A 317 page full
size book mailed to you for only $10.00 S&H included
Think About it...
contains numerous interesting police stories related to
Gospel principles and
Answers to Anti-Mormon Questions
See our rear cover and our unsolicited reviews.
THE HOLY TRINITY?
...or THE GODHEAD! You decide.
This investigation deals with the controversy over the Holy Trinity and the
Godhead, two popular
worldwide beliefs. Yet both conflicting beliefs concern the same God.
One of the two beliefs has to be true
and evidence to support the truth
...has to be out there.
This investigation involves sensitive subject matter. Religion is one of those
subjects that can turn
friends into enemies rather quickly! Even more touchy than the subject of
religion, is the belief a man
has about his God. As I enter this section on the two beliefs: the Holy Trinity
or the Godhead, I want
the reader to understand that I have no intent to offend anyone, to belittle
anyone or to ridicule their
beliefs about God. Our beliefs about God are very personal and sacred to us all.
So, before we start,
I need to warn you of three things to guard against.
One: I got a call once to meet the victim of a burglary. When I arrived, he told
me how his
had been burglarized, numerous items stolen and how one day, he came unannounced
friend’s house, only to find all his stolen belongings. There were about eighty
items that belonged to
the victim, all of which were listed on the police report. The suspect had fled
prior to my arrival but
this was his home and his wife was inside. She was not involved in the burglary.
She was very offended and extremely indignant that her husband could be accused
someone’s home. Not to mention that that someone was a friend. She admitted that
the items in the
carport were not theirs and she recognized some of them as being the victim’s,
but she refused to
believe that her husband could have done it. She allowed us to search their
bedroom as proof of her
husband’s innocence. We did so and found several more of the victim’s stolen
items hidden in their
room. Even then, her attitude never changed. No matter how much evidence we
showed her, she
dismissed the reasonableness of it all and simply refused to believe anything
...except that her husband
Point number one is this:
Regardless of what the facts show and prove,
some people simply cannot see anything except what they want to see!
Two: I got an assault call one night and I met a man who had a large gash in the
back of his
He told me that he and his wife had been watching television when their son came
through the front door with five other teenage boys chasing him. The father came
to the door and
pushed the boys away from the doorway and into the front yard. As he stood on
his front lawn, one
of the teenagers came around from behind and struck him on the head with a large
wrench. He was
lucky he wasn’t killed. The boys fled, but the son knew who they were. Within an
hour, we had all
the boys rounded up. One of the suspects made it home and told his mother his
side of the story and
that he was innocent. His mother, without even hearing the other side, bought it
hook, line and sinker.
She came to the group interview with the attitude that her son was unjustly
accused. The other boys
admitted to the incident, But that one mother’s focus never changed. In spite of
all the evidence and
admissions, she refused to believe anything except that her son was innocent.
Point number two is this:
No matter what I said, it made no difference to her.
Because she came to the interview with her mind already made up.
Three: Years ago I took a burglary report from a man who was a retired Naval
that he had just polished his back patio and then left his home on personal
he returned he found his home had been broken into and that he sustained a
dollar loss. He directed me through the crime scene. It all seemed to be there.
The forced entry, the
rummaged belongings and the missing items. It looked like just another
The patio had been wet polished and before it dried, someone walked across it.
He showed me the
footprints leading from the backyard across the patio and up the stairs to his
office. The office had
a ten pane French door and the door was secured by two single key locks, one
being a single key dead
bolt. Entrance to the home was made by forcing the French door open with pry
After entry was made, the victim showed me where the suspect had gone downstairs
his alarm system and then returned upstairs and rummaged through all the
belongings in the master
bedroom and office area. At first glance, it seemed typical. I didn’t think I
would be there long.
Residential burglaries are usually done by entering through a window or door
from the rear yard, and
the two rooms in the house hit the most are the master bedroom and living room,
and or office.
However, the more I looked at the evidence, the more I realized my first
impression was wrong. This
was anything but a typical burglary.
As I studied the point of entry, I noticed the suspect had taken pry bars and
pried and fractured the
jamb, shoving the pry bars all the way through the jamb and wall into the inside
of the house. I
noticed some marking on the inside sheetrock from the pry tools. Even the inside
molding around the
door jamb was slightly damaged. There were multiple jab marks from the pry tools
on the outside
molding. Jab marks that would have made noise. Also, to do that much damage, it
would have taken
the suspect about fifteen minutes or more. All this effort to defeat the two one
inch keyed locks that
could have been defeated simply by breaking out one of the panes and reaching
inside and unlocking
the locks with his hand. I also noticed that the window panes were not wired
which meant that no
alarm would have sounded. I looked at the locks from the outside through the
windows, and I noticed
that I could see that they were single key locks, which meant the burglar could
have seen that too.
