a friend of Canuckus’ who found my challenges to the Trinity interesting and decided to engage me in talking about the subject. This is not meant for the faint hearted, or light reader.
Here is the original post:






First I will give a bulleted summary of my response, for those who would rather not wade through pages of information, then I will provide my sources and commentary.

A. Philippians was written for the purpose of telling us how we are to think of ourselves, therefore, it wasn’t written to explain a coequal person in the godhead incarnating himself.
B.1. Being made in the form of God can be addressed from three biblical angles, first, that Jesus was a human son of David who inherited the throne of David. Jesus explained His authority as that of other Israelites who were called “gods” by God Himself, thus Jesus Himself, in that manner, both rejected the idea that He was literally God, and presented the biblical context for His God-given authority.
B.2. Secondly, Jesus said that He could do nothing of Himself, which would be impossible for Him to say if He was the person of God, or inherently deity. He did NOT say “of his flesh he could do nothing.”
B.3. Jesus was the second Adam, and being the second Adam is the true, biblical foundation for calling any humans made in the image or form of God.
C. The Trinitarian position that Jesus humbled Himself so God could exalt him is simply absurd, and actually makes a mockery of Jesus’ feat of overcoming sin.
D. The Trinity actually only gives lip service to Christ’s humanity by claiming that Christ’s actual identity is deity. No man has such deity inherent to his identity, and the Bible says Jesus was made in all things like His brothers (men, not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit).
E. The actual source of the Trinitarian view of Christ comes from antichristian gnosticism and Trinitarians just modified it so it appears more biblical, but it’s not.
F. Jesus explained Himself in terms that are not consistent or compatible with the theory of an incarnated God/man hybrid.
G. Foreknowledge, a biblical term with biblical explanations, and is thus an inherently biblical explanation of Jesus, and it is contrary to the idea of a literal preexistence, which is a nonsensical and unbiblical word.
H. Another biblical doctrine, is the doctrine of “agency”, (Jesus as an agent sent from the Father to speak the Father’s words to us). It is also a much more biblical concept of Jesus’ relation to the Father, and is, again, quite opposite to the pagan and Trinitarian idea of Christ having an “identity” as a God-person.

Continued in Part 2...

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 2, the details of my response begin...

And here is how my response goes. This is more of a general response of material I already had prepared. In fact most, if not all of it, can be found in my book, “God is One and Christ is All; Biblical Truth Against the Trinity”. It is currently out of print in the hard copy because i’m in the process of editing it.

Does Philippians 2:5-12 teach that a preexistent deific Jesus consciously determined before his incarnation to come as a human being. Let’s look at this passage and then see if we can discern what it really has to say:

“Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:5–12)

A. This passage begins by telling us how we are to think: “Have this in your mind.” The main topic of the passage, according to the passage, is our attitude regarding our position before God. The passage uses Christ as an example for us to help us understand what is to be in our minds. The apostle reiterates that purpose in the conclusion in verse 12. This he begins by saying, “So then…”48 By this phrase, he links all that was said about what was in “the mind of Christ” to what he says next. “So then…as you have always obeyed…now…work out your own salvation…” (Philippians 2:12). To paraphrase, it is primarily saying to us, “here’s how you are to think of yourself: the way Christ thought of himself.”

It is disingenuous to think that a coequal person in heaven would not “consider it robbery to be equal to God”! Wait, what? Any way you slice it, it doesn’t fit the context of what is being said. There is absolutely no concept of coequality, as is required in the Trinity, in this passage. The passage makes perfect sense when you consider that it is talking about a man to whom it was revealed that He was the only begotten Son of God for the purpose of being the ultimate agency of God’s authority, and the author of mankind’s salvation.

Now look at what it is saying in context, without trying to impose the Trinity doctrine that was hammered out centuries after this was written. Obviously, none of us consciously remembers being in heaven and thinking, “Being as I am God, I am going to become a human in order to show how submissive to God I can be.” But that false statement is exactly what some Trinitarians want us to believe Christ was thinking. Actually, the stated purpose of the passage, how we are to think of ourselves, refutes the Trinitarian interpretation.

The next thing it says is that Jesus found himself “in the form of God.” What it does not say is, “Jesus Christ being God…” Thus, Trinitarians are just attempting to force it to mean something that it refutes. Trinitarians assume that Jesus Christ was always God, and therefore, in their view, the passage means “Jesus Christ is God.” But, because it specifically is about Jesus the anointed one, it is saying, “…Anointed (gifted) Jesus who in form of God,” therefore it is first denying from him inherent deity by first designating the one being spoken of as the anointed/gifted one.



