Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

It's like you read Tucker's post and then decided there was the need to demonstrate that his perceptions of you were true

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Critical thinking is not necessary to describe fate... It is necessary to properly interpret information... Otherwise one may be led to a false conclusion...

How does critical thinking not apply to the Resurrection?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

As you and I have had a somewhat turbulent relationship at times I will put some thought into this...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Ego is an aspect of Satan, certainly...

rumitoid

First, it defies all knowledge of life and death on earth and has no basic points to assess. Critical thinking demands include observation, analysis, interpretation, reflection, evaluation, inference, explanation, problem solving, and decision making. Can anything of faith be so scrutinized? The automatic conclusion for the Resurrection or say the Virgin Birth would be preposterous. Critical thinking is not the best to examine some of the Bible.

rumitoid

I say the opposite: Satan is an aspect of ego. The mocking "the devil made me do it' of Laugh-in revealed a profound t***h: we tend to shift the blame or find excuses.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

I agree with your assessment of a scientific theory. But it is not 100% of the whole story. There is much that Darwin got wrong. Darwin's theory has undergone numerous revisions as more is learned but it still does not satisfy all the questions posed, nor does it give a complete picture. That is why I say its' status is conjecture because it is still evolving as a theory. It is beyond hypothesis and short of fact.

My problem with Zemirah is that she continues to ask irrelevant questions and make suppositions with no basis from previous statements.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

That's great. I have no doubt that both of you are decent people.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

It’s a fair question, and you may be surprised to find my answer, which, in a nutshell is: I sure hope not! For it is written:

“9The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9

“...as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are children of God.” Romans 8:12-14

“2They will put you out of the synagogues. Yes, the time comes that whoever k**ls you will think that he offers service to God. 3They will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.” John 16:2-3

“Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest time I will tell the reapers, "First, gather up the darnel weeds, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn."'” Matt 13:30

“And ye have done worse than your fathers; for, behold, ye walk every one after the imagination of his evil heart, that they may not hearken unto me: Jeremiah 16:12

“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Genesis 6:5

“For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. For desire is present with me, but I don't find it doing that which is good.” Romans 7:18
While it is one thing to seek the Lord with all your heart, clearly, it is something different to follow your heart. Is that not so?

Whitnebrat said, “I should know better than to get involved in the subject of religion. It inevitably winds up in a draw with no minds changed and only positions hardened.”

Although I would agree that generally is the case, I myself have had to change my mind many times, a few times over major things and countless times over minor things.

I was called to Christ through a non-denominational Oneness (modalist) Church. They “evangelized” me around 2 years before I finally submitted to the call of God on my heart. He only used that initial evanglism to plant a seed. From there, God began to work personally on my heart. I was raised a total California liberal, and I thought all religions held some t***h except Christianity, because I had seen nothing but hypocrisy among Christians, and I had witnessed supernatural power in non-Christian religions.

When I first knelt at that Pentecostal altar, I was at the point that I didn’t know what to pray or ask for, and I told God that as I knelt. Almost immediately I saw, in my mind’s eye, whether a vision or just inspiration, I don’t know, but it was very real to me: Christ on the cross with his hands open wide, looking at me with eyes of a purer love than I ever imagined existed and he simply said, “I died for you.” I broke down weeping, and I was sold out and have been ever since to this one who died for me. This was in 1983 and I was about 26.

Somewhere before or after I was taught that meant that he died for my sins so I could be free from them. Freedom. Do you really know what that means? My first experience was this: I was an oil field worker with a potty mouth as great as any you might meet being as just about every second or third word coming out of my mouth was profanity. I recall trying to stop while I was “in the world” and I just couldn’t, so I pretty much gave up trying. Shortly after I received the promise of the Spirit, with speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance, I was in a pleasant conversation with some new friends. I felt a cuss word come up from my heart, right up to the tip of my tongue, and the Spirit said, “You don’t have to say that.” That’s where I really learned what it meant to be set free. Not condemnation, liberty from something that had had me bound. I haven’t said a single cuss word since, but of course, that was just the beginning.

Shortly after I received the promise of the Spirit, I received my calling to write. Longish story, so I won’t detail it hear, bottom line is that, after 6 days of consecrated prayer, the Lord asked me three times if I loved him and after replying yes to him, he said, simply, “write.”

My first book was titled, “The Commandments of God and the Traditions of Men.” It started out as a log of scriptures I was gathering to address certain questions about what I was being taught vs mainstream Trinitarian Christianity. I will use the meaning of the title in another post to Zemirah, so I won’t go into it here. My writing was officially recognized as a ministry in the mid 90’s because I was writing on discussion boards much like this one, some partly religious and partly political, but most were religious. That’s when I started finding out there were, and talking with, other Christians out there who believed much like I did. Up until this time, I was being taught that “our church was the closest to God in the whole world.” And by the way, there was a special anointing on the family of the pastors so that only their children were being ordained into higher callings. In talking with others who believed like I did, I found out the stories we had been fed about the beginning of that church were not reputable. Long story a little shorter, I prayed to God for understanding on how to deal with the situation. I couldn’t believe that it wasn’t God Himself that called me out of the world to that Church, so who was I to question God. So I prayed, God, “what do I do”. The answer was, “you know, you just don’t want to.” Such simple words, but they meant so much to me. I understood; I was called to write, whether they hear or forbear, for He had sent me to a rebellious people, and I was to use my calling of writing without respect of persons. Like all Christians are in one way or another, I was called to be a messenger of His word, and my personal medium was writing (not that I don’t also preach and teach, I do).

So my next prayer was, “God, I can’t go against the pastors that have preached the saving gospel of Christ to me, so, unless I personally see them sin, I feel my hands are tied.” Almost immediately the following scriptures were brought to my mind:

“But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as t***sgressors.” James 2:9

“3for you are still fleshly. For insofar as there is jealousy, strife, and factions among you, aren't you fleshly, and don't you walk in the ways of men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," aren't you fleshly? 5Who then is Apollos, and who is Paul, but servants through whom you believed; and each as the Lord gave to him? 6I planted. Apollos watered. But God gave the increase. 7So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.” 1 Cor 3:3

“I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” 1 Corinthians 11:18-19

The nepotism and sectarianism at that church were sin, and ultimately I had to call them out. I could have gone with their program and been highly acclaimed, but I would not be in favor with God. I chose to follow the leading of the Spirit.

