A major deception that has consumed the churches

[GodB4Us]

You still don’t get it and are deceived by a spirit of error. I already said it many times, there is only one king. He speaks to his people by various means. In the end times he has chosen to speak to us by his son. That does not mean the king suddenly had multiple persons.

How can God bear witness when He needs 2 or 3 Witnesses for His witness to be true?

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

How can this prophesy be true about how the Lord God & His Spirit sent God Our Redeemer?

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

How can God the Father's witness of His Son as that God our Redeemer unless the added witness of the Holy Ghost on the Son makes His witness true?

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 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: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

[GodB4Us]

The entire world of Christianity is deceived by the three unclean spirits proceeding from the mouths of the dragon, beast and false prophet. This thread and the arguments going on prove that. Just because God spoke to us in various means and in the last days by His son does not mean God has split into multiple persons of equal standing. Yet the majority refuse to see this. I will not engage in fruitless arguments, those who have ears should hear. God said to come out of Mystery Babylon, Christianity has become a Babylonian religion and is guilty before Him.

You need to reconsider with Him at that throne of grace that the reference is not referring to God at all because you would be including God the Father in that misapplication of His words as being one of those three unclean spirits.

 

[Godbehonored]

Deceived trinitarians say the name of the father son and Holy Spirit is simply Jesus. That is false. Not one single verse in the Old Testament or New Testament say the Holy Spirit has a name, let alone the name Jesus. The Holy Spirit never had a name according to Scriptures. Not one single verse in the Old Testament or New Testament say the name of the Father is Jesus. The name of the Father is Yah, Jesus means Yah saves. There isn’t any name shared by the Father, Son and the Spirit of the Father. Never did never will.

Those verses that say “in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit” were originally verses that say “in the name of Jesus”. So the name Jesus was actually REPLACED with an unknown name given to three coequal spirits.

Let those who have ears hear.

 

[Godbehonored]

Scholars: Zero Evidence in New Testament for the Trinity

Being that it took 350 years after the Messiah to solidify the Trinity, the simple question is, why so long? If the Trinity is found and supported in the Bible, why did it require many centuries and numerous church schisms, arguments, debates, and even violence to legitimize and propagate this doctrine? Why wasn’t it authenticated from the very beginning, in the book of Acts, avoiding endless questions and wrangling over it? Where is the New Testament teaching of a triune being?

The fact is the word “Trinity” is not found anywhere in the Bible. Even the concept is missing. Clearly it was contrived in the imaginations of man. An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament assembly, as supported by numerous authorities:

• “Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon” (Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 782).

• “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy” (Christian Doctrine, Shirley Guthrie, Jr., 1994, pp. 76-77). It’s important to observe here that the author attributes the notion of the Trinity not to Scripture, but to influence from Greek philosophy.

• “This is not itself a Biblical term, but was a term coined by Tertullian to refer to this whole concept under one word” (Classic Bible Dictionary, Jay P. Green, p. 483). Tertullian was a Christian author and apologist who lived from 160 CE to 225 CE. Before Tertullian the word trinity did not exist in Christian writing.

• “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity” (Basic Theology, Professor Charles Ryrie, 1999, p. 89).

• “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). Even though Martin Luther was an avid supporter of the Trinity, he correctly recognized that the doctrine was derived from man and not from the Bible.

• “The term ‘Trinity’ is not a biblical term…In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine…As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , vol. 5, p. 3012, “Trinity”).

• “It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect” (New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1988, p. 1308, “Trinity”). Should we rest our entire faith on a belief that is a “deep mystery?”

• “Respecting the manner in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make one God, the Scripture teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its being explained to us” (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, p. 553, “Trinity”).

• “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves” (A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, 1885, “Trinitarians”). Disagreements abounded through the centuries even among those who advocate this doctrine. Should not a belief so critical and indispensable be not only plainly and clearly taught in the Scriptures, but at least be understood and agreed upon by its very proponents?

• “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT” (The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, 1996, “Trinity”).

• “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies… The council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the ‘Son is of the same substance…as the Father,’ even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit…By the end of the 4th century…the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Trinity”).