B.1. Keep in mind, the passage is teaching, explicitly, that whatever Jesus was thinking is also what we are to think of ourselves. There are other, perfectly good biblical reasons why Jesus could think of himself as being in the form of God without jumping to Trinitarian conclusions.

One of the best contexts for delegitimizing the Trinitarian interpretation of what is meant by Jesus “being in the form of God” is Jesus’ own interpretation when they accused him of “being” God, in John 10. They accused him of being a man who made himself God. Jesus responded and explained Himself in the context of the OT Hebrews, who stood in judgment and authority when they stood as representatives of God’s law. Jesus was also in the form of God as the rightful heir of King David’s throne, the human Son of David:

“The Jews therefore came around him and said to him, ‘How long will you hold us in suspense? If you are the Christ {the anointed one}, tell us plainly.’ Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you don’t believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify about me. But you don’t believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’
“Therefore Jews took up stones again to stone him.
“Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?’
“The Jews answered him, ‘We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.’
“Jesus answered them, ‘Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.’” (John 10:24–38)

First note that Jesus prefaced his claim that He and the Father are one by saying the Father is greater. So why should we assume that means they are coequal? Especially when he explained how we are to be one just as He and His Father are one:

“That they may be one, even as we are…
“That they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you…
“That they also may be one in us
“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:11, 20–22)

Back to John 10, Jesus did not attempt to correct their position of him being a man who made himself equal with God. Rather, he explained to them exactly how a man could be called a “god” and still be in perfect harmony with their very own Scriptures. For this he quoted Psalm 82. Not understanding this biblical concept is what still causes people, just like these Jews did, to assume or conclude that Jesus (or the Bible) must be claiming that Christ is somehow actually “true” God!

To understand what Jesus meant and how he would have been understood, let’s look at the context. Jesus resorted to a biblical precedent through which the Jews should have understood that God did set men in the place of God over other men.

The verse Jesus quoted says:

“I said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High.’” (Psalms 82:6)

This is the context in which Jesus claimed himself to be the son of God. It was in this sense that God had said, “you are gods” to the Israelites as children (sons) of God. So Jesus was only claiming himself to be a child of God in the sense that all of them were children of God. The difference between Jesus and the rest of them is that he did claim to be The (ie only-begotten or unique) Son.

Thus, the context of Jesus’ personal authority is the same context of authority that God had given to the Israelites corporately. The difference is simply that in Jesus all authority is contained within one man. The Old Testament clearly taught this authority in the corporate body of Israel:

“God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.” (Psalms 82:1)

In this verse, we find an explanation of how God dwells in the congregation of His people. That is, when they follow His law and stand in judgment (according to His commandments) of the wrongs people do against each other, He is among them. Passages such as Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8–9 express the commandments for the sons of God to sit in judgment with God in their midst. Here is how the King James Version translates the passages:

“If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.” (Exodus 22:8–9; KJV)

“Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.” (Exodus 21:6; KJV)

In both of the above passages, the phrase “the judges” comes from the Hebrew word elohim. These passages represent what Jesus was referring to in saying that God Himself called His people “gods” (elohim). According to the interpretation of these verses in Psalms 82:1 (the Scripture interpreting Scripture), when the children of Israel sat in judgment according to God’s commandments, there was God Himself in the midst of them presiding over the assembly. Adam Clarke captured this thought well in his commentary:

“Exodus 21:6 (Shall bring him unto the judges) ’el haa’alohiym, literally, ‘to God,’ or, as the Septuagint has it, pros to kriteerion Theou, ‘to the judgment of God’; who condescended to dwell among His people; who determined all their differences till he had given them laws for all cases, and who, by His omniscience, brought to light the hidden things of dishonesty.” Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, (Biblesoft, 2006).

The simple fact is, God called men in Scripture by the name el or elohim {gods} not because they are the Almighty God, but because the word simply means that they are powerful or mighty (whether their might came directly from God Himself or not). This truth is spelled out in the following lexicon of Biblical Hebrew and in the passages to which it refers:

OT:410 ‘el (ale) 1. applied to men of might and rank... mighty one of the nations Ezekiel 31:11 (of Nebuchadnezzar)... mighty men Job 41:17... mighty heroes Ezekiel 32:21... Ezekiel 17:13; 2 Kings 24:15... Exodus 15:15. Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database; Biblesoft: 2006.

The concept that God bestows authority on people and resultantly calling them in that context “gods” (elohim) is biblically established. This is the context—the only context—for Jesus claiming to be “equal” to God. The Jews refused to accept Jesus in this context out of their own Scriptures. It also explains how he could be “in the form of God” and not be “true” God, as he qualified:

“Jesus said to her, "Don't hold me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” John 20:17

“You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I.” John 14:28

Continued in Part 3 at B.2.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 3

B.2. Then there is a second way in which Jesus denied and refuted the idea that he was God, who made Himself man.

The Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:19). Therefore, if Jesus were God, he could not lie about who or what he was. This one statement demonstrates conclusively that he did not believe or teach that his selfhood, that is, his human personality, inherently contained the characteristic attributes of God. Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19). And again Jesus said, “I can of myself do nothing” (John 5:30). In both verses Jesus speaks quite clearly about his person, his “self” (Gr. autos) Jesus did not say, “of my human nature, I can do nothing, but I can from my deific nature I can.”

Jesus’ words have created a real dilemma for anyone who assigns a deific personal self-awareness to the person of Jesus Christ. If Jesus was an eternal and coequal person in the godhead, then Jesus himself was either unaware of his deific power, or he was lying. The Scripture, which Jesus says cannot be broken, states in Luke 1:37 that “with God nothing shall be impossible” and again in Matthew 19:26, “with God all things are possible.” But according to Jesus, he could do nothing of himself, which would be impossible for God to say, because it would be a lie. By saying he could do nothing of himself, Jesus was absolutely denying that his very person, or self, was God.


B.3. Then we come to the third and likely most important biblical context through which Philippians 2:6-9 should be interpreted.

This biblical concept conforms to the two already provided while adding a little more depth of understanding. It is simply that when God made man He made man in His image, and in doing so, God gave man dominion, which means rule and domination over the rest of creation.

“God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion…’ God created man in His own image. In God’s image He created him…” (Genesis 1:26–27)

In the book of Romans, Paul taught, “that to whom you present yourselves as servants to obedience, his servants you are whom you obey; whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness” (Romans 6:16). God had given Adam and Eve dominion over all things, including over the serpent, when He created them. When Adam and Eve submitted to the serpent, they gave up their God-given dominion over to the serpent. That is, they turned God’s divine order of authority upside down. On the other hand, Jesus never relinquished his God-given dominion to anyone. Rather, Jesus took responsibility for it and acted upon it in a righteous manner. This is actually the whole point of the passage in Philippians. Jesus’ attitude in finding himself in the form of God was that he didn’t think it was stealing from God to wield that authority. After all, it was God who gave him all authority. But he still recognized that the true God, the Father, still had authority over him.

And for overcoming, which is a cause and effect situation, God highly exalted Him. Giving Jesus a merit-based reward would be entirely superfluous a stunt if Jesus already was a coequal person in the Godhead. So the Trinity hoax makes a complete sham of the clearest explanation in the Bible of just why Jesus was so exalted above the rest of mankind by God! But of course, it isn’t the only passage that says this.

Adam, on the other hand, seems to have held a different attitude than Jesus. In his mind, having dominion meant he could ignore God’s laws. This attitude enabled him to act contrary to God, using his own opinions (though they were really the serpent’s opinions). Jesus’ attitude was completely opposite Adam’s. Jesus, as the second Adam, humbled himself to God’s will. This is the opposite of what the worldly mind thinks “being in the form of God” should mean. Whereas the worldly mind thinks, “If I’m in control, I’m going to do things my way,” Jesus had the better way. He determined not to make himself a reputation. Instead, he made himself a servant to God and mankind. It was just this kind of thinking that God foresaw and foreordained in Jesus. It was that kind of thinking that God loved Jesus for. And it was that attitude for which God exalted him. Thus, Philippians continues by saying, in verse 9, “Therefore God also highly exalted him.”

We see, then, that Paul was simply reiterating biblical teachings in Philippians. Jesus’ thinking of himself in the form of God is how we should expect Christ to think of himself as the second Adam. As the second Adam, he was created with the same dominion as the first Adam.

“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is50 from heaven.” (1 Corinthians 15:45–47)

The idea of Christ as second Adam aligns perfectly with the proclamation that God explicitly made Jesus Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). There are no biblical grounds for interpreting Philippians in a way that assigns Jesus preexistent deity. To interpret the passage as if the word “form” was not there and imply it means Jesus simply was “being…God” would be to tamper with the Bible.

The passage itself doesn’t ever say that Jesus was thinking this prior to his human existence, in fact, it refutes it when it says, “And being found in human form...” That is the only frame of reference we are given in the passage for “when” Jesus was thinking these things which are also to be in our minds.

There is, then, no reason not to believe that as Adam was made in the image of God, so Jesus found himself in the image of God and that is the type of “form of God” that Paul had in mind in Philippians 2:6. The main purpose of the passage is to teach us how we are to think. Trinitarians jump to the conclusion that this passage is primarily meant to explain Christ’s pre-human God-Person choosing to be incarnated. That idea has no real parallel to the way we could realistically think of ourselves.

