Why is "Elohim" plural?

[Joseph Gill]

In Deuteronomy 6:4,  why does the Hebrew noun translated 'God' appear to be plural (the -im suffix is a plural ending for Hebrew nouns)?

[Della Morton]

There are severe problems with trinitarian terminology. First, the Bible nowhere uses the word trinity. The word three does not appear in relation to God in any translation of the Bible except the King James Version, and only once in that translation - in the doubtful verse of I John 5:7. Even this passage reads, "these three are one."

The word person does not appear in relation to God either, except twice in the KJV. Job 13:8 refers to showing partiality. Hebrews 1:3 says the Son is the express image of God's own person (meaning nature or substance), not a second person. The Bible never uses the plural word persons to describe God. (The only possible exception, Job 13:10, would demolish trinitarianism if it applies to God!)

In short, as many trinitarian scholars admit, the Bible does not explicitly express the doctrine of the trinity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians… that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualifications… New Testament exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic [church fathers] and concilian [church councils] development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the New Testament writers." [79]

The trinitarian Protestant theologian Emil Brunner has stated, "The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine and this indeed not by accident but of necessity. It is the product of theological reflection upon the problem…. The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity is not only the product of genuine Biblical thought, it is also the product of philosophical speculation, which is remote from the thought of the Bible."

[Della Morton]

Historical Development of Trinitarianism

If trinitarianism does not come from the Bible, where did it originate? There is no question that Christian trinitarianism developed over several centuries of time after the New Testament was written. According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia, historians of dogma and systematic theologians recognize "that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century… From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th century invention. In a sense, this is true but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma… The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma." [81]

We will briefly trace the historical development of this doctrine in Christendom, but first let us explore some pagan roots and parallels of trinitarianism.

Pagan Roots and Parallels

Trinitarian scholar Alexander Hislop asserts that - the Babylonians worshiped one God in three persons and used the equilateral triangle as a symbol of this trinity. In his book, Hislop shows pictures used in ancient Assyria and in Siberia to represent triune divinities. He also finds trinitarian ideas in the Babylonian cult of the father, mother, and child, saying that the Babylonian trinity was "the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation." [82]

Historian Will Durant describes the trinity in ancient Egypt. "Ra, Amon, and another god, Ptah, were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." [83] Egypt also had a divine trinity of father, mother, and son in Osiris, Isis, and Horus. [84]

Trinities exist in other important pagan religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Hinduism has had a supreme trinity from ancient times: Brahma the Creator, Shiva the Destroyer, and Vishnu the Preserver. One scholar described the belief: "Brahman-Atman, the impersonal ultimate reality achieves a religiously significant threefold manifestation or trimurti [triad of gods] through the three personal deities who represent the divine functions of creation, destruction, and preservation respectively." [85] This trinity is sometimes represented by a statue of one god with three heads.

Buddhism also has a trinity of sorts. The Mahayana (northern) school of Buddhism has the doctrine of a "triple body" or Trikaya. [86] According to this belief there are three "bodies" of the Buddha-reality. The first is the eternal, cosmical reality, the second is the heavenly manifestation of the first, and the third is the earthly manifestation of the second. Furthermore, many Buddhists worship three-headed statues of Buddha. [87]

Taoism, the ancient mystical religion of China, has an official trinity of supreme gods - the Jade Emperor, Lao Tzu, and Ling Pao - called the Three Purities. [88]

A philosophic trinity appears in Plato and becomes very significant in Neo-Platonism. [89] Of course, Greek philosophy, particularly Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought, had a major influence on the theology of the ancient church. For example, the trinitarian Logos doctrine stems from the Neo-Platonic philosopher Philo. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.) Thus, we can see that the idea of a trinity did not originate with Christendom. It was a significant feature of pagan religions and philosophies before the Christian era, and its existence today in various forms suggests an ancient, pagan origin.

Post-apostolic Developments

The Scriptures do not teach the doctrine of the trinity, but trinitarianism has its roots in paganism. How, then, did this pagan doctrine find its way into Christendom? For an answer to this question, we have relied primarily on Lutheran seminary professors Otto Heick and E. H. Klotsche, Yale University professor of church history Roland Bainton, university professor John Noss, noted philosopher-historian Will Durant, and the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

In Chapter 10 - ONENESS BELIEVERS IN CHURCH HISTORY, we noted that the early post-apostolic fathers (90 - 140 A.D.) did not embrace the idea of a trinity. On the contrary, they emphasized Old Testament monotheism, the deity of Christ, and the humanity of Christ. The Greek apologists (130 - 180 A.D.) also emphasized the oneness of God. However, some of them moved towards trinitarianism.

This trend toward trinitarianism began by making the Logos (the Word of John 1) a separate person. Following a thought in Greek philosophy, particularly in the teachings of Philo, some of the Greek apologists began to view the Logos as a separate person from the Father. This was not trinitarianism, however, but a form of binitarianism, and one that subordinated the Logos to the Father. To them the Father alone was the real God and the Logos was a created divine being of second rank. Eventually, the Logos became equated with the Son. Apparently, the triune baptismal formula became a practice among some Christian churches, although the few early references to it may be either recitations of Matthew 28:19 or interpolations added by later copyists. Moreover, during this time, an apologist named Theophilus used the word triad (triados) to describe God. However; he probably did not use it to signify a trinity of persons but rather a triad of God's activities.

