"For there is ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men,
the MAN Christ Jesus" -- 1 Tim. 2:5

The history of religion has always been one of degeneration from the originally revealed monotheism to various forms of polytheism. "Christianity," as popularly known, has been no exception.

The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, is very emphatic about the absolute oneness of God. When asked --- Jesus answered (Mark 12:29) -- He was quoting from the words of Moses in Deut. 6:4. This is the consistent story of the Bible. There is not a word about three gods in it from the beginning to the end.

"Christendom" today has degenerated to a belief in four gods, three good ones and one evil one. Some parts of Christendom have five gods, as the Roman Catholic Church, which has added a "Mother of God" who is in their system of belief the supreme deity beside a host of demi-gods, one for every day of the year (and more), all of which mythical and man-invented deities are worshipped and prayed to.

The doctrine of the Trinity is this -- This is the prize and tragic example of the natural mind of man speculating upon divine things rather than being content to humbly accept the simple testimony of Scripture.

In all Scripture, there is nothing to justify this absurd and self-contradictory mizmaze. While truly we can never hope with mortal minds to comprehend God, still the revelations He gives of Himself, and of His Son, and of His Holy Spirit -- His power and presence which fills all immensity and works His will -- is clear and simple and reasonable and a tremendously satisfying relief from the befuddled speculations as quoted above.

The doctrine of the "Trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible. The following quotations from recognized historians will give the background of the period in which this doctrine was developed, showing the general conditions of Christendom of the time, the philosophic influences at work, the methods of reasoning and argument used, and the political forces that finally established the doctrine and enforced it by confiscation, prohibition, punishment and murder.

This will clearly show the frail, human foundation the doctrine of the Trinity rests on, and dissipate the weight it appears to have from centuries of "orthodox" acceptance.

Of the Council of Nice, 352 AD, where the doctrine of the Trinity was first officially formulated, the well-known trinitarian historian Mosheim, a Lutheran, admits (Century 4, Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 1) -- This is a trinitarian's description of conditions in the Catholic Church during the time the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated and imposed. In the same chapter, Section 5, Mosheim says: Plato was the heathen Greek philosopher (around 400 BC) who popularized the Egyptian doctrine of the immortality of the soul. He was the brightest star and greatest influence in the pagan system of philosophy that Christianity in its original purity set out to combat (See 1 Cor., chapters 1 & 2).

But Platonic philosophers became dominant in the Catholic Church, and Platonic philosophy has dominated the beliefs of "orthodox" Christendom from the 3rd century AD to the present. The earliest Christians bitterly fought heathen philosophy; the later "Christians" adopted it.

Origen, mentioned by Mosheim as influential in this Platonizing movement (around 200-250 AD), was one of the greatest (and perhaps the greatest) influences in establishing this trend in the Church. Of him, Mosheim says (Cent. 2, Part 2, Chap. 1, Sec. 5) --- Translator's footnote at this place in Mosheim -- Continuing Mosheim, Sec. 7 -- Section 8 -- Section 9 -- Section 12 -- Editor's footnote at this place in Mosheim -- (It will be noted from the previous quotations that the most distinguished "Christian" teachers of the 4th century looked to Origen and the Platonic philosophy as their model. Any doctrines therefore -- such as the Trinity -- formulated at this time are bound to be more pagan than Christian.)

Returning to Mosheim's history of the 4th century, he records concerning the conduct and character of the church leaders (Cen. 4, Part 2, Chap. 2, Sec. 5) -- Section 8 -- Cent. 4, Part 2, Chap. 3, Sec. 17 -- Such is a trinitarian historian's testimony concerning the times in which the doctrine of the Trinity was developed on the admitted basis of human speculation and Platonic philosophy. Of the methods of argument and persuasion used by the church leaders of this period, Mosheim says (Cen. 4, Part 2, Chap 3, Sec. 7) -- Section 8 -- Section 16 -- Such were the principles of the men who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity, and with the aid of the civil power imposed it upon the whole body of believers on pain of severe punishment, as we shall see in later quotations.

Of the general conditions of worship in this century, Mosheim says (Cent. 4, Part 2, Chap 4, Sec 1) -- Section 4 -- Is it reasonable to expect any sound fruit from such a rotten tree?

The Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, vol 16, page 774, article "Montanism," says -- The cornerstone of this "new Christian theology," based on pagan philosophy, is the doctrine of three Gods, three Persons in the "Godhead."

How this doctrine of the Trinity was developed during this period is frankly explained by a trinitarian writer in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, volume 23, page 240, article "Theism." Surely the ignorance and audacity of this, from a scriptural point of view, takes our breath away! How terribly true and fitting are the words of Jude -- And Paul said -- And to the Corinthians -- Poor Jude! Poor Paul! What back numbers they were! Of course they could not understand that there were three Gods. They only had the inspiration of God -- they completely lacked that essential aid -- Greek and Roman metaphysics, without which the doctrine of three Gods could not be formulated.

The "Greek and Roman metaphysics" from which the doctrine of the Trinity was adopted, are referred to by Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Chapter 21, paragraph 6 -- It is clear from this, as the trinitarian writer said in the Encyclopedia Britannica, that Christianity had to go to Greek metaphysics (and this term always means Plato, the center of the system) to formulate its doctrine of the Trinity. Surely we are compelled to wonder what Christianity could possibly have done without the help of the indispensable heathen philosopher Plato!

Mosheim (an esteemed, orthodox Lutheran trinitarian) describes the long civil war that attended the development of the doctrine, and its enforcement by civil power, finally ending in trinitarian triumph through the stern and energetic measures of the Emperor Theodosius (Cent. 4, Chap. 5, Sec. 14) -- This finally settled the question, for all time, as to whether there were three Gods, or one God. The Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, vol. 23, page 259, article "Theodosius," records -- Gibbon records, chapter 27 -- Gibbon may be considered unsympathetic in his presentation, but it will be noted that his facts are confirmed by trinitarian writers.

