Response to Tommy McMurtry 'Answering Victor Tey's Questions About the Trinity'

1660AD London Baptist Confession allowing baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

The New IFB Preaching "Modalistic Heresy"

[churchinliverpool]

1660AD London Baptist Confession allowing baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

The New IFB Preaching “Modalistic Heresy”

[stasiamich]

Amen! Very well explained, lots of scripture to put your points forward!
We are blessed to have you as our Bishop.

[billjohnson]

Lol McMurtry said if you don’t understand that Jesus is the spiritual water not physical water then you don’t understand the spiritual parts of the Bible and therefore you’re not saved. Except the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is clearly the spiritual water. Talk about irony! I guess he’s not saved according to his own judgments!

[oliverqueen]

That is key right there, 16 minutes into the video, where you mention the firing of Tyler Baker.
Ultimately this is not about biblical truth or salvation, or any of that but rather the pride of one man who has turned and entire movement on its head, and caused brethren to split needlessly.
When the whole Tyler Baker thing broke out onto YouTube I said that it should have been a private issue between the two, and I say this even now.
Thank you brother for being a voice of reason in the midst of all of this bickering.

[SloppySteve]

Very good information. The walls of the New IFB's hyper-trinity are crumbling to pieces.

[AnthonyAV-ulkq]

The Pastors in the NIFB have to either conclude that saying "Jesus is the Father" does not make you unsaved, OR they must be consistent and conclude that they didn't understand the trinity prior to this controversy and thus are only babes in Christ because they've only understood this truth less than 1 year. Which in that case, they are ALL novices as not qualified to be pastors. They continue to claim it's "milk", but none of them understood it until recently. Well if interpreting Isa 9:6 as Jesus being the Everlasting Father makes you unsaved, then every Pastor in the NIFB needs to step down, they aren't qualified only having a recent understanding of the "truth" of the Orthodox trinity. Unless you just went to admit you're hypocritically selectively adhering to the qualifications of a pastor.

[Matthew.]

I hope that Tommy McMurty will address each of the verses that Victor Tey has raised in this video and in his ‘Trinity Confusion’ sermon.

It’s obvious to me that Victor has a much deeper understanding of the Godhead and has thought his position through more deeply which allows him to harmonise the scriptures more consistently than an orthodox trinitarian is able to.

[approvedofGod]

How do you pray to the Trinity? If you profess to know God and teach the Trinity, how do you address the Trinity?

[WholeArmourMinistries]

I can't watch his videos because I can't tolerate listening to any of their preaching any more but I clicked his video and heard him say that Jesus is our father but not God the Father. Well, that's two fathers. Jesus said "one is your Father" so right there you have a contradiction between the scriptures and what that man is saying. If you believe there are three that bear record and that those three are one God, that's all you need to know about the trinity. A modalist says that there are not three bearing record but that there's just one bearing record masquerading as three. That is true modalism and these people once knew what true modalism is but for the sake of attacking their brethren are altering the definitions of terms that people have understood for decades and longer.

[PsalmFourteenOne]

Hmm... There seems to be a close competition for stupid doctrines between Oneness and Flat-Earth

[NoriDavis]

Victor, do you believe God has always been three? What it is that makes what Baker and those guys beliebe, modalism, is that they do not believe that God was 3 in the OT. the core issue is eternal Sonship. If one rejects eternal Sonship, they will inevitably fall into modalism. And I have even seen people say, "God could be 2, 4, 23, or 1000 if He wanted to." And that is what the Hindus and the Buddhists believe. Do you believe the >Son of God< is, and was, and is to come?

[billjohnson]

Victor, can you please also do a series of questions that the “one person only” group cannot answer? Here are some good ones:

1. Did Jesus have a center of consciousness (or mind) distinct from the Father’s mind before the incarnation?
-they say that Jesus was only the literal Word of God before the incarnation and therefore he was not a “person” with his own mind.
-Philippians 2:5-7 clearly shows that Jesus was THINKING about his equality WITH GOD before he became a man.

