Apostolic Collections

7/27/2019 Apostolic Collections

1/126

THE ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY

I. TRINITY ORIGINSTHE ANTIQUITY OF PAGAN TRINITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

This article will propose to examine the philosophical and pagan origins of the Trinity

and its early development. Pagan pantheons (national families of gods) of the various

ethnic gods will be compared, and triads (sets of three gods) in these pantheons will be

examined for specific trinitarian qualities. The antiquity of the Babylonian pantheon, andits subsequent influence upon the various pantheons, is pointed out.

The idea of the Greek Logos (Word), a secondary, derived messenger god, is seen inthe ancient pantheons of the nations with a clear differentiation observed between the

pagan-philosophical use of the term logos (word), and the Hebrew understanding of the

term in their writings up to the time of Philo, the Jewish priest-philosopher of Alexandria.

The gnostic influence of the Greek and neoplatonic philosophers upon the architects of

the Christian Trinity is emphasized, especially the critical role of Philo in the

development of the Logosdoctrine, which is a keystone doctrine of trinitarian theology.

The Catholic fathers of the Trinity are identified, and comments will be made upon the

comparative, developmental trinitarian theology among them.

Theological concepts developed by early trinitarians will be noted. One such example is

subordinationism, a fatal flaw of trinitarian theology, which forever subordinates Jesus

Christ to the status of a secondary, derived God.

The antiquity of the Trinity is not denied. On the contrary, the Trinity doctrine has taken

many millennia to develope, and is yet in the process of change.

Our study will show that the Trinity is actually of pagan, philosophical ancestry, and was

engrafted onto, and accomodated to, Christian theology.

Many scholars in comparative religion and mythology have found common relationshipsand attributes among the various pantheons.

Alexander Hislop, in his TWO BABYLONS, seems to trace the various mythologies

back to a common heritage. Hislop pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept ofthe Trinity by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India. He noted

that the recognition of the Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world.

He went so far as to say that the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations wastriune. While Hislop was attempting to prove that mankind has always believed in a

trinity, he also unwittingly shows the pagan origins of the idea of a trinity.


2/126

NO TEACHING OF A TRINITY IN OLD TESTAMENT JUDAISM

Arthur Wainwright can find no doctrine remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinitytaught in Judaism, the ancestor of Christianity, until the time of Philo in the first century

AD. And we know that Philo, even though he was a Jewish priest, was heavily influenced

by Greek pagan thought.

The idea of a plural God was far from the Hebrew mind. The non-canonical book of

Jubilees (second century BC) alters the plural verb of Genesis 1.26, in conformity with

Genesis 1.27, stating, And after all this he created man, a man and a woman, created hethem (Jubilees 2.14).

Both the Palestinian Targum and the Jerusalem Targum maintain that God was addressing

the angels in Genesis 3.22 and in Genesis 11.7.

The Jews, who, after all, wrote the Old Testament under the inspiration of the Spirit,

themselves refute the presence of any Trinity in Genesis.

VARIOUS ANCIENT PAGAN TRIADS

The pagan idea of a triad is very old. Sumerians, according to Morris Jastrow, paidhomage to a triad of El-lil, god or lord of the storm, Ea, water deity of Eridu on thePersian Gulf, and Anu, sun god of Ur-uk.

El-lil, was called the father of Sumer (Shinar), and chief of gods, creator and

sustainer of life. The universe was apparently up among these three pre-eminentdeities.

Later, Marduk, the firstborn of Ea, and the patron deity of Babylon, is made god of the

earth,and his symbol, oddly enough, is the dragon. He was called Bel or Baal (lord).

Ashur, the god of the Assyrian capital was a sun god, and his consort or wife was

Ishtar, the great mother goddess of Nineveh, a city founded by Ninus or Nimrod.Ishtar, known as Ashtoreth to the Phoenicians, and Astarte to the Greeks, was often

portrayed riding on a lion. She was called the daughter of the moon, and identified inastrology as the Roman Venus (goddess of love). She was also known as Nana or

Madonna (Lady).

Morris Jastrow tells us that the Mother Goddess was quite common throughout theMiddle east. She was brought from Asia minor to Rome with the hope that her statue

(idol) might save the Roman state from the Carthaginians.

Ishtar has a bloody history as a goddess. She was reputedly the murderer of her consortTammuz (variously known as Baal, Adonis, the Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Bacchus, or

simply Nimrod). Queen Semiramis later brought forth an illegitimate son, which sheclaimed was Nimrod resurrected. He was called El-Bar, or God the Son, and theBranch of Cush. Thus was formulated one of the ancient triadic patterns of father,

mother, son

The early triadic pattern is noted in connection with the construction of the Tower ofBabel. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca, relates that in the topmost completed story of

the Tower was placed the images of three gods.


3/126

Franz Cumont tells us that triads were very common in the religion of the Chaldeans. The

Babylonian triad became the Syrian triad of Hadad, Atargatis, and Simios. In Rome, this

triad was Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury. Not only did the triadic pattern of deity spreadthroughout the world, but Cumont remarks on the continuing influence of the Babylonian

priesthood after the fall of Babylon from political leadership.

The system of the Babylonian priests affected many other countries worldwide (e.g., theDruids of England and Europe).

SOME PAGAN TRINITIES SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE TO THE CATHOLIC

TRINITY

Trinitarians today may argue that the pagan trinities were completely different from the

model of the Christian Trinity. But some pagan triads have models which are surprisinglyfamiliar. For example, the Hindu Trinity:

The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu

Trinity, the Trimurti. The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma theCreator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. The syllable we write as om, but

which is in reality made up of three words, a, u, and m, (which) is the symbol of thistrinity.

-Asiatic Mythology

And the Egyptian triad of the sun god was one god expressed in three persons. He wasknown as the noonday sun (Ra), the evening sun (Tum), and the dawning sun

(Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and

Tum at eventide. He was one god in three distinct persons. And so it is not correct to say

that the pagan trinities do not resemble the Christian Trinity, insofar as the structure goes.

II TRINITARIAN DEVELOPMENTNEO-PLATONIC SCHOOL INDEBTED TO BABYLONIAN WISDOM

The ancient Greeks were very impressed with the wisdom of the Babylonians. Franz

Cumont said, Philosophy claimed more and more to derive its inspiration from thefabulous wisdom of Chaldea (Babylon) and Egypt.

According to Cumont, the entire neo-platonic school is heavily indebted to the

Chaldeans (Babylonians). It was the neo-platonic school of philosophy which influencedthe Catholic fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

Porphyry reveals that the neo-platonists had incorporated Babylonian and Persiandemonology into their philosophical system.

PLATO CONVEYED THE IDEA OF A MESSENGER GOD (LOGOS) TO THECATHOLIC FATHERS

Plato, the famed Greek philosopher, greatly influenced the Catholic fathers. He was

acquainted with Babylonian wisdom, and had traveled to Babylonia, Israel, and Egypt.

Plato advocated the idea of a secondary messenger god, representing the unknown

primary god, who remained impassible (unable to suffer or to feel pain) and unknowable.

This being was called the Logos (the Word).


4/126

This messenger god was known in Babylon and Egypt. The Egyptian god Thoth

(Tammuz) was called the Logos:

Father of Light, O Logos that orderest day and night, come show thyself to me. O god of gods, in thy ape-

form enter. -Lewis R. Farnell

Showerman says that the ancient writer Harpocration associated the phrase mysterious

Logos to the god Attis (who would equate to Tammuz, Thoth or Nimrod). He alsoaccords the Greek messenger god Hermes the title of Logos, and Dunlap speaks of a

Chaldean Logos.

The idea of a separate, secondary messenger god is a key element in the Trinity

doctrine. We can see that this idea is pre-Christian and it is pagan.

The Catholic fathers obviously obtained this idea from the Greek philosophers, who in

turn obtained it from Babylonian and oriental religions. It does not come from the Bible.

Ishtar was identified as the Logos of the Babylonian god El-lil. She supposedlyexclaimed, Of the lord (El-lil), his Word (Logos) am I. In other words, she (her priests)

claimed to be the spokesperson for El-lil.

THE APOSTLE JOHN ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF A

SECONDARY LOGOS MESSENGER GOD

The pagan concept of the Logos can be seen as a bridge for introducing the equally paganidea of a triadic deity.

The apostle John, in penning John 1.1 was actually apparently responding to those early

Christian gnostics who were identifying Jesus with the pagan Logos. He specificallyidentifies the biblical logos (word) as God the Father Himself. He does not advocate

the concept of Christ as a separate, pre-existing divine Person, co-existing with God the

Father.

As Granville Henry has observed:

Did John intend to introduce Greek philosophical, scientific or religious representations for the person of

Christ? A broad concensus of contemporary New Testament scholars maintains that the logos Christology

of John must be understood in its peculiarly Hebrew context. To deviate from this context and emphasize

Greek meanings is to make a major error in interpretation.