So much, then, for the sordid history of the development of this doctrine of three co-equal, co-eternal gods, admittedly a product of speculation and philosophy, with the necessary aid of heathen metaphysics, and enforced by persecution and the sword.

The True Scriptural Picture

The first scriptural principle to be considered, when approaching the matter from a scriptural point of view, is the ONENESS OF GOD. God is constantly, repeatedly, and emphatically stated to be ONE, never three.

There is never a word anywhere in the Bible from beginning to end about such Greek metaphysics as "Three persons in the Godhead" or any such language.

When asked, Which is the FIRST COMMANDMENT OF ALL?", Jesus answered (Mark 12:29),

And so we find all throughout the Scriptures -- Why is not the simple scriptural picture sufficient? Why is it necessary to go to "Greek metaphysics" to find that the above Scriptures are all very misleading and actually there are three Gods?

To make Greek metaphysics and Bible testimony agree, it is said that there are "Three Gods in one." But for those who desire to be guided by the Word of God, the Bible clearly refutes this compromise. It very clearly distinguishes Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from the One Eternal God of Whom the above quotations speak. This is very important, and is fatal to Greek metaphysics. Note well that this last quotation is Jesus Christ speaking, addressing God in prayer as the ONE TRUE GOD, and speaking of himself as separate from that One True God, and sent by Him.

We have seen the deplorable condition of the "Church" in the 4th century. Paul records:

In the light of this statement of Paul, would God permit such men as the church leaders of the 4th century to understand His holy Truth? It is a fundamental scriptural principle that the natural man cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14).

When we see these emphatic scriptural declarations of the ONENESS of God, and the clear distinction between this One Eternal God, and the man Jesus Christ, His Son, and then we look at the metaphysical absurdities concocted out of Platonic philosophy at this time, the only answer is that God sent them a strong delusion.

The simple picture the Scriptures present to us of Jesus Christ is that:

He was born a babe (Luke 2:7).

He "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).

He "learned obedience by the things that he suffered" (Heb. 5:8).

He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

He "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared" (Heb. 5:7).

Try to honestly harmonize that with the trinitarian idea of omnipotent and omniscient co-equality and co-eternity. It just does not fit and CANNOT fit. To make it fit we must break down all the meaning of language. That is what trinitarians have done. Why should we try to make it fit? The Trinity is not taught in the Bible. Why then not just accept the scriptural account and forget about the "Trinity"?

If we regard Jesus Christ as personally existing and possessing all power and wisdom, before his scripturally recorded birth as a baby, then we simply deny the actual reality of his birth and his "increasing in wisdom."

The Scriptures declare that God's understanding is infinite (Psa. 147:5). Is it not then a denial of all the meaning of language to say that a co-equal constituent of this God "increased in wisdom," as he grew up from a babe to manhood?

To say that a constituent part of an omnipotent co-equal Trinity of Gods became a helpless babe is an absurdity that the Scriptures do not require us to subscribe to. He could not be a helpless, newborn babe and an all-powerful, all-knowing co-equal ruler of heaven and earth at the same time.

Is God separable from His power and wisdom? Are not infinite power and knowledge inseparable elements of His very Godhead? (NOTE: "Godhead" is just an obsolete form of "Godhood" -- that is, "divinity," the quality of being divine.)

We are asked to believe that God changed Himself into a powerless and ignorant, helpless creature. What happened to His power and wisdom? DID He, or did He NOT, continue to possess His eternal attributes? But why should we labor further with such unscriptural ideas?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

There are many things that are recorded of Christ that just cannot be made fit with the idea that he was an all-powerful, all-knowing God -- a co-equal constituent of the "Godhead." It is recorded -- James declared (and it is surely a self-evident fact) that (James 1:13) -- It is impossible to conceive of an all-wise, all-powerful God being tempted to sin. God could not possibly sin.

Yet Jesus Christ was tempted in all points like ourselves, and if we say he could not possibly have sinned, we deny the reality of his tempting and of his overcoming.

Jesus WAS tempted; God CANNOT be tempted: therefore the Trinity theory is false.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Let us carefully consider a few of the many statements of Scripture that show the "Trinity" theory to be untrue. This is Jesus speaking. It is perfectly understandable in the light of the scriptural picture that Jesus was a man wholly dependent upon God. But how can it be fitted into the Trinity picture? Let us not run from these clear testimonies, but reverently ponder them, seeking guidance and truth.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * If we believe the Bible, we cannot believe the man-made doctrine that Jesus was co-equal with God. The whole record of the Gospels -- the plain, literal record of the life and sayings of Christ -- is in direct and continuous variance with this doctrine. How could the "co-equal" Trinity theory be more directly denied than it is in these words of Jesus? Can black mean white?

Scores of statements could be given showing that Jesus was truly a man, truly fighting against sin, truly overcoming, truly learning, truly praying to the ONE TRUE GOD Who was greater than he.

If he was an all-powerful God just PRETENDING to fight against temptation when really he could not be tempted, just PRETENDING to pray to someone greater than himself for help and strength, then we in effect accuse the whole Gospel record of being a deception and a cruel mockery of man's real weakness, man's real and bitter struggle against sin.

How can he be held forth as our example and incentive to overcome temptation and the weaknesses of the flesh if all the time he was really an all-powerful and untemptable co-equal God?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Consider the following passages one by one. Honestly take full time to ponder them and compare them with the suggestion of the Trinity that Jesus was actually and in reality an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful God, co-equal part of an omnipotent Trinity, who could not sin or be tempted.