2. Was the Son part of creating the world?
-They say that the Son of God is ONLY referring to the humanity of Christ, not the 2nd person of the Trinity.
-Hebrews 1:2 shows that God made the worlds by his Son, but did God make the worlds by the human child that was conceived in Mary’s womb? Obviously not.

3. Is the Son omnipresent?
Again, they say the Son is ONLY the humanity of Christ.
-John 3:13 shows that the SON OF MAN was both on earth and in heaven at the same time. Was the MAN Christ Jesus in two places at once? Again, obviously not.

4. If the Father is a spirit and the Holy Spirit is a spirit, and there is only one spirit, and they don’t have distinct minds, how are they two witnesses in heaven?
-1 John 5:7 clearly shows 3 witnesses, but based on their logic that I’ve heard, there is essentially ZERO distinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit.

[johnspartan]

Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is a mistranslation.
It should read *"the father of the ages."*
What ages?
The age of grace, the tribulation age of 7 years, and the kingdom age of a thousand years.
*ISAIAH 9:6* The corrected translation.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called wonderful counselor, mighty ruler, the father of the ages to come, prince of peace.

*"Everlasting Father"* is a mistranslation.
The context of Isaiah 9:6, and how it relates to the rest of the Bible, clearly shows us there is a mis translation because Yahshua is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. We do not build our understanding of who the Messiah is based on one scripture reference.
The word translated “everlasting” is more accurately translated as “age, ”or "ages." Isaiah 9:6 is conveying the message that Jesus will be called the
*“father of the coming ages."* What ages? THE CHURCH AGE, the AGE OF SALVATION, and the Age of the Millennial Kingdom of Yahshua on earth.
Father here in Isaiah is not a reference to YHWH. In OT Hebrew times, anyone who was the first to do or begin anything new was called its “father.” For example:
*1. Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Genesis **4:20**).*
*2. Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. **4:21**).*
In Isaiah 9:6, “father” is being used in in this sense of the word because the Messiah will be the one to establish the ages to come, end the death penalty for sin for those who believe, raise the dead saints, and rule over all creation, therefore he is called the *“father of the coming ages.”*

*"Mighty God"* is another mistranslation in Isaiah 9:6. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god" using the lowercase "g" in reference to lords, kings, judges, prophets, and even the children of Israel. For example:
*_"I (GOD) said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'_* Psalms 82:6

Jesus quoted this verse in John 10:34-36 to defend himself against the FALSE allegation by the Jews that he was declaring himself to be equal to God (YHWH). Jesus of course disagreed with their false accusation and declared himself to be the Son of God and NOT God the Son.
The original Greek has no upper and lowercase letters so "theos" can be translated as God, meaning YHWH (the one true God), or as god, meaning lord, master, judge, king, ruler, or one with authority. The casual reader of the Bible would not know these things about the word God and god, or that it is up to the translator's to determine whether the context indicates the use of uppercase (God) should be used or lowercase god.
Since most translators have a trinitarian bias, it is no surprise that several key scriptures have uppercase (God) where lowercase (god) should be used for the context when referring to Jesus. If YHWH's name had not been removed in over 7, 000 instances and replaced with God or LORD then this confusion would not be there. LORD, Lord, and lord also cause confusion. The lord Jesus is Adoni, But the LORD God is ADONAI....and that is a BIG difference.
A clear example of the Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). *If calling the Messiah "el" made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also.*