The Greek concept of a personal, separate divine Logos, distinct from God, or a second

God, was unknown to the apostles, and entirely foreign to their understanding of a

solitary divine God, who was known to them from the days of Abraham. They recognizedthat sole divinity in Jesus Christ. Thomas had knelt before Him exclaiming My Lord and

my God (John 20.28).

HOW WAS THIS GREEK CONCEPT OF A DERIVED SECONDARY

MESSENGER GOD INTRODUCED INTO CHRISTIANTIY?Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD) of Alexandria was the man who attempted to fuse the strictmonotheistic theology of the Hebrew religion with the transcendental theology and

philosophy of the Greek platonists.

As Alvan Lamson has written:

The authors of the Septuagint version and the Platonists employed the same term (logos) to express totally

different views: the former (Septuagint) intending by it simply a mode of action in the Deity; the latter (the


5/126

Platonists) , a real being, (the Deitys) agent and minister in executing his will. Philo was the first, we

believe, who attributed to the Logos a

permanent subsistence.

There is a vast difference in understanding the word of God as a mode of action (e.g.,God speaking light into existence) and in understanding the word of God as a separate

being from God.But Philo was to have a profound influence upon the Catholic fathers, and therefore uponthe development of the Catholic Trinity.

Through the use of allegorical interpretation (what we also understand as

spiritualization today), which had long been known to the students of Homer, andwhich was systematized by the Stoic philosophers, Philo began his effort to combine the

absolute monotheism of Judaism with the transcendentalist theology of Platonism. He

was actually attempting a synthesis of biblical theology and pagan philosophy.

Plato described the pagan Logos as a Jewish archangel. To Philo, the Logos was the

Idea of ideas, the firstbegotten Son of the uncreated Father, and the second God.

The cosmos, Philo wrote, is held together by the power of the Logos. The SupremeGod is too remote and impassible to have direct contact with this world, and so it is the

Logos who appears to man (e.g., as in the burning bush to Moses).

Philo wrote about this concept of his in the following manner:

The Absolute Being, the Father, who had begotten all things, gave an especial grace to the Archangel and

First-born Logos (Word), that standing between, He might sever the creature from the Creator. The same isever the Intercessor for the dying mortal before the immortal God, and the Ambassador and the Ruler to the

subject. He is neither without beginning of days, as God is, nor is He begotten, as we are, but is something

between these extremes, being connected with both.

The reader can see that Philos conception of the Logos, with some modifications, is very

similar to later trinitarian teaching on the Catholic Logos.

Charles Semisch has stated, The early (Catholic) Fathers only poured the contents of the

scriptures into a Philonian vessel: they view the biblical passages through a Philonian

medium.

Henry Malter believes that Philo actually wanted to prove that Judaism and Hellenism

(Greek philosophy) taught the same divine truth in just a different way.

WAS PHILO A GNOSTIC?

If we accept the thesis that Philo greatly influenced the development of the Catholic

Trinity through his idea of grafting the pagan Logos into the Old Testament teaching,then we might well consider his relationship to gnosticism.

Philip Carrington believes that Philo was a gnostic, and Carrington had this to say:(Philo was) the first and only Jewish philosopher of antiquity. To him Plato was only Moses talking Greek.

But in spite of his Judaism and Platonism, he shows only too many traces of that gnostic error which is so

fatal to sound thinking.

Elaine Pagels, in her excellent study of the gnostic gospels, has stated that Wilhelm

Bousset claims to have traced gnosticism back to ancient Babylonian and Persiansources. The gnostics believed that matter was evil, and they believed in an unknown

God with lesser emanations from the spirit world.


6/126

Martin Larson, speaking of Christian gnosicism, said, The gnostic heresy had its roots in

the concept that Christ had existed as a separate power since the creation of the world.

And James Adam noted, The distinction which Plato...introduced into the being of the

Godhead prepared the way for the theology of Philo. Platos conception of the divine

nature as a differentiated unity...(bears) a certain resemblance to the Christian doctrine of

the Trinity.

Philo was influenced by Platos Timaeus when he called the Logos the image of God,

and the second God. This led James Adam to write:

The Timaeus did more than any other literary masterpiece to facilitate and promote the fusion of Hellenism

and Hebraism out of which so much of Christian theology has sprung.

Why dont the trinitarian Christians today want people to know the background of the

Trinity doctrine? Why do they attempt to ignore the history of the doctrine? When

confronted with this truthful history, many of them attempt to belittle the importance ofthe origins of the trinity doctrine.

H.A. Wolfson declares that the Catholic fathers, in discussing the pre-existent Christ,

show unmistakable evidence of the influence of the Philonic Logos. And Wolfson notesthat:

All of these (Catholic) fathers seemed to have identified the Johannine Logos with the Philonic Logos, and

they also seemed to have known of Philos two-fold stage theory of the pre-existent Logos, and they seem

to have consciously transferred this twofold stage theory from the Platonic Logos to the Johannine Logos.

Wolfson believes that the Catholic fathers consciously transferred the pagan idea of the

Logos to the Christian Logos of the apostle John! How can trinitarian scholars today

honestly claim that the doctrine of the Trinity has no pagan influence in it?

H. Kennedy wrote, It can scarcely be denied that (Philos) particular differentiation of

the Logos from the Supreme God had an exceptional influence on the subsequent

Christology of the church. How can trinitarians not see the influence of Greekphilosophy and the Jewish priest, Philo, on the doctrine of the Trinity? Their only answeris that the Catholic fathers merely used Greek philosophy to confirm the scripturality of

the Trinity doctrine. But since there is a glaring lack any of the components of the Trinity

doctrine in the scriptures (e.g., terms such as three persons, three-in-one, co-equal,co-eternal, not to mention the word trinity), it is obvious that this is not so.

And, as Henry Chadwick said, The history of Christian philosophy begins not with a

Christian, but with a Jew. It is sad indeed that a Jew played such a role in formulatingthe doctrine of the Trinity, which downgrades the Lord Jesus Christ to a subordinate role

contrary to scripture. Another Jew, Paul of Tarsus, warned Christians about philosophy,

vain deceit, and the traditions of men (see Colossians 2.8).

III ARCHITECTS OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITY

Clement of Alexandria (150-213 AD), head of one of the early Christian schools, whichwas heavily influenced by philosophy and gnosticism, admitted that he was opposed by

those who still considered philosophy evil. He made light of their opposition and said

that they were light and ignorant. He denounced the so-called orthodoxy who, likebeasts which work from fear, do good works without knowing what they are doing. But

Clement, of course, knew what he was doing. He had a special gnosis (knowledge) that


7/126

the ignorant orthodox did not possess.

Friedrich Ueberweg says that Gnosticism was the first comprehensive attempt tocontruct a philosophy of Christianity. The more flagrant gnostics, such as Cerdo,

Cerinthus, Saturninus, and even Marcion, had been expelled from the church. These more

flambuoyant gnostics were only the tip of the iceberg. There was still a remnant in the

churches, who obviously began developing some philosophical system of Christianitythat would compete, so they thought, in the Gentile world.

The apostle Paul was troubled with gnostics, and spoke against those who clung tofalsely-named science (knowledge or gnosis) (1 Timothy 6.20).

Simon Magus (Acts 8), who clashed with Philip and Peter, was said to have been the

teacher of the gnostic Menander. Menander, in turn, was the master of the famousgnostics, Saturninus and Basilides.

Gnosticism, after Judaism, had the dubious honor of being the earliest heresy of

Christianity. Isnt is strange that gnostics seem to disappear, to some degree, after theascendancy of the Catholics? Gnosticism is probably the breeding ground of trinitarian

theology.

Clement of Alexander is certainly one of the Catholic fathers of the Trinity. The influenceof Philo and gnosticism is seen in both him and his successor Origen.

In Stromateis (i.vi.28), Clement wrote, Philosophy...was a schoolmaster to bringHellenism to Christ, (just) as the Law was for the Hebrews.

The Bible college at Alexandria, under the presidency of Clement of Alexandria, opened

its arms to the teachers of gnosticism (Charles Merivale).

E.G. Weltin called Clement a Christian Platonist and gnostic. Like Philo, Clement

taught that the Logos was an Angel.

In Paedagogus, Clement wrote, the Logos has appeared, and fear is turned to love, andthat mystic angel (Jesus) is born. And he wrote, God is one, and beyond the one, and

above the Monad itself.

According to Moses Stuart, Clement so distinguished between the substance of the

Father and of the Son as to make the latter inferior. And Photius wrote that Clement, in

his now lost work Hypotyposes, held to the argument of the Son as a creature, and

asserted the doctrine of the transmigration of souls.

And while Alexandria may well be the site where the Trinity doctrine was transplanted

into Catholic Christianity, there was an earlier writer from Athens, Quadratus, who mayhave written Logos theology as early as 125 AD. If Quadratus was the author of The

Epistle To Diognetus, he used the Logos doctrine and praised gnosticism.