Irenaeus (died c. 200) is often considered the first true theologian of this time. [90] He emphasized the manifestation of God in Christ for the sake of redemption. Some scholars have characterized Irenaeus' beliefs as "economic trinitarianism." By this they mean he did not believe in an eternal trinity or a trinity of essence but only a trinity that is temporary in nature - probably a trinity of God's activity or operations only. Irenaeus, who did not use the Greek Logos doctrine, identified the Logos with the Father. His theology had three key characteristics: a strong biblical emphasis, a reverence for apostolic tradition, and a strong Christocentric emphasis. It seems he was not a true trinitarian but at most a transitional figure.

In summary, in the first century after the apostles, the doctrine of the trinity had not even developed. However, in some circles a form of subordinationistic binitarianism emerged based on Greek philosophical ideas, a doctrine denounced in the first chapter of John's Gospel. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.) The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of trinitarianism at this time in church history: "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the second century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead… In the last analysis, the second century theological achievement was limited… A trinitarian solution was still in the future." [91]

Tertullian - the Father Of Christian Trinitarianism

Tertullian (c. 150 - c. 225 A.D.) was the first person recorded by history to use the words trinity (Latin: trinitas), substance (substantia), and person (persona) in relation to God. [92] He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Tertullian adhered to the economic conception of the trinity. That is, he believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease. However, he definitely differed from Irenaeus in that he used the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. The doctrine of the trinity posed no problem for Tertullian, for his whole theology rested on the thought that the more impossible the object of faith is, the more certain it is. He has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."

There is some question as to what Tertullian actually meant by his trinitarian formulation, especially his use of the Latin word persona. According to a handbook of theological terms, in Roman law the word meant a legal entity or party. [93] In drama it meant a mask worn by an actor or, by extension, a role played by an actor. Neither usage necessarily indicates the modern meaning of person as a self-conscious being. For example, one actor could play several roles (personae) and one legal corporation (persona) could consist of several individuals. On the other hand, presumably the word could also designate individual human beings.

In the fourth century, the Greek word hypostasis was used in the official formulation of trinitarian doctrine. According to Noss, hypostasis was an abstract word meaning subsistence or individualized manifestation. He says, "When this formulation was translated into Latin, the rather abstract Greek for individualized manifestation became the rather concrete word persona, and connotations of distinct and self-contained personality were suggested in a way not intended by the original Greek wording." [94] However, this concrete Latin word was precisely the one Tertullian had used earlier. Another scholar states that by the time hypostasis was translated into persona the two words were basically equivalent, both meaning "individual being." [95]

It is apparent that many people in Tertullian's time opposed his new formulation. By his own admission the majority of believers in his day rejected his doctrine on two grounds: Their Rule of Faith (early creed or statement of belief) prohibited polytheism, and his doctrine divided the unity of God. [96] Our knowledge of the early modalist (Oneness) believers, Noetus and Praxeas, comes from their strong opposition to Tertullian and his strong opposition to them. If Tertullian meant only that God had three roles, masks, or manifestations, there would be no conflict with modalism, especially since Tertullian did not believe in an eternal trinity. Therefore, we conclude that Tertullian did mean three essential differences in God and that persona did connote or imply a distinct personality, as suggested by Noss. In any case, it is clear that in Tertullian's day Oneness believers saw his doctrine as sharply opposed to their own, which was the majority belief of the time.

Here is one final note on Tertullian. He became a follower of Montanus, an early heretic who claimed to be the Paraclete (Comforter) promised in John 14 and the last prophet before the end of the world. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.

Other Early Trinitarians

Tertullian introduced the terminology of trinitarianism and became its first great proponent in the West, but Origen (died 254) became its first great proponent in the East. [97] Origen attempted to fuse Greek philosophy and Christianity into a system of higher knowledge that historians often describe as Christian Gnosticism. He accepted the Greek Logos doctrine (namely that the Logos was a person separate from the Father), but he added a unique feature not proposed until his time. This was the doctrine of the eternal Son. He taught that the Son or Logos was a separate person from all eternity. Furthermore, he said the Son was begotten from all eternity and is eternally being begotten. He retained a subordination of the Son to the Father in existence or origin, but moved closer to the later doctrine of co-equality.

Origen had many heretical beliefs due to his acceptance of doctrines from Greek philosophy, his emphasis on mystical knowledge rather than faith, and his extremely allegorical interpretation of Scripture. For example, he believed in the preexistence of the souls of men, denied the necessity of the redemptive work of Christ, and believed in the ultimate salvation of the wicked, including the devil. For these and other heretical doctrines, he was excommunicated from the church. Church councils formally anathematized (cursed) many of his doctrines in 543 and 553.

Other prominent trinitarians in early church history were Hippolytus and Novatian. Hippolytus was the trinitarian opponent of Sabellius. He opposed Callistus, bishop of Rome, and headed a schismatic group against him. Despite this, the Catholic Church later sainted him.