Isaiah 9:6 is calling the coming Messiah a mighty ruler or mighty hero, not Mighty God. If you want to use mighty god, that is fine as long as you understand the lowercase distinction that "god' means Adoni or lord, and does not mean ADONAI YHWH who is LORD. The correct rendering should be the use of "god" (lowercase) to identify an appointed authority, king, or ruler. However, it is an error to use the uppercase "God" because that is reserved for YHWH alone.
The phrase "Mighty God" is a mistranslation: English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god." So a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero, ” or “divine hero.” Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase "Mighty God" as “divine hero” in their Bibles.
Another clear example of the translator's error is where “God” is used for powerful earthly rulers in Ezekiel 31:11 when referring to the Babylonian king. How can a earthly king be God? It should be rendered god, not God.
The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV is the Hebrew "el gibbor." That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and "mighty men" are spoken of. In Ezekiel the same phrase is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. When used in the singular, it can refer to one “mighty leader."
*Emmanuel-God with us?* Matthew 1:22-23
The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon says the meaning of Immanuel is
*‘with us is God.’*
In the Bible, a title or a name is not necessarily saying something about the one who bears it, but rather about the God who annoints them and whom they serve. For example,
Samuel means ‘his name is God’;
Daniel means ‘God is my judge’;
Ezekiel means ‘God strengthens‘;
Nehemiah means ‘Yah comforts’;
Joshua means ‘Yahweh is salvation’;
Josiah means ‘Yah supports’;
Hezekiah means ‘Yah strengthens’.
There are many more examples to demonstrate the point.
Immanuel, refers to the God who begat Yahshua and anointed him Messiah. No one in Yahshua's day would have thought he was God in human form. Obviously, based on the words of His Father which Yahshua spoke, his miracles, and his powers, God had visited his people through his prophet and Son Yahshua. see John 3:1-2

The context of Isaiah 9:6 is the Messiah as God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God, ” and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an “incarnation.” For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” Furthermore, “he will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David, ” could (Matt. 9:27, et al). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.

I hope you see now that many people jump to conclusions without examining all the evidence and context first. If Isaiah meant Jesus is God, then the Bible would be full of contradictions. There can be no contradictions, otherwise the Bible is not inerrant and not the word of God. I believe everything I stated above is the correct interpretation and it HARMONIZES with the hole and it does not cause any conflict with other verses.
For more, check here:

[youngfundamentalist]

If Tommy McMurtry is going to continue to question your understanding of the scripture he needs to step up to the plate and defend his views in a live phone call. No more squirming out of the key issues. I respect that he’s taken on the challenge to try and respond to you but his video was weak and he would not be able to defend those interpretations in a back and forth discussion.

[johnspartan]

The Biblical Unitarian position is the correct view. I was a trinitarian for over 40 years. I know all the trinitarian arguments and proof texts and they are based on mistranslations and misinterpretations. The trinity is complete heresy. It was first conceived by a Jewish, Hellenistic, Pagan philosopher known as Philo. He made the claim in his own handwriting. He died within 15 years of Jesus resurrection and right around the time Paul began teaching the gospel to the Gentiles. Philo brought together Hellenistic, Greek, Pagan, and Babylonian philosophies and introduced them into Christianity. Paul warned the churches about such Philosophers. Trinitarians like Tertullian fell for it hook, line, and sinker in the late second century. The first official Church Creed is a product of Constantine and Athanasius and it is unbiblical. Christianity was hijacked in 325 AD people. The Protestant Reformation was the first step in reclaiming true Biblical Unitarian Christianity, but many have not come to their senses yet.

The trinity is found in Revelation 17 under the title *Mystery Babylon.* I suggest you read it.

[edwardpf]

God is never said to be one person. There is one God who are 3 persons. You cannot reconcile 3 persons with one person, it is a contradiction, not a paradox.

[ElCineHefe]

God is whatever bunch of gods you want to make for yourselves, once you go Lawless and turn Jesus into your personal golden calf.

There is only one God and His only begotten son Jesus came in the flesh. A human avatar of God did NOT come in the flesh unless you're an antichrist.

Until you come out of Lawlessness, your gods will always be quagmired in contradiction and confusion.

Do you know what a son means? Yes? Then don't embellish that to twist God into a pretzel to fit Him into your Roman pantheon of pagan gods.

[drooge]

IS THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON – PART 1

Is the Holy Spirit a “He” or “It”?

Some say the Bible calls the Holy Spirit “He” or “Him” so therefore it must be a third being, but this is incorrect.

Here are the ONLY verses that refer to the Holy Spirit as a “He” or “Him.” Verses are abbreviated.

John 14:16-17 “he shall give you another [allos] COMFORTER [parakletos], that he may abide with you forever; 17 Even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH;”
John 14:26 “But the COMFORTER [parakletos], which is the Holy Ghost, ”
John 15:26 “when the COMFORTER [parakletos] is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, ”
John 16:7 “if I go not away, the COMFORTER [parakletos] will not come unto you;”
John 16:13 “when he, the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he will guide you into all truth:”

Note that EVERY verse is referring to the COMFORTER [Greek=parakletos] and SPIRIT OF TRUTH.

