Main |
Introduction to TheOneness of God In The Name OfJesus ChristPurposes and results for using scripture, commentary, or a combination of both. To further expound, starting with Genesis What happened at the Council of Nicea? #1) TYPE A commandment: Mark 12:29 #2) TYPE A Commandments: Deut. 6:14 #4 TYPE A Scriptures: Deut. 12:32 Just how much more satanic would a doctrine have to be before you'll reject it? Following are excerpts from conversations with individuals about the subject of the Oneness of God vs. the Trinity of separate persons. These begin with short answers to certain questions and finish with a posting of 226 questions disproving any scriptural basis, authority, or credence whatsoever for the Trinity doctrine. This message will be very long, with my apologies, but I consider it my duty to alert as many Christians to this message as I can, as completely as I can, much in the same manner as Martin Luther felt compelled to post his thesis on the door of the Roman Catholic Church. I know these claims will at first seem preposterous to confessing Trinitarians. Each reader will have to judge for themselves the accuracy, and importance of these claims. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I am asking you to search these things out for yourselves, whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). First off, I have found it to be helpful, that a foundation in biblical interpretation first be laid. I firmly believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and it's absolute authority, and completeness, in matters of doctrine. The question is: "how do people having a similar respect for the Bible come to hold contradictory beliefs in regards to the doctrines (teachings) of the Bible"? Closely related to that question is: "how does one balance scripture and commentary"? (Since I tend to quote a lot of verses, and often rely on the scriptural text to stand on it's own merits, I have been falsely accused at times of disallowing commentary! So I'd like to get this out of the way up front!) I have come to the conclusion that there are, different times, purposes and results for using scripture, commentary, or a combination of both. I see three basic "TYPES" if you will: TYPE A (Positive/Authoritarian): God's first commandment was the first example of a TYPE A scripture: Gen 2:16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Did that scripture require commentary before it could be understood and obeyed? I think not. When contending with the devil, Jesus (and Michael the archangel) patterned for us, the method we are to apply: Mat 4:4-7 "It is written... it is written... it is written" and Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, DURST NOT BRING AGAINST HIM A RAILING ACCUSATION, BUT SAID, THE LORD REBUKE THEE. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves." I do not believe there is any such thing as TYPE A
"commentary". (That is, I might add, with few
exceptions! Let me just say my pastor has given me a few
choice commentaries over the years that you can believe I
took heed to! TYPE B (Negate-ive/Evil/Destructive): Satan was the very first individual to provide "commentary" on the word of God. (Gen 3:4-5). What Satan did, was to lay aside the commandment of God to hold the tradition of men (in this case, a tradition directly of the devil) in order to negate the explicit commandment of God. There are such things as both TYPE B commentaries, and scripture used in a TYPE B manner (i.e. out of context, in contradiction to TYPE A commandments, which negate those commands). TYPE C (Neutral): Jesus did not necessarily feel it was His responsibility to EXPLAIN through COMMENTARY His words to ALL those who listened to Him. Especially in regard to those who weren't inclined to listen to Him anyway: Mat 13:10 "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because IT IS GIVEN UNTO YOU TO KNOW THE MYSTERIES of the kingdom of heaven, BUT TO THEM IT IS NOT GIVEN... 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: BECAUSE THEY SEEING SEE NOT; AND HEARING THEY HEAR NOT, NEITHER DO THEY UNDERSTAND. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive." There also exists both TYPE C scripture and commentary. Now, if you will, allow me to further expound all this, starting with Genesis: Gen 2:16 "And THE LORD GOD COMMANDED the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST THEREOF THOU SHALT SURELY DIE." This was a TYPE A statement by God. Positive and Authoritative. Next comes along Satan, the serpent: Gen 3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any... And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?... 4 AND THE SERPENT SAID unto the woman, YE SHALL NOT SURELY DIE: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." This was a TYPE B (negative, and evil!) statement: "Ye shall not surely die." Eve accepted this TYPE B (negative) commentary as authoritative OVER what God had presented as His TYPE A authoritative commandment. For that reason, at that point, Eve submitted to Satan, and God ceased to be her Lord. (Exo 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Luk 6:46 "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Rom 6:16 "Know ye not, that TO WHOM YE YIELD YOURSELVES SERVANTS TO OBEY, HIS SERVANTS YE ARE to whom ye obey") In the N.T. we see the devil also tempting Jesus, this time using scripture in a TYPE B manner: Mat 4:5 "Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Satan gave a TYPE B SCRIPTURE: " If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee" Jesus replied with