The Holy Trinity and Modern Arians


FILE: Kupp / DATE: July-August 1994 / CONFERENCE: PhileoNet Theology

CONTENTS: A series of posts between P vs. Harold Kupp (his words are HK>) who is a modern Arian (non-Jehovah's Witness variety) holding to the ancient anti-Trinitarian heresy known as "Arianism" after the heretic Arius who taught that Jesus was not "of one substance" (homo-ousios) with God the Father. Some of the Biblical texts and Church Fathers are discussed on the nature of God and deity of Christ. One of my first major discussions online that demonstrated to me why Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone via private interpretation) cannot be true. There are thousands (millions?) of these non-Trinitarian folks out there that claim to be "Christian" yet deny the nature of God as defined by the Creeds and Councils of the Catholic Church. They all use the Bible alone for their beliefs to unravel historic Christian orthodoxy and to refute them requires excellent proficiency with the NT Greek language which I do not have -- however I did my best and I think you'll find the discussion interesting.

See also Old Testament Proofs of the Trinity by Jamie K. Roth

Also my part 2 on The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Trinity

===========================================================================

Date: 07-31-94 / From: HAROLD KUPP / To: P / Subj: and the Word was God

===========================================================================

Hello Phil, thanks for your post in response to my questions to Eddy concerning John 1:1, where I pointed out that one of the definite articles in that verse had been intentionally left out of the translation (as follows)...

HK> BUT THE GREEK TEXT HAS FOUR DEFINITE ARTICLES (Strongs # 3588)

HK> 1722 746 2258 3588 3056 2532 3588 3056 2258

HK> In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was

HK> 4314 3588 2316 2532 2316 2258 3588 3056

HK> with >THE< God, and God was the Word

HK> It doesn't take a Greek scholar to compare these verses and see that the translators have intentionally left out one definite article.

In response you asked this question:

P> Also, are you saying that the translators of modern Bibles are that dumb and deceptive and all it takes is your Strongs' reference to prove them wrong? It is not necessary to translate the third "THE." The Word was with THE God or the Word was WITH God -- no difference, Harold. The verse ends "the Word WAS God." Do you agree with this?

Phil, the translators of modern Bibles are definitely not dumb, however they may be deceptive since the essence of deception is that the one deceived does not know he is deceived. Therefore, a Bible translator could be quite sincere and yet be a deceiver.

My use of the Strong's reference numbers makes it easy for someone who is not able to read Greek to see that there is indeed a word in the original Greek text that is not translated into English, and then determine for themselves that the word missing is a definite article.

You declared "It is not necessary to translate the third "THE"." Am I supposed to simply accept your proclamation that it is not necessary? Is this a case of "Phil has spoken, therefore the case is closed". If you do not mind, I would like a little more evidence that the definite article is not necessary. If it was not necessary, then why did John put it in there in the first place?

Your comment that "The Word was with THE God or the Word was WITH God -- no difference, Harold." is simply an evasion of the fact that John made a difference between them. The definite article is used to distinguish between persons or things. That is why John used it, to distinguish between Jesus (theos - God) and His Father (ho theos - The God)

Your consistent error is to assume that the word "God" means "The Supreme Being" each time it is used of Jesus. In real life, the word God (theos) has a range of meaning. For example:

Strong's Greek Dictionary - THEOS [2316] - God

theh'-os; of uncertain afin.; a deity, especially (WITH 3588) the supreme Divinity; fig, a magistrate;

As you can see, the word theos has three meanings or uses.

1. a deity.

2. The Supreme Being (especially with 3588 the definite article)

3. a magistrate.

John deliberately used the definite article to distinguish between the Word and the God in order to emphasize their difference. He was saying "the Word was with The Supreme Being and the Word was deity."

The word deity means divinity, and Jesus, as the Son of God must be divine because a Son is of like substance with His Father. Just as I am of like substance with my father, and yet I am not my father. (Nor am I the same age as my father!) Jesus was also clearly God in the sense of magistrate, which means "heaven sent ruler or judge." (I am sure that I do not have to quote the many verses which say that Jesus was sent by the Father to prove my point)

Nevertheless, when a Trinitarian translator reads John 1:1, he must make a decision how to translate based upon his presuppositions. If he believes that The Supreme Being and Jesus are one "theos" then in order to be consistent the translator must leave out the definite article when it distinguishes Jesus from the Father. If he does then the casual reader may read John 1:1 and say with great authority: "The Word was with THE God or the Word was WITH God -- no difference,"

Phil, you summed up by saying:

P> Conclusion: we have two distinct persons identified as ONE God which is the biblical basis for the Trinity.

Since the veil has now been lifted from your eyes, you can easily see that your conclusion is WRONG! The truth is that in John 1:1 we have two distinct persons, one identified as The God, and one identified as God. You may deny it, but your denial does not change what is written.

Phil, there is one thing that about John 1:1 that Trinitarians always fail to notice - if John had been making a theological statement about the nature of the Godhead he would have said:

"And the Word IS The God."

However, what John actually said was:

"And the Word >WAS< God"

John's use of the past tense "WAS" would not be consistent with describing what Jesus is. On the other hand, "was" would be perfectly consistent with describing the rank Jesus held "in the beginning".

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with The God. and the Word was deity....ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM.:"

Why do Trinitarians ignore the fact that John was not describing the nature of the so-called Godhead (If so, where is the Holy Spirit?) Any open-minded student of the Bible can see that John 1:1-3 speaks about the history of creation, not theology.

Well Phil, that is my response to your proclamations concerning the meaning of John 1:1. You may disagree, but you can not prove that anything I said is grammatically incorrect. (Prove - not dispute)

Oh yes, there was another question you asked...

P> Are you a JW, a run-of-the-mill Arian, or what? Please identify your theology specifically.

Sorry Phil, but you won't be able to put me into any theological box other than "Christian." That is all I am, a Christian, and that is my theology.