So who is the COMFORTER and SPIRIT OF TRUTH?

In John 14:6 Jesus says, “I am the truth” and by His Spirit He is the “Spirit of truth.” (John 14:17)
And in John 14:18 Jesus said, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”

It is Christ by “HIS” Spirit!

Many get confused because Jesus said he will send “another” Comforter not realizing that the “another” is HIS SPIRIT. The Greek word “allos” for “another” in John 14:16 means another of the exact same kind. Jesus was present with His disciples in physical form, but after His ascension He comes back in another form, that is, by His Spirit. Hence the “another” is His Spirit. Because Christ's Spirit can function independently of Himself, it is like His Spirit is “another.” And because it is His Spirit, it is “another” of the same kind. If it was someone different, John would have used the Greek word “heteros” which means another of a different kind.

1 John 2:1 also reveals that Jesus is our “parakletos” (Comforter). John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 above and 1 John 2:1 below are the only verses that use this Greek word which means “ADVOCATE and COMFORTER.” So the Greek text also reveals that our COMFORTER and Advocate is JESUS CHRIST the righteous!

“If any man sin, we have an advocate [parakletos] (Comforter) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” 1 John 2:1

And here is further proof from Ellen White who of course confirms that the COMFORTER and SPIRIT OF TRUTH is the HOLY SPIRIT OF CHRIST.

“This refers to the omnipresence of the SPIRIT of CHRIST, called the COMFORTER.” — (E.G. White, 14MR 179.2)

“Let them study the seventeenth of John, and learn how to pray and how to live the prayer of CHRIST. HE is THE COMFORTER. He will abide in their hearts, making their joy full.” — (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, January 27, 1903)

“JESUS comes to you as the SPIRIT of TRUTH; study the mind of the Spirit, consult your Lord, follow His way.” — (E.G. White, 2MR 337.1)

“We cannot be with CHRIST in person, as were His first disciples, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, and through this power we too can bear witness for the Saviour. [John 16:13 quoted]” — (E.G. White, Ms30, June 18, 1900)

Now for the BIG question.

Is Jesus Christ a “He” and a “Him” even if it is by “HIS” Spirit? – Of Course!

Therefore, the Holy Spirit is NOT another being, which is a manmade doctrine from Satan via the Catholic Church in 381 AD long after the Bible was written so Satan could achieve worship. How easily so many have been deceived and indoctrinated with Satan's lie. Why is the Holy Spirit Left Out of Every Greeting?

The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit is a literal being that is CO-EQUAL with the Father and Son. CO-EQUAL means equal in every single way possible.

So what an inexplicable oversight for Paul if the Spirit were indeed a literal being CO-EQUAL with the Father and Son, because Paul excluded the Holy Spirit in EVERY SINGLE ONE of his greetings in EVERY SINGLE LETTER he wrote! And Peter and John did the same.

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 1:7
“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:3
“Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 1:2
“Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, ” Galatians 1:3
“Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Ephesians 1:2
“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Philippians 1:2
“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Colossians 1:2
“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thessalonians 1:1
“Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Thessalonians 1:2
“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1 Timothy 1:2
“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” 2 Timothy 1:2
“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.” Titus 1:4
“Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Philemon 1:3
“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, ” 2 Peter 1:2
“Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, ” 2 John 1:3

How can the Holy Spirit be a literal co-equal being when it is consistently left out of every greeting?

If the Spirit was an individual being co-equal with the Father and Son, then this consistent omission is incomprehensible. It would have been effrontery and insubordination by the apostles at the highest level. This would be like having a country with three presidents but only ever acknowledging two of them. In fact, not once is the Holy Spirit ever uplifted or praised in the Scriptures. It is always just God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. And why is that?

Because “there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and ONE Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6. That's why!

The Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of God, ” not something called “god the spirit” which is a phrase that does not exist in the Bible and came from the Catholic Church to match the Trinity doctrine they created over 200 years AFTER the Bible was written. Now consider the following.