Novatian was one of the first to emphasize the Holy Spirit as a third person. He taught subordination of the Son to the Father, saying the Son was a separate person, but had a beginning and came from the Father. Cornelius, bishop of Rome, excommunicated Novatian for believing that a number of serious sins could not be forgiven if committed after conversion.

The Council of Nicea

By the end of the third century, trinitarianism had replaced modalism (Oneness) as the belief held by most of Christendom, although the early views of trinitarianism were not yet in the form of the modern doctrine.

During the early part of the fourth century, a great controversy about the Godhead came to a climax - the clash between the teachings of Athanasius and Arius. Arius wished to preserve the oneness of God and yet proclaim the independent personality of the Logos. Like the trinitarians, he equated the Logos with the Son and with Christ. He taught that Christ is a created being - a divine being but not of the same essence as the Father and not co-equal with the Father. In other words, to him Christ is a demigod.

In effect, Arius taught a new form of polytheism. Arius was definitely not a Oneness believer, and the modern Oneness movement strongly rejects any form of Arianism.

In opposition to Arius, Athanasius took the position that the Son is co-equal, co-eternal, and of co essence with the Father. This is now the view of modern trinitarianism. Therefore, while Tertullian introduced many trinitarian concepts and terms to Christendom, Athanasius can be considered the true father of modern trinitarianism.

When the Arian-Athanasian controversy began to sweep across the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to intervene. Recently converted to Christianity and then making it the accepted religion he felt the need to protect the unity of Christendom for the welfare of the empire. According to tradition his conversion came as the result of a vision he saw just prior to a crucial battle. Supposedly, he saw a cross in the sky with a message saying, "In this sign conquer." Lie went on to win the battle, becoming co-emperor in 312 A.D. and sole emperor in 324 A.D. When the great Arian-Athanasian controversy threatened to divide his newly won empire and destroy his plan to use Christianity in consolidating and maintaining political power, he convened the first ecumenical council of the church, which took place at Nicea in 325 A.D.

Constantine was no paragon of Christianity. In 326 he killed his son, nephew, and wife. He purposely deferred baptism until shortly before death, on the theory that he would thereby be cleansed of all the sins of his life. Durant says of him, "Christianity was to him a means, but not an end… While Christianity converted the world, the world converted Christianity and displayed the natural paganism of mankind." [98]

By establishing Christianity as the preferred religion of the Roman Empire (which ultimately led to it becoming the official state religion), Constantine radically altered the church and accelerated its acceptance of pagan rituals and heretical doctrines. As church historian Walter Nigg says, "As soon as Emperor Constantine opened the floodgates and the masses of the people poured into the Church out of sheer opportunism, the loftiness of the Christian ethos was done for." [99]

When the Council of Nicea convened, Constantine was not interested in any particular outcome, as long as the participants reached agreement. Once this occurred, Constantine threw his power behind the result.

"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new professions of faith. In this way unity was achieved. It was altogether unheard of that a universal creed should be instituted solely on the authority of the emperor… Not a bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." [100]

Heick divides the participants at Nicea into three groups: a minority of Arians, a minority of Athanasians, and a majority who did not understand the conflict but wanted peace. [101] The Council finally adopted a creed that clearly denounced Arianism but said little in the way of positive trinitarian teaching. The key phrase stated that Christ was of the same essence (Greek: homoousios) as the Father and not just of like essence (homoiousios). Interestingly enough, the modalists (Oneness believers) had first used the chosen word (homoousios) to express the identity of Jesus with the Father. Many who unsuccessfully advocated the use of the latter term (homoiousios) did not really mean that Jesus was different from the Father in substance, but rather they wanted to avoid the Oneness implications of the former term. So the resulting creed was a clear rejection of Arianism, but a not-so-clear rejection of modalism (Oneness).

The original version of the Nicene Creed formulated by the Council of Nicea in relation to the Godhead is as follows:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, i.e., of the nature of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and assumed man's nature, suffered and rose the third day, ascended to heaven, (and) shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But the holy and apostolic church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when he was not, and that he was made from things not existing, or from another person or being, saying that the Son of God is mutable, or changeable." [102]

There is no clear statement of the trinity in this creed, but it does affirm that Jesus is of one substance with the Father in opposition to Arianism. There is no reference to the Holy Ghost as a separate person in the Godhead, but it merely expresses a belief in the Holy Ghost. This original Nicene Creed indicates a personal distinction between Father and Son and states that the Son is not mutable or changeable. This last phrase is a departure from the biblical doctrine of the Son and supports modern trinitarianism since it teaches an eternal Son. Basically, then, the Council of Nicea has a threefold significance: it is a rejection of Arianism; it is the first official declaration incompatible with modalism (Oneness); and it is the first official declaration supporting trinitarianism.