• “…primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church” (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, 1976, p. 84, “God”).

• “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century… Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14).​

 

[Godbehonored]

Before any more verses are thrown around to prove a self contradicting trinity falsehood, please attempt to address all that I have mentioned that prove the trinity as false as well as the wealth of scholarly quotes above that admits to the trinity doctrine as a later addition that was NOT taught by the apostles.

 

[Godbehonored]

The following is not my writing but it contains more Bible verses that disprove the trinity heresy.

A Son Unequal to His Father

What does the Bible actually say about the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Does any evidence for the Trinity exist in the New Testament? The answer is a resolute no. The first problem with the Trinity doctrine is that the New Testament says expressly that the Father is greater than the Son. Yahshua called Yahweh His “Father” for the simple reason that Yahweh was superior to and preceded the Son in existence—as do all fathers.

The doctrine of the Trinity says that the Son is both co-equal to and co-eternal with the Father, while the Scriptures maintain the opposite.

Yahshua the Messiah Himself affirmed that he was not co-equal with the Father, but was in submission and subjection to the Father. “You have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). One cannot be equal with another if the other is greater.

Yahshua again confirms his submission to his Father in John 10:29, “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” Since Yahshua is speaking, He included Himself here. In His own words Yahshua confirms that the Father is superior to everyone, including the Son Himself. As we note in the Restoration Study Bible, “…This precludes the possibility of a duality or trinity of Father and Son.”

The Apostle Paul also confirms Yahshua’s subordinate relationship to the Father. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is Yahweh” (1Cor. 11:3). As Yahweh appointed the man over the woman at creation, Paul states in like manner that the Father is over His Son.

In another of Yahshua’s statements we find that the Father is superior in knowledge to the Son, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). If the Father and Son were equal, why is it that the Son is not privy to the timing of His own coming? If they are indeed co-equal, something is amiss here.

In Matthew 20:23 Yahshua is confronted by the mother of Zebedee’s children about future positions for her sons. In response to her inquiry, Yahshua clearly shows that the Father is superior, “And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”

The Father alone prepares Kingdom rewards. This is not something that the Son can provide. He again defaults to His Father. If they were equal and of the same being, why is this honor not bestowed also upon the Son?

In several instances the Messiah stated that he could do nothing outside of His Father. In response to the Jews’ hatred for doing His Father’s will, He stated, “…Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19). If the Father and Son shared equal authority, why then was He limited by what He saw the Father do? Clearly, the concept of the Father and Son being co-equal is scripturally unfounded.

The Son Is Not Co-eternal with the Father

These passages pose serious problems — but not the only ones — with the Trinity. The definition of the Trinity states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. This assertion is another misunderstanding, arising from the Council of Nicea.

John of Patmos wrote the Book of Revelation under the direction of Yahshua the Messiah. He confirmed that Yahshua was the first of Yahweh’s creation. “And unto the angel of the assembly of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Elohim” (Rev. 3:14).​

 

[Godbehonored]

The above writing continues:

The Greek for the word “beginning” here is arche and means, “a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank),” Strong’s. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words further defines this word: “…NT:746 means ‘a beginning.’ The root archprimarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb archo meant ‘to be first,’ and archon denoted ‘a ruler.’” While some will argue for the latter definition, the primary and most reasonable definition conveys that Yahshua was the first in the commencement of His Father’s creation. If Yahshua was created by His Father how then can He be co-eternal with His Father? Knowing that one existed prior to the other, reason alone would conclude that a co-eternal relationship between the Son and Father is illogical.

To further confirm Yahshua’s statement in Revelation, in Proverbs 8 we find Solomon confirming Yahshua’s cre-ation, “Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth” (vv. 22-25).

The preceding verses speak of wisdom. Yahshua the Messiah is the personification of wisdom. Solomon here was not referring to simply an attribute, but to the creation of Yahweh’s Son. The word “possessed” comes from the Hebrew qanah and is a primitive root. Strong’s defines this word as, “to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own.” Even though qanah most often refers to procurement in context of Scripture, the primary meaning in Strong’s is “to erect, i.e. to create.”