Continued in Part 4 at C.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 4

C. Shortly, I will emphasize the absurdity of the Trinitarian position by paraphrasing the passage in Trinitarian terms. But first, I want to show that I’m not making up a straw man about Trinitarian beliefs. To demonstrate, I’m going to quote some Trinitarians.

First, we have the following explanation from Stephen T. Davis of how Trinitarians arrive at their view of Jesus:

“The claim that Jesus implicitly viewed himself as divine revolves around such assertions as: (1) Jesus understood himself as uniquely filially related to God…by his referring to God with the intimate and highly unusual term, Abba (which many scholars translate as something like ‘Daddy’); and (2) Jesus, in three ways, took upon himself divine prerogatives: in assuming for himself authority to forgive sins, in teachings that in effect superseded the Mosaic law, and in presenting himself as the Son of Man to come in judgment.” Stephen T. Davis, “John Hick on Incarnation and the Trinity,” in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, eds. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 253 [251–272].

Let’s remember that according to Jesus’ own words, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Therefore go…” (Matthew 28:18–19). Therefore, Jesus didn’t take “upon himself” divine prerogatives; rather, according to Him, He was given them. Thus, we see that it is jumping to conclusions to assert that Jesus “took upon himself” anything.

But that’s hardly the worst of it. It is actually quite ironic that Trinitarians say things like the above. The worst irony is when they go on to support the incompatible notion of the “kenotic theory.” That is the technical term for the theory that Jesus emptied himself of his deity in order to become incarnate. In other words, in the view of some Trinitarians (not all hold to this idea), Jesus supposedly emptied himself of his deity but also asserted it at the same time! The above author (who has just claimed Jesus took upon himself divine prerogatives) describes it this way:

“The kenotic theory is loosely based on the notion of the self-emptying of Christ Jesus in Philippians 2:5–11. It was first suggested in the nineteenth century…Kenosis is the notion that during the thirty or so years of Jesus’ life on earth, the Logos (Second Person of the Trinity) gave up or divested itself of those properties that are inconsistent with being truly human. And both before and after those thirty or so years, the Logos did not possess those human properties that are inconsistent with being truly divine.” Ibid pages 261-262

What the writer said in the first quote was that Jesus wasn’t afraid to assert his deity. However, he then theorizes that Jesus was in a state of emptying himself of his deity by giving up any non-human properties. No matter how you slice it, this is doublespeak. Although he thinks he has “reasoned out” a way to make it understandable, it is, nonetheless, another true contradiction in the Trinitarian theory. Their idea is that in becoming human, Jesus supposedly emptied himself of only certain undisclosed areas of his deity in order to show us how to be good and perfect humans. What they aren’t telling you is that they believe Jesus really only pretended to be human. That’s because, for the Trinitarian, Jesus didn’t have merely human self-awareness. With only human self-awareness, he wouldn’t have had to empty himself to appear human. But, the fact is, having human self-awareness is the biggest part of being human. It is our human awareness, so separate from God’s awareness, which makes us human. It is our human awareness that allows us to be made in the image of God, without actually being God. And it is that human self-awareness that makes us greater than other worldly creatures and yet still lower than God Himself. So even Trinitarians who don’t ascribe to the “kenotic” theory, don’t really believe that Jesus is a true human, because no other human being was ever “fully God and fully man.” It would be like saying, “I’m fully man and fully gorilla”. Nope, doesn’t work. Here’s the scripture that they make of none effect in their hypothesizing:

“Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:17

“For we don't have a high priest who can't be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15

No God/man hybrid could say he was made like us in all things, or that he was tempted in all points like we are. I mean, how could He, as a God/man hybrid conscious of His identity, be tempted to believe God is a fairy tale myth? The Trinity hoax makes a sham out of Jesus’ actual overcoming temptation as a real man.

Before I offer a Trinitarian paraphrase of Philippians 2, one more point is important: the theory that any action of one of the Persons of the Trinity is an action of all three inseparably. This concept, in the words of the writer cited, is the most fundamental one relating to Trinitarian unity. It is this concept that allows them to claim they have one God, not three gods.

“…the most fundamental conception and articulation in ‘Nicene’ Trinitarian theology of the 380’s of the unity among the three is the understanding that any action of any member of the Trinity is an action of the three inseparably.” Michel René Barnes, “Rereading Augustine’s Theology of the Trinity,” in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, 155–156 [145–178].