Another Catholic architect of the Trinity doctrine was Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD), whowas reportedly converted to Catholicism, which was probably a small minority group at

that time, in about 133 AD.

Justin never discarded his pallium (philosophers cloak). Justin taught during the time ofan outburst of gnosticism (the heyday of Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, and Marcion).

Justin desired to understand the Messiah in the light of Greek philosophy. He wrote:

At the beginning, before all creatures, God begat of Himself a certain rational power, which, by the Holy


8/126

Spirit, is also called the Glory of the Lord-now Son, now Wisdom, now Angel, now God, now Lord, and

Logos.

THE SUBORDINATION OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DERIVED GOD

Justin did not teach the eternal generation of the Logos, as later Catholic fathers (suchas one of his pupils, Irenaeus, was to do) did, but rather he taught that the Logos, or

reason of God, which, was before the creation, voluntarily begotten (or emitted) fromthe Father, and was thus

converted into a real, separate Person. Thus the Son became a derived Being. This

doctrine of derivation implies inferiority, and as Alvan Lamson says, a derived God

cannot be a self-existent God.

The subordination of Jesus Christ has been a hallmark of trinitarian doctrine down

through the centuries. Although the Athanasians (and modern trinitarians) claim to have

corrected this subordination at Nicea in 325 AD, there are those today (and especially thecommon people who are trinitarians) who still argue that Jesus cannot be God the Father

due to His inferiority to God the Father.

If Jesus is not entitled to every title that belongs to God, then Jesus is not fully God. Sincewe know that Jesus is fully God, we know that He is worthy of the title God the Father.

The twofold-stage theory of the Lords birth is a key building block of the doctrine of

the Trinity. Initially, Proverbs 8.22 was used to validate this teaching. The Catholic-Confraternity-Douay Version of this passage reads: The Lord begot me, the first-born of

his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago. This was used to show that Jesus

was born before the ages. Thus, the Lord was (1) born before the ages, and (2) born atBethlehem. The gross inferiority that this brought to the Son began to be apparent, and

Catholic fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Novatian, began to teach an eternal

begetting of the Son in order to assure the Sons eternal equality with the Father.

Athenagoras, Theophilus, who is first noted using the word triados (180 AD) to describethe Godhead, and Tertullian all held to the twofold stage theory.

Novatian, realizing that this greatly subordinated the Son, wrote:

But He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father; for no time can be assigned

to Him who is before all time. And He is always in the Father, unless the Father be not always Father, only

that the Father precedes Him-in a certain sense-since it is necessary in some degree that He should before

(since) He is Father.

He is always in the Father, but the Father precedes Him-in a certain sense? In some

degree? What contradictory nonsense! He is always in the Father, but, then again, no

He is not since the Father precedes Him? But this great spiritual truth is qualified with

in a certain sense,

and by some degree! To what lengths will the trinitarian go to keep his co-equal

Persons and yet keep his eternal Son?

Athanasius tried to correct this imbalance dogmatically, and Augustine saw it. He said,

The Son is equal to the Father, but not while the Son is in the flesh. By making this

statement, Augustine denies the incarnation, since the incarnation is God manifest in theflesh. The Son is the flesh. It is not the Son in the Son, but rather the Father in the Son.

THE LOGOS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT MADE INTO TWO PERSONS


9/126

Another step in the origin and development of the Trinity was the introduction of the

heretical view that the Holy Spirit and the Logos were two separate divine Persons.

Wolfson notes that the Catholic fathers merely followed Philo in alleging that the Holy

Spirit and the Logos were two distinct beings or persons.

When the Catholic fathers distinguished between the Holy Spirit and the Logos, theywere then forced to re-interpret the writings of Matthew and John.

John had written that the Logos was made flesh (John 1.14), but Matthew had said that

that which was conceived in Mary was of the Holy Ghost (the supposed Third Person)(Matthew 1.20).

And Jesus clearly identified the Father as His Father (the supposed First Person). This

presented a problem for the founding fathers of the Trinity. How did they respond to thisparadox.

Justin Martyr of Rome and Theophilus of Antioch stated that the Holy Spirit in Luke 1.35and Matthew 1.20 was not actually the Third Person in this case, but rather the Logos

(the Second Person) in a sense! Here is some more specious nonsense! Justin wrote, It is

wrong to understand the Spirit and power of God as anything else (other) than the Logos,

who is also the firstborn of God (Apology I.33).

Most of the Catholic fathers were astute enough to avoid the contradiciton by maintaining

that the members of the Trinity had cooperated in the virgin birth. Clement ofAlexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian all held this view. Otherwise,

they would have been forced to admit that God the Father was the Holy Spirit, and that

He was the Logos (Word). Just as John 1.1 explicitly states, And the Word (Logos) was

God.

John of Damascus (675-749 AD) put it in the customary dogmatic terminology of the

Catholic-Protestant tradition when he wrote:

He was made by the whole Trinity, for the works of the Trinity are not separable...when one of the Three is

mentioned as the author of any work, the whole Trinity is to be understood as working.

This preposterous statement surely had to be made with tongue in cheek. Because the

main trinitarian argument for identifying the separate divine Persons is their individual

functions. So if one argues that the works of the Trinity are not separable, then it

becomes nearly impossible to identify the difference, for example, between the FirstPerson (a Spirit) and the Third Person (a Spirit)!

These early Catholic fathers rejected polytheism (many gods), but since they accepted thePlatonic triad of Philo, they were forced to compromise the unity of God.

God could no longer be an absolute unity, but he must perforce be a relative unity. This

is a weakness of the Trinity doctrine, since it can no longer honestly uphold the absoluteunity of God (the monarchy). There must be a relative unity that will allow within it

the combination of three distinct, separate elements, or what the trinitarians call

subsistences.

And Wolfson tells us that the Catholic fathers were constantly aware of a consciousness

of opposition to the Jewish conception of the absolute unity of God. This awareness,

says Wolfson, is noticeable throughout everything the Fathers say in support of the


10/126

Trinity. This is why we maintain that THE TRINITY TEACHING IS REACTIONARY

IN ITS ESSENCE RATHER THAN BEING A POSITIVE DOCTRINE.

THE ORIGIN OF THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1.26

Genesis 1.26 also seems to have played a role, through its interpretation, in the origin of

the Trinity. Irenaeus interpreted Genesis 1.26 to indicate a plurality of divine Persons inthe Godhead:

For with Him were present the Logos (Word) and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom,

freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks saying, Let us make man after our

image and likeness.

Where had such a novel interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures come? Certainly, as we

have seen, no Jew would normally make much an interpretation. None of the apostles

did. But it is very likely that it can be traced to a Jew named Philo of Alexandria, who

had written concerning Genesis 1.26:

When scripture says that God made man in the image of God, it means he made him in the image of the

second God, who is the Logos. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the Most High One and

Father of the universe.

The Logos trinitarian doctrine, in spite of all denials, and subsequent dogmatic tinkering

by theologians, postulates Christ in the role of the second God. Today, the terminologyhas been slightly altered to state, second Person.

Martin Werner wrote that every significant theologian of the church, in the pre-Nicene

period, has actually represented a subordinationist Christology. Of course, he meansevery significant

Catholic theologian, since no apostolic theologian would every downgrade Christ to thestatus of the second Person.

Origen (185-254 AD), although he is condemned by the Catholic church as a heretic, is

acknowledged as one of the most renowned Catholic fathers (except for perhapsAugustine).

Adolf Harnack wrote that, by the beginning of the fourth century, the theology of the

apologists had triumphed, and all thinkers stood under the influence of Origen.

And Rufus Jones says of Origen, he made a thorough study of Plato and Numenius, and

was in all his thinking profoundly influenced by the contemporary neo-platonic

movement.

Henry Chadwick also wrote, Origen admires Plato and Numenius, and say Numenius

was familiar with the scriptures...he calls him Numenius the Pythagorean, who

expounded Plato with great skill and maintained the Pythagorean doctrines. And Bell

says that Origen was influenced by the gnosticism of Egypt, and that he followed Philosallegorical method in biblical exegesis.

In Origens work, Against Celsus, who apparently protested the Catholic fathers use of

the Greek Logos, called the Logos the second God in three places.

Origen, in his interpretation of John 1.1, presaged the Watchtower Society, by stating thatho theos (the God) belonged to God the Father only, while theos (a god) was a lesser

title given to the Son. Jean Danielou attributes this interpretation of Origens to Philos


11/126

earlier theology of the Logos. And as Bell remarked, Origen regarded the divinity of

Christ as inferior to the Fathers.

But to highlight the contradictory nature of trinitarian theology, Origens greatest

contribution to trinitarian theology might have been his teaching on the eternal

generation of the Son. This, in spite of the fact, that Origen was a subordinationist. His

teaching contained what F. Baur called the germs of both the Arian and the Athanasiandoctrines.

