A 317 page full size book mailed to you for only $10.00   S&H included

The book
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.

Chapter Five:


       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
            house had been burglarized, numerous items stolen and how one day, he came unannounced to his 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 of burglarizing 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 was innocent.

                              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
             head. He told me that he and his wife had been watching television when their son came bursting 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.
                                                                 Why?
                        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 officer. He
             told me that he had just polished his back patio and then left his home on personal business. When he returned he found his home had been broken into and that he sustained a twenty-eight thousand 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 residential burglary.

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 tools.

After entry was made, the victim showed me where the suspect had gone downstairs and defeated 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 defeated. Burglars 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 commander when 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 like.

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 up.
               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 Gods; 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 cross examination.

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 Essential Facts.” 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, coexistent:
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Much of that remains a profound mystery.
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 Council of 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 Christian faith, 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 New Catholic 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.
                                                                                      Amen.

“...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 church stemmed 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 the Trinity 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 example
              cited as 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 you?
Especially when the issue of the Trinity vs. Godhead beliefs are based on semantics.

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 Corinthians 13:13 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 remaining scriptures: 

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 common 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 language used, 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 scripture. “...baptizing 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. Matt. 3:16&17.

“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 pleased.”

Read it again with the inclusive words in italics, emphasizing the italicized words.

“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 pleased.”

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 that?

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 statements about 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 there.

Romans 2:14, “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ...”

Romans 5:1, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

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 Christ...”

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 all...”

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, teaching different 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 statements.

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 Encyclopedia 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 found,

“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.” Interesting, don’t 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 scriptures.

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 Five

                                                                                                               Chapter 6 >>>>>

A 317 page full size book mailed to you for only $10.00   S&H included

S&J Liberty Publishing
18732 E. Peartree Ln. Queen Creek, AZ 85142
 A 317 page full size book mailed to you for only $10.00   S&H included