It is important to understand the reason Trinitarians must make this disclaimer. If the persons of the Trinity don’t have this unity of action, then they are three gods. If they are three separately acting gods, they simply are not a Trinity. Trinitarians are fully aware that if their three God-Persons aren’t inseparably joined together, then what they have is a full-blown three-god-ism (tri-theism). Polytheism of any kind is strictly rejected by the Bible, and Trinitarians know it. So they resort to shell games to try to hide the truth of what they believe. He’s God when they want Him to be, He’s man when they want Him to be, and all so He can fit within their extrabiblical explanations, words and concepts.

Now, with all of this in mind, let’s look at how Philippians 2:5–12 could be loosely paraphrased in Trinitarian terms. Or, perhaps I should say, how it should have been written were it meant to support the Trinity doctrine.

“Here’s how you’re supposed to think, like Jesus, who, was actually God, but then he emptied himself of a few of his divine abilities and thus pretended to be a human for a little while, because, as we all know he didn’t really stop being God. Then, because he was so good at being human, he (after all, He’s God as much as the other persons of the Trinity are God) highly exalted himself above every other human. Therefore we are to obey him, like he obeyed himself (since all the members of the Trinity act inseparably), so God can glorify us also.” (Philippians 2:5–12, Tom’s Trinitarian paraphrase)

In case it isn’t glaringly obvious, my point is that the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians hardly paints a picture either of a humble deity or of a truly human being exalted because he humbled himself. In short, Trinitarianism makes a complete mockery not only of the passage itself, but also of Jesus’ true and actual humility and submission to God’s will.

Perhaps an analogy will better explain the point. Here is a parable of how a Trinitarian conception of Philippians 2:5–9 would look in another scene:

“Once upon a time an accomplished and professional architect named Frank Lloyd Wright (not his real name) jumped into a sandbox with a bunch of four-year-olds. Upon getting into the box, he claimed he was just like them. After all, he had left all his drafting tools and CAD programs at the office. Then he proceeded to build the most marvelous sandcastle any of them had ever seen. Finally, after having compared his masterful achievement to the meager accomplishments of the four-year-olds, he proclaimed himself master architect over them all. And for that we should all hold him in wonder and awe for what a great job this great architect did in the sandbox of the four-year-olds.”

Do you see how superficial it would be for the architect to claim greatness by this stunt? He neither proved anything in the sandbox, nor changed anything. He just made himself a buffoon for pretending to be something much less than he was. Then he exalted himself for overcoming what was never an obstacle for him. He was never challenged by surpassing the abilities of those far inferior to him. This is why the Trinitarian dogma makes an utter sham out of Jesus’ life. In truth, Jesus lived his life as a fully human being with all the attendant limitations. For that he was exalted by God.

Now let’s re-imagine the parable the other way. This time we’ll see the same parable in a way that reflects what Philippians 2 is really saying.
“Once upon a time there was a four-year-old boy named Jesus. He jumped into a sandbox to play with some friends and ended up building a sandcastle. It turned out far superior than any grown and accomplished architect had ever been able to do. And how did he manage that? Well, he listened exactly to the instructions of the Chief Architect of the Inter-Galactic Architect’s Association. If you can imagine it, this was a much greater architect than even F.L. Wright. The Architect instructed him in every move and every step he made. The only real difference Jesus had from the others was the humble resolve to yield to the Chief Architect’s guidance. Any of the other four-year-olds (in this parable anyway) could have done that, too. But just as the Architect expected, they refused. So then because of his utter submission to the Architect’s will and direction, little four-year-old Jesus built that sandcastle into a thing of beauty. Not only was it structurally marvelous, it was also a beautiful work of art. For being humble enough to listen and follow instructions from a true authority, the Chief Architect made him the lead architect over all. The reward included a place at the Architect’s company right at his own desk. But, even though both the Architect and the boy told everyone exactly how he did it, everyone still said he either used magic or had cheated, and the Chief Architect really had done it all for him.”

Now, how hard is that to understand and accept?

Comparing the two parables makes it easy to see what the Trinitarian Jesus really looks like. They picture a Jesus who wasn’t truly made like us in all things. They picture a Jesus who could never really have separated himself from deity to become as human as the Bible describes him. In their view of the incarnation, the Trinitarians have a god who had to pretend to be something he’s not (human). And the reason he pretended to be something he’s not was to show us what we are supposed to be like. But how can we be something we’re not, in imitation of him, when he had to be something he’s not in order to show us what to be? That’s what they are saying when they say he was a man but was fully aware of his eternal deific self-awareness at the same time. When any one of us can claim we are fully aware of our eternal self-awareness of deity, then there might be some truth in claiming Jesus was made just like us. The Trinity is full of contradictions like this. It is also full of shell games like this. They say they believe in his full humanity, but then claim he still kept his deific self-awareness.