“What kind of self respecting burglar would force his way through a jamb, when
he could have merely
broken one window and let himself in,” I thought!
After entry was made, the victim had showed me where the alarm system had been
usually don’t worry about alarms, unless they are audible. The reason is because
burglars do their
work believing someone saw them enter the home and called the police. They
figure they have about
three to five minutes before the police actually arrive. The alarm was located
in the downstairs
hallway. The suspect would had to have known where to find it. Defeating an
alarm is the mark of
an experienced burglar. Hacking and prying on a door jamb is the mark of a
complete novice. About
twenty-eight thousand dollars worth of belongings were taken, including a
commemorative Colt US
Government model 1911, 45 ACP auto pistol. This pistol was given to the retired
he retired from the Navy. He showed me the decorative wooden display box it came
in. This pistol
was a highly polished and highly tooled pistol. It’s value was over three
thousand dollars and it had
his ship’s name and the outline of his ship etched into the slide.
I also noticed that there was no point of exit. Which means the burglar had to
have exited through
the point of entry, down the stairs and back across the patio, yet there were no
other footprints in the
patio. Not even a smudge or scuff in the fresh finish. Also, the burglar would
have had to bring all
his pry tools up the stairs on his first trip and one of the pry tools used was
a heavy crowbar type tool
that left a once inch tool mark.
It was too coincidental that his patio had just been wet polished before he left
home and that the
burglar came immediately afterward and left obvious tracks across the wet
polish. Entry was made
in the upstairs office instead of a lower more accessible door and more
concealable door from the
neighbors. The whole scene looked like what a non-burglar would think a burglary
scene would look
But the clincher that told me this was an insurance fraud was the strike plate
itself. As much damage
to the jamb as there was, the jamb was not spread and it never broke away from
the wall. The door
and jamb never shattered around the lock and the dead bolt had not been broken.
Nor had the dead
bolt been twisted out of the door. So last and most crucial was the strike
plate. It had not been torn
from the jamb. It was still attached. The door opened inward. The hinge pins
were inside the home.
From the outside, there was no way to force that door open and still leave the
strike plate attached
to the jamb. Absolutely no way. It would have been ripped from the jamb by the
dead bolt. I knew
that entry had not been made into this home through this door. My suspicions
were strengthened even
more when he called me the next day to report he had found his 45 auto pistol
under the desk in the
office, saying it must have been dropped by the burglar.
That commemorative pistol with his name and ship’s name, was irreplaceable. It
was virtually a one
of a kind item. That pistol was serial numbered and registered to him and given
to him by the United
States Government. Insurance could in no way replace a commemorative pistol like
that. If he
reported it stolen, there would be no way he could ever produce that pistol and
show it to anyone
ever again. I know he thought about that after I left and realized the same
thing. If he wanted to ever
show his retirement pistol to anyone again, it had to be found and taken off the
list of stolen property.
The investigation showed that the scene was a set up.
Point number three is this:
Examine the evidence and draw your conclusions based on the evidence.
Don’t be fooled by what looks like evidence! ...Stick with the evidence.
So as we investigate this issue, remember;
One: Open your mind. Don’t see only what you want to see.
Two: Stay Objective. Don’t come to the investigation
with your mind already made
Three: Don’t be fooled by what looks like evidence.
...Stick with the evidence.
Ready? Let’s go...
Knowing the truth about God is very important. The crime scene is the Bible and
world history. That
is where all the evidence is. When I began this investigation, I wanted to
better understand the belief
of the Holy Trinity. So I read the New Testament very slowly and carefully
looked for evidence to
support that belief. To my surprise, I did not find one single scripture that
said anything about a “Holy
Trinity.” I was sure I had missed what I was looking for. So I went back through
the New Testament
to look for scriptures that supported a belief that there was a Godhead. (Three
personages; three essences.) Again to my surprise, I found over 180 scriptures
in just the four
Gospels that speak so plainly, they would breeze right through examination and
However, I still wanted to better understand the belief of the Holy Trinity.
(One God; three
personages; one essence.) There was nothing in an LDS Christian book store about
the Holy Trinity
so I started asking around. Not coming up with anything, I went to a non-LDS
Christian book store.