"Rome has spoken; the case is closed." St. Augustine

"Harold has spoken, the case is re-opened." St. Anonymous

QMPro 1.50 "...and few there be that find it." Matt 7:14 PhileoNet Restoration Rock 219-926-2060 Indiana Dunes

===========================================================================

Date: 08-01-94 / From: P / To: HAROLD KUPP / Subj: Trinity debate

===========================================================================

HK> You declared "It is not necessary to translate the third "THE"." Am I supposed to simply accept your proclamation that it is not necessary?

Maybe I should have said, in my opinion, it is not necessary since the third definite article does not show up in any translation -- I think that's good evidence that the scholars didn't deem it necessary. If we have hundreds of qualified scholars involved in Bible translations versus Harold and his "Strong's" -- I think it's pretty clear who we should listen to. :) The text reads: "the Word was WITH God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD." John has spoken; the case is closed. Two distinct persons who are both declared to be God (cf. John 5:18; 17:3-5; 20:28).

HK> Is this a case of "Phil has spoken, therefore the case is closed". If you do not mind, I would like a little more evidence that the definite article is not necessary. If it was not necessary, then why did John put it in there in the first place?

I can't give you much more evidence because I don't read the language. Do you read Greek or do you simply quote Strong's and other Greek lexicons. If you don't read the language then neither of us know what we are talking about. :) However, comparing all the modern accepted Bible versions, it is clear how John 1:1 should read.

HK> John deliberately used the definite article to distinguish between the Word and the God in order to emphasize their difference. He was saying "the Word was with The Supreme Being and the Word was deity."

Says who? The most literal and scholarly Bible versions translate it as "the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD." Your distinguishing between "the Supreme Being" and the "deity" I do not accept. What modern translations have it the way you do? BTW, in Christ dwells all the fullness of deity (Col 2:9). Jesus is the SUPREME being (Col 1:16-17), the ALMIGHTY God, the Alpha and the Omega (Rev 1:8; 22:12-13; cf. Isaiah 44:6). There is only ONE God, revealed as three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19).

HK> The word deity means divinity, and Jesus, as the Son of God must be divine because a Son is of like substance with His Father.

Here you are equivocating on words -- I do not accept your definitions of "deity" or "divinity." According to Scripture, Jesus IS God, IS deity (John 1:1; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; 20:28; Titus 2:13 cf. Col 2:9). The same is said of His Father (John 17:3) -- "God the Father" is found throughout the NT. The same is said of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personal and distinct (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; John 14:16ff, 26; 15:26; 16:7ff), yet ONE God (1 Tim 2:5).

(a bit was deleted)

HK> Since the veil has now been lifted from your eyes, you can easily see that your conclusion is WRONG! The truth is that in John 1:1 we have two distinct persons, one identified as The God, and one identified as God. You may deny it, but your denial does not change what is written.

The question I would ask you: HOW MANY GODS DO YOU BELIEVE IN? Is Jesus a separate and distinct GOD from the Father? If so then you've got two Gods. When we look at the whole of Scripture my conclusion is not wrong from John 1:1 that there are two distinct persons (we agree on this much) BOTH declared to be God. Conclusion: ONE God, TWO persons. And the Bible further presents THREE persons in ONE God (Matt 28:19; John 14:16).

(a bit more deleted)

HK> Well Phil, that is my response to your proclamations concerning the meaning of John 1:1. You may disagree, but you can not prove that anything I said is grammatically incorrect. (Prove - not dispute)

The only way I could prove it would be to quote you from the Greek which I cannot do because I don't read the language. What you have to deal with is the fact that there is only ONE God proclaimed throughout the Bible (Deut 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 1 Tim 2:5) yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are declared to be that ONE God.

P> Are you a JW, a run-of-the-mill Arian, or what? Please identify your theology specifically.

Yes, this would help if you could tell me where you are coming from. I admit I am a Catholic and accept the Bible, the historic Creeds and Councils of Christendom, and the doctrines spelled out in the new CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

HK> Sorry Phil, but you won't be able to put me into any theological box other than "Christian." That is all I am, a Christian, and that is my theology.

That won't do. Read the conference rules. You are supposed to identify your theological perspective so you can't hide behind generic labels. There are literally billions of "Christians" that disagree with you. Including all Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics for starters.

HK> "Harold has spoken, the case is re-opened." St. Anonymous

Unfortunately what you've re-opened is a can of worms. :)

OLX 2.1 TD "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." St. Augustine

===========================================================================

Date: 08-06-94 / From: HAROLD KUPP / To: P / Subj: Trinity debate

===========================================================================

P> we have hundreds of qualified scholars involved in Bible translations versus Harold and his "Strong's" -- I think it's pretty clear who we should listen to. :)

Phil, I suppose that over the years there have been hundreds of Bible scholars who have declared that the Papacy was the Anti-Christ. I don't think you would listen to them just because there were so many who agreed. It is not Harold and his "Strongs", it is Harold and his carefully verified facts from standard reference works that I am asking you to listen to.

P> The text reads: "the Word was WITH God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD."

Actually, the original TEXT reads: "...the Word was with THE God, and God was the Word. It is only the TRANSLATION that leaves out the definite article. Obviously, when you have Trinitarian translators and Trinitarian publishers providing Bibles to Trinitarian-minded Christians, you tend to have translations according to Trinitarian views.

P> I can't give you much more evidence because I don't read the language. Do you read Greek or do you simply quote Strong's and other Greek lexicons.

That is a fair question. Yes, I read Greek but not fluently. Why did you say "...simply quote Strongs and other Greek lexicons."? Is that wrong? I use those and many other reference works. Words have specific meanings. If we do not submit to precise definitions we end up with intellectual anarchy. One must have definitions and then apply the rules of grammar, context and language in order to determine the author's intent. How do you do it?

HK> John deliberately used the definite article to distinguish between the Word and the God in order to emphasize their difference. He was saying "the Word was with The Supreme Being and the Word was deity."

P> Says who? The most literal and scholarly Bible versions translate it as "the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD." Your distinguishing between "the Supreme Being" and the "deity" I do not accept.

Your objection to distinguishing between the Supreme Being and deity proves my point about the need for accurate definitions. Perhaps you forgot that there is a range of meaning for the word God (theos) as found in John 1:1. Let me refresh your memory...