D. The Trinity actually denies the Son that was made flesh and made of his mother Mary. This is according to explicit statements from Athanasius, the champion of Nicene Trinitarianism.
“…nor, as man from man, has the Son been begotten… ‘Son’ is nothing else than what is generated from the Father.” Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 5, par. 14.

“…We are driven to say that what is from the essence of the Father, and proper to him, is entirely the Son…that which is begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed essence. Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of his own essence; nor do we imply affection or division of God’s essence, when we speak of ‘Son’ and ‘Offspring’; but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe.” Ibid. par. 16.

This is how Trinitarianism denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. They do so by claiming belief in a Son who is of no other substance than deific substance. That means flesh is excluded. Trinitarianism explicitly rejects the biblical one and only begotten Son of God. So, any claim that Trinitarians believe in a truly human Son should be regarded as lip service.

The humanity of the Trinitarian Jesus, at best, can only influence reactions from his God-Person. His humanity is only external to his person; it is not the source of his person as it is for the rest of us humans. In this way, the Trinitarian view of Jesus actually portrays an inhuman or other-than-human model. In Trinitarianism, Jesus is the sum of an inner God-Person joined to an impersonal human nature. The human nature does not supply personality at all. That personal inner deity that Trinitarians insist on is what we would also need, if we were to have the mind of the Trinitarian Christ. This is not the simple Jesus of the Bible. And, as most Christians know, that is not what Christianity teaches. Rather, that is precisely what the occult teaches. Thus, the Trinitarian model of Christ is ultimately the anti-Christian model of Christ.

Continued in Part 5 at E.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 5

E. Today’s Gnostics argue that their claim to the Trinity is older than so-called orthodox Christians. Where so-called orthodox Christians have been developing their Trinity, Gnostics were always Trinitarian. As you read the quote below, notice how the Gnostic gospels change the meaning of Jesus’ “you are gods” statement. In the Bible, God called them gods unto whom the word of God came. But the Gnostics turn this into their own personal, inherent, and immanent deity. They literally are gods! Thus, the Gnostic view of their God-man is a model for their view of themselves as also deific. From this we can see the Gnostic origin of the “dual nature” doctrine that the Trinitarians adopted.

“One of the common questions we receive as Gnostics is ‘Why do you espouse the doctrine of the Christian Trinity?’ To answer this question we have only to listen to the voices of the early Gnostics themselves…The Gnostic scriptures of the Nag Hammadi collection are filled with Trinitarian expressions of God…We can state quite emphatically that we, as Gnostics, are Trinitarians…
“Whereas the mainstream Church has spent nearly two thousand years developing a dogma of the Trinity, Gnostics have always approached the Trinity as an archetypal symbol and a mystery…
“In the Gospel of John, Jesus proclaims to the multitudes, ‘Ye are gods!’ In the Acts of John he again exclaims, ‘Know ye not that ye are all angels, all archangels, gods and lords, all rulers, all great invisibles; that ye are all, of yourselves and in yourselves in turn, from one mass and one mixture and one substance!’ If we can accept that we are both divine and human, then it is not such a great stretch to conceive of Jesus as an exemplary of that dual nature. God is manifest in the mystery figure of Jesus, as in ourselves…” Steven Marshall, accessed June 1, 2019, http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/homily_Trinity.htm

Anti-Christian Gnostics were the first Trinitarians. They are the ones who first used the pagan “one-substance” doctrine to define Christ—and themselves! It is Gnostic and anti-Christian to have the “mind of Christ” of one-substance, as in Trinitarianism.

Do Trinitarians imply that Jesus set an example to look to our inner personal deity like the occult and the Gnostics? In the first quote above (page 77), Davis wrote “that Jesus implicitly viewed himself as divine…” There’s our justification in saying Trinitarians imply we are to look to our personal deity. That is the Trinitarian view of the mind of Christ. It should be obvious that there is no Trinity if Jesus had no personal deific mind. And, as we’ve seen, the Bible exhorts us to have the mind of Christ. This is the subtlety of the devil’s deception that says we will be as gods.

Jesus did not say that he viewed himself as deity. Rather, that anti-Christian idea contradicts what Jesus did say. Jesus said that the Father gave him all these things, so that he did nothing of himself. He also said that the Father himself testified to this truth. According to Jesus he did not take anything upon himself. Rather, he said that God gave him everything (John 5:19–23, 36, 12:50, 14:10; Matthew 28:18). Thus, the testimony given by Jesus about himself is hardly of Jesus emptying himself or refusing to lean on his personal inherent deity. Rather, what it states in Philippians is that he found himself in the form of God. That, biblically, is because from birth he was anointed by God to be David’s heir. As David’s heir he was the recipient of the prophetic promises given to David. In the same context, but only in that context, in which God called David “God,” Jesus understood himself also to be called “God.”