After Nicea

The trinitarian victory of Nicea was not complete, however. The next sixty years were a seesaw battle between the Arians and the Athanasians. Some participants in the council such as Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, even came out in favor of Sabellianism (Oneness). [103] Arius sent a conciliatory letter to Constantine, which caused him to reopen the issue. A council held in Tyre in 335 actually reversed the Nicene doctrine in favor of Arianism. Athanasius went into exile, and Arius would have been reinstated as a bishop had he not died the previous night. [104]

Athanasius was banished five or six times during this period. Much of the conflict was due to political circumstances. For example, when Constantine's son Constantius came to power he backed the Arians, deposing Athanasian bishops and appointing Arians in their place. The controversy produced vicious political infighting and much bloodshed.

Professor Heick credits the ultimate success of Athanasianism to the eloquence and perseverance of Athanasius himself. "The decisive factor in the victory… was the unfaltering determination of Athanasius during a long life of persecution and oppression." [105] It was not, however, until the second ecumenical council, called by Emperor Theodosius and held at Constantinople in 381, that the issue was resolved. This council, held after the death of Athanasius, ratified the Nicene Creed. It also settled another great issue that had been raging after Nicea, namely the relation of the Holy Spirit to God. Was the Holy Spirit a separate person in the Godhead or not? Many thought the Spirit was an energy, a creature, or an angelic being. The council added statements to the original Nicene Creed to teach that the Holy Spirit was a separate person like the Father and the Son.

It was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381, then, that the modern doctrine of the trinity gained permanent victory. That council was the first to state unequivocally that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate persons of God, co-equal, co-eternal, and of co-essence. A revised Nicene Creed came from the council in 381. The present form of the Nicene Creed, which probably emerged around the year 500, [106] is therefore more strongly trinitarian than the original Nicene Creed.

There was one other great threat to Athanasianism. The Roman Empire had begun to crumble under barbarian attacks, and the barbarian tribes on the rise to ascendancy were Arian. Conceivably, Arianism could have emerged victorious through the barbarian conquests. This threat finally ended, however, when the Franks converted to Athanasianism in 496.

During this time period, one other important creed Emerged - the Athanasian Creed, which did not come from Athanasius. It probably represents the trinitarian doctrine of Augustine (354-430), for it developed during or after his time. This creed is the most comprehensive statement of trinitarianism in ancient church history. Only the western part of Christendom officially recognized it.

The main points of difference between East and West on the doctrine of the trinity were as follows. First, the East tended to emphasize the threeness of God. For example, to the Cappadocians the great mystery was how the three persons could be one. In the West there was a little more emphasis on the unity of God. Second, the West believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son (the filioque doctrine), while the East held that the Spirit proceeded from the Father only. This ultimately became a major doctrinal issue behind the schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054.

The Athanasian Creed

In order to give the reader a more complete view of the doctrine of the trinity, a part of the Athanasian Creed is given below:

"Whoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he will perish everlastingly. And The Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: The Glory co-equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost: The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals: but one Eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated: but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three almighties: but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three gods: but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three lords: but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord: So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be three gods, or three lords. The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers, one Son, not three Sons, and one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another: none is the greater or less than another. But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity…" [107]

The Apostles' Creed

Before we close this chapter, we need to answer questions about the so-called Apostles' Creed. Did it originate with the Apostles? Does it teach trinitarianism? The answer to both questions is no. This creed had its beginnings in a more ancient confession of faith used in the Roman church. It was called the Old Roman Symbol (or Creed). Various scholars have dated the Old Roman Symbol anywhere from 100 to 200 A.D. It says:

"I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; Was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried; The third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven; and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; The forgiveness of sins; The resurrection of the body (flesh)." [108]

This creed was revised to meet the challenge of new doctrinal issues, until it finally achieved its present form near the end of the fifth century. The most important changes were additions affirming the following: God is the maker of heaven and earth; Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost; Jesus suffered and died; Jesus descended into hell (the grave); belief in the holy catholic (general) church; belief in the communion of saints; and belief in the life everlasting.

There are two important things about the original and later versions. First, neither has a direct historical link with the twelve apostles. Therefore the versions are no more sacred or trustworthy than any other writings from the first few centuries after the time of the apostles. Second, they do not teach the trinitarian doctrine. For the most part they follow biblical language very closely. They describe the Son of God only in terms of the Incarnation, nowhere hinting that the Son is a separate person in the Godhead or that the Son is eternal. They affirm belief in the Holy Ghost, but not as a separate person of the Godhead. Instead they place this affirmation together with other statements relating to salvation, leading us to believe that they are talking about the gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost and to the working of the Holy Ghost in the church. Thus, there is nothing really objectionable in the language if we define the terms in the same way the Bible uses them.

However, trinitarians have reinterpreted the Apostles' Creed, claiming that it supports their doctrine. Roman Catholics and Protestants both use it today to declare their trinitarian belief. They have associated it with trinitarianism to such a degree that nontrinitarians do not use it for fear of being misunderstood.