From there I took my family into the United Pentecostal Church, Int., the biggest Oneness denomination. I was still very against denominations, and never took the path of becoming ordained by them because of it, even though I was asked. I did continue to preach and teach from their platforms until my departure around 2012 or so. The way that came about is as follows. In 2004 we were living in the Trinity Alps of California, of all places, and I felt the Spirit lead me to write a book. This would be my third. My goal was to seek out the development of the Trinity doctrine, from it’s Christian roots in Biblical Jewish strict monotheism, so that I would be able to give an answer to Trinitarians of why I didn’t believe in the Trinity. I had two objectives I wanted to fulfill in doing so. A) I wanted to learn the history, and B) I wanted to hear what the disciples of the apostles

“The things which you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” 2 Timothy 2:2

“Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks in r*******n, and not after the tradition which they received from us.” 2 Thes. 3:6.

Note that this is a commandment. We all know about the infamous “traditions” of the Catholic Church, and how they developed over time. But I wanted to find out what the “traditions” were according to the apostles. So I started a deep study, reading anything and everything I could get my hands on regarding the earliest beliefs of Christians. I started with well known historians and they led me to the primary sources. I can’t tell you how many books I’ve read on Christian history or by historical Christians, but I can tell you it is over a hundred. I’ve read all the primary sources from Clement and Polycarp to Athanasius and some others besides, but after that point wass beyond the scope of my inquiry.

I was utterly astounded to find out that practically all Trinitarian scholars, in one way or anther, testified that you can’t understand the Trinity and its development without understanding the pagan philosophy of the philosopher Christians who developed it. I’ve quoted a few of them in this thread.

What I didn’t expect was that my studies would shatter my Oneness foundation. There were two sayings of Jesus’, and one from Irenaeus that I couldn’t ignore, that totally shattered my belief in modalistic monarchianism:

“…I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me” (John 8:16 also John 8:29 & 16:32).

In these passages, where Jesus said he was not alone, he used the Greek word “monos”. Jesus was almost literally saying, “I am not Oneness.” If the one who died on the cross wasn’t Oneness, how could I be? It is the same question that Trinitarians should ask themselves: If Jesus wasn’t Trinitarian, why should they be? (John 4:22, John 17:3

And then there was this quote from Irenaeus:

“…blasphemous systems…divide the Lord…saying that he was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: ‘Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared…’” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 16, par. 5.)

Anyone who knows the Trinity or Oneness knows, there is no incarnation doctrine whatsoever without the dual nature doctrine. It originated with the antichristian gnostics. Those were the turning points for me, from there it was just a matter of researching the material to find if these things were so, and my studied concluded to a resounding yes they were. The early Christians preached Christ and him crucified, that is to say he died. Not his mere flesh, he personally died and the Father raised him up.

So I finished the book for Trinitarians in 2008, and by 2017 I had finished my book renouncing Oneness and disproving it from the scriptures while proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (not “God the Son”).

Since then I have had a hard time finding a lot of like minded believers. I was ordained an elder 6/17/2017 by a bishop by the name of Bill Williams. He taught me a number of things that helped me refine my understanding, but he has since passed on. He had a very active mission work to Africa, and it is suffering without his leadership. His website is no longer up, but his youtube channel is “Speaking the T***h in Love” https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzoc6wpQmIzzQ1IkPLs6HIQ.

I am loosely associated with different churches and individuals across the country, for example,
https://www.21stcr.org/. But many do not have an internet presence like you would see from the major denominations. I still consider myself non-denominational and the sign on the door doesn’t mean much to me other than a point of reference for their core beliefs. I believe very strongly in this passage:

“38John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone who doesn't follow us casting out demons in your name; and we forbade him, because he doesn't follow us." 39But Jesus said, "Don't forbid him, for there is no one who will do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. 40For whoever is not against us is on our side. 41For whoever will give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because you are Christ's, most certainly I tell you, he will in no way lose his reward.” Mark 9:38-41.

This verse seems very anti-denominational, as am I. My purpose in writing, then, first is because I have a calling on my life to do so in order to share the gospel of Christ of liberty and salvation with those who have become oppressed by the traditions of men, and secondly, to grow by those whom I come in contact with by being challenged for what I believe, and by hearing and receiving what they have been given by for the edification of all.

“11He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers; 12for the perfecting of the saints to the work of serving to the building up of the body of Christ; 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; 15but speaking t***h in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, Christ; 16from whom all the body, being fitted and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in measure of each individual part, makes the body increase to the building up of itself in love.” Eph. 4:11-16

Since you’ve asked, and I feel your question to be sincere, I hope that this adequately answers your question about my position, my motives, and my walk.

God bless!

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Blade,


I find it curious that you are the weak at defending or supporting a discussion about the first commandment. Could it be that what is most important to God is not so important on your radar? I’ve seen you argue quite capably against l*****ts and Muslims, but you appear to be unarmed when discussing the very first, and most important, commandment of God, and of Christ. Very curious indeed. I say that out of respect for your abilities on one hand, but curious of your priorities on the other. It very well may be your age in the faith, we’ll see.

One thing I will tell you, from a viewpoint of having deeply studied into the development of the Trinity, is that Trinitarians woefully underestimate the magnitude that the idea of God as Trinity would have militated against Jewish thought, particularly in the first century. For Trinitarians to claim that Christians always believed in a Trinity, without ever showing, let alone not being able to show, where the apostles themselves initiated or even spoke in Trinitarian terminology to explain it, (which terminology wasn’t developed and refined until the fourth century), is, at best, irresponsible scholarship to the max! [but I know it isn’t “irresponsible” it is deception to the max!] It would be tantamount to telling the Jews, “oh, and another thing, the pagans knew better how to describe your God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob than any Jew was ever able to describe Him.” That would be, to a Jew, an admission that the Christian god was simply and utterly NOT the God of the Jews. This fact is evidenced by the several centuries of time it took for even the pagan converts to find adequate words to define the God of the Bible.



It is written:
“13"Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it. 14How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.” Matt. 7:13-14.

What you seem to be most resistant to receiving and hearing, is that Jesus qualified a right understanding of God when he said, very simply and clearly, “You worship what you do not know; We know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).