an "IT IS WRITTEN" TYPE A positive authoritarian scripture: "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" The difference is, simply, that the scripture Jesus gave, was more directly addressing, and therefore bearing on, the subject at hand. Namely: tempting the Lord (by jumping off a pinnacle). So we see that there are TYPE B, AND TYPE A SCRIPTURES, depending on how they are used in context, and subject matter. As I said, TYPE C commentary is neutral- neither negative (evil) nor positive (authoritarian). Mat 13:10-14 is a good example, but there are MANY more. What we see in scripture, is that Jesus used TYPE A Authoritative scriptures to rebuke, but reserved TYPE C commentary for explaining Himself. (He also used TYPE C evangelically to entice other's curiosity!) (One major difference between us and Jesus is that HE IS LORD. Whatever comes out of His mouth is, or BECOMES the inspired word of God (TYPE A) whether He is quoting PREVIOUS scripture or not! Whatever He says IS, by that fact, as authoritative as scripture. Joh 14:23 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and THE WORD WHICH YE HEAR IS NOT MINE, BUT THE FATHER'S which sent me." The King's wish is the servant's command!). However, just because Jesus said it, does not mean His words can't be used OUT OF CONTEXT in a TYPE B manner: negative, and contradictory of specific commandments. In fact His words often are used in this TYPE B manner, especially, I am here to warn you, by Trinitarians in formulating their doctrine of three separate persons in the Godhead! Now, with all this in mind, to say commentary is a MUST, or REQUIRED, is NO DIFFERENT than to say that we are limited to speaking with each other at a TYPE C (NEUTRAL) level. The problem with that contention is, Christ gave us AUTHORITY OVER ALL evil (Luk 10:19). The only offensive weapon He gave us is, not our own words (commentary), but the sword of the Spirit- the Word of God (Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12) that we may also fight the devil with the sword of HIS (Jesus') mouth (Rev 2:16). In fact this is a blessing, since we are, by this power of the word of God, not limited or restricted to our own powers of speech! In the following, on the Oneness verses the Trinity, I will be posing 226 questions, (most of) which are asking to be answered, through TYPE A POSITIVE AUTHORITARIAN scriptural quotes, for scriptural definitions, or commandments, stating one must believe in the Trinitarian doctrine (or for historical facts and refutations of the proofs offered). My contention is: the answers in Trinitarianese that one would require, and the scriptures one would need to explicitly state such and such as Trinitarians believe, SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST! Here's an example. I have been told- "I, as would all Christians, would say that they are not identical Persons, but one in essence. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit possess alike the fullness of the divine nature." This is a perfect example of a TYPE B negative commentary. Having NO scriptural TYPE A authoritative commandment WHATSOEVER! So, I challenge any of you Trinitarians out there to PROVE the accuracy of the above Trinitarian statement. Show me just ONE place in the scripture where ANY "Christian" AT ALL SAID- "they are not identical Persons, but one in essence" Here is the TYPE A commandment that that doctrine contradicts: Mar 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, THE FIRST OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS IS, Hear, O Israel; THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD" "The First of all the commandments"!!! This isn't just another TYPE A scripture, people. This is **THE** TYPE AAA (triple A) scripture by which ALL other scripture must pale, and give place to! This is the FIRST COMMANDMENT! All interpretations of any other scripture(s) MUST YIELD TO THE AUTHORITY OF THIS COMMANDMENT! Do Trinitarians hold this TYPE AAA commandment in the highest esteem, above all commandments of men or God? Rather than to uphold completely the commandment of Jesus in Mark 12:29, I have been told by Trinitarians, such things as this: "A good and clear definition is this: Within the nature of the ONE true God, there are three separate persons; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three persons eternally co-exist as the ONE God." Which leads to the question- What happened at the Council of Nicea? "Trinity... was FIRST defined by the earliest council of churches. This was the first council of Nicea in 325 A.D..." World Book, 1984, vol. 19. Were you aware of this fact? Were you aware that the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine PRESIDED OVER that council, and ratified their decisions? "The emperor CONSTANTINE GRANTED TO HIMSELF, as 'bishop of foreign affairs,' CERTAIN RIGHTS TO CHURCH LEADERSHIP. These concerned not only the 'outward' activity of the church but also encroached upon the inner life of the church- as shown by the role of the emperor in summoning and LEADING IMPERIAL COUNCILS AND RATIFYING THEIR DECISIONS..." . -Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 4, pages 508-509. Now, this event may outwardly seem innocent enough, until one asks this question- Were you aware that Jesus SPECIFICALLY TOLD US where on earth SATAN'S throne is? Rev 2:12 "And to the angel of the church IN PERGAMOS... THOU DWELLEST, EVEN WHERE SATAN'S SEAT (THRONE) IS" This is merely a LEGAL FACT! Historically, the throne of Babylon came, through conquest and inheritance, to the Greek Empire! (Remember, Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, but Satan's is!) "Greek Civilization, Ancient... The end of the struggle for succession, 286-276 (B.C.)