We do not advocate the use of the Apostles' Creed for the following reasons. (1) It did not originate with the apostles as its name implies. We do not want to create a false impression among people by using that title. (2) It does not necessarily emphasize all the important themes of the New Testament, especially some aspects which are important to emphasize today in light of false doctrines developed over the centuries. (3) Instead of trying to formulate a creed that comprehensively states doctrine in a binding way, we prefer to use the Bible itself for summary statements of doctrine.(4) Use of this creed today would associate us with trinitarianism. Even though the writers did not have that doctrine in mind, the vast majority of ordinary people today would consider it to be a trinitarian statement. To avoid identification with trinitarianism and Roman Catholicism, we do not use the Apostles' Creed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the trinity is nonbiblical both in terminology and in historical origin. It has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy. The doctrine itself did not exist in church history before the third century. Even at that time, early trinitarians did not accept many basic doctrines of present day trinitarianism such as the co-equality and co-eternality of Father and Son. Trinitarianism did not achieve dominance over Oneness belief until around 300. It did not achieve victory over Arianism until the late 300's.

The first official recognition of trinitarian doctrines came at the Council of Nicea in 325, but even this was incomplete. Full establishment of the doctrine did not come until the Council of Constantinople in 381. In short, trinitarianism did not achieve its present form until the end of the fourth century, and its definitive creeds did not take final form until the fifth century.

The Oneness of God by David Bernard

[Della Morton]

The Bible teaches that God is an invisible Spirit, yet it also describes Him in terms that relate to the human body. Many Trinitarians use these descriptions to support their doctrine, particularly passages that speak of the right hand of God and the face of God. Let us investigate what the Bible means by these terms.

John 4:24 says, "God is a Spirit," or "God is spirit" (NIV). This means His eternal essence is not human or physical. Apart from the Incarnation, God does not have a physical body. "A spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). God the Father is not "flesh and blood" (Matthew 16:17).

Because He is a Spirit, God is invisible to humans. "No man hath seen God at any time" (John 1:1. "No man hath seen, nor can see" Him (I Timothy 6:16).

Moreover, the Bible teaches that God is omnipresent: His Spirit fills the universe. "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me" (Psalm 139:7-10).

These facts about God show that we cannot understand the physical descriptions of Him in a grossly "letteristic" way. We are to interpret the Bible according to the ordinary, apparent, grammatical, historical meaning of its words, just as we do with other forms of speech and writing. In doing so, we will recognize that all human communication, including the Bible, uses figurative language. We are not free to impose an allegorical interpretation upon Scripture, but when the Bible itself indicates that we are to understand certain phrases or passages in a figurative way, then that is how we must interpret them.

When we read about God's eyes, nostrils, heart, feet, hands, and wings, it is clear from the rest of Scripture that we are not dealing with a human, beast, or fowl. The Bible does not use these terms to describe a physical being, but to give us insight into the nature, character, and attributes of God. For instance, God expresses His sovereignty by saying, "The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool" (Isaiah 66:1). The Bible describes God's miraculous power as "the finger of God" and "the blast of thy nostrils" (Exodus 8:19;15:; His omniscience and omnipresence by saying, "The eyes of the LORD are in every place" (Proverbs 15:3); His protection by speaking of "the shadow of thy wings" (Psalm 36:7); and His sorrow over human sin as having grieved him at his heart" (Genesis 6:6).

It would be foolish to conclude from these passages that God is a giant who props up His feet on the North Pole, blows air from His nostrils, focuses his eyes to see us, uses wings to fly, and has a blood-pumping organ. Rather the Bible uses concepts taken from our human experience to enable us to understand the characteristics of God's spiritual nature.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIGHT HAND

This principle is especially true when the Bible speaks of the right hand of God. Since most humans are right-handed, in most cultures the right hand signifies strength, skill, and dexterity. The very word dexterity comes from the Latin word dexter, meaning "on the right side." In ancient times, the most honored guest was seated on the right hand of the host. As a result, in Hebrew, Greek, and English the right hand is a metaphor for power and honor.

The Bible uses this metaphor repeatedly with reference to humans as well as God. Of course, in some passages the Bible uses "right" or "right hand" in its locational meaning, in contrast to "left" or "left hand. " But many times the use of "right hand" is figurative. Since God does not have a physical right hand (apart from the Incarnation) and is not confined to a physical location, when the Bible speaks of His right hand, it speaks figuratively or metaphorically.

A study of the "right hand" passages in the Bible reveals that the right hand of God represents His almighty power, His omnipotence, particularly in bestowing salvation, deliverance, victory, and preservation. "My right hand hath spanned the heavens" (Isaiah 48:13). `Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.... Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them" (Exodus 15:6,12). "His right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory* (Psalm 98:1). "Thy right hand shall save me" (Psalm 138:7). "I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness" (Isaiah 41:10). There are numerous other examples where the Bible uses "right hand" as a metaphor for power. [1]

In Scripture, the right hand also signifies the position of honor, blessing, and preeminence. "At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (Psalm 16:11). "Thy right hand is full of righteousness" (Psalm 48:10). "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left" (Ecclesiastes 10:2).

When Jacob blessed Joseph's two sons, Joseph wanted him to put his right hand upon Manasseh, the older son, to signify that he would have preeminence. Joseph insisted, "This is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head" (Genesis 48:1. Jacob refused, in a reversal of normal procedure, saying, "Truly his younger brother shall be greater than he" (Genesis 48:19). (For other examples where the right hand means a position of favor or preeminence, see Exodus 29:20; Leviticus 8:23; 14:14-28; Psalm 45:9; 110:1; Jeremiah 22:24; Matthew 25:33-34.)