Do you think Jesus said this flippantly? Do you think he didn’t know what he was talking about? Do you not know that he had no problem whatsoever correcting the Jews when they were in error, in fact he considered it his duty to do so, and yet he affirmed and acknowledged the “understanding” (not just the scriptures), of the Jews [b] regarding the most important, and therefore first of all, commandment? How then do you not find yourself on the wrong side of Christ’s affirmations and criticisms when you speak against what Christ affirmed and uphold what he said was empty and vain?

Deal with this, Blade, the “what” that Jesus claimed the Jews “knew” about their God:

“It would be difficult to imagine a doctrine more hostile to the uncompromising monotheism preached in the Jewish Scriptures than the Christian claim that there is a plurality within the divine nature of God. Yet, armed with little knowledge of the Hebrew language, many Trinitarians brazenly argue that the name of God, as it appears in the first verse in the Bible, “proves” there are three distinct Persons in the godhead...
“If you examine the few verses evangelicals use from the Jewish Scriptures as they seek to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity, you will notice that none of them, even in Christian terms, speaks of three persons...
“Bear in mind, there is no mystery as to the origins of the Trinity, nor is there any secret for how this aberrant doctrine emerged. The doctrine of the Trinity was forged out of the crucible of the Catholic Church long after the Christian century. It is, therefore, no wonder that this pagan doctrine was unknown to authors of the New Testament...
“In essence, the Jewish people never believed in a Trinity, and the Church adopted it under enormous political pressure from the most pagan segments of the young Catholic Church...
“The word Elohim possesses a plural intensive syntax and is singular in meaning. In Hebrew, the suffix ים (im), mainly indicates a masculine plural. However with Elohim the construction is grammatically singular, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the God of Israel, but grammatically plural elohim (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7)...
“There is a fundamental principal regarding the many names of the Almighty as they appear in the Torah – they are exalted descriptions of the God of Israel...
“The pagan mind ascribed a separate and distinct god for each of the powers in the world which it observed, and on whom it depended...
“The Torah conveys a radically different message for mankind. All the life-sustaining forces in the universe, all the power that man can behold, emanate from the One Master of the world, One Creator of the universe – the Lord of Hosts is His name. This grand message is contained in the name of God, Elohim. All the forces of the world emerged from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, the God of Israel alone – Elohim – is worthy of our worship and devotion.
“It is for this reason that the Torah employs the word Elohim almost exclusively as the name of God throughout the first two chapters of Genesis. In these opening passages of the Book of Genesis, the Almighty is creating all the powers and forces which stir and sustain the universe.”
https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

Now, of course you’re probably going to say something like, of course Jews would deny the Trinity, they denied Jesus also. But you would be forgetting that Jesus affirmed the Jewish understanding when he said the Jews, himself included, knew what they worshipped, and all good scholars of Judaism know that the Jews never understood their God to be a compound of separate persons. And Jesus also affirmed that the Jews rejected him as the stone which the builders rejected. You can’t have it both ways.

Even Trinitarian theologians acknowledge that Jews never understood God in terms of a plurality of persons:

“The Hebrews employed the plural form of the name of God in the sense of the singular. They never understood this to indicate anything but absolute unity: they had no idea of plurality of persons in the Godhead. The plural was used by them, in this as in other cases, intensively. Elohim means simply, ‘the supreme God.’” Carl Brumbach, God in Three Persons: A Trinitarian Answer to the Oneness or ‘Jesus Only’ Doctrine Concerning the Godhead and Water Baptism (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1998), 37-38.

Now let’s here from God on the subject:

“Thus says the LORD…You are my witnesses, says Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Yahweh; and besides me there is no savior. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have shown; and there was no strange god among you: therefore you are my witnesses, says Yahweh, and I am God.” (Isaiah 43: 1, 10–12)

And Jesus:


“What may be known of God is manifest…, for God has shown it… For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead…” (Romans 1:18–20; NKJV)

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” (Romans 1:21–23)

And then we come to Justin Martyr, he reveals that one of the first steps toward Nicaea, where the current “coequalist” Trinity began to be actually defined, was the Trinitarian denial that the Jews “know what we worship”:

Justin begins his interpretation in First Apology 63 by falsely accusing the Jews of teaching a nameless God. This is the first sign that he has no problem imposing pagan philosophy onto Jewish theology. You may recall that Paul used this tactic. Paul’s purpose was to introduce another God to the Greeks, whom they were previously unaware of (Acts 17:23). Justin used the same tactic in reverse to introduce a pagan view into Christianity. Whereas Paul said the Greeks were ignorant, Justin accused the Jews of being ignorant. Justin reversed Paul’s position at the same time he was reversing Jesus’ position.
Unlike Paul, what Justin did is called being a false witness. Paul started with the pagan’s own inscription “to the unknown god.” Justin similarly starts out by accusing the Jews of worshiping a nameless God. However, unlike the pagans, the Jews didn’t believe in a nameless God. Quite the contrary, they believed in a very nameable God, whose name, they felt, was too holy to utter indiscriminately. The point is, by claiming the Jews believed in a nameless God, Justin introduced this “other” additional God. He did so by asserting the Jews were ignorant of him. This ploy worked for the Gentiles because it catered to their philosophic schooling. However, it is very doubtful it would have worked on the Jews, who had been told by Yahweh they were his witnesses. Besides, Jews knew they didn’t teach a nameless God.

“And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spake to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said ‘The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know Me, and My people do not understand’ (Isaiah 1:3). And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and himself said, ‘No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him.’” (Matthew 11:27) Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 63, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxiii.html.

There are many problems with Justin’s position. First, the Jews didn’t believe in a “nameless” God, they believed in a God who had many names that described His various attributes.

Second, it is debatable whether Isaiah originally wrote that God said the word “Me” in the passage. “Me” is found in Greek Septuagint manuscripts, but it isn’t found in the Hebrew text. Taken in its context, the passage clearly refutes Justin’s limited conclusion that this meant no Jew knew what the Father and Son were. In the next verse, 4, Isaiah says that these disobedient people had “forsaken Yahweh.” That is to say, they had left, abandoned, or departed from Yahweh (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon). They would first have had to be with Yahweh before being able to depart from Yahweh. So Yahweh isn’t saying through Isaiah that the disobedient Israelites “didn’t know Me.” He is saying they departed from serving Him. We can deduce the reason was they didn’t understand or accept His ways. Instead, they preferred the ways of the gods round about them. This is what people, like Trinitarians, say when they redefine God’s commandments. They are saying God’s commandments aren’t good enough, and man’s ideas are preferred. This usually stems from a false belief that God’s ways are restrictive, while the ways of the world are liberating. If they could see the view from eternity, like God can, they would know and understand that God was offering them life instead of death, and freedom from sin instead of bondage to it.