The Trinity may have been a reasonable hypothesis for Plato in 400 BC. He was groping in darkness. He had no divine revelation as has been given to us in the Scriptures. We have the light of Scripture. We do not need Plato's ignorant, pagan speculations, from which the Trinity doctrine was admittedly formulated. How could one omnipotent part of a co-equal Godhead not know something that another part knew? How, in fact, could there be anything that an omniscient, co-equal God did not know?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * The fact that Christ was a man is repeatedly emphasized as an essential fact in the plan of salvation. The purpose required that a man -- one of the fallen race -- should truly overcome sin and temptation, and render perfect obedience to the One True God -- It is neither scriptural or reasonable to speak of one omnipotent, co-equal God rendering OBEDIENCE to another co-equal part of the same one almighty God. "Obedience" implies distinction, and subjection of the obeyer to the obeyed.

Note well Jesus' answer when he was tempted -- He applies this command of God to himself as a MAN who was responsible to, and owed obedience to, the One True God.

Note the even more striking answer to the 3rd temptation: -- Jesus applies this command to himself, as obligated to worship and serve the One True God revealed to Israel. This is quoted from Deuteronomy 8, just 2 chapters after the command -- Jesus Christ worshipped and served the ONE TRUE GOD.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * How then can it be said that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are co-equal, "the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal, none afore or after other, none greater or less than other?"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Here Jesus plainly distinguishes between himself and the one God, affirming of God what could not be affirmed of himself, inasmuch as he was of mortal, human, condemned, sinful flesh (though perfectly sinless in life and character).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Again, a clear limitation of Christ's prerogative, and proof of his subjection to God. Co-equal parts of "One God"? The Bible knows of no such contradiction.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * If Jesus and his Father are really just co-equal parts of the same One God, then obviously such a prayer could never be prayed. It is meaningless for the One God to pray to Himself, and say, "Not MY will, but THINE." If both are part of one God, then there is but one will.

Be sure your conception of Jesus and God is in harmony with what the Bible reveals. Do not be satisfied with an "incomprehensible" theory, admittedly borrowed from "Greek metaphysics," that crushes all the beauty and meaning out of the life of Jesus Christ, the faithful and obedient Son who truly overcame and submitted to the will of the ONE TRUE GOD, His Father.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * One omnipotent co-equal ruler of the universe speaking of praying to another part of the same ruler for angels to help him? No, that is not the Bible picture, that's man's idea. One co-equal showing another all-powerful, all-knowing co-equal, giving him authority, sending him, giving him work? One all-powerful God appealing to his works as a proof that another God had sent him? Where is co-equal co-eternity if "the Father hath GIVEN the Son to have life in himself?"

It is unutterably sad that a meaningless jumble of words like the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity should throw a metaphysical and philosophical mist over such a beautiful picture as the Scriptures give of the life of our Elder Brother. Back to the simple truth of the Bible!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * The Son shall be subject to God, that God may be all in all. Jesus has been GIVEN "all power in heaven and earth" (Matt. 28:18) for the accomplishment of a purpose -- that of bringing all things into harmony with God. When that purpose is accomplished, he relinquishes all power to God, that God may be all in all.

Trinitarianism cannot make head nor tail of this passage. As one eminent trinitarian commentator confusedly admits, subjection and co-equality are utterly incompatible opposites. Must God be subject to Himself, in order that He may be supreme over all?

The Scripture says -- The Trinity says -- Which shall we take -- the Scriptures or the Trinity? It is impossible to believe both.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * This is Jesus speaking after resurrection and glorification. Could an eternal, all-powerful co-equal part of the supreme Godhead say, "All power has been GIVEN to me?"

Who could give power to an almighty co-equal God who from eternity had possessed all power as an essential part of his very divinity?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * This was the cup which he prayed should pass from him, but submitted to because it was the will of God.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * One co-equal part of an all-knowing Godhead giving a revelation of the future to another part! If Jesus Christ is a co-equal part of this God who has known all things from the beginning, how can it be said he has been given a revelation by another co-equal part of the Godhead? How could he say there were things he did not know (Mark 13:32)? How could he "increase in wisdom" (Luke 2:52)?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * One co-equal, co-eternal being "this day" begotten; asking another part of the same co-equal Godhead, being given the nations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * The inertia of long habit, carried over from the dark ages, maintains the doctrine of the Trinity in Christendom, like an incubus, and the scriptural picture is twisted and nullified to fit it. "God shall send them strong delusion."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * How could such language be used concerning an eternal, omnipotent part of the supreme head and ruler of the universe? When will he be given the throne of his father David, and what does it mean? How can he be given rulership, if he is from eternity the all-powerful ruler of all?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * If Jesus was co-equal part of the Supreme Godhead, why was his own honour nothing and God's honouring him everything? Does a co-equal, co-eternal part of the Godhead need to be taught? Do not the Scriptures reveal that God is "infinite in knowledge"?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * As Jesus points out, the term "god" is occasionally used of men in Scripture to signify their sanctification and relationship to God.

(See Psa. 82:6, "Ye are gods, and all of ye are children of the Most High, but ye shall die like men.")