Origen wrote in his Commentary On Johns Gospel that We believe that the Father, Sonand Holy Spirit are three essences or substances. That this is tritheistic almost no one

would deny.

Almost all of these Catholic fathers were forced to attempt to refute the contemporaryoneness theology which was still quite prevalent.

THE CATHOLIC FATHERS IDENTIFIED THE CHRISTIAN LOGOS WITH

THE PAGAN LOGOS

It is incorrect to assume that these Catholic fathers did not identify the Christian Logos

with the pagan Logos. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) wrote:

They who have lived in company with the Logos are Christians, even if they were accounted atheists. And

such among the Greeks, were Socrates and Heraclitus.

It is clear from this statement that Justin considered the pagan Logos and the Christian

Logos to be the same Logos. No matter that Socrates and Heraclitus were pagans-they

lived in company with the Logos (the same Logos that Justin was putting forth).

SUMMARY

Deuteronomy 6.4 states, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. When asked by

a scribe, Which is the first commandment of all? (Mark 12.28). And Jesus answeredand said, The first of all commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one

Lord (Mark 12.29).

The oneness of God is the most important commandment of all. There is only one Lord(Ephesians 4.5).

Jesus told the Jews, I am from above, and I am not of this world (John 8.23). And he

said, I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that Iam he, ye shall die in your sins (John 8.24). The only one from above, who is not of this

world, and who is able to save us, is God Almighty Himself. I would not trust a second

divine Person or a second God to save me.

1 Timothy 3.16 tells us that God was manifest in the flesh, and 2 Corinthians 5.19 says

that God was in Christ.

Jesus could have identified God as a Trinity, but instead Jesus identified God as a

Spirit (John 4.24). Nowhere in the Bible is the word Trinity used. This is not

comparable to the use of the word rapture. Nowhere in the Bible is the word raptureused (the word means to be caught up in an ectasy, an adequate description of the

event), but the description of the rapture is clear in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-17 and in 1

Corinthians 15.51,52. But the Trinity is not described in the Bible. Nowhere are the

building blocks of the doctrine found. You cannot find the terms three Persons, Three-


12/126

in-One, the eternal Son.

It is not possible to show the existence of even a second divine Person. All thedifferences pointed out between the Father and the Son only point to the sphere of the

incarnation. A trinitarian cannot find one scripture that shows a difference between the

Father and the Son, which does not relate to the incarnation. In other words, he cannot

relate differences within the sphere of the Godhead. All differences are within the sphereof the incarnation itself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (Neptune, NJ: Loizeau Bros, 1959)

2. Veronica Ions, Indian Mythology (London: Pam Hamlyn Ltd, 1967)

3. Arthur Wainwright, The Trinity In The New Testament (London: SPCK, 1962)

4. Morris Jastrow, Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria

(New York: G.P. Putnams Son, n.d.)

5. Franz Cumont, The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (Chicago: The Open Court

Pub., n.d.)

6. J. Jacklin, Clement Huart, Henri Maspero et al, Asiatic Mythology (New York: Thom.

Crowell Co, 1932)

7. Donald A. Mackenzie, Egyptian Myth and Legend (London: Gresham Pub, n.d.)

8. Morris Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions (New York: Chas. Scribners Sons,

1914)

9. William B. Chalfant, Ancient Champions of Oneness, 1979

10. Frederick Woodbridge, The Son of Apollo (NY: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1929)

11. Max Fisher, What The Great Philosophers Thought About God (Los Angeles: Univ.

Book Pub., 1958)

12. Lewis R. Farnell, Greece and Babylon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911)

13. Grant Showerman, The Great Mother of The Gods (Madison, WI: Bulletin of The

Univ. of Wisconsin No. 43, 1901)

14. Samuel Fales Dunlap, The Ghevers of Hebron (NY: J.W. Bouton, 1898)

15. Horatio W. Dresser, A History of Ancient and Medieval Philosopher (NY: Thom.

Crowell, 1926)

16. Granville C. Henry Jr., Logos: Mathematics and Christian Theology (Lewisburg:

Bucknell Univ., 1976)

17. Virgin Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale Univ.Press, 1960)

18. John Cordner, The Philosophic Origin and Historic Progress of The Doctrine of TheTrinity

19. Alvan Lamson, The Chruch of The First Three Centuries (Boson: Walker, Wise and

Co., 1860)


13/126

20. H. Chadwick, in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval

Philosophy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967)

21. Henry Malter, Hastings Encyclopedia of Ethics and Religion (ix, p.873).

22. Philip Carrington, Christian Apologetics in The Second Century (London: SPCK,

1921)

23. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (NY: Vintage Books, 1981)

24. Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (Washington: New Republic, 1977)

25. James Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909)

26. Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of The Church Fathers (Cambridge: Harvard Univ.

Press, 1964)

27. H.A. Kennedy, Philos Contribution To Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton,

1919)

28. Friedrich Ueberweg, History of Philosophy (NY: Chas. Scribners Sons, 1908)

29. Charles Merivale, The Conversion of The Northern Nations (NY: D. Appleton & Co)30. E.G. Weltin, The Ancient Popes (Westminister, MD: Newman Press, 1968)

31. God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1977)

32. Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957)

33. Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (London: Williams & Norgate, 1905)

34. Rufus Jones, The Churchs Debt To Heretics (London: James Clark & Co, 1924)

35. Harold Idris Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt (NY: Philosophical

Library, 1953)

36. Jean Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before The Council of Nicea

(Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1973)

37. K.R. Hagenbach, A History of Christian Doctrine (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1883)

38. Henry Milman, History of Latin Christianity (NY: A.C. Armstrong, 1899)

Most of the ancient writers can be found translated in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868), or later editions.

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA

IN THE EARLY FOURTH CENTURY a great controversy erupted in Alexandria, Egypt,

between Arius, a presbyter (local minister), and Alexander, his bishop, over the deity ofJesus Christ. Alexandria was a major center of Greek culture and philosophy, which

heavily influenced both sides of the debate. The controversy spread rapidly and

threatened the unity of the institutional church. Although Alexander excommunicatedArius, Arius received support from some influential people, including Eusebius, bishop of

Nicomedia.

When Constantine succeeded in becoming sole emperor of Rome in A.D. 324, hepublicly embraced Christianity. Politically, he saw Christianity as an effective tool of


14/126

unifying his domain and therefore viewed the Arian controversy as a significant threat to

his goal. To solve the problem, in 325 he convened the first ecumenical council of

Christendom since Bible days, paying for the delegates to come to the town of Nicea,near the imperial residence.

The central issue at the Council of Nicea was the identity of Jesus Christ in relation to the

Godhead. The main questions were, Is Jesus truly God? and Are the Father and the Son ofthe same essence? The council was not strictly a debate over modalism (a form of

Oneness belief) versus trinitarianism, although modalism was a factor. As things turned

out historically, it was more of a debate as to how to define the second person of thetrinity.

Some of the participants were basically modalistic or Oneness in their thinking. In fact,

one prominent member of the victorious party, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, vigorouslypromoted a form of modalism after the council, and another, Eustathius, bishop of

Antioch, was later condemned for modalism. Moreover, many of the average participants,

who may not have really understood the theological dispute, could have hadpredominantly Oneness concepts.

The catalyst for the controversy, however, was the doctrine of Arius. Essentially, he took

to an extreme position of the subordinationism doctrine taught by the Greek Apologists(second-century writers who defended Christianity) and the early trinitarians (third

century). They held that Jesus was a second divine person subordinate to the Father. For

support, the Arians particularly appealed to the early trinitarian writer Origen.

Arius said there is one God, not a trinity, and that Jesus is not truly God but, in effect, a

demigod. He is a created being of greater rank than humans but not equal to the Father.

The Arian position is equivalent to that of Jehovah's Witnesses today.

At the Council of Nicea the leading spokesman against Arius was Athanasius, a young

archdeacon from Alexandria who later succeeded Alexander as bishop. He taught that

there are three persons in one God and that these three persons are coequal, coeternal, andcoessential (or consubstantial, of the same substance). The debate centered on the Father

and the Son; neither side spoke definitively about the Holy Spirit. Primarily, the Arians

attacked the deity of Jesus while Athanasius defended it, saying that Jesus is equal to theFather in every way yet a second person.

Three factions developed at the council: a minority of Arians, a minority of Athanasians,

and a majority who did not fully understand the issues involved but who wanted peace. Ingeneral, this third group took an intermediate position, but it is difficult to characterize

them as a whole. Historians sometimes call many in this group Origenists or Semi-

Arians. The majority did not necessarily embrace the complete trinitarian doctrine of

Athanasius, but they eventually voted with him in defense of Christ's deity and againstthe Arian view.

Athanasius considered all who opposed Arianism to be on his side, and some of hisstrongest supporters at this time were, or turned out to be, modalists. The creed that the

Council of Nicea passed clearly rejected Arianism, but it did not definitely establish

trinitarianism or reject modalism.