Third, Isaiah also says, “Yahweh of Armies had left to us a very small remnant” (Isaiah 1:9). Therefore, contrary to Justin’s generalization of all Jews, at least some of Israel even then still did know and understand. Justin’s interpretation throws the baby out with the bath water. He rejects the knowing and obedient servants of Yahweh right along with the disobedient ones. There is no room for good Israelites and bad Israelites in Justin’s view. He has to discredit the understanding of all Jews to justify (ultimately including Jesus!) for forsaking their view and going after philosophy. Since most Jews rejected their Messiah, Trinitarians feel justified in rejecting the Jewish view of monotheism. What the Jews actually never understood was God as a Trinity. Justin simply used false logic based on nothing more than human reasoning.

Trinitarians are against the testimony of God, Jesus and the apostles that the Jews did understand God, and they did NOT understand Him as a Trinity of persons.

If this is not so, then go to the scriptures and show where first the Jews and then the apostles explicitly stated that “God it three persons in one substance.”

If you can’t quote such scriptures, then, bottom line, you are calling God a liar and Jesus a liar.

Your denomination and your pastor and your church, none of them died for your sins. The one who died for MY sins, and your sins, says:

“Jesus said… ‘You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.’” (John 4:21–22)

“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 wh**ever 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)

“A voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!” Luke 9:35

Continued in Part 2 to Blade

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 2 to Blade



Your question merely presents a false dilemma, and an anachronism, because it is imposed back on the text with concepts that were not developed until the fourth century, well after the apostles.

Furthermore, your words condemn the Trinity doctrine, because as any good scholar will tell you (as shown above), it was developed over a period of hundreds of years. What most of them won’t tell you, is that the doctrine (in particular the words and concepts used to define the Trinity) began with the antichristian Gnostics, and was ultimately imposed on Christendom by pagan Emperors, beginning with Constantine, on pain of excommunication, loss of property, or in many cases, even death. The Bible says no murderer has eternal life.

I learned much of what I know about the influence of pagan philosophy on the development of the Trinity from reading some of the more candid Trinitarian scholars and historians of doctrine, including the originals from Justin to Athanasius, among others!

Some of my favorite quotes are from the non-Trinitarian Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202). He lived during the mid-second century, before Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD), when only Gnostics were Trinitarians. Here is the most concise argument against the Trinity, outside of the Bible, from an early Christian that was only 2 generations removed from the apostle John (Polycarp was a disciple of John’s, and Irenaeus had listened to Polycarp as a boy).

Why listen or care about what Irenaeus says? Because of this Scripture: “The things which you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. 2:2

Now then, Irenaeus, being one of those faithful men, one generation removed, faithful men, who is able to teach others, said this:

“For if He produced intelligence, then He who did thus produce intelligence must be understood, in accordance with their views, as a compound and corporeal Being; so that God, who sent forth (the intelligence referred to), is separate from it, and the intelligence which was sent forth separate (from Him). But if they affirm that intelligence was sent forth from intelligence, they then cut asunder the intelligence of God, and divide it into parts. And whither has it gone? Whence was it sent forth? For wh**ever is sent forth from any place, passes of necessity into some other. But what existence was there more ancient than the intelligence of God, into which they maintain it was sent forth? And what a vast region that must have been which was capable of receiving and containing the intelligence of God! If, however, they affirm (that this emission took place) just as a ray proceeds from the sun, then, as the subjacent air which receives the ray must have had an existence prior to it, so (by such reasoning) they will indicate that there was something in existence, into which the intelligence of God was sent forth, capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Following upon this, we must hold that, as we see the sun, which is less than all things, sending forth rays from Himself to a great distance, so likewise we say that the Propator sent forth a ray beyond, and to a great distance from, Himself. But what can be conceived of beyond, or at a distance from, God, into which He sent forth this ray?
“If, again, they affirm that that (intelligence) was not sent forth beyond the Father, but within the Father Himself, then, in the first place, it becomes superfluous to say that it was sent forth at all. For how could it have been sent forth if it continued within the Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted, beyond him who emits it. In the next place, this (intelligence) being sent forth, both that Logos who springs from Him will still be within the Father, as will also be the future emissions proceeding from Logos. These, then, cannot in such a case be ignorant of the Father, since they are within Him; nor, being all equally surrounded by the Father, can anyone know Him less (than another) according to the descending order of their emission…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 13, par. 4-6.

Here Irenaeus is talking about the Gnostic idea of God-Persons who were “emitted” (begotten) from the Father- including the logos/word doctrine! This ray proceeding from the sun was pagan in origin, but it ultimately made its way into the Trinitarian creeds. He points out that, anyway they view it, if one deific person is emitted, or begotten from another, then they have a compound being, which to him is intolerable.

He goes on to say that, even though the Gnostics said they were emitted, such emissions still remained within the Godhead (or pleroma). This is no different than the early Trinitarians who said that the son was eternally begotten without ever leaving the godhead. Irenaeus points out how superfluous that would be. If they didn’t have anywhere to go, in what sense were they begotten? If they went out, to what great expanse would they go, bigger than God, before creation? And finally, if they didn’t go out from the Godhead, what is the point in their being begotten? It would be like a pregnant mother saying her baby was born while it was still in her womb. You can’t have it both ways. Either the baby is born, or it’s not; but it isn’t born while it remains in the womb This is how ludicrous the Gnostic anti-Christian projection of one thing out of another within the Godhead was to Irenaeus.

Irenaeus here flatly renounced the entire basis of the development of the trinity.

Later Trinitarians would develop this doctrine, which was originally an anti-Christian idea, into the “eternally begotten son.” That later development was done by a theologian named Origen (c. 184 – c. 253). However, the Trinitarian “eternally begotten son” didn’t come out of the Godhead either. Nor was there anywhere for him to go because nothing else had been created yet. There is no doubt that the Trinitarian eternally (and internally) begotten son is just a repackaging of the anti-Christian son. We actually have Tertullian, a theologian a generation after Irenaeus, admitting that he got his Trinitarian idea of a projection of one god out of another from the gnostic Valentinus:



Here Tertullian reversed exactly what Irenaeus had condemned just one generation earlier! Irenaeus, unlike Tertullian, was never considered a schismatic!