The use of this term did not confuse them in any way with the ONE ETERNAL GOD, the Almighty Creator, but it does show that the term "god," properly understood, is applied to such as are sanctified by God.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * The Trinity represents one co-equal part of the Godhead giving a commandment to another co-equal part! A commandment proves authority of one part over another, but the Trinity says no part is before, or greater than any other part.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * See how different this is from the trinitarian idea. The Bible never says, as trinitarians say, that "God the Son" was in the man Jesus. The Scriptures always reveal the man Christ Jesus, born of Mary, as the Son, through whom the Eternal Father worked and manifested Himself -- The Scripture picture is so clear; the trinitarian picture so contradictory and confused. The Scriptures plainly teach that it was the Holy Spirit-Power of God (not "God the Son") that came upon Mary, and that this Spirit-Power of God caused the conception in Mary of him who should therefore be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). Compare John 17:21 -- And John 15:4 -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jesus was not a co-eternal part of an omnipotent Godhead, but a prophet raised up by God.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * God made Jesus perfect through suffering. Does this fit the co-equal, co-eternal idea?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Such passages could be duplicated many many times over. All show that the doctrine of the Trinity, developed in Platonic philosophy and Greek metaphysics, is completely out of joint with the simple scriptural picture.

We must approach Scripture unspoiled by any preconceived theological notions inherited from dark and pagan medievalism. We must get the basic picture that Jesus Christ was truly a man who was born by the operation of the Holy Spirit of God upon Mary, and who grew to manhood and maturity, and increased in wisdom as he grew.

The whole efficacy of his mission depends upon its REALITY

To say, to suit a theory, that he was a co-equal part of an all-powerful, eternal "Godhead" with infinite knowledge and wisdom, and at the SAME TIME a striving, praying, learning, mortal man is to take all meaning out of words.

Either he WAS all-powerful, inherently and eternally, or else he was NOT. To say he was both is to juggle with words. Either he was immortal and could not die, or else he did die, and was therefore not immortal. (The Scriptures say God is immortal -- 1 Tim. 1:17). Immortal means incapable of death. Jesus Christ died.

Either he was God and could not be tempted, or else he was tempted (as the Bible records) and was therefore not God.

Either he was God, and therefore could not possibly sin, or else he truly resisted and overcame sin.

Either he was God, infinite in knowledge from all eternity, or else he increased in wisdom, learned obedience, was taught of God, and recognized that God knew things that he did not.

Either he was co-equal with God, or else his Father was, as he said, greater than he.

To say that in each case both of these alternatives are possible is to say that everything that is directly contradictory to Scripture may be equally true with Scripture, and therefore the Scripture is useless and meaningless.

This is to lay down a principle whereby reason and meaning are cast aside and the absurdest of contradictions are gravely viewed as possible, though perhaps admitted to be "incomprehensible."

Anyone who studies the Word of God unspoiled by human philosophy will find that it is not cast in such a mold as stultifies reason and glorifies contradiction.

To sum up the scriptural testimony presented concerning Jesus Christ. He --

This is the scriptural picture of Jesus. As the Epistle to the Hebrews shows, it was essential to God's purpose, and to establish His justice, that life come through MAN -- that a man should, strengthened and guided by God, render perfect obedience, overcome and subdue the sin-nature which all the race possesses, and destroy it by death.

A man who, having vindicated and fulfilled the law of sin and death passed upon the race through the sentence of Adam, should be able to be justly exalted to eternal life, never having sinned -- never once having served sin, whose wages are death.

In this process of obtaining eternal redemption for himself -- (as the reflexive -- middle -- voice of the verb "obtained" in Heb. 9:12 states. The "for us" is spurious and RV omits) -- in this process he opened up a God-appointed way of escape from the power of death for the condemned race of which he was a member and the accepted representative.

God's righteousness being thus demonstrated and vindicated (by a perfect obedience followed by the voluntary destruction and condemnation of the sin-nature in death), God is able justly to extend mercy to all who humbly approach Him in the appointed way under the covering of Christ.

Such must voluntarily die to themselves and be born into Christ and henceforth live in Christ and as part of Christ -- Those that unite themselves with Christ become in God's sight part of him and are included in his glorious victory over sin and death. This is the mercy of God.

The doctrine of the Trinity -- 3 co-equal, co-eternal Gods -- contrary to Scripture and borrowed from the heathen Plato who knew nothing of God's revealed Truth -- completely destroys the beautiful, harmonious, righteous plan of salvation through a REAL man learning obedience and TRULY overcoming temptation.

Like a steamroller the doctrine of the Trinity crushes all the meaning out of the picture the Bible gives us of the relationship between the Eternal, Almighty Father and the dependent, obedient Son -- the latter glorified and exalted by the former because of his faith, obedience, submission, humility and real genuine victory over sin and weakness -- This is OUR Christ, the REAL Christ, our brother, our example, our inspiration and incentive.

No matter how you wrestle with the doctrine of the Trinity, it cannot give you anything but an all-powerful, all-knowing, immortal, untemptable God going through the pantomime of pretending to grow, pretending to learn, pretending to overcome weakness, pretending to struggle with temptation, pretending to pray for help, pretending to receive strength through angels from a part of himself, pretending to receive commands and instruction (from himself), pretending to obey and submit his will to a co-equal part of himself.

To get around this, and to make Platonic philosophy fit Scripture, trinitarians talk of his "divinity" knowing something at the same time that his "humanity" did not know it; of his "divinity" being all-wise at the same time his "humanity" was learning; of his "divinity" being all-powerful at the same time his "humanity" was struggling against weakness.

Those who base their faith on the Bible, and with whom the speculations of Greek metaphysics carry no weight, will not temporize with such issue-begging absurdities. Jesus Christ was not two utterly contradictory persons. It was Jesus Christ himself who did and went through all the things recorded in the Bible.

Get your beliefs from the Bible. You will never find the Trinity in it, or anything like it. It is a product of an age of worldly wisdom and spiritual barrenness, as has been so clearly proven, right out of the mouths of trinitarians.