I asked specifically for books on the “Holy Trinity.” I found two that were
labeled, “The Trinity.” I
bought what I was told was the best of the two. The book was called, “The
Trinity” by Charles
Swindoll. Swindoll has a chapter devoted to the Trinity titled, “Finally, Some
Being exactly what I was looking for, I jumped right to that chapter and read
what he had to say. It
was interesting. His facts were very short and brief. In fact he said,
“There is one God yet three distinct persons. The Godhead is coequal, coeternal,
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Much of that remains a
Don’t lose sleep if you cannot unravel the truth of the Trinity.”
Puzzled, I went back to the Christian book store and with the aid of the sales
attendant, we looked or more possible books that might help me with scriptures. I was able to come
up with a Bible
reference book called, NIV - Topical Bible (New International Version) by John Kohlenberger III.
I looked up “Holy Trinity” and read the following;
“The word Trinity is not used in the Bible. Plurality in the unity of God is
implied in the
Old Testament. Father, Son, and Spirit are called God in the New Testament.”
Still not satisfied and yet very intrigued by the word “implied,” I then went to
the public library. I now
doubted that the belief of the Holy Trinity was rooted in the Bible. I felt that
maybe it came forth
from the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. I knew that the church that came up
with the doctrine
of the Holy Trinity was the Catholic Church. So I began my investigation there.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia V-10 p.432, gave me what I was looking for on the
Nicaea. It was called into being by Emperor Constantine. The council lasted from
about May 20th
to August 25th of 325. The reason for calling the council together was the
dissension and religious
controversy in his kingdom. To restore unity in his kingdom and unity in the
Constantine summoned a universal council that represented the whole church. They
met in Nicaea
and Constantine presided over the council himself. “During the crucial part of
the debate, he himself
chaired and took an active part in guiding the proceedings. He used his imperial
presence to secure
an inclusive formula with which all except ardent Arians could agree, proposing
the phrase ‘of one
essence’ (italics added) to express the Son’s relation to the Father.”
Constantine wanted to give Christianity the protection of the state because,
“...in line with the old
Roman idea, he regarded himself as Pontifex Maximus of Christianity.” The
council met in Nicaea
(modern day Iznik, Turkey) and about 300 bishops attended the conference. The
purpose of the
council was to unify their beliefs. No official minutes of the council were
kept, but the Encyclopedia
of Catholicism said, “Specifically, the council in the creed declared the Son
‘from the substance of
the Father,” and “begotten not made” and “of one substance with the Father.” The
Encyclopedia V-10 p.433 said “...it is clear that the Nicene Creed proclaims
numerical identity of the
Father’s nature and the Son. The Creed does no more than mention the third
person, for the divinity
of the Spirit was not at issue.”
After the council, everyone who didn’t agree with that belief was called a
heretic and was exiled.
“Constantine made the Creed law in the empire.” None dared speak against it. He
used his political
clout to force the issue of God the Father and Jesus Christ being “of one
essence.” Yes! Now I knew
that the roots of the Trinitarian belief came from Constantine, ...Not the
Bible. Even the actual
wording, “of one essence” was Constantine’s.
Because there were no official minutes taken, I was not able to find the
original Nicene creed.
However, in 381 the First Council of Constantinople met to affirm the council of
325 and they added
to, and formalized the Nicene Creed. Here it is in it’s entirety. Actually it’s
rather impressive. In
looking it over, there are only four issues I can see where the members of the
LDS Church are not
taught the same thing. I’ve highlighted them in italics.
The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten
of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.
Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came
down from Heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the
Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was
buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he
ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom
will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son
he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church. We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
“...one in being with the Father.” We believe they are one in purpose. We do not
believe that God
the Father and Jesus Christ His Son, are one being. In the four gospels, God is
called the Father of
Jesus Christ 170 times. Four times in Mark, fifteen times in Luke, forty-two
times in Matthew and
one hundred and nine times in John. If God the Father and Jesus Christ are the
same person, why the
contradiction with the Holy Scriptures?
“...the Lord, the giver of life,” We do not believe the Holy Ghost is the Lord,
the giver of life.
“...Catholic ” The word Catholic is a Latin word meaning general or universal
and the word
universal is not used as in throughout the universe. When you study that era,
you learn that
Constantine’s motives for unifying Christianity were not solely to unify
Christian beliefs, they were
also to unify the Roman empire by unifying the people.
The word “apostolic” would depend on how they meant it. If they meant that the
from the apostles, we would disagree. If they meant it stemmed from Jesus Christ
and is helped along
here on earth by the apostles, we would agree.