Who wants to be like the most High and be worshipped and prayed to as God? Isaiah 14:12-14 informs us that this is Satan's desire. Has Satan devised a clever scheme to regain his lost third position and the worship he craves? By Satan creating the Trinity doctrine, it creates a non-existent third being. Satan can then step into that position he has created and not only receives the worship he desires, but he would also effectively regain the position he lost as the third highest being in heaven. This is known as worship by representation and is what Satan has also done with Sunday worship.

Has Satan succeeded in accomplishing his goal of being included as deity? If we now believe the Holy Spirit can be worshipped and prayed to just like the Father and the Son, who actually receives our worship? If the Holy Spirit is not a third being then what spirit would we have according to our belief and who would we be giving our adoration to? It would be Satan himself! the vatican every easter calls lucifer the father of christ anyone who beleves the trinity is comiting blasphemy of the holy ghost What is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Since Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, some conclude this means the Holy Spirit must be a person. But this wrong conclusion comes about from a lack of understanding of what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is.

In Matthew 12:22-32 we find Jesus casting out a demon. The Pharisees claimed He did it by the power of the devil. But Jesus being FULLY MAN said He did it by the SPIRIT OF GOD.

He then informs them that they can speak against the SON OF MAN and be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Why?

Because verse 28 says Jesus did this by the power of the SPIRIT OF GOD. Remember that Jesus was the Word made flesh and was fully man. The Pharisees were not insulting the SON OF MAN but the SPIRIT OF GOD by whose power the demon was cast out and hence were blaspheming the Spirit of God by attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan.

Thus Matthew 12:22-32 reveals that the unpardonable sin and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to be attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan.

Some Trinitarians who do not understand this conclude that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could be sharing truth on this topic which is clearly not so. But what about Trinitarians? Could they in fact be guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

What if the “Spirit of God” is the “Spirit OF God” just as the Bible states, and not something called “god the holy spirit” which the Bible never says?

If the Trinity doctrine is wrong, the Holy Spirit is really a creation of Satan rather than the Spirit of the Father. And if it is a creation of Satan, who would Trinitarians be attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to? They would inadvertently be attributing the work of the Spirit of God to Satan which is in fact the unpardonable sin! You cannot afford to get this wrong.

[drooge]

The TRINITY doctrine claims that God is a monolithic

"Three-in-One" Godhead composed of three Personalites,

the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where did this doctrine

come from? Is it Biblical? Why is the word "Trinity"

NOT ONCE found in the Scriptures? If God is a "Trinity, "

then which one is really the "Father" of Christ -- the Father?

or the Holy Spirit which begot Him? (Matt.1:18, 20.) Its

high time we take a careful look at this strange but well-

nigh universal doctrine among Catholics and Protestants!

Your own salvation could very well be at stake!!! In the gospel according to Matthew, we read of the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Matthew relates, under divine inspiration, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit " (Matt.1:18). Joseph, her husband, feared the worst -- that she must have been with another man, so he decided to cancel the nuptial agreement and cancel the betrothal, but an angel of God appeared to him in a dream, saying to him, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit " (verse 20).

This matter-of-fact statement of Scripture poses a mind-boggling conundrum for believers in the Trinity doctrine, who profess that God is a divine "Trinity." If that is true, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons or Personalities, which together combine to form ONE "God, " then how could God the "Father" be the Father of Christ when he was conceived by the HOLY SPIRIT?

If the Holy Spirit is a Person, the "Third Person" of the Trinity, and "HE" begat Christ, then HE would have to be the FATHER!!!

What a mystery! What a mind-twisting, head-wrenching, brain-teasing spiritual HEAD-ACHE for all believers in the "Trinity"! Isn't it strange -- if the Trinity is such an important concept, as Catholics and Protestant churches believe, who claim it is a major tenet and article of their faith -- then why doesn't the Bible refer to the "Trinity" concept clearly, and why is the word "Trinity" NOWHERE found in Scripture? This teaching is very clear in the Bible. Unfortunately, it flies right smack in the face of the traditional, conventional "Trinity" doctrine of the Protestant-Catholic world! Truly, Satan the devil is he which "DECEIVETH the whole world " (Rev.12:9; 20:10).