Strong's Greek Dictionary - THEOS [2316] - God

theh'-os; of uncertain afin.; a deity, especially (WITH 3588) the supreme Divinity; fig, a magistrate;

The word God can mean either:

1. a deity.

2. The Supreme Being (especially with 3588 the definite article)

It is not I who distinguished between the Word and The Father, it was the apostle John who used the definite article in reference to the Father and did not use it with Jesus. In all languages, the definite article has a similar meaning; to distinguish between persons or things. You may choose to ignore the definition of God and John's deliberate distinction between theos and The Theos, but that does not change the facts.

P> Jesus is the SUPREME being (Col 1:16-17),

Phil, Col 1:16-17, doesn't actually say that Jesus is the SUPREME being or anything even similar to that, does it? You are making an interpretation here as you do in almost every other verse you quote. By doing so you force the verse to agree with your position. That may convince the person who is anxious to agree with you, but it is poor scholarship. I suppose your reasoning goes something like this:

"Well, Col 2-16 says that all things were created by Jesus; therefore Jesus is the Creator; therefore Jesus is the Supreme being. However, that reasoning is specious. The scriptures say that The Father made the worlds BY (via) the Son.

HEB 1:1 "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by HIS Son, whom HE hath appointed heir of all things, >BY< WHOM also HE MADE THE WORLDS; (see Heb 1:10)

As you can see, in the phrase "by whom also HE made the worlds" the antecedent of HE is GOD. Therefore, He who made the worlds is The GOD and His Son is the instrument "BY WHOM" God made the worlds. If you could read Greek, you would immediately notice that here also the word God is preceded by the definite article ("ho theos"). The original text actually reads: The God....hath in these last days spoken to us by HIS Son.

Here are the verses which demonstrate the concept that The Father was the master architect and Jesus was the master builder sent by the Father to do the work of creation. It was Jesus who rested from all His work on the 7th day.

1722 = denotes "instrumentality" Col 1:15 "...for >BY< him [Jesus] were all things created."

1537 = denotes "origin" 1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is ONE GOD >OF< WHOM are all things

1223 = denotes "channel" and ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST >BY< WHOM are all things.

There you have it, God-The-Father, the Supreme being, is the origin of all things and Jesus His Son the channel by whom all things were created. One God and one Lord Jesus Christ. One and one make two.

If you had looked just above Col 1:16 at verse 1:15 you would have seen that Jesus was not the Invisible God, rather he is the image of the Invisible God, THE FIRST-BORN OF EVERY CREATURE. Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, and once created, He created all things. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH the God. As I said before, according to the rules of language, one cannot be the God whom one is with. It is linguistically impossible - unless one throws the rules out the stained glass window.

P> [Jesus is] the ALMIGHTY God, the Alpha and the Omega (Rev 1:8;

At first glance, that verse would seem to prove your point. However, lets take a look at Revelation chapters 4 and 5 and compare them in reference to The Almighty God and the Lamb and see if your statement holds up.

REVELATION CHAPTER FOUR HERE, THERE IS ONE ON THE THRONE...THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY

:2 a throne was set in heaven, AND >ONE< SAT ON THE THRONE.

:8 THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY WHICH WAS AND IS AND IS TO COME. :9 to >HIM< THAT SAT ON THE THRONE, who liveth for ever and ever,

:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before >HIM< that sat on the throne,

and worship >HIM< that liveth for ever and ever,

REVELATION CHAPTER FIVE HERE THERE ARE TWO...GOD ALMIGHTY AND THE LAMB

:1 in the right hand of >HIM< THAT SAT ON THE THRONE a book .

:6 in the midst of the elders, stood a >LAMB< as it had been slain,

:7 took the book out of the right hand of >HIM< THAT SAT ON THE THRONE.

:8 and four and twenty elders fell down before the >LAMB<,

:9 for >THOU< wast slain, and hast redeemed us to >GOD< (Gk the God)

:13 power, BE UNTO >HIM< THAT SITTETH UPON THE THRONE,

and UNTO THE >LAMB< for ever and ever.

-----THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY IS NOT THE LAMB!-----

If Jesus (the Lamb) was the Lord God Almighty (as you say) then Jesus came to the Throne where the Lord God Almighty sat and took the scroll from his own right hand. No, there was ONE God Almighty on the Throne, and one Lamb who came to Him.

I realize that there are believers out there who are so immersed in the doctrine of the Trinity, that they would look at that vision of the throne and say: See that proves that they are "One". Jesus took the scroll from his own right hand! I hope you have clearer eyes.

Since you now see that the Lord God Almighty could not be the Lamb, you will be able to understand why Jesus was not calling Himself "the Lord Almighty" in Rev 1:8 as follows:

REV 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Note: In this verse The Almighty is the one who "saith" that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. To make it easier to understand simply put the subject first and it reads:

The Lord, which is and was and is to come, the Almighty, saith:

"I [Jesus] am the Alpha and the Omega."

i.e. The Almighty Father "saith" that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. (The Greek word for "saith" is lego (3004) present, active, indicative, which means that it is a statement of fact, being declared by the subject of the sentence.) The Almighty is the subject of the sentence. Remember that the beginning of this passage says in the Greek:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ which The God gave to Him [Jesus]"

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega because the Almighty, which is and was and is to come, has revealed it and "saith" it to be so.

P> There is only ONE God, revealed as three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19).

Phil, I think we all believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as stated in Matthew 28:19. The problem with your statement is that you imply that verse says that those three are one God. which of course, it does not. Right Phil?

HK> The word deity means divinity, and Jesus, as the Son of God must be divine because a Son is of like substance with His Father.

P> Here you are equivocating on words -- I do not accept your definitions of "deity" or "divinity."

de'i-ty 1. Divine nature or rank; divinity. (Webster's Collegiate)

"Equivocate" has to do with lying or having an intent to deceive. Strong words, perhaps you did not mean it that way? In any event, those are not my definitions - they are Webster's (and I don't think Webster was lying). Accept it or not, divinity is what the word deity means.

P> According to Scripture, Jesus IS God, IS deity (John 1:1; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; 20:28; Titus 2:13 cf. Col 2:9).