Does Tertullian deny that he conceives of the Son very similar to the way the anti-Christians do, and most importantly contrary to the way other Christians view him? No, Tertullian emphatically does not deny it; in fact, he admits it. Tertullian responds that the Gnostic Valentinus stole the idea from the t***h. What Tertullian means by t***h here is something that actually comes from pagan philosophy by way of Valentinus in Tertullian’s case.

Tertullian doesn’t provide any source, accepted or not, or any quotes ascribed to a previous teacher or writer. He doesn’t even try to prove that the apostles, or Jesus, or the Jewish people of faith ever conceived of God or interpreted the Scriptures in this manner. To the contrary, he admits this is an idea that he and his cronies were just now bringing out. That is, he accepted the accusation from his detractors and admitted it! Note his words, “…I am introducing…some prolation of one thing out of another as Valentinus does…” Tertullian made this remarkable confession after admitting that the majority of believers at that time did not agree with him. The majority of believers did not accept the Trinity that he and his group were introducing. And this was true at a time when the full-blown coequal Trinity had not yet been introduced. Tertullian’s Trinity was only an economical (or dispensational, having to do with time and salvation) Trinity that still had the second and third persons subordinate to the Father.



In Tertullian’s time the majority of the believers were still shocked by the idea of adopting “the world’s plurality of gods.” But Tertullian wasn’t! For Tertullian, going after the gods round about him was the natural, logical, scientific thing to do. It was following this passage, that Tertullian went on to say, “…I am introducing…one thing out of another as Valentinus does…” So Tertullian was not hiding the fact that he was introducing something new. He knew he was, just as certainly as the majority of believers knew it. That’s why he didn’t hide that he was introducing something new that looked just like what Valentinus taught. All he felt he had to do was justify why he was introducing something new, and he did that by tweaking it just a little bit by saying, in his view, the son and father knew who each other were.



Another way in which Irenaeus refutes both the Trinity you are now supporting, and what Tertullian would later say, is in his definition of God as not being a compound unity.

“…The Examination of thought (Judgment);…remaining in the mind is most properly termed Logos (reason), from which the spoken Logos (word) proceeds…For, when one (mentally) contemplates anything, he also thinks of it; and when he thinks of it, he has also knowledge regarding it; and when he knows it, he also considers it; and when he considers it, he also mentally handles it; and when he mentally handles it, he also speaks of it.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 13, par. 2.

This is better than a dictionary definition for the word logos, or “word.” Irenaeus described for us exactly what it meant to Christians, taught by the apostle John, in his day. Logos is thought, judgment, and reason, including the spoken word springing from these internal thoughts. For Irenaeus, these attributes describe logos as it pertains to God just as well as it pertains to humans.

Irenaeus next turned to how the logos (word) uniquely pertained to God. The notable difference, he explained, is that humanity is a compound of various parts. In contrast, God is simple and non-compound with no various parts.

“These things may properly be said to hold good in men, since they are compound by nature, and consist of a body and a soul… But…God is not as men are…. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to Himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason (logos), and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good—even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God.
“He is, however, above (all) these properties, and therefore indescribable. For He may well and properly be called an Understanding which comprehends all things, but He is not (on that account) like the understanding of men…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 13 par. 3-4.

Irenaeus frankly and clearly refutes the idea of God as a compound of multiple persons. He states that God doesn’t merely have logos, or reason, or intelligence. Rather, he says that God is logos, reason, and intelligence. Unlike the Gnostics before him and Tertullian after him, Irenaeus was still speaking of God in non-material terms. Thus, the Gnostics were the pioneers of Tertullian’s Trinitarian view of God on many levels. They were first to divide the Godhead up into separate persons based on divine attributes. This was the exact mindset that influenced and corrupted the Trinitarian view. It was the idea that God’s Word—his logos—could be a separate “person” from God.

Continued in Part 3 to Blade...

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 3 to Blade...

So then, even while explaining how God was non-compound, Irenaeus also acknowledged what you call the multi-dimensionalness of God, and he did so, as a Christian, in terms that perfectly match the description of God’s multifacetedness of the Jews.

So Irenaeus quite effectively renounced the idea, that had been put forth by antichristian Gnostics, that the father and son could be of the same essence, or nature or substance.

Then, one generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian began speaking of God in terms of aristotlian metaphysical substance, for the express purpose of being able to divide the godhead into separate or distinct persons:

“But you will not allow him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance…and so be able…to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word.” Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 7.

This statement is precisely what the Jewish understanding of God has against the dogma of the Trinity. The God of the Bible is an incorporeal, non-compound, non-complex one. One of the reasons we know this universe was created, and humans in particular, is that we are complex (made up of parts). One of the answers to skeptics to the question of “who made God” is that God is not complex, He is not compound, He simply is. To make God into a complex being, all by itself, proves that the Trinity God is a created being, made after the image of man, by theologians such as Tertullian, who was merely following the gnostics and neoplatonists of his time.

This is why the Trinity dogma must destroy the Jewish understanding of monotheism for it to be valid. In the Jewish conception, which includes Jesus’ viewpoint, God’s nature cannot be divided into persons. It would be like trying to divide love or faith into distinct persons. So, in order to defend and define their dogma, Trinitarians have no recourse but to speak of God in Stoic philosophical terms of metaphysical corporeality. This is the real reason they resort to unbiblical language for describing their idea of distinct persons. Such ideas aren’t in the Bible, but they are found in paganism, so off to the pagans the Trinitarians go. Their only challenge is how to convince people they aren’t pure pagans in doing so. That is the real reason they say the apostles didn’t clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

Okay, there is a LOT more I could say about the development of the Trinity, and how at every turn they adopted more and more pagan ideas and got further and further away from the Biblical Jewish view of God. Let’s get to your next statements.



Being created in the image of God, yes, but, we were NOT created into triune beings made up of three persons in one essence, period. Your supposition simply has no bearing on reality.



Here’s where the rubber meets the road. You ask, do we or does God? The problem is, the Trinitarians supplanted the definitions that God gave with pagan philosophical concepts. So your question condemns the Trinity doctrine above all!

The Biblical fact is, when God defines Himself, he does so in terms of character, never in terms of essence or substance.