Athanasius used four lines of reasoning to uphold the deity of Christ:


15/126

(1) The Scriptures teach it.

(2) The church has always worshipped Jesus.

(3) To be our Savior, Jesus has to be God.

(4) He is the Logos (Word), and based on philosophical considerations, the Logos has to

be God. He argued that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father.It is easy to see how Athanasius' position could appeal to a Oneness believer. Faced with

a choice between Arius and Athanasius on the deity of Jesus Christ, Oneness believerswould choose the latter. In fact, the Arians objected that the doctrine of Athanasius

sounded too much like that of Sabellius, a prominent modalist of the third century.

When the council convened, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia offered an Arian creed,which the assembled bishops immediately rejected. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea

proposed a compromise creed that satisfied almost everyone, but Athanasius and his

group objected because it was ambiguous and did not resolve the issue. Wanting thewidest agreement possible, Constantine pressed for inclusion of the word homoousios

("same essence") to describe the Father and the Son. His personal advisor, Bishop Hosius

of Cordova, probably gave him this suggestion.

In the end, persuaded by the oratory of Athanasius and heeding the bidding of the

emperor, the council agreed to use the word homoousios, affirming that Jesus is of the

same substance as the Father. The emperor pronounced the resulting creed to be divinelyinspired, promulgated it as the law of the land, and insisted that every bishop at the

council sign it or be deposed and exiled. Only Arius and two bishops refused to sign the

creed, and they were exiled. Eusebius of Nicomedia and two other bishops did not sign

the attached condemnatory clause and were removed from office. Some of the signershad strong reservations, however, and some, such as Eusebius of Caesarea, promptly

began interpreting it contrary to its intent.

The creed formulated by the Council of Nicea, which is not the so-called Nicene Creedused today, affirmed belief in "one God, the Father almighty... and in one Lord Jesus

Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten; that is, of the essence

[ousia of the Father, God of God, light of light, very [true] God of very [true] God,begotten not made, being of one substance [homoousiosl with the Father ... and in the

Holy Ghost."

This terminology is compatible with both Oneness and trinitarian thinking, although theclause "God of God" may erroneously imply a distinction of persons. Athanasius believed

one divine person was begotten from another divine person, but a Oneness believer could

use the same words to mean the one God came in flesh and therefore God who dwelt inJesus is the same as God before the Incarnation.

The original creed directly refutes Arianism by saying that Jesus is of one substance with

the Father. To the creed itself was appended a clause pronouncing an anathema (curse)upon various Arian statements. One of these can be seen as incompatible with modern

Oneness terminology, for it denounces the view that there was a time when the Son was

not, and Oneness theology says the role of the Son began with the Incarnation. Thepurpose of the clause was not to refute modalism, however, but the Arian idea that the

divine nature of Christ had a beginning.


16/126

Ironically, another portion of the anathema clause contradicts modern trinitarianism

terminology, as well as that of Origen, for it denounces the view that the Father and Son

are of a different hypostasis. As used here and in Hebrews 1:3, hypostasis basicallymeans "substance," but trinitarians later began using it to mean "person" and affirming

that indeed the Son was a different hypostasis from the Father.

In summary, the Nicene Council was a clear rejection of Arianism but not a clearrejection of modalism. From a historical perspective, it was the first official step in the

establishment of trinitarianism, but at the time that was by no means clear. From the

trinitarian perspective of Athanasius, it vindicated the coequality and coessence of twodivine persons, the Father and the Son, but some of his most vocal supporters did not

accept the distinction of persons and some of his most vocal critics saw it as an

endorsement of Sabellianism.

To put the Council of Nicea in historical perspective, briefly here are the major steps in

the development of trinitarianism.

About 150 the Greek Apologists, beginning with Justin, defined the Word to be the Son,

described the Word/Son as a second divine being begotten by God the Father at a point intime before creation, and said that the Word was subordinate to God. A threefold

baptismal formula was introduced, along with some vague notions of threeness in relationto God.

About 210 Tertullian introduced the term trinity and formulated the concept of one Godin three persons. In his trinity, the Father alone is eternal, and He is superior to the other

two persons. About 215-30 Origen likewise promoted trinitarianism, contributing the key

doctrines of the eternal Son and the eternal generation of the Son. He thereby prepared

the way to elevate the status of the second person, although he himself still taught that theFather was superior to the other two persons.

Under the influence of Athanasius, the Council of Nicea in 325 rejected Arianism. It

declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance, making them equal.

The Council of Constantinople in 381 followed the doctrine of Athanasius and the three

theologians of Cappadocia. It clarified the status of the Holy Spirit and placed all threepersons on an equal footing. The Nicene Creed used today reflects the theology

established here.

Based in part on the theology of Augustine and produced sometime in the fifth to eighthcenturies, the Athanasian Creed put in definitive form the doctrine of the victors of Nicea

and Constantinople. It declared the coequality, coeternity, and consubstantiality of the

three persons.

Over two hundred years passed from the first teaching of a plurality of divine persons

(two) (c. 150) to the full acceptance of the doctrine of the trinity (381). About one

hundred years passed from the introduction of trinitarianism (c. 200) to the time itbecame dominant (e. 300), and almost another century before it reached its definitive

form and received official acceptance (381). Yet a third century passed before all

significant political threats to it ended with the conversion of the victorious barbariansfrom Arianism to trinitarianism (496).

WHY DID JESUS PRAY IF HE WAS GOD?


17/126

The question has been asked, "If the Lord Jesus Christ was God, why did he pray to theFather?" We teach by the word of God that there is ONE GOD, the creator of the heavens

and the earth and all mankind, manifest to mankind as Father (Creator), Son (Saviour),

and the Holy Spirit (Indwelling spirit). We believe and teach that there is but ONE GOD

with three manifestations. "For there are three that bear record" in heaven, the Father, theWord and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE" (I Jn. 5:7). It does not say that they

agree or work as one but that they are ONE. The Name of the ONE TRUE GOD is Jesus

Christ (Matt. 28:19, Acts 2:38). Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the HolyGhost.

Now in asking the question, "Why did Jesus pray to the Father?" the Trinitarians try to

prove that there is more than one in the Godhead. In this question they see Jesus, the Son,the second person, praying to the Father, the final person in the Godhead.

Briefly let me bring in at this point the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was the resultof the Council of Nicea which was called by Constantine , the first Christian emperor of

the Roman Empire. This council was called to settle the question of the Godhead , andthe result was the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly the doctrine is: "The Father is God, the

Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God." "And yet they are not three Gods but one God,"but "these three persons, being truly distinct one from another."

Also in this "trinity" of persons the son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation,and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal pro- cession from the Father and the Son, yet

not withstanding they differ as to origin, the persons are co-eternal and co-equal, all alike

are uncreated and omnipotent."

This doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The Word of God plainly

teaches THREE MANIFESTATIONS OF ONE GOD, not three persons or Gods.

Nowhere in the Word of God can you find these words, "Trinity", "three persons", or

"Holy Three." These are terms used by men to turn the hearts of men from the truth ofGod and who He is. Basically the doctrine of the Trinity has not changed since the

council of Nicea.

When we say that Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD and beside Him there is no other the

Trinitarian will ask this question, "Why did Jesus pray to the Father? They often say, "If

Jesus is God then He prayed to himself." I will do my best to answer these questions.

First, let me ask the Trinitarian a question. Their doctrine states that the Father and the

Son are two persons and that they are separate and distinct one from the other, yet they

are coeternal and co-equal. In simple language this means that the Father has no morepower than the Son and likewise the Son has no more power than the Father. The Father

was not before the Son or the Son was not before the Father. Now the question I will askis this: "If the Father and Son are co-equal , why did the Son pray to the Father?" You

pray to someone because you need help, If the Son is co-equal, with the Father he had noneed to pray to Him for help because he has just as much power and might. Please think,

Mr. Trinitarian, before you ask such a question.

It is accepted everywhere that Jesus is the Son (Matt. 1:23-25). But let us prove that Jesus

is the Father as well as the Son. "For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given: and

the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,


18/126

Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6) Some

say we are foolish to call Jesus both Father and Son, but this scripture calls him Father

and Son in the same verse. A child would be born, a son given, but he would be called theMighty God, the Everlasting Father. Jesus declared that He and the Father are one (Jn.

10:30). He does not say they work as one or agree as one, but He plainly states that they

ARE one. Philip asked Jesus to show the disciples the Father in John 14:7-10. Jesus toldPhilip, "Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not known me, Philip. He

that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then shew us the Father?"

Some will say then if Jesus is the Son and also the Father then He prayed to Himself. ltwould not be unscriptural to say this. Before you go up in Holy Smoke let us look at the

Word of God. There is nothing unscriptural about the statement for in Heb. 6:13 we find

"when God made promise to Abraham because He could swear by no greater, He swore

by himself?" Did not God swear by himself? In Eph. 5:25-27 we read where Jesuspresents the church to himself.