JESUS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God (Mark 16:19).

Many passages in the New Testament tell us that Jesus sits on the right hand of God. As we have already seen, it would be a mistake to interpret this description to mean that Jesus sits eternally on top of a giant divine hand or at the side of another divine personage. How could we determine what is the right hand of the omnipresent Spirit of God?

The obvious purpose of this description is to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ. By using this phrase, the New Testament tells us that Jesus is not merely a man, but He is a man who has been invested with the almighty power of the indwelling Spirit of God and who has been exalted to the position of highest honor.

Since verses like Mark 16:19 speak of Jesus as being "on the right hand of God," some people suppose that in heaven they will see two divine persons, the Father and the Son, sitting or standing side by side. But no one has ever seen or can see God's invisible presence (I Timothy 6:16); no one can see God apart from Christ. Moreover, God has emphatically declared that there is no one beside Him (Isaiah 43:11 ; 44:6,. Christ is the visible "image of the invisible God," and the only way we can see the Father is to see him (Colossians 1:15; John 14:9). There is only one divine throne in heaven, and only One on that throne (Revelation 4:2; 22:3-4).

New Testament passages make clear that Jesus is "on the right hand of God" in the sense of having divine power, honor, glory, and preeminence. Jesus Himself said, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 16:64). "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God" (Luke 22:69). These words do not imply that we will see two divine persons in the clouds or in heaven, but one divine human person who has all he power and glory of the invisible Spirit of God.

Jesus was "by the right hand of God exalted" (Acts 2:33). He "is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (I Peter 1:22). God "raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is lamed, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come" Ephesians 1:20-21). "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God" (Colossians 3:1).

When Stephen was stoned, he "saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55). He did not see two personages, but he saw the glory of God surrounding Jesus, who was revealed in the position of supreme power and authority. While on earth Jesus appeared to be an ordinary man and He lived as such with His disciples, but after His resurrection and ascension He appeared with visible glory and power as the almighty God. Although John had been Christ's closest associate while He was on earth and knew Him well, when He saw the ascended Christ in a vision he "fell at his feet as dead" (Revelation 1:17). Unlike Christ's typical appearance on earth, John saw Him in His divine glory.

That is what Stephen beheld also. The only divine person he saw was Jesus, and the only divine person he addressed was Jesus. He said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Arts 7:56). He died "calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59).

F. F. Bruce, one of the foremost evangelical theologians of the twentieth century, explained that biblical scholars past and present recognize Christ's right-hand position to be metaphoric, not physical:

Christ's present position of supremacy is described in the Pauline writings as being "at the right hand of God."... The apostles knew very well that they were using figurative language when they spoke of Christ's exaltation in these terms: they no more thought of a location on a literal throne at God's literal right hand than their twentieth-century successors do.... Martin Luther satirizes "that heaven of the fanatics ... with its golden chair and Christ seated at the Father's side, vested in a choir cope and a golden robe, as the painters love to portray him!" [2]

Several passages carry a further connotation relative to the Christ's right-hand position: they use this term to describe His present mediatorial role. "It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us" (Romans 8:34).

This does not mean that Christ has been kneeling for two thousand years, praying to some other deity. As a man, He has been glorified and has no further need to pray. As God, He never needed to pray and never had anyone to whom He could pray. Moreover, there is nothing He needs to add to the Atonement; His one sacrifice on the cross is sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world. When He said, "It is finished" and then died, His atoning work was complete (John 19:30). He "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" the place of authority and of priestly service. For believers, he both rules and intercedes.... The rule of Christ will become actual. Meanwhile he patiently waits for the time when his enemies will be vanquished. There will then be no more opposition to Christ or his rule. [3]

[1] Deuteronomy 33:2; Job 40:14; Psalm 16:8; 17:7; 18:35; 20:6; 21:8; 44:3; 45:4; 60:5; 63:8; 73:23; 77:10; 78:54; 80:15, 17; 89:13, 25, 42; 108:6; 109:31; 118:15-16; 137:5; 139:10; Isaiah 62:8; 63:12; Lamentations 2:3-4; Ezekial 21:22; Habakkuk 2:16; Acts 5:31; Revelation 1:16.

[2] Bruce, Epistles, 132-33. The quote from Martin Luther is from Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe 23, 131.

[3] Robert Ross, "The Epistle to the Hebrews," in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, ed. Charles Pfeiffer and Everett Harrison (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 1419.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

What I find very funny here is that you have claimed that early Apostolic Fathers weren't for such a doctrine asthe Trinity, but supported a Oneness theology, however you NEVER quoted any Apostolic Father before Tertullian or Origen. This is typical of a Oneness apologist. Lets see what the Apostolic Fathers had to say for themselves, instead of speaking for them:

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch: Disciple of Apostle John, ordained by Apostle Peter
"For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power." (Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. VI)."


Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5-6 [A.D. 151]).


Irenaeus of Lyons
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit." (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).