Of course Jesus is God, but He is not the God-the-Father. Jesus is deity, but he is not the Supreme Deity. Remember, the word God refers to more than just the Supreme Divinity. That is not my opinion, that is what any standard reference work will say about the word God or the word theos in Greek. However, a Trinitarian automatically assumes the word God means "The Supreme Being" when it refers to Jesus. Of course, your well trained Trinitarian mind has been programed to refuse other definitions because that would mean there was another way of under- standing The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

P> The same is said of His Father (John 17:3) -- "God the Father" is found throughout the NT.

Yes Phil, God-The-Father is called God, and more specifically, he is often called The God when directly compared with Jesus.

There is ONE God-The-Father (of whom are all things) and One Lord Jesus Christ (by whom are all things) (1 Cor 8:6)

P> The same is said of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).

Phil, I am glad you brought up that verse. Have you ever noticed how that lonely verse is the only proof Trinitarians can offer to prove that the Holy Spirit is God? And yet that verse does not say that the Holy Spirit is God. It only says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit - and it says that he lied to God. To conclude that the Holy Spirit is God on the basis of those verses is merely an interpretation which adds to what is actually written. Since the Spirit is the means of communication between God and man, if you lie to the Spirit you are in effect lying to God. But it does not follow that the Spirit is God. Are there any verses which actually say that the Holy Spirit is God? Not one!

In my view that is pretty slim evidence to conclude that the Holy Spirit is God, and yet most Trinitarians will accept this "proof" blindly, never questioning the fact that the Spirit is not directly called God anywhere in Scripture.

P> The question I would ask you: HOW MANY GODS DO YOU BELIEVE IN? Is Jesus a separate and distinct GOD from the Father? If so then you've got two Gods.

I believe in One God-the-Father and in One Lord Jesus Christ who is our God (our theos) Jesus is our Ruler, and as Jesus pointed out, He has a God (The Theos). But don't take my word for it, listen to the Father Himself...

(1) "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne >O God<, is forever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom

(2) "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore >GOD, EVEN THY GOD< hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Heb 1:8-9)

Who is God's God? Did you notice? In that passage there are two Gods; one is Jesus and the other is the God of Jesus. ("thy God") Jesus is our God, our Ruler, but he also has a Ruler, his Father in heaven. Since Jesus is called God, and the one who anointed Him is called "thy God", there are two separate Gods in view! Don't forget that in the first verse of this chapter the Greek reads: "THE God... hath spoken to us by His Son" The Son is God, but not THE God.

HK> Sorry Phil, but you won't be able to put me into any theological box other than "Christian." That is all I am, a Christian, and that is my theology.

P> That won't do. Read the conference rules. You are supposed to identify your theological perspective so you can't hide behind generic labels.

Why would I hide behind generic labels? (Is Christian a generic label?) It sounds like the only correct Brand Name to me, you know, the original, not a cheaply produced copy.) Seriously, I really do not know what more I can say than I have said. Surely my views on the Trinity are clear. If you want me to identify with a certain organization; I cannot. I belong to none - except of course, the denomination that Paul and Peter belonged to. My theological perspective is that which I find taught in the Christian scriptures.

P> There are literally billions of "Christians" that disagree with you. Including all Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics for starters.

At last count, there were only about one billion Christians and over half of those are Roman Catholic. But who is counting? You would be right in saying that most of them (not all) believe in a three-in-one God. However, they are simply following the traditions of their churches (which despite their Protestations) are all daughters of Romanism. As you know, the third century Roman church under Constantine was the source of the Trinity Doctrine. The tradition of the Trinity as such, was not taught by the first and second century church leaders. None of the Ante-Nicene fathers taught that the Supreme Being was composed of three persons, each co-equal and co-eternal. Believe It or Not!

You know Phil, I really do not have a problem with those who might disagree with my views on the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If someone wishes to believe in the Trinity, I certainly would not hold that against them. I ask only the same freedom to define that trinity as I find them taught in the Scriptures.

Why should you or anyone else say that someone who loves Jesus and obeys Him is not a Christian because they hold different views on the Trinity? Really Phil, I would like for you to show me where Jesus or the apostles taught that belief in the Trinity was to be a criteria for judging who our brethren in Christ are. I know I have asked this question before (many times) but have you noticed that no one has replied... The reason why is that there is no Scriptural authority. If there is why don't you simply show it to me. It ought to be in there somewhere. Right?

The Athanasian Creed, (c. 450 AD) which is the foundation of Trinitarian belief, says this:

"...And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity...the whole three persons co-eternal and co- equal...He therefore that will be saved MUST THINK THUS of the Trinity."

It seems to me that you have a moral obligation to show specific and unambiguous Scriptural authority which proves that you should reject as lost those who refuse to believe in the Trinity, or admit that it is not Scriptural.

How about it Phil? If you believe that one is not a child of God unless he believes that Jesus is one third of the Supreme Being, let us all see your Biblical proof that God requires such belief. Your silence would prove you have none. God bless...

Harold Kupp

QMPro 1.50 "Secret guilt by silence is betrayed" Phileonet Restoration Rock 219-926-2060 Indiana Dunes

===========================================================================

Date: 08-10-94 / From: P / To: HAROLD KUPP / Subject: Trinity debate

===========================================================================

Harold K. -- it is clear you are very good at this (!) but I will try to offer you a response anyway. Maybe we both can learn something.

I will try to show you where we agree in our debate on the Trinity.

HK> It is not I who distinguished between the Word and The Father, it was the apostle John who used the definite article in reference to the Father and did not use it with Jesus. In all languages, the definite article has a similar meaning; to distinguish between persons or things. You may choose to ignore the definition of God and John's deliberate distinction between theos and The Theos, but that does not change the facts.

All Trinitarians would agree with this statement about John 1:1 -- there IS a distinction of persons made between the Word (Jesus) and the Father. "The Word was WITH God." It is not the use of the definite article "THE" (as in THE God) but the preposition "WITH" that clearly shows a distinction of persons. We have no disagreement here.