It is a product of the apostate Church of Rome and all who adopt it from Rome identify themselves with that ungodly system --

Passages Quoted to Prove the Trinity

(The verses considered here were presented by a trinitarian as the best he knew to "prove" the doctrine of the Trinity.)

Now to consider, in the light of Scripture, the verses submitted as proving that Christ was a pre-existent part of a co-equal, co-eternal Trinity of three Gods. This is put forward to prove that "Christ claimed he was divine." If this is meant to mean he claimed he was a co-equal, co-eternal member of the Trinity, then it disproves the very point it is put forward to support -- The Father is the Supreme, Almighty God with power to commit judgment to whom He will. Consider the context, and see how it shatters the "co-equal" idea -- A more unfortunate example could hardly be chosen to prove the Trinity. See Acts 17:31 -- See also Romans 2:16 -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * To show that this is no proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the pre-existence of Christ before he was born, it is only necessary to refer to John 17:11. Jesus, praying to God, says -- The meaning of the oneness, or unity, that Jesus had in mind, is very clear from this passage. It is the "unity of the Spirit" that must exist among true brethren (Eph. 4:3) -- Surely no one who is familiar with this wording in John 17 would sincerely consider John 10:30 any proof of the Trinity or Jesus' pre-existence before he was born a helpless babe. It is difficult to see how this is thought to prove any of the points in question. Unquestionably God has given Jesus power to raise the dead, and he will raise all the responsible dead when he returns to earth at the "last day."

This is not in question. All who truly believe the Bible believe it (those that are not deluded with the "immortal soul," "heaven at death" idea).

Speaking of Jesus' power (which seems to be the thought here), bear in mind Acts 2:22 -- And Matt. 28:18 -- BY whom? -- if he himself were co-equal part of the Supreme Power of the universe.

Not how these very passages quoted to prove the Trinity actually disprove it -- Jesus never claimed co-equality with God, but always the very reverse. He said God had sent him, and he came to do God's will, not his own.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * The word here translated "power" is exousia. It occurs just over 100 times -- in a majority of these occurrences the RV translates it "authority," and 10 times "right."

It is not the common word for 'power,' which is dunamis -- strength, ability.

Both AV and RV translate exousia as "right," for instance, in Rev. 22:14 -- This obviously does not mean that obeying God's commands give a man the physical power to raise himself from the dead to immortality, but that he thereby is granted a right to it.

Even more to the point, in illustration, is John 1:12 -- The AV margins gives "right or privilege." Believers have been given the right or privilege of becoming sons of God.

These passages will illustrate what Jesus meant when he said he had exousia -- the right -- to take up his life again after having laid it down in death.

As to Who actually raised Jesus from the dead, the Scriptures leave not the slightest doubt. Many times we are told GOD raised him from the dead. Consider very particularly the record in Acts 2 for a clear understanding of the relation between Christ and God (v. 22): All this is utterly incompatible with the Trinity. Note the last statement -- God hath made Jesus Lord. God approved him; God did miracles by him; God made known to him the way of life; God did not suffer him to see corruption; God raised him; God made him Lord. Consider the following -- The "God of our fathers" to whom Peter refers as raising Jesus was the one and only true God of Whom Moses, the prophets and Jesus spoke. How did God bring Jesus from the dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant? Here we are told Jesus was brought from the dead through his own blood. This deep and important truth is crushed into unrecognizability by the Trinity.

See also Acts 13:30, 33, 34, 37; Acts 17:31; Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 4:14; Gal. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:21 -- all stating that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Before we leave this John 10:17-18, note well the finish of it -- It will be remarkably noted that the very context of these verses quoted to support the Trinity are directly CONTRARY to the all-powerful, co-equal, none-greater-or-less theory.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * What part of this is thought to give support to the idea that Jesus was a co-equal, co-eternal, pre-existent part of the One Eternal God?

What this declares, briefly, is that Christ -- though he recognized himself to be by birth the Son of God, still he did not presume upon this supremely exalted relationship, but humbly submitted to the fact that he, like all other men, owed service and obedience to God, and must "work out his salvation with fear and trembling" (see v. 12).

The meaning of this passage is illustrated perfectly by Heb. 5:8 -- Notice in the immediate context of this passage in Phil. 2, at v. 9 -- One co-equal part of the Supreme One God highly exalting another part, because the latter had humbly submitted to death at the command of the former? The Bible does not ask us to accept such confusion.

Let us consider this passage in detail: -- This is so well illustrated by "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience" (Heb. 5:8) that it needs no further explanation. Notice the contrast: "form of God -- form of a servant." Compare with the contrast "Son -- servant" in Heb. 3:5-6. Also in Gal. 4:2 -- Clearly, therefore, "being in the form of God" refers to the fact that his birth by the overshadowing Spirit-Power constituted him the "Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Though so directly related to God, he did not presume upon his position or "grasp at" equality with God. Does not this very passage prove he was NOT co-equal with God, and that he did not "grasp at" co-equality? His lowly, humble, unpretentious course of life -- no worldly honors, no possessions or wealth -- living with and ministering to the poor and despised of the land. The self-respecting of Israel look down on him for his lowliness and association with social outcasts (Isa. 53:3) -- See Matt. 20:25-28 -- This is the SCRIPTURAL picture -- no flat, trinitarian, co-equality, "none greater, none afore."

The following is very clear as to Jesus' birth and SERVANTSHIP to God -- God formed Jesus from the womb to be His servant. Surely that's plain. Where then is co-eternal, co-equality -- eternal, equal parts of a Supreme God? The RV makes the tense clearer, and removes the impression created by a superficial reading of the AV that the "was made" follows, or is consequent upon, the "making of no reputation." The RV gives "being made." That is, being made in the likeness of men, he made himself of no reputation and took upon him the station or position of a servant.