The Encyclopedia of Religion V-15, p.53-54 gives some “liturgical scriptures” of
mentioned in the Bible. (Liturgical means: referring to) It gives a total of
fifteen. I adopted the
attitude that I believed in the Holy Trinity and read through the list. Here is
their scriptural proof of
the Trinity in the Bible.
II Corinthians 5:19, “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of
Reconciliation.” II Corinthians
13:14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy
Ghost, be with you all. Amen.”
Note: The above scriptures are from the King James Version of the Bible. The
evidence of the Holy Trinity in the New Catholic Encyclopedia is in II
Corinthians 13:13, not
13:14. But it didn’t say which Bible they used. It reads: “The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and the
charity of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
I find it interesting that there would be two versions of what Paul said, don’t
Especially when the issue of the Trinity vs. Godhead beliefs are based on
Did you notice that Paul said, “and” three times in that scripture? And, is an
inclusive word. It is not
a singular word. It means in addition to. For example, you and your spouse! You
and your children,
etc. If Paul is speaking about three different individuals, how could he have
said it more clearly than
he did? If what Paul actually meant was that all three are the same person, how
more confusing could
he have said it than he did? Look at the actual language of the scripture. If
Paul meant that God the
Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were all one being, then the
word, and would not
have been used. Think about it. How do you talk about three people without using
the word, and?
Matthew 28:19, says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
The above three scriptures are mentioned as being the strongest in support of
the Trinitarian belief
by the Encyclopedia of Religion. The New Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that II
and I Corinthians 12:4 thru 6 are the best. However, if you read around any of
those scriptures, you
will see where the author is not preaching or even suggesting a Trinitarian
concept. Here are the
Rom. 4:24, 8:11.- 2 Cor. 4:14.-Col. 2:12.- 1Tim. 2:5&6. - 6:13. -2 Tim 4:1 - I
Cor.6:11. - 2
Cor.1:21&22. - Thes. 5:18:19. - Gal. 3:11 thru 14.
There are the scriptures and they are from nine different books in the Bible.
However, do you notice
the one common denominator of all the scriptures except the one in Matthew? The
denominator is Paul. Every other scripture mentioned, is written by the Apostle
Paul. So I guess the
question is, does the Apostle Paul believe in the Holy Trinity? Or is the
Apostle Paul being mis-interpreted. Let’s take a look at some of those scriptures and see.
Romans 1:7, “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace
to you and peace
from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The key word in that scripture
is and. The word
and, makes it inclusive, not singular. In addition to. In the “Literal
Translation of The Greek New
Testament,” the word “kia” is used between the names. “Kia” means and in Greek.
Romans 5:10-11, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the
death of his Son,
much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but
we also joy in God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”
The key words in those scriptures are: by the death of his Son...and...joy in
God through our Lord
Jesus Christ. Those word groups are inclusive. They are not singular.
I Corinthians 8:5-6 “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
or in earth, (as there
be gods many, and lords many,) But to us 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.”
The key words in those scriptures are: one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus
Christ. Again, the
word and, makes it inclusive. In addition to, not singular.
Galatians 1:1&3, “Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus
Christ, and God the
Father, who raised him from the dead; Grace be to you and peace from God the
Father, and from our
Lord Jesus Christ.”
Again, we have the key word and. And means two or plus or in addition to. By the
you can’t suggest that Paul believed that God the Father and Jesus Christ were
one being. In verse
one, Paul said, “neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who
raised Him from the
dead.” If you believe Paul was suggesting that God the Father and Jesus Christ
are a singular person,
then you have to believe that God raised himself from the dead and that Paul was
trying to confound
us with his language. In actuality, Paul said that Christ was raised from the
dead by His Father. That
statement by Paul is very simple, clear and easy to understand.
In II Corinthians 13:14, or II Corinthians 13:13, there are two “ands” in that
scripture. There is an and between the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the
Holy Ghost. The
same is true with the scripture in Matthew 28:19. There are two ands in that
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” If the
ands were “who is,”
instead of the word and, you might have an argument. For example: “...baptizing
them in the name
of the Father, who is the Son, who is the Holy Ghost.” But the scripture does
not say that. Perhaps
if it were just commas, “In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost.”
But it doesn’t say that
either. With the word and between the three names, to conclude that he is
speaking about a singular
person, you have to read something into the scripture that the scripture simply
does not say.