The problem comes in your affirmation that we must be talking two separate GODS here. That is inconsistent with the biblical affirmation that there is only one TRUE God (Deut 6:4; Isa 43:10; 44:6; etc. 1 Tim 2:5; John 17:3; 1 John 5:20; etc.)

HK> If you could read Greek, you would immediately notice that here also the word God is preceded by the definite article ("ho theos"). The original text actually reads: The God....hath in these last days spoken to us by HIS Son. [Hebrews 1:1ff]

I don't read Greek so you have an advantage on me if you do. But I will have you notice this -- "ho theos" (THE God) is used of Jesus Christ in

Matt 1:23 ....they shall call His name "Immanuel," which is translated, "God [ho theos] with us."

1 Tim 1:17 Now to the King [subject: Jesus v. 16] eternal, immortal, invisible, to God [ho theos] who alone is wise [or "to the only God"] be honor and glory forever and ever.

John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God! [ho theos]"

I would be interested in your answer to these.

HK> .....THE FIRST-BORN OF EVERY CREATURE. Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, and once created, He created all things.

You are saying that Christ was created. That is not what the text says. Verses 16-17 clearly indicate Christ IS the Creator. Notice --

"By Him all things were created...He is BEFORE all things."

A "thing" here is something created. To be BEFORE all created things is to be the CREATOR of all things. That is what the text says.

You are saying the word "firstborn" indicates first created? That is not the meaning of "firstborn" (prototokos) from what I've studied. "Firstborn" is a title of preeminence, of the right to rule OVER the creation. Hence, the NKJV has "the firstborn OVER all creation.... that in all things He may have the preeminence" (Col 1:15,18).

Although you would probably consider this a biased source, I'll quote from Bob and Gretchen Passantino's book ANSWERS TO THE CULTIST AT YOUR DOOR (Harvest House, 1981) --

"Instead of teaching that Christ is created, this verse [Col 1:15] shows clearly that he is the Creator, or as the writer of Hebrews says, 'Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything' (Heb 3:4). This word firstborn is used repeatedly in the Bible in its common usage as defined above [the preeminent one, the one with priority, the one with the right to rule, or the one with the sovereignty over].

"In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in Genesis 25:31-34 Esau sold his "firstbornness" to Jacob. He didn't sell his being the first-one-created, but he sold his RIGHT TO RULE over his father's inheritance. In Exodus 4:22 Israel is called the firstborn nation. It was certainly not the first nation to come into existence, but it was the nation which was PREEMINENT in God's sight" (ANSWERS, 68-69).

HK> "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH the God. As I said before, according to the rules of language, one cannot be the God whom one is with. It is linguistically impossible - unless one throws the rules out the stained glass window.

You are saying this is linguistically impossible -- No it isn't if that is what the text says. You said one cannot be the God whom one is WITH. But the text says "the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God." You keep trying to make the Word a little "god" while the Father is the big "God." But I say that "ho theos" (THE God) is used of Jesus.

In addition, the Word was "IN THE BEGINNING" echoing Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God...." The Word was WITH God "IN THE BEGINNING" (John 1:2). According to a debate I have with Dr. Walter Martin, this is a "copulative verb in transitive" which means we are dealing with BEFORE time, IN time, and ALWAYS. The Word ALWAYS existed and was eternally WITH God and WAS God as Genesis 1:1 speaks of the Creator.

You might say it is logically impossible how two distinct persons could be the SAME God with the SAME nature but when we're talking the nature of our Creator our finite minds are limited -- apprehension, maybe, but not complete comprehension (Isa 55:8-9; Rom 11:33).

HK> Phil, I think we all believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as stated in Matthew 28:19. The problem with your statement is that you imply that verse says that those three are one God. which of course, it does not. Right Phil?

I admit the text does not explicitly say: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "which are ONE God" but that is implied by the use of the singular "NAME" not "names." How would you respond to that one?

P> Here you are equivocating on words -- I do not accept your definition of "deity" or "divinity."

HK> de'i-ty 1. Divine nature or rank; divinity. (Webster's Collegiate)

HK> "Equivocate" has to do with lying or having an intent to deceive. Strong words, perhaps you did not mean it that way? In any event, those are not my definitions - they are Webster's (and I don't think Webster was lying). Accept it or not, divinity is what the word deity means.

No, Webster doesn't lie but we don't go to Webster to define biblical terms. We go to the Greek and Hebrew and the authoritative lexicons.

I said you are equivocating because you say "Jesus is divine" yet you deny He is divine AS the Father is divine. You said since Jesus is divine He is of "like substance" [sic] of the Father.

You are equivocating when you say "Jesus is GOD" (as you admit below) yet you deny that He is God as the Father is God.

You are using the same words "divine" "deity" "God" yet pouring two different meanings into them when you refer to the Father and the Son. That is known as equivocation but I don't think you are doing this with deception. You are simply trying to defend your position and deny the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

P> According to Scripture, Jesus IS God, IS deity (John 1:1; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; 20:28; Titus 2:13 cf. Col 2:9).

HK> Of course Jesus is God, but He is not the God-the-Father.

But this is what the Trinity also affirms -- THREE distinct persons yet ONE God, ONE deity, ONE divine nature. Your position leads you to believe in two separate Gods as you admit below.

HK> Jesus is deity, but he is not the Supreme Deity. Remember, the word God refers to more than just the Supreme Divinity. That is not my opinion, that is what any standard reference work will say about the word God or the word theos in Greek.

Okay, let's look at VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF BIBLICAL WORDS (Thomas Nelson, 1985) which is the reference I own. According to Vine, theos in the Bible is used in three senses -- (see p. 270-1)

I) "in the polytheism of the Greeks, denoted 'a god or deity'" (e.g. Acts 14:11; 19:26; 28:6; 1 Cor 8:5; Gal 4:8);

II) "the word was appropriated by Jews and retained by Christians to denote 'THE ONE TRUE GOD' (e.g. Mark 12:29; 1 Tim 2:5);

III) "the word is used of divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority" (cf. John 10:34 quoting Psalm 82:6; the application of the term to the Devil (2 Cor 4:4) and to the belly (Phil 3:19) virtually places these under (I).