But why would the Devil seek to deceive people as to the very nature of the Godhead? Why does he even care? Why is it important to him -- what does he get out of it? WHY does the WHOLE WORLD, deceived by Satan, believe in the TRINITY doctrine? Yet the Catholic Church makes this doctrine the pivotal doctrine of ALL faith and practice. And Protestants concur. If you don't subscribe to this ONE DOCTRINE, they consider you to be a HERETIC! Cursed of God! Anathema from Christ!

The Incredible True ORIGIN of the "Trinity"

The historical truth is that it was several hundred years AFTER the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles before the TRINITY doctrine became a part of Catholic dogma. It was during the last twenty-five years of the convulsive fourth century that "what might be called the definitive trinitarian dogma 'one God in three persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian [sic] life and thought" (see the New Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Holy Trinity").

Interestingly, however, although the "Trinity" doctrine is nowhere mentioned in Scripture, and is totally without Scriptural basis or proof, it has become the rock-solid core doctrine of the professing "Christian" world. It is also interesting to note that a belief in the "Trinity" was a very COMMON DOCTRINE among the ancient PAGAN NATIONS, long before "Christianity" in its modern garb appeared on the scene!

Hasting's Bible Dictionary points out:

"Although the notion of a Triad or Trinity is a characteristic of the

Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In Indian religion,

e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of BRAHAM, SIVA, and

VISNU; and the Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of

OSIRIS, ISIS, and HORUS, constituting a divine family, like the

Father, Mother and Son in medieval Christian pictures. Nor is it only

in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls

in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,

which was suggested by PLATO" (vol.12, p.458).

Writes James Bonwick in Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought,

"Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic;

yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less ALL OVER THE WORLD

the deities are in TRIADS. This rule applies to eastern and western

hemispheres, to north and south. Further, it is observed that, in some

mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. . . . The definition of

Athanasius [fourth century theologian] who lived in Egypt, applied to

the TRINITIES OF ALL HEATHEN RELIGIONS" (p.396).

Athanasius was the Catholic scholar and theologian of the fourth century who first formulated and delineated the Trinitarian doctrine for the Church. His teached was adopted and embraced by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The thinking of Athanasius and his cohorts was strongly influenced by Plato's philosophy. Thus the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity does not come from the Bible at all, but from PAGAN PHILOSOPHERS and was strongly influenced by PAGAN RELIGIONS!

Admsits the New Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Trinity, "

"There is recognition on the part of exegetist and Biblical theologians,

including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one

should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious

qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition -- that when

one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism, one has MOVED FROM

THE PERIOD OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS to say, THE LAST QUAD-

RANT OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. It was only then that what

might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three persons'

became thoroughly asssimilated into Christian life and thought" (vol.14,

p.295).

At the Nicean Council in 325 A.D. the doctrine of the Trinity was formally adopted by the Church in the Roman Empire, with headquarters at Rome. Convoked by Emperor Constantine, the main purpose of the Council was to bring CHURCH UNITY. Constantine believed that a strong, unified Church would help him unify the fraying remains of the Empire.

Writes Will Durant in The Story of Civilization,

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind,

dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the

Church . . . the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery

of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result.

From Egypt came the ideas of a DIVINE TRINITY . . . Christianity was

the last great creation of the ancient pagan world" ("Caesar and Christ, "

vol. 3, p.595).

How did these pagan concepts creep into the far-flung Church? Will Durant explains:

". . . the Church felt the need of unity; it could not safely allow itself to

be divided into a hundred feeble parts by every wind of intellect, by dis-

loyal heretics, ecstatic prophets, or brilliant sons. Celsus himself had

sarcastically observed that Christians were 'split up into ever so many

factions, each individual desiring to have his own party.' About 187

Irenaus listed twenty varieties of Christianity; about 384 Epiphanius

counted eighty. At every point foreign ideas were creeping into Christian

belief . . ." (ibid., p.616).

As the centuries passed, the power of Rome grew. "By the middle of the third century the position and resources of the papacy were so st

[jaredhutton]

victor tey still two opinions
little bit trinity
little bit oneness
equals, ,, all modalist