In addition to the aforementioned passages, the Bible clearly states that only Yahweh, the Heavenly Father, has immortality and is the only one who ever possessed innate immortality. “Who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting” (1Tim. 6:16). This statement can only apply to Yahweh, the Father. How can a Son be co-eternal with His Father if only His Father contains immortality? This is further proof that a co-eternal relationship between the Son and Father cannot be scripturally established.

The Power of Yahweh

The Nicene – Constantinopolitan Creed defined the Holy Spirit as, “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…” There are several contradictions between this creed and the Bible regarding the Holy Spirit. However, before examining these inconsistencies, let’s first seek to understand the terms.

The term “Holy Spirit” is from the Hebrew ruach qodesh. The word spirit is derived from the Hebrew ruach, occurring 389 times in the Old Testament. That includes 232 as “spirit,” 92 times as “wind,” and 27 times as “breath” in the King James Version.

Note the definition of the word ruach: “The basic meaning of ruach is both ‘wind’ or ‘breath,’ but neither is understood as essence; rather it is the power encountered in the breath and the wind, whose whence and whither remains mysterious…2. ruach as a designation for the wind is necessarily something found in motion with the power to set other things in motion…The divine designation also apparently has an intensifying function in a few passages: ruach elohim (Gen 1:2) and ruach yhwh (Isa 59:19)” (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, “Ruach”).

This lexicon states that ruach implies a power that is within the breath and wind, which is connected to the Name YHWH or Yahweh. The Holy Spirit is the power emanating from our Father Yahweh. It is Yahweh’s power that puts all things into motion. It is His power that brings life into creation. In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of Elohim “moved” upon the face of the waters. The word is rachaph in the Hebrew and means, “to brood (flutter, move, shake).” Yahweh’s power (not an individual) energized the planet, after which the earthly creation began in earnest.

The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma, which shares a mirror definition with the word ruach. “Pneuma; to breathe, blow, primarily denotes the wind. Breath; the spirit which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial, and powerful” (The Complete Word Study New Testament, “Pneuma”).

It can be further demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is not a separate being, but an inanimate power that proceeds from the Father. InIsaiah 32:15, 44:3, and Acts 2:17the Holy Spirit is described as being poured. How can a being be poured into another? Titus 3:5-6and Acts 2:33 testify that the Spirit is shed. How can a being shed itself onto another? The Spirit is also described as something that can be stirred up, 2Timothy 1:6; quenched, 1Thes. 5:19, and renewed, 2Cor. 4:16. These attributes are far more fitting for a power than a person.

Father and Son, but No Spirit

In addition to this, there is another key fact consistent in the New Testament. Paul never addressed the Holy Spirit in the salutation of his letters, as he did the Father and Son. Notice:​

• “… Grace to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (Rom. 1:7).
• “Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah” (1Cor. 1:3).
• “Grace be to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah” (2Cor. 1:2).
• “Grace be to you and peace from Yahweh the Father, and from our Master Yahshua Messiah” (Gal. 1:3).
• “Grace be to you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah” (Eph. 1:2).
• “Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah” (Phil. 1:2).
• “…Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (Col. 1:2).
• “…Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (1Thess. 1:1).
• “Grace unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (2Thess. 1:2).
• “…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and Yahshua Messiah our Master” (1Tim. 1:2).
• “…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the Father and Messiah Yahshua our Master” (2Tim. 1:2).
• • “…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah our Saviour” (Tit. 1:4).

In these twelve passages not once does Paul mention the Holy Spirit; however, he consistently mentions both the Father and Son. Is it possible that Paul, one of the greatest apostles in the New Testament, simply forgot about one-third of a heavenly triunity? Of course not, Paul recognized that it was not proper to include the Spirit, since it represents Yahweh’s power and not a sentient being.

Paul is not alone in his omission of the Holy Spirit. There are two key passages that mention the Father and Son with no reference to the Holy Spirit. The first is Acts 7:55-56, “But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of Elohim, and Yahshua standing on the right hand of Yahweh, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of Yahweh.”