Let me demonstrate that God can be known by His attitudes in action through His name, “I am that I am” (Exodus 3:14). In saying “I Am…” God is declaring His character, that is, His attitude in relation to Himself and all others. In saying, “…that I Am” He is expressing the action of His attitude of being “I Am” to us. By revealing to us His name, “I Am that I Am,” God has just let us know who He is. In fact, He has just explained and revealed to us that what He does is what and who He is. His name is simply an explanation of what He is. Furthermore, what He consists of is nothing more or less than His attitude in action toward us. Thus, far from hiding Himself, God has just revealed and described Himself in very clear, positive terms. His name “I Am that I Am” is very succinct; nonetheless, it is also full of meaning.

Look at how the Bible describes the “spirit” that was to be in the Messiah:

“A shoot will come out of the stock of Jesse,
And a branch out of his roots will bear fruit.
The Spirit of Yahweh will rest on him:
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and might,
The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh.
“His delight will be in the fear of Yahweh.
He will not judge by the sight of his eyes,
Neither decide by the hearing of his ears;
“But with righteousness he will judge the poor,
And decide with equity for the humble of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
And with the breath of his lips he will k**l the wicked.
“Righteousness will be the belt of his waist,
And faithfulness the belt of his waist.” (Isaiah 11:1–5)

This passage positively defines what the spirit of Christ is. These spirits are not distinct God-Persons in the Godhead. Not one of these “spirits” of Yahweh is a material substance. The Bible isn’t describing God in metaphysical terms. Nevertheless, the Bible is describing the Spirit of Yahweh in positive terms. Each of these spirits is simply described as an attitude. Although they are very real, and in that sense, we can say they are truly “substantial,” they are by no means physical or material in any way. They are realities without having material substance. It is in just such terms that the Scripture teaches that God is a spirit, and whoever worships Him must worship Him in spirit and in t***h. These are attributes of the characteristic attitudes of God and godliness. In particular, this is a prophecy about the godliness that would be characteristic of the Messiah. These spirits expressed what would be Messiah’s attitudes in action.

In the Bible, all of God’s characteristics are defined as moral or attitudinal, never corporeal or having “substance.” Only pagans talk that way about God. Even Hebrews 1:3 speaks of God, not in terms of corporeality, or in terms of substance, but in terms of non-corporeality.

“Who [Jesus] being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.” (Hebrews 1:3; KJV and NKJV)

Hebrews 1:3 uses the same exact word as in “…faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1; KJV and NKJV).

Although the old and the New King James Version use the word substance here, other versions use “being sure of” (NIV), “the assurance of” (WEB, NRSV, NASU), or “being confident of” (CJB). Thus, all versions agree that faith is defined as an attitudinal concept and not a physical or material reality.

The Greek word in Hebrews 11:1 that all these versions are t***slating is the word hupostasis. This is a very important word because hupostasis is the word that the ancient Trinitarians came up with to describe the differences between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was this word they used in saying that God was “one and the same essence (homoousios) in three persons (hupostases).” This purely Trinitarian saying has absolutely no comparable statement anywhere in the Bible; it is totally non-biblical.

The Bible, in Hebrews 1:3, has just described God in a manner similar to how it describes faith. Referring to faith, the Bible says hupostasis is the substance, or confidence, in things we hope for. As we know, faith is an attitude, and not by any means is it a physical or material substance. Hupostasis literally means “a setting under.” (Strong’s concordance). It has nothing to do with physical substance, and it has nothing to do with personality. The verse simply says that Jesus is the very expression of who and what God is, if He could be made visible.

To demonstrate the biblical usage of hupostasis, we need only look to other passages where the Greek word is used. The word is only used three other times in the New Testament, so we don’t have far to go. The following three passages t***slate the word hupostasis as “confidence.”

“…If there come with me any of Macedonia and find you unprepared, we (to say nothing of you) should be disappointed in this confident boasting.” (2 Corinthians 9:4)
“That which I speak, I don’t speak according to the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this [b/confidence[/b] of boasting.” (2 Corinthians 11:17)
“For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our [/b]confidence firm to the end.” (Hebrews 3:14)

If we were to interpret the Trinitarian expression through the biblical usage of the word hupostasis, it would amount to something like, “one essence in three confidences.” That is like saying we have “one batch of lemonade in three assurances.” We would be trying to mix two totally unequal and incompatible realities in our theological, metaphorical punch bowl. It doesn’t work, intelligibly that is. So to cover up this illogical mess, Trinitarians just call it a mystery. That is why it took them literally hundreds of years to hammer out an acceptable definition! In order to make it appear to work, the Trinitarians resort to two phony solutions, and they are both pagan ideas: (1) speaking and conceiving of God as a material substance, and (2) claiming the Godhead is a mystery that can’t be known.

Now let’s consider this passage:

“3seeing that his divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and virtue; 4by which he has granted to us his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust.” 2 Peter 1:3-4.

This is a real problem for Trinitarians. If Jesus is a partaker in divine nature, and that means some kind of corporeality or materiality that Jesus shares with the Father, then it means that we also will become gods (which anyone who reads past Gen. 3 knows is very problematic!)

The problem is easily escaped when we know what the Bible means about “divine nature” being like the “hupostasis” or underlying attitude, of our faith: something attitudinal and not at all physical, material or corporeal.

Thus it is written of Jesus, that the Spirit that would settle on him is not material, but attitudinal: 1“A shoot will come out of the stock of Jesse, And a branch out of his roots will bear fruit. 2The Spirit of YHWH will rest on him: The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHWH...” etc. (Isaiah 11:1–5)

Through these words we see that having the Spirit of Christ in us means we also are to take on his attitudinal characteristics. The opposite way of viewing these traits is, as the pagans do, in assigning to each characteristic a separate personality. Thus they come up with gods for the skies and the seas and so forth. Such is carnal, pagan thinking! That is why Trinitarians assign different aspects of God to different persons, they actually are rejecting that God the Father HIMSELF is all of those traits, as Irenaeus put it:

“But…God is not as men are…. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to Himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason (logos), and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good—even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God.
“He is, however, above (all) these properties, and therefore indescribable. For He may well and properly be called an Understanding which comprehends all things, but He is not (on that account) like the understanding of men…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 13 par. 3-4.

So then, we come to the contrast of how the Bible defines God as incorporeal, with the way in which the Bible describes Christ as corporeal.

“Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...” (Romans 1:3)

“My relatives according to the flesh... Are Israelites... From whom is Christ as concerning the flesh...” (Romans 9:3–5)

“Remember that [b]Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.” (2 Timothy 2:8)

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

This concept of Jesus Himself (not merely some made up “human nature” part of him) being the offspring of David comes from God’s sworn oath to David:

“Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ.” (Acts 2:30–31)

Why would people want to believe their man-made definitions and doctrines trump God’s sworn oath? This oath was originally captured in this passage:

“8...Thus says YHWH [to David]... 12When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” (2 Samuel 7:8–14)

This isn’t deep. It isn’t mysterious. It isn’t shrouded in unfathomable mystery. It is a simply stated t***h in the Bible. And it is emphasized by the fact that it is one of the few places in the Bible where God (who cannot lie in any way) swore with an oath that it would come to pass. And yet, even still, some people have a hard time believing God’s sworn oath without adding to it or diminishing from it. These verses are simply explaining the t***h.

Continued in Part 4 to Blade...

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 4 to Blade...

The Bible even clearly explains how Christ was made:

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

Notice carefully that this verse doesn’t say that only Christ’s flesh was “made of” a woman, it says God’s Son was made of a woman. “Made of” is two words, and means literally “to become of” a woman. In Genesis 2:7 we are told, “God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Most Christians have no problem accepting this on faith since it is what God’s word declares. Next we find in Genesis 2:21 that God made woman out of one of Adam’s ribs. Again, most Christians believe this on faith because it is written in God’s word. But then we come to Jesus, whom the Bible says was “made of a woman,” and now, people hesitate. But that is exactly what happened. God’s word says that God’s Son has been “made of a woman.” That’s the simple, biblical, and yet amazing t***h.

Notice also that this son was born at a certain point in time, and that moment in time was when he was made of a woman. This refutes all Trinitarian ideas (both Arian and Athanasian) of an eternal or pre-human existence of the Son of God.

Next we look at a passage that has caused a lot of confusion. Later we will show exactly where that confusion originated. For now, let’s look at what it says.

“The book of the generation [genesis=beginning] of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham...” (Matthew 1:1)

Matthew is using genesis here as a Greek rendering of the Biblical Hebrew used when listing genealogies in the Bible (the “begats”). It means “beginning” or “origin” in the sense of family descent. So Matthew has deliberately patterned his wording on that used in the Hebrew Bible. That means, according to Matthew, Jesus didn’t begin before this. The word for beginning used here means “source, origin, a book of one’s lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated, used of birth, nativity... ” (“NT:1078” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database, 2006 by Biblesoft). Then Matthew goes on to describe Christ’s miraculous birth from his mother Mary:

“16Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called The Anointed One. 17So all the generations [source/nativity] from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations. 18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this; for after his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:16–18)

There are no corresponding Scriptures that claim or explain that the son was “made of” the spirit. And even if it did, we’ve already shown how the spirit is something attitudinal, not material having some kind of substance or essence. Certainly, the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary, but it does not say that Jesus was made “also” of divine substance. In fact, the Bible explicitly refutes that idea, when it says this:

“35But someone will say, “How are the dead raised?” and, “With what kind of body do they come?” 36You foolish one, that which you yourself sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37That which you sow, you don’t sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, maybe of wheat, or of some other kind... 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam was made a life-giving spirit. 46However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 15:35–46)

This passage explains to us that Jesus wasn’t raised with the same “body” that was put in the tomb. He was changed at the moment of his resurrection. Paul stated ever so clearly that Christ became a life-giving spirit at his resurrection using the creation of Adam as a point of reference for how Christ became a life giving spirit.

This passage has a parallel in Acts:

“22“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, 23him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and k**led; 24whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it…
“36Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:22-36)

Who was made both Lord and Christ? According to Acts it was the Jesus who was crucified. According to the doctors of the Trinity, only the flesh suffered, not the person of the Son, who was of no other essence than that of the Father.

Here is another dilemma for the Trinity doctrine. In 2 Corinthians 3, the Scriptures do what the Trinitarians refuse, the Bible “confounds” what would be, in the trinitarian view, two of the persons of the Trinity:

“12Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness of speech, 13and not as Moses, who put a veil on his face, that the children of Israel wouldn't look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away. 14But their minds were hardened, for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains, because in Christ it passes away. 15But to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16But whenever one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now (or but) the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are t***sformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit.” 2 Cor. 3:12-18.

Jesus has been made Lord and Christ per Acts 2:36, Christ was made a quickening Spirit just as Adam was made a living soul (1 Corinthians 15:35–46) and now we are seeing that he who was made Lord, Christ and Spirit, is “the Lord, the Spirit”. The Spirit is Jesus in resurrected, glorified form! For, as the bible clearly explains, “The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. (1 Corinthians 15:35–46)

And this is why John is so adamant to call out the Gnostics as antichristians for claiming that Christ came in anything but human flesh:

“By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.” (1 John 4:2–3)

Most Gnostics taught that Jesus Christ was made a spiritual personality in the heavens and only appeared to be human, but not all. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ was born (not “incarnated”) when God brought him into this world, and that he was “made of” the seed of David according to the flesh, and after his resurrection, after his flesh was sown in the earth as that grain that would reappear in a different form as Spirit. These are the two central opposing ideas between the Gnostics and the Bible: “incarnation” which is gnostic and antichristian vs “birth” which is biblical.

So we see that John didn’t just throw that warning out indiscriminately. Make no mistake; he was speaking particularly about the Gnostics, who did not believe that the Word of God was “made flesh.” But the Bible explicitly taught something different.

“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don’t confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.” (2 John 7)

But the Trinitarians don’t believe in God’s definition of His Son, as being of the seed of David according to the flesh. Trinitarians don’t believe that God’s son was “made of a woman”, they believe that only that which was made of the substance of God was the Son:

“…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 adopts gnosticism and denies that Jesus Christ has truly 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. From this point, any claim that Trinitarians believe in a human Son should be regarded as lip service.

Why, because the Bible describes him in this way:

“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. For inasmuch as he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.” (Hebrews 2:17–18)

But according to the Trinitarians, the son was of no other essence than that of the Father:

“…And further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father’s essence, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the Triad consists, and once there was not a Triad, but a Monad; and a Triad once with deficiency, and then complete; deficient, before the Son was originated, complete when he had come to be; and henceforth a thing originated is reckoned with the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and glory with him who was ever.” ibid , Chapter 6.