Bishop Polycarp of Smyrnia: Disciple of & ordained by Apostle John
"For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, "Be ye angry, and sin not," and, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." Happy is he who remembers this, which I believe to be the case with you. But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who "raised Him from the dead. Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings, and potentates, and princes, and for those that persecute and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in Him" [Epistle to the Phillipians, Exhortation To Various Graces, Chapter 12].

http://www.velocity.net/~edju/web/Trinity1.htm


Never have you ever quoted these noted Apostolic Fathers, or any for that matter! Oneness Pentecostals (aka "JESUS Only") are quick to avoid Church History, especially when dealing with these men who had such close ties to the original writers of the Scriptures. The Fathers of the Oneness doctrine were almost all excommunicated.

[Della Morton]

Justin Martyr: Father of False Doctrine

Justin Martyr is hailed by the Roman Catholic Church as one of the great Church Fathers of the Catholic faith. His doctrinal ideas widely influenced the nascent Catholic Church, and Justin invented a Christology based strongly on the Hellenistic philosophers that he studied before his conversion. Ultimately, his dogma laid the foundation for Trinitarianism by segmenting the Godhead into persons and attempting to explain the Creator with vain and heathen philosophies.

Born to Greek parents in 100 AD, Justin studied Stoic, Peripatetic, Pythagorean, and Platonist philosophy in Ephesus (Chadwyck 93). He was converted to Christiantiy but retained a great respect for pagan philosophers. Justin believed that the ancient Greek philosophers had a partial revelation of scriptural truth through an impartation of the Logos: “And those who live according to the Logos are Christians, even though they may have been counted as atheists-such as Socrates and Heraclitus, and others like them, among the Greeks” (qtd. in McGrath 3).

Justin was a Platonist and subscribed to Plato’s theory of universal forms, or the idea that invisible ideals are the most supreme form of reality. Justin ultimately hailed Plato as a prophet, contriving a Christian interpretation of Plato’s writings, whom he believed to have a prefigured understanding of the Trinity of God and the redemptive Cross of Christ: “And the physiological discussing concerning the Son of God in the Timaeus of Plato, where he says, ‘He placed him crosswise in the universe,’ he borrowed in like manner from Moses.” Additionally, he locates in Plato his own idea concerning the numerical uniqueness of the Logos as separate from God, Plato’s Prime Mover: “Which things Plat reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe” (qtd. in Roberts and Donaldson 58). Justin superimposes his false perceptions of the God of the Bible on the Platonic models of invisible principles to produce a distinction between the Father and Son, the invisible and the visible.

Justin’s “Logos Christology” is responsible for the extra-biblical notion of the pre-existent Son of God. Justin equated the Logos of St. John 1 with God the Son. He ascribed to God’s divine and redemptive plan, both personality and function, numerically separate from the impassable God: “For we worship and love, next to God, the Logos, who comes from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since it was for our sake that he became a human being” (qtd in McGrath 3).

In his First Apology, Justin pronounces a Trinitarian devotion to ” . . . the most true God, the Father of righteousness . . . and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the Prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore . . . ” (qtd. in Placher 32). While the passage even seems to indicate the worshipfulness of angels, it certainly distinguishes between the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Further corrupting the original Apostolic teaching of the mighty God in Christ, Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit” (qtd. in Roberts and Donaldson 60). This is an obvious innovation and does not follow the traditional Trinitarian invocation of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” but attempts to retain the personal name of Christ, the proper New Testament rubric for Christian baptism, while exploding Justin’s tri-personal Godhead.

The connection between Justin Martyr’s Christological ideas and the vain philosophies of the Hellenistic heathen are indisputable. His clear reverence for Greek philosophers and his repeated appeals to their logic to produce his Trinitarian construct is perhaps the earliest example of pronounced apostasy in the post-Apostolic Church. This theological innovation further proves the fact that the Trinity is indeed completely foreign to the first generation of Christians, and later patristical writings (i.e. Tertullian’s Adversus Praxean III) confirm that the idea of a tripartite God was utterly foreign to the universal Catholic Church well into the third century. St. Paul’s Apostolic admonition completely discredits Justin and his demonic doctrine: “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: for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2.8-9). Certainly, through the Spirit of prophecy, Paul was speaking to a generation who would forsake the simplicity of the doctrine of Christ for the foolishness of the world. Justin preached “another Jesus” and “another Gospel.” His Christ was not the Christ of God but was a lesser deity, a mere conduit of a God unknowable and unknown, the god of Plato. The dogma of the Trinity is, in fact, built upon the Justinian sand of such foolishness and will one day perish with all such prideful foolishness that obscures the glory of the One True & Living God, Jesus Christ, from the eyes of those fettered by tradition!

Sources:

Chadwyck, H. “Justin Martyr, St.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 93-95. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. BALL STATE UNIV. 10 Mar. 2008 .

McGrath, Alister E. The Christian Theology Reader, 3rd. ed. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Placher, William. Readings in the History of Christian Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988.

Roberts, Alexander Rev. and James Donaldson. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Edinburgh: L & T Clark, 1867.

~ by mcshaw2 on 21 April, 2008.