As Stephen was being stoned for his open rebuke of the Jewish leaders, he saw a vision of the Father and Son. While Scripture states that he was “full of the Holy Spirit,” the fact is the Spirit was missing from his supernatural vision. He saw only the Father and Son. If the Trinity is biblical, why does Stephen see only two heavenly Hosts in this profound vision? There is no better opportunity to reveal it than in a sacred visualization of the heavenly majesty, especially at such key times like these.

In our second example, we find again the Father and Son present, but the Spirit absent. “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our Elohim which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9-10).

If the Trinity were legitimate and understood by the writers of the New Testament, why is the Holy Spirit missing in this passage and in so many others where it should be found? It’s quite simple –no heavenly triumvirate exists in either old or new testament.​

 

[Godbehonored]

Alvan Lamson, author of The Church of the First Three Centuries, offers a summation as to the legitimacy of the Holy Spirit in composing part of a Trinity. “…we must look, not to Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of [Yahshua] and his apostles, but to Philo and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the Platonizing Fathers…”

Why the Pronoun ‘He’?

In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is often referenced with the personal pronoun “he,” “him,” or “himself.” Many will point to this as proof for the Trinity. For example, in John 14:16-17 Yahshua stated, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”

The “whom” here refers to the comforter, which comes from the Greek parakletos, a masculine word in Greek. Even though the Holy Spirit is described in the both the neuter and masculine throughout the New Testament, it’s likely that the translators used the Greekparakletos as an indicator for the gender of the Holy Spirit. As such, the Spirit has been incorrectly rendered by the masculine pronoun in the New Testament.

Referring to inanimate objects in the masculine and feminine is not unusual. We find it in many languages. For example, in Italian the words for “love,” “sea,” and “sun,” are masculine and the words for “art,” “faith,” and “light” are feminine. In like manner, in Arabic, which contains no neuter gender, the words for “book,” “class,” “street” are masculine while the words “car,” “university,” and “city” are feminine.

Similarly, Hebrew, a semitic language that shares many parallels with Arabic, including being without the neuter gender, has many cases where inanimate objects are rendered in the masculine or feminine. Masculine examples include the words for “word,” “day,” and “room.” Instances of the feminine include “land,” “animal,” and “spirit.” Even though the word for spirit (Heb. ruach) is feminine in the Hebrew language, Judaism views ruach as an inanimate object, i.e., wind. Likewise, parakletos is masculine in Greek, notwithstanding, its usage is neuter. Translators with preconceived ideas about the Spirit would use “he” when they had no justifiation to do so.

While many follow the pattern found in the King James Version in rendering the Holy Spirit in the masculine, a few translations correctly render it in the neuter, including the Diaglott, Rotherham, Goodspeed, and Literal Concordant. In addition to the above references, there are three instances in the KJV where it correctly refers to the Holy Spirit in the neuter. The first is found inMatthew 10:20, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” Instead of “who,” the translators correctly used the form “which” in reference to the Spirit. The last two examples are both found in the eighth chapter of Romans, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Elohim…Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (vv. 16, 26).

The Meaning of Elohim

In addition to the gender gap, much confusion over the Trinity has developed from the Hebrew word elohim. According to theEnglishman’s Concordance, this term occurs 2,597 in the Hebrew text. While it is singular in usage, it can be used in the plural form, as a collective noun. Strong’s defines this term as, “…plural of OT:433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative.”The Complete Word Study Old Testament further states, “Elohim; this masc. noun is pl. in form but it has both sing. and pl. uses. In a pl. sense it refers to rulers or judges with divine connections (Ex. 21:6); pagan gods (Ex. 18:11; Ps. 88:8); and probably angels (Ps. 8:5; 97:7)…In the sing. sense it is used of a god or a goddess (1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Kgs. 18:34); a man in a position like a god (Ex. 7:1); God (Deut. 7:9; Ezra 1:3; Is. 45:18 and many other passages,” Lexical Aids, 430. The following provide additional evidence for the singular and plural usages of elohim, beginning with the singular.