With these words Athanasius rejected the biblical, prophetic promise of a human savior. Athanasius absolutely denied the scriptural human Son, born of the seed of Eve, Abraham, and David. He denied the Son that God Himself said He would be a Father to in a future tense. Athanasius stated that if the Son the Bible describes is true, then there is no such thing as a Trinity. Athanasius further denied the true humanity of the Son in the following statement:

“…Things originate, being from nothing, and not being before their origination, because, in t***h, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to his essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself.” ibid. Chapter 10, par. 36.

Athanasius is just restating Gnostic doctrine. The Gnostics taught that the Son took nothing from the woman, but passed through her without being changed. The Scriptures describe the Son completely differently than the Gnostics and their Trinitarian descendants. The Bible (Hebrews 2:14–18) says that the Son had to become like his brothers in all things, so that he could be our advocate. The Bible also says that the Son learned obedience by, and was perfected through, suffering. The Son the Bible describes is a different Son than Trinitarians believe in:

“He…though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered. Having been made perfect, he became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation.” (Hebrews 5:7–9)

The Son of God in the Trinitarian sense, is purely gnostic, and is definitely not the Son of God, of the seed of David, in the Biblical sense.

So yes, let’s ask, “In approaching knowledge of the nature of God, we have two options. Do we determine or define who God is, or do we allow God to tell us and show us who He is?”

Or put another way, do we insist on defining who God and His son are through pagan and even antichristian gnostic categories of thought (ie “Trinity”, “coequal persons in one substance”, etc), or do we stick to words and concepts that the Bible uses and teaches us with?

“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.” 1 Corinthians 2:13.

“Be careful that you don't let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.” Col. 2:8.

Morgan

You have a kind heart Rose,

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. ... Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

It is written:

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” Deut 4:2.

“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6

Proverbs 30 applies very well to you, as I will now demonstrate.

Jesus gave us two important tools by which to determine definitively who is teaching the word of God and who is perverting it, they are found in Mark 7 & Matthew 4. Using these two methods of Jesus’, we will be able to clearly discern which of us is speaking biblically and which is not.

The first one:

“5The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 6He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 8"For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things." 9He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 11But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Wh**ever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 12then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 13making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." Mark 7:5-13 (see also Matthew 15:1-9)

This won’t need a lot of commentary for me to explain, we’ll just llok at how your words look in place of the words of the Pharisees.

“5The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but [“deny that the One God, throughout His Biblical message to mankind, is three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence”]?" 6He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 8"For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men— [“three members of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit”]." 9He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, [“Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one (Deut 6:4) and [“the LORD is God; there is no other besides Him (Deut. 4:35) And [“God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27)”].' 11But you say, [“You can deny that the One God, throughout His Biblical message to mankind, is three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence, with one goal, but it will avail you nothing on earth and certainly not in heaven”];' 12then you no longer allow him to do [“[“Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one (Deut 6:4)”], 13making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." Mark 7:5-13 (see also Matthew 15:1-9)

This should help you understand why I reject the man-made tradition of your elders and keep, instead, the commandments of God as clearly explained in words which the Bible teaches.

The second important tool that Jesus gave us is found in Matthew 4:

“1Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil... 5Then the devil took him into the holy city. He set him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, 'He will put his angels in charge of you.' and, 'On their hands they will bear you up, so that you don't dash your foot against a stone.'" 7Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test the Lord, your God.'” Matt. 4:1-7

I want to point out what is going on in this scene (especially for any reader who may not be too familiar with what is happening). In Matthew 4:5–7, the devil quoted Psalm 91 to Jesus and actually tempted Jesus to jump from a pinnacle to show he was truly the Son of God. Because, the devil concluded, “it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge concerning you…so that you don’t dash your foot against a stone.’” Here is the important thing to keep in mind about that Psalm: nowhere in that passage, or any verses in proximity, did the psalmist “qualify” that promise by saying something to the effect that it only applies if you don’t tempt the Lord. There were no constraints found in Psalms 91 other than it goes for servants of God. In order to point that command out to the devil, Jesus had to respond from a whole other book and section of the Bible. He answered by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16: “it is written again, ‘you shall not test [or tempt] the Lord, your God.’”

So then, what Jesus was teaching us, is simply that you can’t just come up with man-made opinions, even if that “idea” seems to follow the trajectory of a biblical concept. The issue lands squarely on whether that extended thought is explicitly contradicted by scripture, or confirmed by other scriptures.

Now let’s look at how the devil’s temptation would look in Jesus’ discernment process:

“1Then [TommyRadd] was led up by the Spirit into the [OPP board] to be tempted by the [Trinitarians]... 5Then the [Trinitarians] took him to the [tradition of the Trinity doctrine], 6and said to him, [i] [“You...deny that the One God, throughout His Biblical message to mankind, is three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence... You...attempt to turn God's Word on its head”] for it is written, [“1. Matthew 3:16 “After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him.”].'" [TommyRadd] said to the Trinitarian, [b][color=red]"Again, it is written...[/b].'”

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

And again and again and again:

“You are Yahweh, even you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their army, the earth and all things that are thereon… You are Yahweh the God, who did choose Abram…and gave him the name of Abraham, …and made a covenant with him.” (Nehemiah 9:6–8)

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

“Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel, who is enthroned among the cherubim, you are the God, even you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.” (Isaiah 37:16)

“I, Yahweh…there is no God else besides me, a just God and a Savior; there is no one besides me. Look to me, and be you saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:21–23)

“5For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" 6yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” 1 Corinthians 8:5-6

“1“Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, ‘Father... 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.’” (John 17:1, 3).

“..."Which commandment is the greatest of all?" 29Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: 30you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment... 32The scribe said to him, "Truly, teacher, you have said well that he [first person singular present indicative] is one [“a cardinal numeral, one. Used: 1. universally, a. in opposed to many” -Thayer’s Greek Lexicon], and there is none other but he [Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular], 33and to love him [Accusative Masculine 3rd Person Singular] with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God." No one dared ask him any question after that.

“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6

“...the mind of the flesh is hostile towards God; for it is not subject to God's law, neither indeed can it be.” Romans 8:7



Continued in Part 2 to Zemirah