Posted in Ancient Christianity, Justin Martyr, Patristics, Trinity

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Whats so funny is that you came at Justin Marty, but found it very difficult to come at any other Church Father I named. Care to take a shot at them also?

[Preacher]

Matthew 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Call no man your father upon earth. Another honorary title. The scribes delighted to be called Abba, father. So the priests of the Roman Catholic Church. So do all who welcome such honorary titles as Rev. Right Rev. Lord Bishop, etc. These are all forbidden. No apostle was ever so called.
so the whole catholic church is in error and not of God..


While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the Bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell “anathema” upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:

(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church, that related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

You have missed a MAJOR factor here (as usual):

1st John 2:12-14 "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one."

So is Apostle John considered a heretic also?

[Preacher]

let me explain this also then...that verse is talking about earthly fathers, when God says call no man Father he means father of all as in the Cathoilic church everyone there calls the pope father as in father of all catholics...is the pope your biological father? if not then to call him father is a sin,and for him to allow someone to call him father is a sin..according to the bible..

[Della Morton]

Trevor we are not Jesus Only We Believe in the Father at creation and the son for redemption and the Holy Ghost for regeneration. I have studied church history. Guess what if the Trinity was penned in YOUR bible later than Jesus and his apostles the true original Church in 33 A.d Then The TRINITY IS MAN-MADE!
History also confirms this.
Don't just take my word for it. Look it up for yourself!
I have provided the references with the page numbers.

Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.

Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity.

World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.

Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels"

Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the words "rapture" and "Bible" are .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book".

Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, a theory which is NOT specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute to describe a "tag-team of wrestlers". And, while the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God, it does accurately describe God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. There is more Scriptural to support three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds or ... three "roles" in which God functions ... than there is THREE PERSONS of God. That is strictly a flawed theory!

If it’s a matter of semantics, "one God in three persons" is an "add on" that people would be wise to just leave off.

My Dad can be very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and administrator. While He functions in more than one capacity and can occupy more than one office, and wear a number of different hats, He is still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, He be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, His wife and daughters, and He can speak, act and function as a father, son and a husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons He is or who is talking.

English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim).

**IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.

Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system. As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.

Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself.

Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:2-3; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13.

Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learning this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10. Cornelius was a good man but he still needed salvation.

A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of JESUS. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:44-48; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". Besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. And, nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides the baptism examples, here are a couple other places (direct "quotes") where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ....

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

History also documents baptism in the name of Jesus ...

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: " evidence .. suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself!

Any United Pentecostal Church or Apostolic Pentecostal church in your area!

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I really hope you will consider what you've read in these articles and Pray. When we meet Jesus one day face to face, we will have to answer to Him what we believe. And I don't want it to be said about me that I didn't follow His Apostles Teachings to be saved but rather traditions of men! Jesus can open the Book and judge us out of it!
By then it will be too late. I am going to end with these verses for you to consider a well.

Colossians 2:7-9 (King James Version)

7Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

8Beware 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.

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
In Who? Christ! I don't see three,but One God!

The Lord Bless you! Love in Christ, Della Morton

[Zealot X]

Elohim is plural when you are speaking of multiple false gods, demons, angels, and mighty men.

Elohim is "PLURAL INTENSIVE" when you are speaking of G-d, The True G-d, or a singular "God" or "Goddess". If you actually LOOK UP the word you would see that "plural intensive" is how it is described according to the context and that doesn't mean plural in quantity. It means plural in QUALITY or "intensity".

Here is the proof:
http://bible.worthwhile.com/bible.php?b=gen&c=1&v=0&d=1...

You can also find this information on wikipedia or another encyclopedia. This is why you don't see Jewish people worshipping more than one deity.

But even without using them as any kind of support, the BIBLE tells you clearly. But most people do not read it in Hebrew or even search to find out which Hebrew words are being used.

: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (EL SHADDAI), but by my name YHWH was I not known to them.

People who say that elohim is a plural of El or eloah and leave it there are simply missing a LOT. Elohim AND El are BOTH used in Scripture. In fact, Yah tells us that he was originally called EL (singular) Shaddai (Almighty). Part of the reason for elohim is that it blends these two understandings into one word. El Shaddai means the same thing as elohim in its plural intensive form. El = power or might. The plurality makes that power or might plural. So it could be powers, plural in quantity or powerFUL which is plural in quality, intensity, or magnitude.

It wasn't to try to separate God into 2 or 3. The whole point was to simply use a better title to speak of his power. I would highly suggest that anyone making any comment about a Hebrew word do so based on knowledge of the HEBREW language and not based on their own beliefs as interpreted from the bible. Most of those interpretations that lead to those beliefs do not take into account the actual facts about the language and it ends up being circular logic. Research the word, not the belief. Learn about the word and then believe based on knowledge.

[Preacher]

John 19:34
one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water ...



Zechariah 12:10
"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.


John 19:37
and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."


Revelation 1:7
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.


Zechariah 12:10
"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

ANY QUESTION? JESUS IS GOD....JEHOVAH JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRT ARE ( THE ) ONE GOD OF CREATION NOT ONE AS IN PERSONS...BUT ONE AS IN ONE GOD...
GB