In your theology and Christology, where does Jesus Christ fit in the above categories? Is He one of the polytheistic gods of the Greeks? Is He a divinely appointed judge in Israel "representing" God? Is He the Devil? Or is He the ONE TRUE GOD? (1 John 5:20)

P> The question I would ask you: HOW MANY GODS DO YOU BELIEVE IN? Is Jesus a separate and distinct GOD from the Father? If so then you've got two Gods.

HK> I believe in One God-the-Father and in One Lord Jesus Christ who is our God (our theos).

Yes, that is what Scripture teaches (1 Cor 8:6; Titus 2:13; John 20:28) however, later you directly answer my question --

HK> Who is God's God? Did you notice? In that passage there are two Gods; one is Jesus and the other is the God of Jesus.

No, we have two PERSONS, each identified as the ONE God (Heb 1:8-9).

Consider John 5:18 which I mentioned before but you never commented on -- "....said that God WAS HIS FATHER, making Himself EQUAL WITH GOD." If you want to go into the Greek here -- the word for "EQUAL" (isos) means "the SAME in size, number, quality, etc" (Vine, p. 205).

In your Christology, in what sense is the Son EQUAL with God?

HK> Since Jesus is called God, and the one who anointed Him is called "thy God", there are two separate Gods in view!

No, that does not follow. You say "two separate Gods" but the Bible nowhere affirms there are TWO Gods but only ONE TRUE GOD over and over again. Conclusion: ONE God, TWO distinct persons. I know you might not understand how this could be, but we should ask does the text itself lead us to this conclusion?

HK> As you know, the third century Roman church under Constantine was the source of the Trinity Doctrine. The tradition of the Trinity as such, was not taught by the first and second century church leaders. None of the Ante-Nicene fathers taught that the Supreme Being was composed of three persons, each co-equal and co-eternal. Believe It or Not!

Nope, I don't believe it because I have a three volume set THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS by William Jurgens which disproves this. I have also read such works as EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by Church history scholar J.N.D. Kelly which disproves this. We can get into this in depth if you like. What Church history sources have you studied?

HK> Why should you or anyone else say that someone who loves Jesus and obeys Him is not a Christian because they hold different views on the Trinity? Really Phil, I would like for you to show me where Jesus or the apostles taught that belief in the Trinity was to be a criteria for judging who our brethren in Christ are. I know I have asked this question before (many times) but have you noticed that no one has replied... The reason why is that there is no Scriptural authority. If there is why don't you simply show it to me. It ought to be in there somewhere. Right?

Okay, I'll be the first to answer you. Try 1 John 2:22-23; 2 John 9-10. I admit that the immediate historical context involves the heresy of Gnosticism (those who denied Jesus has "come in the flesh" cf. 1 John 4:1-3; John 1:14) but these passages also teach we must have the correct Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 11:4) and the correct "doctrine of Christ."

You might say this has nothing to do with the Trinity but getting your Christology right is the first step in understanding the Trinity.

Also, I don't deny you are a Christian but you are a very CONFUSED Christian that denies historic Christian teaching.

HK> It seems to me that you have a moral obligation to show specific and unambiguous Scriptural authority which proves that you should reject as lost those who refuse to believe in the Trinity, or admit that it is not Scriptural.

I don't know about unambiguous evidence and I won't say you are lost because you deny the Trinity. I can't make that judgment.

HK> How about it Phil? If you believe that one is not a child of God unless he believes that Jesus is one third of the Supreme Being, let us all see your Biblical proof that God requires such belief. Your silence would prove you have none.

I never said you are not a child of God if you deny the Trinity but others may have said this (I believe CRI takes this position). I wasn't completely silent on this issue either (cf. 2 Cor 11:4; 2 John 9).

OLX 2.1 TD quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est

===========================================================================

Date: 08-14-94 / From: HAROLD KUPP / To: P / Subj: Trinity debate

===========================================================================

Hello Phil,

Thanks for your reply to my post on the Trinity. As I respond, I will not go over ground I have already covered such as the use of the definite article in John 1:1. However, you did bring up other aspects of the Trinity doctrine that are important. For example:

P> The problem comes in your affirmation that we must be talking two separate GODS here. That is inconsistent with the biblical affirmation that there is only one TRUE God (Deut 6:4; Isa 43:10; 44:6; etc. 1 Tim 2:5; John 17:3; 1 John 5:20; etc.)

A quick scan of the Scriptures will reveal that the phrase "ONE true God" is not found. However, there are instances where the term "true God" is used.

"...that they might know thee the only true God, AND JESUS CHRIST whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3)

"...how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; AND TO WAIT FOR HIS SON from heaven." (1 Thess 1:9)

"And we know we are of [the] God...And we know that the SON OF GOD is come and hath given us understanding, that we may know him that is true IN HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. This is the true God, and eternal life." (1 John 5:19-20)

In each case, "the true God" is contrasted with His Son Jesus Christ. One is the true God, one is the Son of the true God. As John said, the Son came to give us understanding that we might know the invisible God whom no man has ever seen or heard. We are in Christ and as Jesus said, He is in the Father. If we are in Christ, we are in the true God and thus, may know him that is true through His Son.

I can't imagine why you would quote 1 Tim 2:5 to prove there is one true God. Did you take time to look up the verse?

"For there is one God AND ONE MEDIATOR between God and man, the man CHRIST JESUS."

If anything, that verse emphasizes the distinction between Jesus and God the Father. Again, we see the contrast between Jesus and His Father. How can one be between Himself and man?

I would like to respond to your statement that there is only one God. You are of course referring to verses such as the ones in Isaiah which say:

ISA 45:5 "I am the LORD and there is none else, there is no God besides me.

:6 I am the LORD, there is none else"

Is the Lord making a theological statement about the Trinity? Or is he making a statement about whom Israel is to worship? Taken in context these verses refer to the God of Israel as opposed to the many Pagan gods sometimes worshipped by the Israelites, for example:

ISA 45:20...they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and PRAY UNTO A GOD THAT CANNOT SAVE.