The reason Jesus was exalted was just exactly as Philippians 2 said. Finding himself in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal to God, and therefore, he humbled himself as a servant and became obedient to death. That is the sole and explicit reason in this passage and the rest of the Bible for why he, the human, was exalted. Because God planned for him to do this, and because God foresaw that he alone out of all other humans would indeed accomplish this, God built the world by, for, and through this man, this Jesus.





F. When we decide to hear Jesus rather than jumping to conclusions, we find Jesus speaking just as plainly as Paul did in Philippians about the reason why God exalted him. Paul’s passage in Philippians was a correct reiteration of what Jesus had said.

“Even as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you. Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and remain in His love.” (John 15:9–10)

Again Jesus said,

“Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.” (John 10:17–18)

If this is the Trinitarian Jesus, he is, yet again, lying to cover up the Trinitarian gospel. In the Trinitarian gospel, the Father can’t help but love the Son. That is because in the Trinitarian view, the relationship between the Father and Son is not based on the Son’s actions whatsoever. Rather, it is based solely on the theory that they share the same substance, and they supposedly shared their love for all eternity, past and future. There was never a time the Trinitarian Jesus could have not been loved by the Father. There was never, and could never be a time that the Son was not inherently as exalted as the Father. The eternal persons according to the Trinity mythology loved each other regardless of whether Jesus went to the cross or not. To the contrary, Jesus is telling us here that the Father loves him because he lays down his life. Jesus could never have laid down his life in heaven before creation. So Jesus is either lying or exaggerating to the point of deception. Neither of these would be at all comely for one who calls himself the truth.



G. What the Trinitarians negate along these lines, in saying the Father and Son must have always loved each other, is that Jesus is spoken of as being in God’s foreknowledge. And that is made very clear through the God’s foreknown plan of Jesus’ death on the cross:

“Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know, him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed; whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it...” Acts 2:22-23

The book of Revelation says that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world:

“And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Revelation 13:8.

And yet Hebrews is very adamant that Jesus only died once in the end of the world:

“But Christ…entered in once for all into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption… nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place year by year with blood not his own, or else he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world. But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment, so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation.” (Hebrews 9:1, 6, 11–12, 24–28)
“Therefore...we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest indeed stands day by day ministering and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from that time waiting until his enemies are made the footstool of his feet. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified…Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.” (Hebrews 10:5, 7, 9–14, 18–20)

So then, here is the simple solution to the mystery of God’s eternal love for Christ: God’s foreknowledge of His Son, before the world, which means in eternity. And here in this simple word, foreknowledge, is how we can understand that God made the world through Christ, as God told Moses:

“who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned by God when he was about to make the tabernacle, for he said, "See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.” Hebrews 8:5

Which is also reminscent of Jesus’ words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” Jon 2:19

Continued in Part 6 at H.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 6 Conclusion

H. In contrast to the Trinitarian Jesus who had to pretend to be something he’s not, the Biblical Jesus preached the whole truth. The biblical Jesus said, “I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does His works” (John 14:10). That is scriptural truth. That is the Jesus who isn’t supposed to be changed. He is a completely human, self-aware Jesus with the one God the Father dwelling in him. God the Father works through the fully human being as His bodily temple, just as Jesus works through the body of Christ.

We’ve been looking at the Biblical Jesus through the biblical concept of foreknowledge as opposed to the pagan and Trinitarian idea of “preexistence” which is a nonsensical word. Now, through the idea of Jesus being the second Adam, and having been made in the image of God which includes dominion, we can start to understand the biblical doctrine of agency (of Jesus in relation to the Father) as opposed to the pagan and Trinitarian idea of Christ having an “identity” as a God-person.

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

God is the head of Christ in the same way Christ is the head of all Christians. These are hardly “coequal” positions. We, in turn, become the “agents” of Christ...
“19But when they deliver you up, don't be anxious how or what you will say, for it will be given you in that hour what you will say. 20For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” Matthew 10:19-20

“1But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3As he traveled, it happened that he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him. 4He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5He said, "Who are you, Lord?" The Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” Acts 9:1-5

Saul had set out to silence some rebellious humans, not to persecute a heavenly being. However, the voice that answered Saul unmistakably called these people “me” in the first person.

Consider what that one word “me” implied. With that one word this heavenly voice had personally identified himself with his people. That concept was what initially attracted Saul to become a Christian believer. To misunderstand what the Lord was saying to Saul would be to miss the true foundation of Christianity. This was not a different revelation from what the other apostles received. It was simply the way the Lord chose to lay the same foundation for Christianity in Saul’s heart.