... ALEXANDER'S EMPIRE HAD SETTLED DOWN INTO the three territorial states... along with PERGAMUM (PERGAMOS)." -Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, vol. 8, pgs. 378-379. Did you know that this kingdom (throne) of Satan was legally BEQUEATHED TO ROME!?! "Pergamum... became important only in the Hellenistic Age (323-30 B.C), when it served as THE RESIDENCE OF THE Attalid DYNASTY... When Eumenes's son and second successor, Attalus III, died without an heir, HE BEQUEATHED THE KINGDOM TO ROME (133AD). ROME ACCEPTED IT... THE KINGDOM OF PERGAMUM YIELDED MUCH WEALTH... TO ROME". Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, vol. VII, pg. 873. What I'd like to ask you now, is- Are you aware that IT WAS THE LEGAL HEIR TO SATAN'S THRONE (CONSTANTINE) THAT PRESIDED OVER THE COUNCIL THAT FIRST DEFINED THE TRINITY DOCTRINE? Remember, this throne was pointed out to us by JESUS in Revelations. He wanted us to KNOW IT with good reason! It should be no surprise, nor controversial, that the first thing Satan would wish the Christian church to compromise on, would be the doctrine of the Godhead, supplanting his ancient evil doctrines for those of God! Or, let's ask this from a different angle- Can any Christian possibly consider that the legal heir to Satan's throne would ratify (approve and give consent to) a Godly doctrine? Obviously, Satan's legal heir would want to ratify an ungodly doctrine. Consequently- the Trinity doctrine was ratified, rather than the Biblical doctrine of absolute monotheism! So, where did this doctrine of the Trinity originate, if not expressly with the apostles, or those who immediately followed them? "THE ANCIENT BABYLONIANS, just as the modern Romans, RECOGNIZED IN WORDS THE UNITY of the Godhead; and, while worshipping innumerable minor deities, as possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS ONE INFINITE AND ALMIGHTY CREATOR, supreme over all... IN THE UNITY OF THAT ONE ONLY GOD OF THE BABYLONIANS, THERE WERE THREE PERSONS..." -Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, pages 14-17. Now let me summarize what I am suggesting about the Trinity dogma: #1) TYPE A commandment: Mar 12:29 "...THE FIRST OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS IS... THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD" TYPE B commentary: "A good and clear definition is this: Within the nature of the ONE true God, there are three separate persons; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three persons eternally co-exist as the ONE God." Deu 6:14 "Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;" Deu 13:6 If thy brother... entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee... 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:" TYPE B actions: The Trinitarians looked to the gods which were "round about" them to serve! who were these "gods" that were "round about" them? "It is a solution by harmonization, an attempt to combine, as Gregory of Nyssa characterizes it, the monotheism of the Jews and the polytheism of the Greeks. THE METHOD OF HARMONIZATION USED BY THEM WAS TO THIN DOWN THE JEWISH MONOTHEISM AS A CONCESSION TO GREEK POLYTHEISM." -Wolfson, Harry A. "The Philosophy of the Church Fathers", pgs. 578-579, as quoted in After The Way Called Heresy, by Thomas Weisser, page 32. "In the Trimurti, Brahma... The Lord God, though one without a second, assumes the three forms respectively of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva... though three in form, are one entity... It may, however be noted that, whereas THE TRINITY is presented in Scholastic philosophy as a mystery, IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITION OF HINDU RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY!" -Edward Rice, Eastern Definitions, pg. 387. as quoted in After The Way Called Heresy, by Thomas Weisser, Page 34. "Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of such A TRIUNE DIVINITY, WORSHIPPED IN ANCIENT ASSYRIA. The accompanying cut of SUCH ANOTHER DIVINITY (TRINITY), WORSHIPPED AMONG THE PAGANS OF SIBERIA..." -Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, pages 16-17. Col 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him..." TYPE B methodology: "THE FIRST CHRISTIAN TO USE GREEK PHILOSOPHY in the service of the Christian faith WAS JUSTIN MARTYR (martyred c. 162-168)... this was carried on in the Greek speaking world by CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150-c. 215), a persuasive Christian Humanist, and by the greatest of the Alexandrian Christian teachers, ORIGEN (c.184-254)... The GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY THAT DEVELOPED DURING THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES over the relationships among the persons of the Godhead, which were settled at the ecumenical councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381), OWED A GREAT DEAL TO ORIGEN... Its greatest representatives on the orthodox side were THE THREE CHRISTIAN PLATONIST THEOLOGIANS of Cappadocia, Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379), Gregory of Nazianus (c. 330-390), and Basil's brother Gregory of Nyssa (died 394)... Augustinian Platonism. Each of the great CHRISTIAN PLATONISTS UNDERSTOOD PLATONISM AND APPLIED IT TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF HIS FAITH in his own individual way; and of no one of them was