ISA 42:17...they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, YE ARE OUR GODS.

JER 1:16 And I will utter my judgments against them touching all their wickedness, WHO HAVE FORSAKEN ME AND HAVE BURNED INCENSE UNTO OTHER GODS, and worshipped the works of their own hands.

The Lord was not making a theological statement, he was saying that for Israelites, there was to be no God other than Yahweh the LORD, for example:

ISA 45:3 "That I the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

ISA 43:15 "I am the LORD, your holy one, the creator of Israel, your King.

Trinitarian belief rests upon statements like "...there is no God besides me." which are taken out of context and made to be an absolute.

If you were to look at the scriptures objectively, you would see that there are many "elohiym" and "theoi" mentioned in the scriptures. One of them is Satan, "the god (ho theos) of this world. (2 Cor 4:4) So the idea that there is only one God is only an interpretation - not a fact.

The doctrine of the Trinity is based on a syllogism which goes something like this:

Major Premise: There is only one God.

Minor Premise: The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are called God.

Conclusion: The Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one God.

However, the major premise is faulty, there are many "theoi" and "elohym" mentioned in the scriptures. The minor premise is only partly true because The Holy Ghost is NOT called God. The minor premise does not take into consideration the range of meaning of the word God; therefore, it must follow that the conclusion is wrong.

P> I don't read Greek so you have an advantage on me if you do. But I will have you notice this -- "ho theos" (THE God) is used of Jesus Christ in Matt 1:23 ....they shall call His name "Immanuel," which is translated, "God [ho theos] with us."

Phil, if I understand you correctly you are saying that because Jesus is called "Emmanuel, the God with us" in Matthew, that proves that Jesus is "The God". As we all know, each verse must be taken in context and each time the Greek phrase "ho theos" is used it also must be understood according to the sentence wherein it is used. For example, in 2 Corinthians 4:4

"...the god of this world hath blinded their minds..." (ho theos)

Obviously, here the Greek words ho theos do not refer to the God of heaven. Paul was speaking about the god OF THIS WORLD, not The Ruler of the universe.

In like manner, when Matthew spoke of Immanuel, the God WITH US, he spoke of Jesus, not the Father in heaven whom "no man has ever seen". Jesus was the God who came to be with (Greek - in the midst of) the people of Israel as opposed to the God who was not "with us".

If Matthew had said that Emmanuel was the name of the God, and left it at that, then you would be correct. However:

Matthew did not say that Emmanuel was the name of the God.

He said that Emmanuel was the name of the God WITH US!

Big difference!

P> 1 Tim 1:17 Now to the King [subject: Jesus v. 16] eternal, immortal, invisible, to God [ho theos] who alone is wise [or "to the only God"] be honor and glory forever and ever.

Phil, I am surprised at you saying something like that. You must be getting tired.

1. The person mentioned in verse 16 is not the person in verse 17. It is Jesus in :16, but in :17 Paul refers to the "invisible" God. Jesus is not the invisible God, He is the "image of the of the invisible God" (Col 1:15)

2. The Greek does NOT say "ho theos" nor could it possibly mean "to the only God". It reads "only wise god". You really need to get yourself a good interlinear (with Strong's numbers) so that you can avoid making such elementary errors.

P> John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God! [ho theos]"

Here you got it right. (almost...) The text reads: The Lord mine, and the God mine." Again, each use of "ho theos" must be taken in context. Thomas was simply saying that Jesus was his God, just as you or I would. Jesus is the God of me - but Jesus also has a God, His Father in heaven. Note: "I ascend unto MY God" (John 20:17)

P> You are saying the word "firstborn" indicates first created? That is not the meaning of "firstborn" (prototokos) from what I've studied. "Firstborn" is a title of preeminence, of the right to rule OVER the creation. Hence, the NKJV has "the firstborn OVER all creation.... that in all things He may have the preeminence" (Col 1:15,18).

Revelation 3:14 says Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God". In that verse, another word is used for beginning "arche" (746) which could mean that Jesus was the first of God's creation or it could mean he was first in rank among God's creation. Either way "arche" still refers to what Jesus was among God's creation. It is the same with the verse in Colossians, whether he was first born OF creation or first born OVER creation it is still used in reference His position in creation. Again you have overlooked that the FATHER created all things by (via) the Son.

P> I admit the text does not explicitly say: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "which are ONE God" but that is implied by the use of the singular "NAME" not "names." How would you respond to that one?

Phil, that is big of you to admit that you twisted the scriptures to fit your concepts. To admit one has a problem, is the first step on the road to recovery. Seriously now, the use of the singular "name" implies nothing. "Baptized into the NAME of..." means "baptized into the authority of..." (see Vines on name). For example, the Israelites were baptized into Moses. (1 Cor 10:2) Name is used in the sense of protection and authority (As in "Stop in the NAME of the law." and "I come in the NAME of the King". Through baptism, we enter into a covenant of obedience to The Supreme Being and are delivered out of the authority of Satan and into the authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In a similar way, the apostle John said this about the one who is born of God: "...and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." (1 John 5:18)

P> Consider John 5:18 which I mentioned before but you never commented on -- "....said that God WAS HIS FATHER, making Himself EQUAL WITH GOD." If you want to go into the Greek here -- the word for "EQUAL" (isos) means "the SAME in size, number, quality, etc" (Vine, p. 205).

P> In your Christology, in what sense is the Son EQUAL with God?

It was the Jews that said he was claiming to be equal with God, not Jesus. In the same passage, they also said that he had broken the sabbath, but if that was a fact, Jesus would have committed sin and we know that is not true. The Jews were wrong on both counts. Jesus did not claim to be equal with the Father: (Note: "The Father is greater than I") nor did he break the sabbath!

HK> As you know, the third century Roman church under Constantine was the source of the Trinity Doctrine. The tradition of the Trinity as such, was not taught by the first and second century church leaders. None of the Ante-Nicene fathers taught that the Supreme Being was composed of three persons, each co-equal and co-eternal. Believe It or Not!

P> Nope, I don't believe it because I have a three volume set THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS by William Jurgens which disproves this. I have also read such works as EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by Church history scholar J.N.D. Kelly which disproves this. We can get into this in depth if you like. What Church history sources have you studied?