Think about this... If you were telling someone about a fishing trip that you,
and your father, and
your uncle took, how would you tell them more clearly about who went fishing,
than to use the word and between the names of those who went fishing? I guess you could merely say
that, “Me, my
father, my uncle went fishing” and by using the same argument used for that last
scripture, I guess
the listener could infer that you, your father, your uncle are one person and
that you went fishing by
yourself. ...Be logical!
Look at the actual language used by the writer!
The word and is inclusive. It is not singular.
Probably the interpretation of the scripture that puzzled me the most is this
scriptural reference as
given by The Encyclopedia of Catholicism as a liturgical (referring to)
scripture that refers to the
Trinity. The book calls it, “The most explicit triadic texts.” 2 Cor.13-14.
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo,
the heavens were
opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon him: And
lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
Read it again with the inclusive words in italics, emphasizing the italicized
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo,
the heavens were
opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove,
lighting upon him: And
lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
The language of that scripture could not be more clear. To infer that that
scripture really means:
When Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened and His Spirit descended upon
Himself and then
His voice from heaven said “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,”
also means that
Christ was actually talking to Himself, about Himself, while projecting His
voice from Heaven. That’s
not only an interesting interpretation of that scripture, but that’s opposite of
the language used. The
language of that scripture is very clear and it is not confusing. There are
three separate individuals
involved in that occurrence. To infer that there is only one person in that
scripture is an inference that
is unsupported by the language. In other words, you simply have to want the
scripture to mean what
it does not say. You have to consciously or unconsciously make the decision to
ignore the plain
language and make the conscious decision that the wording is wrong. ...Why do
Try this test... Adopt the belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy
Ghost are three distinct
persons. Ready? Now, if you were telling others about Christ’s baptism, how
would you tell it more
clearly than to use the language used in that scripture? See what I’m getting
at? The language in that
scripture is very clear. It is talking about three individual beings.
In II Corinthians 5:19, Paul makes a statement that could be used as a good
argument for the Holy
Trinity. He says: “To wit, that God was in Christ...” However, if you read
around that scripture,
what Paul is talking about is the reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ. In
verse 5:18, Paul says:
“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.”
The key word in that
verse is by. By is inclusive, not singular.
When you read and study about Paul, you quickly realize, that he makes too many
God and Jesus being two separate beings to suggest that Paul believed they were
one person. Read
his works. Study the actual language. Look for the inclusive words. ...They are
Romans 2:14, “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
Romans 5:1, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God
our Lord Jesus
Romans 5:5, “And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad
in our hearts by the Holy Ghost...”
Romans 5:11 “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus
Romans 6:4, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like
as Christ was raised
up from the dead by the glory of the Father...”
Romans 8:11, “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell
in you, he that raised
up Christ from the dead shall...”
Romans 8:16-17, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are
the children of God:
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be
that we suffer with him,
that we may be also glorified together.”
Romans 8:32, “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us
Romans 8:34, “Who is he that comdemneth? 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.”
Acts 7:55-56, (stoning of Stephen), “But he being full of the Holy Ghost, looked
up steadfastly into
heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
and said, behold, I
see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”
We could go through the rest of the books by Paul, examining his language and
collecting even more
evidence, but it would all say the same thing. Paul walked throughout the land,
groups the same gospel. There is no evidence that Paul believed in the Trinity.
One can only imply
Paul believed in the Trinity. But that implication contradicts Paul’s own
Think about this... In over twenty years of police work, I have written over a
thousand police reports.
When I go to court, it never fails that the defense attorneys will take two or
three paragraphs out of
the report and focus on those paragraphs. They won’t even consider the rest of
the report. They want
to prove their point and hold trial on just two or three paragraphs. They don’t
want the jury to be
aware of the rest of the police report or the remainder of the evidence. Don’t
be the same way. Don’t
take selective scriptures out of the Bible to prove the point you want to prove
and refuse to look at
the rest of the scriptures. What sense does that make? Who’s getting fooled
except you? If you are
looking for the truth look at all the evidence. Look at all the Bible.
In the Encyclopedia of Catholicism on p.1270, it says, “The doctrine of the
Trinity as such is not
revealed in either the Old Testament or the New Testament.” In the New Catholic
p.306 of V-14 reads, “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old
Testament. In the New
Testament the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor.
13:13, and I Cor. 12:4 thru
6. In the Gospel’s evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the
baptismal formula of Matthew
28:19.” In the Encyclopedia of Religion on p.54 of V-15, this statement is
“Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not
contain a doctrine of the Trinity...Further, exegetes and theologians agree that
the New Testament
also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.”