this more true than of Augustine... In his anthropology, AUGUSTINE WAS FIRMLY PLATONIST... In his theology, insofar as AUGUSTINE'S THOUGHT ABOUT GOD WAS PLATONIC, he conformed fairly closely to the general pattern of Christian Platonism... Perhaps THE MOST DISTINCTIVE INFLUENCE OF PLOTINIAN NEOPLATONISM ON HIS THINKING ABOUT GOD WAS IN HIS TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY..." -Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 4, page 542-543 "The definition of the Christian faith as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical synods of the early church indicate that unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were used in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as in Christology and the doctrine of man..." --Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 4, page 476. "Introduction of Neoplatonic themes... Christ as the Logos, under the influence of Neoplatonic philosophy, became the subject of a speculative theology... This question was answered through the Neoplatonic metaphysics of being... In Neoplatonic philosophy both the nous and the idea of the world are designated the hypostases (essences, or natures) of the transcendent God. Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics of substance as well as its doctrine of hypostases as the departure point for interpreting the relationship of the 'Father' to the 'Son' in terms of the Neoplatonic hypostases doctrine... The Neoplatonic concept of substance... was foreign to the New Testament itself... The dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance... led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament." -Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 4, page 485. "TRINITY. The term 'Trinity' (Greek troas) was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (fl.c. 180 A.D.)... Judaism emerged...as the purest form of monotheism in the ancient world... THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF TRINITARIANISM TOOK PLACE IN THE WEST, IN THE SCHOLASTICISM OF THE MIDDLE AGES, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology, especially of the recovered Aristotlianism of the 13th century. The classical exposition is found in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, whose views on this subject HAVE DOMINATED MOST OF LATER CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, BOTH ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT." -Encyclopedia Americana, 1983 Deu 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Rev 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" TYPE B activity: "Trinity... It is generally agreed that the doctrine was formulated with progressively increasing clarity as it's terminology developed..." -colliers Encyclopedia, 1982, pg. 480. In other words, if you don't believe that the development, and formulation of the Trinity was a later invention, as it's words were developed (adding to the "words" of the Bible): try describing the Trinity in words NOT found in scripture. Try describing the Trinity WITHOUT the following unscriptural words and/or phrases: Trinity, holy Trinity, Divine Trinity, Triune, Three-in-one, Three-of-one, God-the-Son, God-the-Holy-Ghost, Separate Persons, Separate Egos, Separate Individualities, Divine Plurality, Divine Individuality, Divine Unity, Mystery-above-reason. First, that the legal heir of Satan's throne, warned of by Jesus, presided over the council, and ratified the decisions that originally defined the doctrine of the Trinity, and negated the very first commandment of Jesus. Secondly, that t(he)y did it by introducing into Christianity a doctrine about God that originated in Babylon, and was practiced by all the neighboring pagans! Thirdly, that the Bible was held in lower authority than the philosophies of man developed by pagans! And fourthly, that God's word was added to in order to formulate the doctrine. What Constantine (Satan's legal heir) and his cronies did at Nicea, is exactly what Satan himself did in deceiving Eve, who was the first type of the Christian church (Eph 5:31-32)! Gen 3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman (representing the church!), Yea, hath God said..." "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD" -JESUS, Mark 12:29. Deu 6:14 "Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;" Col 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him..." Rev 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" Gen 3:4 "And the serpent said unto the woman (church), YE SHALL NOT SURELY DIE: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof (break his first commandment, go after other gods, replace the Biblical doctrine of Christ with pagan philosophy, and add to the word of God to do so), then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." I'm here to remind you, friends, that- 1Jo 2:4 "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Following are 226 questions that I posed 6 months ago to the Trinitarians at an internet site called Cybersight. They are either confronting Trinitarians to supply TYPE A scriptures to define their doctrine, or are accusing Trinitarians of TYPE B commentaries/scriptures, or are challenging Trinitarians to give an account for the evil history of their doctrine. These questions are still posted, and have yet to be answered. Next, please go to real conversations on the topic of Oneness vs. Trinity. Then continue with the 226 questions. Return to the preface for the studies on the doctrine of the Oneness of God in the name of Jesus Christ. |