Singular:

• “And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” (Ex 3:15).

• “When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father in law, heard of all that Elohim had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt” (Ex. 18:1).

• “Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast unto Yahweh thy Elohim in the place which Yahweh shall choose: because Yahweh thy Elohim shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice” (Deut. 16:15). The above examples illustrate elohim in the singular; the remainder provides examples of this word in the plural.

Plural:

• “And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their mighty ones [elohim]: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their mighty ones” (Num. 25:2).

• “Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a ******* after their mighty ones [elohim], and do sacrifice unto their mighty ones [elohim], and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice” (Ex. 34:15).

• “And they forsook Yahweh Elohim of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other mighty ones [elohim], of the mighty ones [elohim] of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked Yahweh to anger” (Judg. 2:12).

Many assume that because elohim is usually used in the plural, that it must refer to a Trinity. This is an erroneous assumption by many who attempt to force the concept of a triad into the Hebrew elohim. Elohim does not specify a number, only a plurality. It can just as easily mean two heavenly beings.​

 

[Godbehonored]

Problematic ‘Trinitarian’ Passages

Two New Testament passages are popularly used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. One is Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (KJV).

The Jerusalem Bible questions whether the formula given for baptism here is inspired or liturgical (added later by the church). The Hebrew version of Matthew omits the verse entirely. And although the passage is found in the three earliest known Greek New Testament manuscripts, without any original New Testament manuscripts in existence we have no evidence to substantiate that the present form of Matthew 28:19 is accurate.

One reason biblical scholars question the authenticity of this passage is that it conflicts with the actual method used for baptizing in the New Testament. In all other instances baptism is done only into the singular name of Yahshua (see Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5;22:16; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). The Companion Bible makes special note of this: “To some, perplexity, and even distress, is caused by the apparent neglect of the disciples to carry out the [Master’s] command in Matthew 28:19, 20, with regard to the formula for baptism. …Turning to Acts and onwards, they find no single instance of, or reference to, baptism in which the Triune name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is employed. On the contrary, from the very first, only ten days after the injunction had been given, Peter is found (Acts 2:38) commanding all his hearers including those of the dispersion to be baptized in the name of [Yahshua the Messiah]” (p. 206, Appendix 185).

A second reason why biblical scholars are skeptical of Matthew 28:19 is because of conflicting historical documents. Eusebius of Caesarea is known as one of the greatest Greek teachers and historians of the early church. He lived approximately between the years of 270 CE and 340 CE. In citing Matthew, Eusebius omitted the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19. “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

The Jewish New Testament Commentary says, “Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., quotes the verse without it. Most scholars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala (‘The Conclusion of Matthew,’ Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), (pp. 132-147) and David Flusser (‘The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source,’ ibid., 5 (1966-7), pp. 110-119) take the opposite view” (note on Matt. 28:19, p. 86).

Obviously, Eusebius did not recognize the current form of Matthew 28:19. Instead of quoting the phrase, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he most often used the phrase, “in my name,” which would agree with all other accounts of baptism in the New Testament.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 380, further reveals that Justin Martyr, another church father, was also possibly ignorant of the present form of Matthew 28:19. “Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Christ as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19.”

The second passage in question is 1John 5:7. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” Most biblical scholars will admit that 1John 5:7was a late addition to the New Testament. In other words, this passage is not found in the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Note the following on 1John 5:7: “During the controversy of the 4th cent. over the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded – first in Spain ca. 380, and then taken in the Vulg. – by the insertion: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.’ A few late Greek manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it is passed into the KJV. But all modern critical editions and translations of the NT, including RSV, omit the interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient manuscripts or in the early church fathers” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, note on1John 5:4-12).

The Jerusalem Bible note on 1John 5:7-8says, “Vulg. vv. 7-8 read as follows ‘There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one; there are three witnesses on earth: the Spirit the water and the blood’. The words in italics (not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg. itself) are probably a gloss that has crept into the text,” 1 John 5:7.