This is the biblical doctrine of agency. It is the biblical doctrine of agency that the Gnostics and Trinitarians have relinquished to the waste bin of theology in order to adopt the pagan idea of “gods come to earth in the form of humans” (Acts 14:11).

The biblical doctrine of agency is what Jesus claimed of himself, not the gnostic and trinitarian one of an incarnation of a deific person. Listen to Jesus as He explains himself in terms of agency (that is, as an agent of God’s), as opposed to identity or coequality with the Father:

“He who has seen me has seen the Father... The words... I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me.” (John 14:10)

Not coequality, agency!

“The word which you hear isn’t mine, but the Father’s who sent me.” (John 14:24)

Not coequality, agency!

“He who sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these I say...” (John 8:26)

“... I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28)

“For I spoke not from myself, but the Father... he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak... The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.” (John 12:49–50)

“Now... the words which you have given me I have given to them, and they received them...” (John 17:7–8)


If Jesus is “the word incarnate,” then why weren’t the words he spoke his own words? If He was coequal with the Father, He wouldn’t have needed to Father to tell Him what words, because that would imply less than omniscience.

If we really “hear” Jesus, we find that his explanation of himself isn’t an explanation of an incarnated deity (as in paganism), but rather, is the thoroughly biblical concept of “agency.” We can see a classic description of agency at work in the very words of Jesus himself: “The words... I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me” (John 14:10). This is agency. Jesus just defined himself as an agent of the Father, and, at the same time, absolutely refuted that he was claiming to be God incarnate, for he turned and bestowed the office of agency, and His unity with the Father, upon His disciples as well:

“That they may be one, even as we are…
“That they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you…
“That they also may be one in us
“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:11, 20–22)

“We are therefore ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” 2 Corinthians 5:20

Agency!

“AGENT (Heb. shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent... The agent is regarded as acting in his principle’s interest and not to his detriment...” R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and G. Wigoder, editors, The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion (New York: Adama Books, 1986), 15.

“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:23–25, KJV)

This is how Jesus comes to be confused with God Himself: Onenessians and Trinitarians interpret his ministry through the lenses of pagan incarnation. They aren’t using the OT schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. If they did view him through the OT schoolmaster, they would see that Jesus was acting as an agent of God the Father, not as an incarnation of God, and not as a coequal person of God, but as the ultimate agent, the ultimate representative of God...

“For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God...” (John 3:34–35)

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” Deuteronomy 18:18

“For Moses indeed said to the fathers, ‘The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him in all things whatever he says to you. It will be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people.’” (Acts 3:22–23)

“1Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you; 2even as you gave him authority over all flesh, he will give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ... 25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.” John 17:1-3, 25

This is a relationship of agency, and unlike the mythological relationship held by Trinitarians of an eternal relationship which is never defined or expressed in the Bible, the doctrine of agency, in reference to Christ, is practically everywhere in the Bible!

Rose42

Another post with many errors from someone who has claimed most of current Christianity is in error -

https://web.archive.org/web/20130129124350/http://www.1lord1faith.org/wm/watchman.htm

He also believes the KJV is the only translation one should use and on his old site has dubious claims regarding that. Many of his ideas come from Daniel Segraves who was ordained by the United Pentecostal Church which is a Oneness Pentecostal denomination. They believe that the ability to speak in tongues is a necessary indication of a valid religious conversion which goes against the doctrine of salvation. Most consider them a cult.

For a scholarly look at what Philippians actually means there are many resources and commentaries. John MacArthur is one of the best. This commentary of Philippians 2:5-11 shows Tommy to be incorrect in his conclusions as do many others.

I have not pasted it because the format won't paste and its much easier to be read in its format.

https://www.gty.org/library/study-guides/195/christ-humbled-christ-exalted

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

You are just full of false accusations!

I have not been KJV-only in 20 years!!! I studied my way out of that also, when my closest friends were going more into it.

Rose42

That was your site - 2018. If you no longer believe that - great! I like the KJV sometimes for Psalms because they are more poetic in the older English. IMO.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Yeah, it’s been a long time since I’ve had time to work on my website.

I use World English Version almost exclusively for quotes since it doesn’t require copyright notices, etc. Young’s Literal is my current reading favorite. I just found out about “Bereans Literal” and I’m checking it out, it looks promising.

Rose42

Never tried those. There are apps you can use to compare quotes for different versions. I use bibletime on my Mac and I think esword is for Windows

Biblehub.com does it online

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

I use biblehub constantly, that’s how I found out about Bereans Literal. and I like blueletterbible.org for it’s lexicons. I have a very expensive bible program, one Touch by Bible soft, but these online tools are faster.

Rose42

Yeah blueletterbible is good. There are so many free ones online. Loads of generous people to help us out.