The Emphatic Diaglott version is even clearer as to tense -- The verb is "genomenos," rendered in the Bagster Interlinear New Testament, "having become."

Some versions join it to the following verse, putting a period at "servant," and then continuing, "Being made in the likeness and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself." (Moffat follows this construction).

All this is mentioned to point out that the Greek original does not support the impression drawn from the AV that the items of v. 7 are consecutive in time, giving the idea of existence and consciousness BEFORE being "made in the likeness of men."

As Jesus grew from a babe to self-consciousness, he learned two facts concerning himself:

He did not presume upon the first, but humbly and obediently submitted to all the duties and obligations of the second, utterly abasing himself, even to the very lowest station of life. This is even clearer in the next verse -- Finding himself (as he attained self-consciousness) a man, he obediently humbled himself before God -- the duty of all men. The whole passage is an exhortation to (v. 5) -- The whole sense and point of this command depends upon the truth that Jesus was "made in all things like his brethren" (Heb. 2:17), and was through obedience exalted by God (v. 9 of this Phil. 2).

View Christ as "very God" -- co-equal, co-eternal, "possessor of heaven and earth," unlimited in power and knowledge, unable to die, unable to sin, unable to be tempted -- and all this becomes meaningless and unreal.

It is "making the Word of God of none effect by tradition" -- not openly denying it, but interpreting it in such a way that it loses all meaning.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * These are quoted to prove "we are warned not to belittle Christ." This is VERY TRUE, and trinitarians do not realize how they are belittling Christ and nullifying his work by adopting the Platonic ideas which make his struggle and obedience and overcoming and resisting temptation an unreal pantomime by an almighty, all-knowing and untemptable God.

Jesus Christ rendered perfect obedience, never sinned, overcame every weakness and temptation. THEREFORE God hath exalted him that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phil. 2:9-10, just considered).

How could it be said "therefore" (for his obedience) God hath exalted him and given him a name, if he had ALWAYS BEEN co-equal, co-powerful, co-exalted "very god," right from the beginning?

It is ridiculous to say he was at the same time all-powerful God and weak man. The Scriptures do not say this. It is the attempt to combine "Greek metaphysics" with the Scripture that has forced trinitarians to adopt this view.

As we have seen from the testimony of trinitarian historians, the religious leaders of the time the "Trinity" was developed were trying to combine religion with philosophy to make it acceptable to the heathen world.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The third passage quoted to prove "we are warned not to belittle Christ" is very significant, and worthy of much study. (In passing, note the wording "deceivers are entered into the world." Does this give any support in presuming their pre-existence, as such wording is said to do in the case of Christ? Where did these deceivers "enter the world" from? Where were they before? All will agree in this case that "entered the world" simply means "shown up" or "become manifest").

But the main point is that there were many deceivers even in John's day who denied that Christ had really and truly "come in the flesh," denied that he was truly a man, denied that he truly "increased in wisdom," truly had been born a helpless babe, truly had borne the same sin cursed nature that his brethren have to struggle with and must overcome.

If we make Christ an all-powerful, all-knowing, untemptable co-equal part of the Supreme God, we DENY THAT HE HAS COME "IN THE FLESH," and we are manifested as anti-Christs.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * In this particular case, the RV omits "by Jesus Christ," so this form of words can be considered under other passages.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * In the first place, the parenthetical insertion of (Christ) is not a true or sound interpretation. It is assuming the point that it is desired to prove, or at least assuming a point from which to reason. The antecedent of "he" is not Christ, but "the Word" -- the Logos, the Purpose, the Fiat. Peter says -- No one appears to have any difficulty with this passage because the translators here have used a small "w" and have not followed it by a string of interpretive "he's." Peter is quoting from Psa. 33:6 -- Here "word" clearly means decree, determination, purpose; and is paralleled with "ruach" -- breath, spirit, power. Job records (26:13) -- And in the beginning of the record of creation itself -- Here again is the associated conception of power and purpose, Spirit and Word.

Creation was effected, then, by the Word and Spirit -- the decree or purpose and the power or effluence -- the Spirit-Wisdom. The 8th chapter of Proverbs is helpful in understanding chapter 1 of John --

Prov. 8:22 -- Who is this speaking? Who was with God at creation? V. 1: A reading of this chapter will greatly clarify the meaning of John 1. This eternal Spirit-Wisdom of God is the Word (logos) of John 1. It was with God and it was God, for God is the eternal embodiment of power and wisdom, and power and wisdom are His essential characteristics.

See also Prov. 3:19 -- Another point that is a source of considerable obscurity is the fact that Greek personal pronouns (he, she, it) do not necessarily denote personality. Like modern French and other languages, all nouns have gender, and although Greek has neuter gender, still many impersonal nouns are either masculine or feminine, and take corresponding masculine or feminine pronouns.

"Logos" (word) is masculine. It therefore always takes "he" in Greek. Normally this should be translated "it" in English, because "word" is neuter, but if in the translator's theology it denotes a person, then he naturally renders it "he."

Another point to be noticed is the "by," as in v. 3 -- The Greek word here is "dia," which the RV in both of these verses renders "through," showing that the thing or person referred to is not the primary operator, but the reason or instrumentality.

This preposition "dia" has a wide range of use and meaning. It is used with two declensions (that is, cases) of the noun or pronoun. With the Accusative it means "because of," "for the sake of." With the Genitive the idea of instrumentality is predominant, but still the meaning can be so wide that "dia" with the Genitive is rendered in the AV "for ............'s sake" in Rom. 15:30. (The pronoun following "dia" in John 1 vs. 3 and 10 is in the Genitive).