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, p.306 of V-14, talks about the devotion to the
Holy Trinity. It says:
“There are few signs of devotion to the Trinity in the early Church...” Later on
it says: “Devotion to
the Trinity as it is known today seems to have begun in the monasteries at
Aniane and Tours in the
8th century.” The book gives more examples of its coming into being as years
continue to pass. “A
feast of the Trinity was introduced at Cluny in 1091...and at Canterbury in
1162...Rome resisted the
observance...until 1331.” All three encyclopedias talk about the confusion among
the church and the
dissension the Trinitarian belief brought about. On page 295 of the same volume,
it reads: “This
blurring of focus...‘one God in three Persons...” created problems. In an
attempt to quail the problems
it then says that: “Catholics the world over are still familiar with the prayer,
the summational act of
faith: ‘O my God, I believe that you are one God in three Divine Persons...I
believe these and all the
truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because you have revealed them.”
you think? Brought to the forefront at the turn of the century, the people had a
hard time accepting
this new belief so the church introduced a, “Summational act of faith.” A prayer
for the people to
repeat. But the issue is not that hard to understand if you remain objective. If
you look at the evidenceas an investigator, ...the evidence is clear.
The reason why belief of the Trinity cannot be backed up by the Bible,
...is because it is not rooted in the Bible. It is rooted in the Nicene Creed.
No one seems able to explain the Trinity concept, and the argument for that is,
“It’s too complicated
for our finite minds.” Thus, the Catholic Church adopted the prayer, “O my God,
I believe that you
are one God in three Divine Persons...I believe these and all truths which the
Holy Catholic Church
teaches...” (I think that should be a clue.) In looking further, when Paul said,
“For though there be
that are called Gods...as there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us there is
but one God, the
Father and one Lord Jesus Christ...” ...What’s to misunderstand? Think about it,
if you’re not going to base your religious beliefs on the Bible,
...why bother to read the Bible?
Another, and often quoted scripture by Trinitarian believers is St. John 1:1.
Some Trinitarian believers say it proves that God and Jesus are the same person.
Does it? Let’s see.
"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God."
So you tell me, does that scripture prove that there are three persons in one
body? Before we look closer at this scripture, let me give you a scripture that
examples the theory of the Godhead. (God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and
the Holy Ghost. All being Gods with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost being
subject to God the Father who is the most high God) Again it is St. John, the
exact same Apostle as in John 1:1. Here is what he says in John 20:31;
"But these are written, that ye might believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
believing ye might have life through His name."
John says that Jesus is the Son of God. There is nothing to misunderstand
about that scripture. So if John 1:1 infers a three in one God, then that
scripture is contradicted by this scripture that very explicitly says Jesus is
the Son of God. So where do we go from here?
In this chapter I have referred a lot to the actual language of the
scripture. That’s because in matters of law, when a question comes up as to what
the law means, police officers, attorneys, and judges, have to refer to the
actual language of that law, by the writers of that law. If the actual language
is unclear, then they will refer to the definitions section of the law book to
understand what the writer of that law actually meant. Each group of laws are
coupled with a definition section. If the definitions are unclear, then they
will look at the intent of the law. If the intent is unclear, they will look at
a reasonable interpretation of the law and case history. In other words, is
there a precedence set by another court? How did another court rule on a similar
matter? Those are fair and reasonable ways to look at the law as well as the
If you apply those same principles to the above two scriptures, they are very
easy to understand and very hard to misinterpret. Look at the actual language
used by John in his writings. Look at the case history of his writings in
similar words in other scriptures he wrote! If you look at his intent based on
the totality of the scriptures he wrote and what he said, you cannot say John
believed a Trinitarian belief. There is too much evidence to the contrary. By
examining John’s writings, you will find that John believes that Jesus Christ
has a Father who lives in heaven, and that Jesus Christ came to earth "to do the
will of His Father who sent Him." In fact, John has over 125 scriptures that
show just that. One hundred and twenty-five scriptures that say or show Jesus
Christ is the Son of God. When John says, "Jesus Christ is the Son of his Father
who lives in heaven," you cannot get more clear and plain than that. To get
something other than that, you have to come up with a meaning that is opposite
the language John used. Let’s be logical for a minute and think about this:
If we accept what John actually said,
then we don’t have to infer things
about what we think he meant!
Thank You For Reviewing the First Half of
Chapter 6 >>>>>
A 317 page full size book mailed
to you for only $10.00 S&H included