Let us look at it in its true light. God is a spirit and we know by the word of God that aspirit has not flesh and bone. He created all things. This makes him Father. This same

God manifested himself to the world as a Son. "But when the fullness of time was come,God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal: 4:4) The Son was

made. "Wherefore when He cometh unto the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thouwouldest not, but a body has thou prepared me." God would come to redeem fallen man

so He prepared a body in the virgin Mary and got into that body and came to us to be our

Saviour. This manifestation of God in mankind was called the Son. Not another, but Godhimself manifested in flesh. (Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:22,23). This son was Emmanuel. "God

with us." This was the child to be born and the Son to be given, yet He was the Mighty

God, the Everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6). The Son was the mystery of Godliness beingrevealed to mankind; God manifested in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). This was God becoming

flesh and dwelling among us (John l:l,14).

He prayed because as Son he took on himself the form of man and in taking on the formof man he took on himself a human nature (not a fallen nature!) Please read Phil. 2:5-8.

In taking on this nature he could hunger, thirst, become tired, could cry, and could even

die. But one of the principle characteristics of the human nature is that it must pray. Thereis something within all men that cries out for them to pray whether they do or not. So

Christ in his humanity prayed unto the eternal Spirit. Now even as God took these human

characteristics on himself when He came into this world, even so He laid them aside in

His resurrection, and we no longer know Him after the flesh (II Cor. 5:16). Paul said wehave known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. After His

resurrection we know him as Thomas found Him, "My Lord, and my God" (Jn. 20:28).

We know Him as John saw Him on the isle of Patmos, as the Almighty (Rev. 1:7,8). As

the first and last (Rev. 1:17,18). If Jesus is the first and last there can be room for noother. We know Him now as King of Kings and LORD OF LORDS (Rev. 19:16).

THE GODHEAD: Part 1

Romans 1:20


19/126

* This explains the purpose for having a Godhead study.

* The Godhead is without excuse and we must understand this in order to receive the fullrevelation of who God is.

THREE BASIC THEORIES OF THE GODHEAD

John 17:17* Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth. We must let the Bible be the basis

for all establishment of truth.

WHO, WHAT, WHERE IS GOD? SPIRIT

John 4:23-24

* God is a Spirit. When you see the term God, it is referring to a Spirit.

Acts 7:48-49

* God is not a little figure or a person off in heaven somewhere. God is a Spirit that fills

heaven and earth, because heaven is His throne and earth is His footstool.

OMNIPRESENT (EVERYWHERE)

Psalms 189:7-10

* God is a Spirit that is everywhere. You can not hide from God.

* Where ever two or three are gathered together in His name there He is. Why? "He is

everywhere."

I Kings 8:27

* The Heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee. Why? He is everywhere.

* A place or body can contain the fulness (or quality) of God, but can not contain all ofthe quantity of God.

Deuteronomy 4:35 & 39

* Lord is God-there is none else beside Him.

* The term Lord used in all capitals always refers to God or deity (the omnipresent

Spirit).

* Verse 39: Only one God that is in heaven above and the earth beneath.

* One God or Spirit that is everywhere.

Proverbs 15:3

* Eyes of the Lord are everywhere (omnipresent). You can not make God out to be a

human or He would be all eyes according to this scripture; but it is simply saying that Heis an omnipresent Spirit.

Jeremiah 23:24

* Can not hide from the Lord. Fills heaven and earth.

* If there is only one, where are the other three (refer to chart)? We are establishing the

fact not the theory that there is only one God (not two or three) and He is a Spirit.

INVISIBLE


20/126

St. John 1:18

* No man has seen God at any time. Some say Moses saw the hinder part of God. He sawthe manifestation of God, but not the Spirit itself. God can manifest himself as anything,

and you can see the manifestation (burning bush, dove, etc.) but you can not see the Spirit

itself, because it is invisible and no man has ever seen it.

John 5:37

* They had not seen his shape nor heard his voice. What they did see was the

manifestation of God.

Colossians 1:15

* Jesus is the image of the invisible God. He is all of God we will see and we will coverhow this is later in the study.

IMMORTAL (EVERLASTING, CAN NOT DIE)

1 Timothy 1:17

* Immortal, eternal, invisible, only wise God. Immortal means God (the Spirit) can never

die. This is important to know so you can later understand about the crucifixion of Christ.

I Timothy 6:14-16

* Jesus will show who is the only King of Kings and Lord of lords and He who only hathimmortality.

* He is also invisible. Since He is an invisible, omnipresent Spirit that fills the atoms of

the universe just like a thick fog, so if the Spirit would become visible (even after we getto heaven) we would all be blind. He will never cease to be an omnipresent Spirit, so the

only way we will ever see God is in the face of Jesus Christ (who is the visible image of

the invisible God).

Psalms 90:1-4* We dwell in the presence of God, and he is from everlasting to everlasting.

* Flesh is not eternal, but God is eternal.

Luke 24:39

* Spirit does not have flesh and bones. God is not an old man up in heaven. He is animmortal, everlasting Spirit. Flesh gets old, a spirit does not.

Ephesians 4:4-6

* One God and one Spirit (refer to chart). There is one God who is through all and in you

all. That is why the Spirit in you is called the Holy Ghost or Christ in you. There are three

offices of God, but not three Gods:

(1) Father-Spirit as creator and ruler.

(2) Son-flesh which spirit dwelt in, making him God.

(3) Holy Ghost-Spirit of God as it deals with man. I am a father, son and husband, but I

am not three persons and I only have one name.

Mark 12:29-37


21/126

* First commandment: the Lord our God is One Lord. Spirit prophesying through David.

God and man dwelling in Christ. If the scripture says there is one, who has the right to

say there are three.

* Jesus went on to quote Psalms 110:1 to the Jews and asked them how was the messiah

going to be David's son and David's Lord. The (flesh) that was born of Mary was of the

lineage of David according to the promises God had made to Abraham, as recorded in thefirst chapter of Luke and Matthew- (Lineage is recorded all the way to Mary and Joseph

with David and his sons included.) The God that David prayed to was the same God that

dwelt inside that human body, making Jesus both David's Lord and his son. Look at thewords Lord - the first is all capitals and the second is not. It lets us know that this is the

Spirit speaking about the flesh.

* Right hand of God will be covered later but it refers to the power of God. Spirit set upflesh and gave him all power.

* The Son did not exist from the beginning, except in the plan of God, but Jesus was fromthe beginning. How? The term son refers to the flesh of God but the Name Jesus includes

both flesh and Spirit, and the Spirit of God that was in Jesus did exist in the beginning.We must realize this to understand how the terms are applied in scripture.

I Timothy 3:16

* God (deity) was manifest in the flesh.

* God was seen of angels. When did the angels see God? When the flesh was born in

Bethlehem. When will we see God? When we get to heaven and see the glorified body of

Jesus.

* Flesh could not do anything without the Spirit that dwelt in it because Jesus said the

Words he spoke was not him, but the father dwelling in him was doing the work.

II Corinthians 5:19

* God in Christ. Reconciling the world back to himself. Why? There was no other God to

reconcile him to. That is why He said He would swear by Himself, because there was no

other God up there to swear by. There is only one God (Spirit).

John 3:34-35

* Spirit in Christ given without measure. If He was co-equal God He would not have tobe given anything, but He was a man who had to have the Spirit of God in Him to be able

to do the works of God.

Matthew 1:18-25

* Verses 18-20: Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost making Jesus the son of the

Holy Ghost. So unless the Holy Ghost and the Father are the same Spirit instead of Co-equal persons then Jesus would be the son of the Holy Ghost instead of the son of theFather or else He would have two fathers. We realize from this, that they are only offices

of the one Spirit of God, and the Spirit is called the Holy Ghost here because it is dealing

with man.

* Verse 21: His name shall be called Jesus which means Jehovah has become our

salvation. An angel named him, not Joseph, because it was prophesied in the Old


22/126

Testament that the Lord would give him a new name. Keep this in mind because we will

cover it later in the study.

* Verse 23: Jesus was God (Spirit) with us. He was God manifest in the flesh.

COMPARING SCRIPTURES OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

Scriptural comparisons concerning the prophecies about Jehovah of the Old Testamentbeing fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament (proving they are the same).

Isaiah 43:3, 10-15, 25

* Verse 3: Lord thy God is the Holy one (not 2 or 3), and the Saviour.

* Verse 10-15: There was no God formed before Him, nor after him. Yet the doctrine of

the Trinity indicates that the son proceeded out from the father in eternity before theworld was. According to this scripture that would not be possible.

* There is no Saviour other than this one God that is speaking in these scriptures, so whenthe Saviour comes to the world it will be this one God of the Old Testament.