In Rom. 5:21 appears -- Not that righteousness is the direct agent by which grace reigns, but the obvious meaning is that grace reigns because of righteousness.

"Dia" with the Genitive also occurs in 1 Thess. 4:2 -- This shows the broad and indefinite use of "dia," for it certainly does not mean that Jesus was the instrument through whom Paul conveyed his commands to the believers. The meaning here is clearly "on behalf of" or "by the authority of." Similarly in v. 14 -- We cannot interpret this to mean that Jesus is the agent by which they do their sleeping.

Rom. 14:14 -- That is, by reason of, on account of, itself.

These instances of "dia" with the Genitive are given to show that it is of such broad and varied meaning that its use in John 1:3 and 10 and the other passages quoted is no proof that Jesus was actually present and operative at creation..

The fact that Jesus is the center and keystone of God's whole purpose fully satisfies the requirements of these verses. They do not prove his pre-existence.

All things were made by the Spirit-Word, or Spirit-Wisdom, of God. This first chapter of John tells us that this Spirit-Word was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (v. 14). Jesus Christ was the embodiment and manifestation of the Word of God. The whole Word or Purpose converges upon him and is expressed in and manifested in him. He is the center, cornerstone and basis of the whole creation. Through him God has made, and is making, all things.

But it is a misapplication of this truth, and a confusing of the plain scriptural record, to infer from this that he existed before he was born. The man Christ Jesus was born in Bethlehem as plainly and clearly recorded in Scripture. The Spirit-Word manifested in and through him was eternally with, and of, God. God, not the three-in-one God, but the one true God of the Bible, by the Spirit, manifested Himself in, and spoke and worked through, His Son, the man Christ Jesus.

Jesus is the "beginning of the creation of God" -- Rev 3:14. (Note particularly that he is part of the "creation of God" -- clearly therefore not part of the eternal, uncreated ONE GOD).

Does this mean that he was the first thing actually created, or does it mean that he is the foundation stone of the final, perfected result? The former alternative is out of harmony with the plain record of his birth -- the latter is the very heart of the revelation and purpose. Consider Col 1:15 -- Does this mean that he was the very first creature ever born? The answer is in v. 18 -- Paul tells the Romans (8:29) -- He says Jesus is -- This is clearly the creation of which he is the beginning. If Jesus is a co-eternal, co-equal, immortal, undying, part of the One Supreme God, how can he be the "firstborn from the DEAD," "the first-fruits of them that SLEPT"?

What havoc this Platonic idea of the Trinity plays with the revealed truth of the Bible!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Here again, in passing, note these very passages (quoted to 'prove' the Trinity) cannot be harmonized with the Greek metaphysical co-eternal, co-equal, none afore, none greater idea. We are here again plainly told that God -- the Scriptural ONE TRUE GOD -- has appointed Jesus heir of all things.

Can you not see the absurdity of saying that one co-equal part of the eternal possessor of heaven and earth appoints another co-equal part of the same eternal possessor, to be heir of all things?

Can you not see that the Trinity is one conception, and the God of the Bible is something entirely different, and endless absurdity and conflict is created by trying to combine the two idea -- one the heathen idea of men, the other the divine revelation of God?

And this (Hebrews) is the epistle in which we are told (5:7) Jesus prayed to Him that was able to save him from death, and (5:8) he learned obedience and (5:9), he was made perfect.

It is significant that the two "by's" in this passage quoted (Heb. 1:1-2) are different words in the original. The first ("by His Son") is "en," the second ("by whom He made the worlds") is "dia," to which the remarks made previously apply. Jesus Christ was certainly the foreordained cause, reason or motive for the creation.

It is to be noted that "worlds" here is "aions" -- ages, as in Eph. 2:7, "the ages (aions) to come." The Emphatic Diaglott renders this -- Young's Literal Trans. has -- Rotherham has -- Here is another significant side-issue: The word here translated "made" is rendered "appointed" in Heb. 3:2 -- This word occurs many times and really means "made." This is the only place it is translated "appointed." It would be difficult enough for the translators (with their co-equal trinitarian theology) to have to say that God appointed Jesus, but it would have been much more difficult to translate this word in the normal way and say that God made Jesus Christ.

Using the same word "appointed" in 1:2 that the translators used in Heb. 3:2 (the original is the same), we have -- This point should be borne in mind -- our standard translations of the Bible are by trinitarians. Therefore in the very nature of things (with no reference to their sincerity) they are bound to always choose words that favor that view and give that color wherever possible.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * The same remarks concerning "dia," and the central foreordained place of Jesus Christ in the whole scheme of salvation, apply here.

However, it is clear in this case -- from the context -- that the "all things in question" are "thrones, dominions, principalities and powers." This explanation here teaches us to bear this in mind in connection with the other similar passages.

The literal creation of the heaven and earth and their contents was just the first preliminary step in the real "creation" that God is working to and building on the foundation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said, after his resurrection (Matt. 28:18) -- And 1 Peter 3:22 -- Compare Eph. 1:20-21 (note the very similar wording to the passage quoted from Col.) -- Compare this with Dan. 4:17 -- Combining these passages, we can easily see how all visible and invisible thrones, dominions, principalities and powers in heaven and earth are created by and for him.

In the AV, there are 3 "by's" in this quotation. The middle one is "dia," already fully examined. The other 2 are "en" in the original. The RV renders both "in." This word "en" is translated "because of" in Matt. 26:31 -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * The supposed force of this in connection with the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence apparently rests on the idea that the word "before" (pro) has exclusive reference to time. This is not correct. Like the English word "before," it has other meanings, including rank and precedence.