There should be no question regarding the faulty rendering of 1John 5:7-8. Historically, along with modern scholarship, it is freely admitted that this passage is a later addition to the original New Testament manuscripts. This passage, along with Matthew 28:19, cannot be used to establish the doctrine of the Trinity.

From both the inspired Word of Yahweh and biblical scholarship, the error of the Trinity is exposed. It is freely admitted through historical and present scholarship that the Trinity was not established during the time of the Apostles, but took an additional three hundred years to become firmly established in the church. This occurred at a time when the church was assimilating many people of pagan beliefs, most of whom held to a Trinity teaching in their heathen background.

Like so many beliefs practiced by mankind, the Trinity was developed through syncretized theology from various religions, and not from the inspired Word.​

 

[GodB4Us]

Deceived trinitarians say the name of the father son and Holy Spirit is simply Jesus. That is false. Not one single verse in the Old Testament or New Testament say the Holy Spirit has a name, let alone the name Jesus. The Holy Spirit never had a name according to Scriptures. Not one single verse in the Old Testament or New Testament say the name of the Father is Jesus. The name of the Father is Yah, Jesus means Yah saves. There isn’t any name shared by the Father, Son and the Spirit of the Father. Never did never will.

Those verses that say “in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit” were originally verses that say “in the name of Jesus”. So the name Jesus was actually REPLACED with an unknown name given to three coequal spirits.

Let those who have ears hear.

God the Father & the Son has made Their abodes in us.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

And separate from Them is also the Person & Witness of the Holy Spirit as being sent from the Father to remind us of all the things Jesus has taught us.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

God is with us.. hence the meaning of the name Emmanuel which is Jesus Christ the Lord.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

So it is not that hard to understand why the name of God to call upon to be saved as being the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ the Lord because Jesus is the Savior as God is the Savior and He will not share His glory with any other.

 

[Godbehonored]

God the Father & the Son has made Their abodes in us.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

And separate from Them is also the Person & Witness of the Holy Spirit as being sent from the Father to remind us of all the things Jesus has taught us.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

God is with us.. hence the meaning of the name Emmanuel which is Jesus Christ the Lord.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

So it is not that hard to understand why the name of God to call upon to be saved as being the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ the Lord because Jesus is the Savior as God is the Savior and He will not share His glory with any other.

You are deceived and will remain so until you admit that the idea of a shared name between the the Father son and the Spirit is UNSCRIPTURAL and manmade.

I will not converse with you anymore. You are willfully deceived.

 

[GodB4Us]

Problematic ‘Trinitarian’ Passages

Two New Testament passages are popularly used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. One is Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (KJV).

The Jerusalem Bible questions whether the formula given for baptism here is inspired or liturgical (added later by the church). The Hebrew version of Matthew omits the verse entirely. And although the passage is found in the three earliest known Greek New Testament manuscripts, without any original New Testament manuscripts in existence we have no evidence to substantiate that the present form of Matthew 28:19 is accurate.

One reason biblical scholars question the authenticity of this passage is that it conflicts with the actual method used for baptizing in the New Testament. In all other instances baptism is done only into the singular name of Yahshua (see Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5;22:16; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). The Companion Bible makes special note of this: “To some, perplexity, and even distress, is caused by the apparent neglect of the disciples to carry out the [Master’s] command in Matthew 28:19, 20, with regard to the formula for baptism. …Turning to Acts and onwards, they find no single instance of, or reference to, baptism in which the Triune name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is employed. On the contrary, from the very first, only ten days after the injunction had been given, Peter is found (Acts 2:38) commanding all his hearers including those of the dispersion to be baptized in the name of [Yahshua the Messiah]” (p. 206, Appendix 185).

A second reason why biblical scholars are skeptical of Matthew 28:19 is because of conflicting historical documents. Eusebius of Caesarea is known as one of the greatest Greek teachers and historians of the early church. He lived approximately between the years of 270 CE and 340 CE. In citing Matthew, Eusebius omitted the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19. “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

The Jewish New Testament Commentary says, “Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., quotes the verse without it. Most scholars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala (‘The Conclusion of Matthew,’ Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), (pp. 132-147) and David Flusser (‘The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source,’ ibid., 5 (1966-7), pp. 110-119) take the opposite view” (note on Matt. 28:19, p. 86).