Phil, quoting a book title is not proof of anything. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to show me where the Ante-Nicene fathers taught the doctrine of the Trinity as expressed in the Athanasian Creed. You do not have to get into it in depth; two or three quotes from the first hundred years after Jesus would be sufficient. But remember, if they do not teach all the elements of the Trinity (3 beings, one God, co-equal, co-eternal) it is not the doctrine of the Trinity...

Actually, there were many different ideas about the nature of the Father and the Son, but there was no official church teaching until late in the third century. For example, these quotes from Bishops and theologians of the early church are in reference to the declaration which Jesus made in John 14:28: "The Father is greater than I"

ORIGEN - Alexandrian theologian (185 -254) "Origen was one of the Greek Fathers of the church. He is considered to be one of the first textual critics of the Bible; one of the first to set forth a systematic statement OF THE FAITH;" (Dictionary of the Christian Church, Zondervan)

"ORIGEN (C. 253) is free from all ambiguity..."I admit", he says "that there may be some.....(sic) who maintain that the Saviour is the Most High God over all, but we do NOT certainly hold such a view, who believe Him when He said Himself: "THE FATHER WHO SENT ME IS GREATER THAN I"; and again: "Clearly we assert.....(sic) that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but INFERIOR." (The Gospel According To John B.F. Wescott commentary p.213)

TERTULLIAN (160-215) African moralist. apologist, and theologian. Tertullian's sophistic brilliance and literary versatility, ruthless vigor as disputant and polemicist, fecundity in uttering memorable dicta, and fervent religious immediacy make him a captivating writer as well as A PRICELESS MIRROR OF EARLY AFRICAN CHRISTIANITY." (Dictionary of the Christian Church, Zondervan)

Tertullian wrote: "...but the Logos did not become Son of God until He was brought forth to be the instrument of creation; there was a time when the Son (as Son) did not exist (Adv Hermog. 3). The Father has the fullness of Deity, the Son ONLY A PORTION OF IT, derived from Him." Tertullian is relying on the subordinationist Logos doctrine of the apologists, especially Theophillus," (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia Of Religious Knowledge)

NOVATIAN "...who was nonetheless a vigorous champion of true Christology. Novatian died as a martyr during the persecutions under Valerian." (Dictionary of the Christian Church, Zondervan)

"NOVATIAN (c. 250) is scarcely less bold in his mode of expression: 'It is necessary that [the Father] have priority (prior sit) as Father, since He who knew no origin must needs have precedence over (antecedat) Him who has an origin. At the same time [the Son] must be LESS, since He knows that He is in Him AS HAVING AN ORIGIN because He is BORN'." (The Gospel of John According to B.F. Wescott Commentary p.213)

Obviously, there was no coherent doctrine of the Trinity among these three notable church leaders who represent various geographical areas of the early church.

HK> Why should you or anyone else say that someone who loves Jesus and obeys Him is not a Christian because they hold different views on the Trinity? Really Phil, I would like for you to show me where Jesus or the apostles taught that belief in the Trinity was to be a criteria for judging who our brethren in Christ are. I know I have asked this question before (many times) but have you noticed that no one has replied... The reason why is that there is no Scriptural authority. If there is why don't you simply show it to me. It ought to be in there somewhere. Right?

P> Okay, I'll be the first to answer you. Try 1 John 2:22-23; 2 John 9-10. I admit that the immediate historical context involves the heresy of Gnosticism (those who denied Jesus has "come in the flesh" cf. 1 John 4:1-3; John 1:14) but these passages also teach we must have the correct Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 11:4) and the correct "doctrine of Christ."

You are right, the context has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Your quotes show how far you have to reach to try and justify the condemnation by the church system of those who do not believe in the Trinity. I am glad you admit there is no specific Biblical authority to demand belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.

P> Also, I don't deny you are a Christian but you are a very CONFUSED Christian that denies historic Christian teaching.

P> I don't know about unambiguous evidence and I won't say you are lost because you deny the Trinity. I can't make that judgment.

Now there you go! Just when I think there is no hope for you, along comes a sensible statement like the above. Of course to take that position, you must deny the authority of Rome and reject article 11 of the profession of the Tridentine Faith. As you know the Vatican holds to the Athanasian Creed which explicitly states:

"...And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity...the whole three persons co-eternal and co- equal...He therefore that will be saved MUST THINK THUS of the Trinity."

God bless you Phil, its you and me against all those other narrow minded Trintarians. Right?

P> I never said you are not a child of God if you deny the Trinity but others may have said this (I believe CRI takes this position). I wasn't completely silent on this issue either (cf. 2 Cor 11:4; 2 John 9).

Oops, not quite sure if I am a child of God or not - are we? You just had to bring up those verses which "clearly" say that those who do not believe in the Trinity are to be rejected. Well, since you brought them up, lets take a look at them:

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached... (2 Cor 11:4)

Do I preach another Jesus than the one Paul preached? Lets see now, Did Paul preach the Trinity? No, not ever! So, that verse does not apply to me. However, it might apply to Christians who preach the Trinity, since neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught the three-in-one God message.

"Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." (2 John 9)

What has that verse to do with the Trinity? John is talking about the doctrine that Christ taught - not a doctrine about Christ. If Jesus ever taught the Trinity, it is not in the Bible!

Phil, as you know, Paul said: "But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which WE have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

If Trinitarians cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gospel which Paul preached required that Christians must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved, they are preaching another gospel.

In my opinion, Trinitarians have been taken in by the greatest fraud in history and cannot bear to admit it. Why can't they grasp the simple fact that Paul and the apostles preached the gospel of Christ, not the gospel of Athanasius. How could the apostles preach the three-in-one God when they had never even heard of it?

God bless...

Harold Kupp

QMPro 1.50 "...and few there be that find it." Matt 7:14 Phileonet Restoration Rock 219-926-2060 Indiana Dunes

Click here for Answer to Harold Kupp on the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers


Back to Apologetics Articles

Back to Home Page

About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links