Grimm-Thayer Greek Lexicon (a recognized standard) gives one of the meanings as "superiority" and "pre-eminence," quoting James 5:12: And 1 Peter 4:8 -- The passage in question (Col. 1:17) will be seen to correspond better with the context if it is rendered, "And he is above all things." It is superiority, pre-eminence, and supreme authority and position that the whole passage is emphasizing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * The Scriptures reveal Jesus to us as a man who was divinely begotten of the seed of David by the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary and causing her to conceive. This child grew in wisdom, grew to manhood, rendered perfect obedience and submission to God in the face of trial and temptation, and on account of that obedience was raised from the dead and exalted by God to glory and honor at His right hand.

To introduce an immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, untemptable, co-equal God into the picture, which the Scriptures never do, is to go immediately to the fantasies of Greek mythology.

How then are we to understand this verse as a harmonious part of the whole scriptural picture? It will be quite clear if we consider similar expressions in other parts of the Scripture. The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself. GIVEN US BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN. Does this prove that we were in existence before the world began? Did the "us" who were chosen before the foundation" of the world actually exist at that time, or is this speaking of God's purpose and foreknowledge? Was Jesus "slain from the foundation of the world"? YES: in the same sense in which he had glory before the foundation of the world. The RV puts the above translation in the margin and uses -- Either rendering illustrates the point. To have one's name written in the book of life from the foundation of the world is obviously similar to having glory from the foundation of the world.

This does not prove pre-existence, but predestination, and is applied to all God's sons, but of course in all cases primarily and pre-eminently to Christ.

God said to Jeremiah (1:5) -- Is this speaking of foreknowledge and predestination, or does it mean that Jeremiah pre-existed before he was born? Could God know a man that did not exist? YES, in His purpose. This was written well over 100 years before Cyrus was born. Could God hold the hand of a man whose birth was a century in the future? Yes, in His purpose. God said to Rebekah -- Did these two nations then exist, or is God speaking from the point of view of His foreknowledge and purpose?

Paul says (Heb. 7:9) -- Actually Levi was Abraham's great grandson, and he was not born until more than 150 years after the time Paul said he was "in Abraham's loins" and "paid tithes."

Are we to infer from this form of language that Levi pre-existed? Jesus existed in God just as Levi existed in Abraham, except that Jesus existed in a much more vivid and positive sense because he was the very center of the purpose, and everything was framed with him in mind, whereas Levi was, so to speak, just an ordinary and unforeshadowed development from Abraham.

Paul speaks (Titus 1:2) of -- Does this indicate the pre-existence of those to whom eternal life was promised? Trinitarians dare not suggest that it was Jesus Christ to whom it was promised because (apart from the context indicating otherwise), this would be admitting that he did not have eternal life then, and was therefore not co-equal and co-eternal. No, the Scriptures here again clearly speak on the basis of eternal purpose and pre-destination.

The foregoing passages surely illustrate, then, the way in which Jesus had glory with God before the world was -- the glory which he now prayed to be ACTUALLY GIVEN -- This would be quite meaningless if he were an immortal God, and had eternally possessed, and therefore still possessed, this glory. Was he praying to another co-equal part of himself, asking to be glorified with glory which he himself had eternally possessed in exact equality and right and power with the One to Whom he prayed? O, Trinity, what a mockery of beautiful, eternal Truth you are!

The following passages will complete the picture, and show that in this matter of pre-cosmic glory with God, all the faithful sons of God shared with Christ, as the Body with the Head -- he, of course, always primarily and pre-eminently. ALL were glorified in the "eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ" (Eph. 3:11): A standard trinitarian commentary (JFB, Eerdmans Pub. Co.) says on this passage: There, in a trinitarian's own words, is a beautiful explanation of the pre-cosmic glory of Christ mentioned in John 17:5. In this passage in Romans, trinitarians are compelled to understand the glory in the pre-destined future, though spoken of in completed and past terms. Otherwise they must believe in the pre-existence of everyone.

He says it is "viewed as past because the decree of predestination is past, and all other steps are successive unfoldings." In other words (1 Cor. 2:7) -- * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Let us not destroy the glorious Scriptural picture of salvation by making our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ, an eternal, pre-existent, omnipotent, untemptable, co-equal God.

He was a "man made strong" (Psa. 80:17); a man specially and divinely begotten by the eternal Spirit-Power of God; a man in whom God dwelt, and through whom God spoke and worked and manifested Himself; a man who recognized that of himself he could do nothing -- that all power, wisdom and goodness was of God; a man who rendered perfect submission and obedience to God -- "Not my will, but Thine, be done."

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The doctrine of the Trinity is not scriptural. The idea of 3 co-equal, co-eternal Gods is never to be found anywhere in the Bible. Like the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, it is provedly derived from the philosophy of the pagan Greeks, particularly Plato -- the foolish "wisdom of the world" which the Apostles and early believers repudiated and combated, but which the apostate and worldly church later succumbed to.

The very emphatic distinction that Paul makes (in the first 2 chapters of 2nd Cor.) between the "wisdom of the world" and the wisdom of God ("unto the Greeks foolishness") positively proves that any theology derived from Platonic Greek philosophy (which the Trinity admittedly is) must be false and anti-scriptural.

Be sure your beliefs are derived from and founded upon God's Word, not man's speculations. Anyone who learned their "theology" direct from the Bible would never believe in the Trinity, because there is no such thing taught anywhere therein.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * -- in the very immediate context of the "glory" quotation! It was the baby born of Mary that was the Son of God because he was begotten in her by the Spirit of God.

These passages deserve long meditation. They are a beautiful, refreshing, spiritual antidote to the confused, contradictory human philosophising of the Platonic doctrine of the Trinity.