* Called our redeemer, Holy One, Saviour, Creator, King which are terms that are applied

to Jesus in the New Testament.

* Verse 25: It is the one God that will blot out or remove our sins. Isaiah 44:6, 8, 24

* Verse 6: He is the Lord, King, Redeemer, the First and the Last and beside Him there isno God.

* Verse 8: If there is another God, He does not know about it.

* Verse 24: He is the God that made all things, created the heavens and earth alone, byHimself, and there was no other God with Him.

Isaiah 45:5, 6, 15, 18

* All these scriptures simply reemphasize the fact that there is only one God that is theSaviour and Creator and there is no other God besides Him.

Isaiah 45:21-24

* He is the only God and Saviour there is and unto Him every knee will bow and every

tongue will confess. Philippians 2:9-1 1

* The name of Jesus is above every name and at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow

and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is the fulfillment of the

prophecy of Isaiah. It proves that Jesus is the one God of the Old Testament.

JESUS AS THE FATHER

Isaiah 9:6-7

* The son to be born is referred to as the mighty God and the everlasting Father, which

proves again that Jesus is the one God of the Old Testament that came in human flesh to

redeem man from his sin by the death of the flesh on calvary. This also makes Him ourSaviour and Redeemer which fulfills the other prophecies concerning the one true God of

the Old Testament.

John 3:13


23/126

* Jesus was on earth talking to Nicodemus, yet He said He was in heaven also. This

proves He is man and yet God that is everywhere according to the deity that lives in His

flesh. Not a separate person, but the same one Spirit of an omnipresent God.

I Corinthians 8:4-6

* There is but one God, the Father (term father as pertaining to God always refer to theomnipresent Spirit) and one Lord Jesus Christ. (Use this in referring to the next

scripture.)

II Corinthians 3:17

* The Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit, when compared with the previous scripture, this proves

that Jesus is the same one God as the Father (Spirit).

John 10:30

* Jesus said, "I and my Father are one". How are they one? When Spirit was put in flesh

they became one person. He was fully God and fully man in one person. This statementcaused the Jews to try to stone Him because they could not accept Him as the one God of

the Old Testament, which eventually resulted in their being cut off and God turning to theGentiles to take out a people for His name's sake.

John 14:5-10

* Jesus told the disciples from henceforth you know the Father and have seen Him. Sincethe Father is an invisible Spirit that no man can see, the only way they could see Him was

in the face of Jesus Christ. He proves this on His next point.

* Philip asked to see the Father and it would satisfy him. Jesus seemed surprised that Hehad been so long with Philip and he still had not recognized that He was the Father. He

let Philip know that when you see Jesus you have seen the Father. (The body of Jesus

Christ is the only visible part of the Father you can see.)

* He revealed that it was the Father (Spirit) that was in Him who was doing the works ofthe Spirit.

John 8:24, 27

* Jesus was speaking of the Father in all of these verses and He let them know they

would die in their sins if they did not believe that He was the Father. Why? Because they

would never be baptized in His name for the remission of sins as commanded by theapostles.

Colossians 1:14-20

* Verse 14: We have redemption through His blood (this lets us know these scriptures are

referring to Jesus Christ).

* Verse 15: Image of the invisible God. Jesus is the only physical part of God we willever see and He is also the perfect image of God Spiritually because He is God in flesh.

* Verses 16-20: Jesus is the creator of all things, which means He has to be the onecreator that Isaiah prophesied about which also said there was no other God beside Him.

* He reconciled all things to himself, because there is no other God to reconcile it to.

(Flesh reconciled all things to the Spirit.)


24/126

Colossians 2:8-12

* Paul warned against philosophy, vain deceit, tradition of men and rudiments of theworld.

* Verses 9-10: The fulness of the Godhead bodily is in Jesus Christ. The body of Jesus

does not contain all of the quantity of God, but all of the fulness of the quality of God.The body of Jesus is God's headquarters.

* Ye are complete in Him, because He is the head of all principality and power.

* Verses 11-12: Old Testament circumcision was a cutting away of flesh made with

hands, which was a type of New Testament circumcision made without hands which is

the putting away of the sins of the flesh by baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ (for the

remission of sins).

Matthew 28:17-20

* All power in heaven and earth was given to Jesus. If He was a co-equal God, then whywould He have to be given anything; but, humanity had to receive power from deity. This

is the father setting the son up on the throne as prophesied.* Baptize in the Name (singular) of the Father (not in the Father, but the name of theFather). Jesus said I come in my Father's name. The name of the Father is Jesus.

* Name of the Son-She shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Jesus. Jesus isthe name of the Son.

* Name of the Holy Ghost-He promised to send the Holy Ghost in his name. The name of

the Holy Ghost is Jesus.

* Since Spirit (Father, Holy Ghost) and flesh (son) are in the same person of Jesus, the

name of the Father, son and Holy Ghost is Jesus. if the apostles use the name Jesus in

baptism, then we will know that this is the correct meaning and fulfillment of this

scripture.

Acts 2:38

* The Apostles (who had received direct revelation from Jesus) baptized in the Name of

Jesus for the remission of sin.

Acts 10:48

* The first gentile saved was commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord. He had

just preached to them that they could receive remission of sins through his name.

Acts 4:10-12

* Jesus is the only name under heaven given among men that will save you. Where was

the name given in the plan of salvation? Baptism for the remission of sins. That is whyJesus said, "Unless you believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins".

I John 5:5-8

* There are three that bear record in heaven. He bears record of three offices or

manifestations, but it does not say that there are three separate persons in existence,

because that would contradict the other scriptures on the Godhead. These three witnesses

are one. The three earth bearing witnesses (blood, water and Spirit) are said to agree in


25/126

one, not are one.

I John 5:13

* You can have eternal life through believing in the name of the Son of God.

I John 5:20

* Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life.

Jeremiah 10:10

* The Lord (Jehovah) of the Old Testament is stated as being the true God. Since there is

only one God, the Jesus of the New Testament must be the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

Zechariah 12:1

* The one Lord that created heaven and earth is doing the speaking in these chapters.

Zechariah 12:9-10

* They will look upon me whom they pierced? Who was it that was pierced on Calvary?

Jesus. This proves again that Jesus was the One Lord of Israel.

Zechariah 13:6-9

* This speaks of a time when the God of the Old Testament will return to the Jews and

they will ask Him about the wounds in His hands. Who had the nail prints in his hands?Jesus.

* He will destroy two thirds of Israel, but He will spare the third part when they

recognize Him and call upon His name. (The name of the one with the nail prints.) Hewill then answer and say it is my people and they shall say "the Lord is my God". (Jesus

is our God.)

* If He refuses to spare the Jews who have not recognized who He is, what makes us

believe He will spare the gentiles who refuse to recognize Him as the one God of heavenand earth.

Zechariah 14:1-5, 9

* The Lord's feet will touch the Mount of Olives. The feet of Jesus are the only feet God

has, because a Spirit does not have flesh and bone.

* Lord God will come and all of His saints with Him.

* Verse 9: He will be King over the whole earth, there will be one Lord and His name

one. The whole world will recognize that Jesus is the one true and living God.

Acts 1:9-12

* Jesus left from the top of the Mount of Olives and an angel told the apostles He wouldreturn in like manner. So this also confirms that Jesus will be the God whose feet touch

the mount of Olives.

I Thessalonians 3:11-13

* This states that Jesus is the one coming with His saints (fulfilling the prophesy of Zach.

14:5) proving again that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

NAME OF THE ONE COMING BACK


26/126

Revelation 19:11-16

* He had a name written no man knew, but He Himself. He was called The Word of God.We will find out the name of the word in our next scripture reading.

* He is also THE KING OF KINGS and THE LORD OF LORDS.

John 1:14* Word was made flesh. Everyone realizes this scripture is saying Jesus is called the

Word.

Matthew 1:21

* Thou shalt call His name Jesus. (The name Jesus means Jehovah has become our

salvation.)

Isaiah 62:2

* The gentiles would see His righteousness and kings would see His glory and He shallbe called by a new name which the Lord shall name. That is why Joseph did not name

Him but God sent an angel to name Him. The new name is Jesus (Jehovah Saviour). This

is confirmed in the next scriptures.

Matthew 12:18-21

* He is showing here that Jesus is fulfilling the prophesy of Isaiah when he wrote "In Hisname shall the gentiles trust".

Acts 9:5 & 15

* The Lord said His name was Jesus.

* Verse 15: Paul was sent to bear His name before gentiles and kings. (The fulfillment of

Isaiah 62:2.)

Revelation 2:17* He will give a new name who no man except He that has received it.

Galatians 3:27

* We receive the name of Jesus when we are baptized in His name. That is why the ones

who have received it know His name, because you will not be baptized in His name ifyou do not believe He is the one true God.

Revelation 14:1

* They have his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Revelation 3:12

* He will write upon him the name of God. The name of the city is revealed, but the nameof God is not revealed except to say it will be His new name. Now, we realize from

scripture that the new name is Jesus and remember the name in the foreheads was also the

name of the Father, proving that the Father's new name is Jesus. He robed Himself inflesh and became a son which made Him Jehovah Saviour or Jesus.

* He is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption and the Holy Ghost in His dealings

with man; but, His name is Jesus.


27/126

THE GODHEAD: Part 2

THE KING, THE FIRST AND THE LAST

Isaiah 44:6

* The LORD is the King and the first and the last, and besides Him there

is no God.

Revelation 1:4, 8, 11, 17, 18

* Verses 4, 8, 11: Jesus is called the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and

the end, the first and last, the one which is, which was and which is tocome, the Almighty. Jesus is the Almighty God.

* Verses 17, 18: The first and the last is the one which was dead but is

alive forevermore, and has the keys of hell and death. This has to be Jesusbecause the flesh is all that could die.

Zechariah 9:9

* Israel's King will come to them riding on the colt of a donkey. We see

this fulfilled in the next verses.

Matthew 21:2-9

* Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah in these verses. Proving He is

the one King of Israel.

Matthew 2:2

* Jesus was born King of the Jews.

I Timothy 6:14-16

* Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

PROPHESY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, FULFILLED IN THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

Isaiah 35:1-6

* He prophesied that God (remember Isaiah's other prophesies about there

only being one God) would come and save them and they would see the

glory of the Lord.

* When this God comes the blind would see, the deaf would hear, the lame

would walk and the dumb would talk.

*Isaiah 42:5-8

* When He comes He will be a light to the gentiles, bring prisoners from

the prison house and His glory He will not give to another.

Isaiah 48:11-13


28/126

* He will not give His glory to another.

* I am He; I am the first and the last.

* The creator is doing the speaking.

Isaiah 40:3-5

* The voice crying in the wilderness would prepare the way for God, and

His glory would be revealed.

Matthew 3:1-3

* John the Baptist was the one who was the voice in the wilderness who

came to prepare the way of the Lord. (The one God of the Old Testament.)

Matthew 3:10-13

* He will baptize with the Holy Ghost.

* Then cometh Jesus. He was the Lord that John was preparing the way

for.

Luke 7:20-23

* John sent word from prison to ask Jesus if He was the one who was to

come. Jesus simply answered him reminding him of the fulfillment ofprophesy. The blind see, the lame walk, deaf hear, and the gospel is

preached.

John 1:14

* This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:5, the glory of the Lord was revealed

in Jesus Christ. Remember, He will not give His glory to another.

Malachi 1:6, 11, 14

* This talks of a time when the priest would despise his name and not

realize it. It would be during a time when his name would be great amongthe gentiles and the heathen and incense (prayer) would be offered in his

name. This has to be speaking of the times of Jesus Christ. Because that is

when this prophesy to the gentiles was fulfilled.

Malachi 2:1, 2, 10

* He will place a curse on the priest because they did not give glory to his

name nor lay it to their heart.

* Verse 10: We all have one father and were created by one God and those

who were not obeying this were profaning the covenant (that the Lord our

God is one Lord) of our fathers.

* This proves God does care if we understand who He is and that we must

lay it to heart to love and teach that truth.

THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE GODHEAD LAMB-FLESH;

GOD-SPIRIT

(Comment: We realize there are some scriptures that seem to indicate that


29/126

God could be a trinity, unless you take the rest of the scriptures on that

subject and compare them. The purpose of this part of the study is toanswer these contentions scripturally.)

Revelation 5:1-7, 13; 7:10

* Some read this and say there are two up in heaven because the lambtook the book from him that was on the throne.

* Remember, Revelation is wrote in symbolic form and simply showingthe purposes of his plan for coming in flesh to redeem man. Remember,

that the Lamb is the flesh but God is a Spirit that is on the throne and can

not die. The Lamb is called Root of David (flesh) which was slain.

Revelation 5:9-10

* Flesh died; humanity died, so that is why he was able to open the book.

He had been tempted in all points but without sin, yet He gave His life aransom for others to redeem them by His blood.

I Timothy 2:5

* There is one God (Spirit) and one mediator between God and man, the

man (flesh, lamb) Christ Jesus. Revelation the fifth chapter is showing this

taking place in symbolic form.

II Corinthians 5:17-19

* This is more literal fulfillment of what is symbolized in Revelation

chapter 5.

Hebrews 7:24-25

* The man (flesh, lamb) is able to make intercession to the Spirit (God on

the throne in Revelation) for us.Revelation 7:17

* The Lamb here is in the midst of the throne which simply reveals you

can not divide him from the Godhead because the Spirit set him up in this

place of power and is God's headquarters. The Father (Spirit) and son

(flesh, lamb) became one person in Jesus Christ making him God.

LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE

Genesis 1:26-27; 3:22

* Many people contend from these scriptures that God is three persons or

a trinity.* I contend that God was counseling with His own will in the presence of

His angels and by His prophetic wisdom spoke of things that be not as

though they were.

* From this one scripture it would be impossible to tell which is correct,

so we must search other scriptures that will allow the word of God to flow

in perfect harmony.


30/126

* I contend that for God to be speaking to a trinity of persons or Gods

would contradict the first commandment that the Lord our God is oneLord.

* Some even contend that the word Elohim translated Lord here is a plural

term, but even the Jewish scholars say it means plural in attributes and notnumber of persons.

* The next scriptures will reveal which of these points is correct.

Genesis 11:6-7

* God always used angels to carry out His biddings, so I feel He was

speaking to His angels here. (See next scripture also.)

Genesis 3:22-24

* He placed cherubims at the entrance to the garden. The angels knew thedifference between good and evil because Satan and one-third of the

angels had already been cast out.

Job 38:4, 7

* God is speaking of the time of creation. The angels were there because

He said the sons of God (angels) shouted for joy. So I contend God was

speaking to His ministering Spirits (angels) who were with Him atcreation.

Ephesians 1:11, 1:4-11

* He works everything after the council of His own will.

* Verses 4-11: We were even predestinated according to the good pleasure

of His will, which He has purposed in Himself. This says He counseled

with His own will not other gods or persons, yet He spoke in the presenceof His angels. (Example-Boss on job counseling with himself in the

presence of his men, but he is the one in authority.)

Romans 4:17

* God counseled with His own will in the presence of His angels and

spoke of things that be not as though they were.

John 1:1-3

* Word was God. (Word = Logos = thought, plan, concept; Deityexpressed.)

* The son coming was in the plan from the beginning.Isaiah 46:9-10

* He is God, there is none like Him. He declares the end from the

beginning and His council will stand.

Revelation 13:8

* Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. He


31/126

was slain in the plan of God, but not fulfilled until almost 2,000 years ago.

I Peter 1:19-21

* He was foreordained before the foundation of the world (in the plan of

God), but manifest in these last times for us.

Romans 5:14

* Adam was made in the figure (image) of Him that was to come (Jesus

Christ).

Romans 8:29

* He was foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image ofHis Son. (The image that was in His plan and the image Adam was made

in.)

Colossians 1:15

* Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

I Corinthians 15:45-47

* The man Adam was a living soul, but the second Adam (Jesus) was a

quickening Spirit.

* The first man was of the earth, earthly; the second man (Jesus) was the

Lord from heaven.

Galations 4:4

* When the fullness of time was come (according to the plan), He sent

forth His Son. How? made of a woman, made under the law dispensation.

II Timothy 1:9-10

* Grace was given to us in Jesus Christ before the world began (in the

plan), but was manifest (put into action) by the appearing of Jesus Christ.

I Peter 1:2

* We are the elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

THE WISDOM OF GOD

Proverbs 8:22-30

* Some feel this is the Son speaking here, but to see who is speaking, lets

look at two verses that tell who is speaking.

Proverbs 8:1, 12, 9:1

* The Wisdom of God is speaking. Remember, God counseled with His

own will, made a plan from the beginning and spoke of things that be not

as though they were. The son only existed in the wisdom and plan of God,until He was born at Bethlehem.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24

* Christ is the power of God and the Wisdom of God. He was made from


32/126

the Wisdom and by the power of God. He is the wisdom and power of

God, because it is God that lives in the flesh.

I Corinthians 2:7-8

* He was the wisdom of God in a mystery, ordained before the world, and

if the princes of this world had known it, they would not have crucifiedthe Lord of Glory. God did not die, but the fleshly body died; the Spirit in

Him was the Lord of Glory.

RIGHT HAND OF GOD

Acts 7:55-56

* Stephen did not say he saw two people but the glory of God and Jesuson the right hand. He was not speaking of geographical location (how do

you get on one side of a Spirit that is everywhere?) but right hand is a

Jewish term that speaks of being in a place of power and authority. He sawJesus in His exalted position that w

Apostolic Collections

Documents

Transcript of Apostolic Collections