Obviously, Eusebius did not recognize the current form of Matthew 28:19. Instead of quoting the phrase, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he most often used the phrase, “in my name,” which would agree with all other accounts of baptism in the New Testament.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 380, further reveals that Justin Martyr, another church father, was also possibly ignorant of the present form of Matthew 28:19. “Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Christ as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19.”

The second passage in question is 1John 5:7. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” Most biblical scholars will admit that 1John 5:7was a late addition to the New Testament. In other words, this passage is not found in the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Note the following on 1John 5:7: “During the controversy of the 4th cent. over the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded – first in Spain ca. 380, and then taken in the Vulg. – by the insertion: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.’ A few late Greek manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it is passed into the KJV. But all modern critical editions and translations of the NT, including RSV, omit the interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient manuscripts or in the early church fathers” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, note on1John 5:4-12).

The Jerusalem Bible note on 1John 5:7-8says, “Vulg. vv. 7-8 read as follows ‘There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one; there are three witnesses on earth: the Spirit the water and the blood’. The words in italics (not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg. itself) are probably a gloss that has crept into the text,” 1 John 5:7.

There should be no question regarding the faulty rendering of 1John 5:7-8. Historically, along with modern scholarship, it is freely admitted that this passage is a later addition to the original New Testament manuscripts. This passage, along with Matthew 28:19, cannot be used to establish the doctrine of the Trinity.

From both the inspired Word of Yahweh and biblical scholarship, the error of the Trinity is exposed. It is freely admitted through historical and present scholarship that the Trinity was not established during the time of the Apostles, but took an additional three hundred years to become firmly established in the church. This occurred at a time when the church was assimilating many people of pagan beliefs, most of whom held to a Trinity teaching in their heathen background.

Like so many beliefs practiced by mankind, the Trinity was developed through syncretized theology from various religions, and not from the inspired Word.​

You had to resort to opinionated commentaries and other sources to arrive at your conclusion which is hardly citing a Bible version that holds all the truth in His words for the message God wants us to have in Jesus Christ.

I have kept to the KJV whereas you have not kept to one Bible version to support your belief. In the same way those who oppose 1 John 5:7 as originally was in scripture about the Three Witnesses in Heaven removed that verse because it bothers them in their personal and yet unbiblical belief as they deny the deity of Jesus Christ and not just the Trinity doctrine which the Trinity doctrine IS in need of clarification for assigning each Person as coequal when it is the Father's will that is being done and how the Two Other Witnesses establishes the Word of God as true.

God judges, correct?

And yet it is written that the Father judges no man, but render judgment unto the Son as the Son will judge who honored the father by honoring the Son, and when they did not.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

So explain how God can judge if the Father is not doing the judging?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

2 Corinthians 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Since Jesus is doing the judging of Whom we have to answer to; then Jesus is God as well.

 

[GodB4Us]

You are deceived and will remain so until you admit that the idea of a shared name between the the Father son and the Spirit is UNSCRIPTURAL and manmade.

I will not converse with you anymore. You are willfully deceived.

Since you do not have an answer to the scriptures I have shared with you to defend your beliefs, how can you be so sure you ae not deceived and subverted to man made doctrines?

So go before that throne of grace and ask Jesus Christ for the wisdom you need to see the truth in His words or else continue to not relate to the Father through His Son at your own risk of being left behind for I cannot help you.

 

[Godbehonored]

Since you do not have an answer to the scriptures I have shared with you to defend your beliefs, how can you be so sure you ae not deceived and subverted to man made doctrines?

So go before that throne of grace and ask Jesus Christ for the wisdom you need to see the truth in His words or else continue to not relate to the Father through His Son at your own risk of being left behind for I cannot help you.

What is the use of giving me more Scriptures when you yourself have not addressed ANY of the verses I put up or the wealth of verses given in the commentary I posted that clearly and glaringly contradicts and opposes the trinity falsehood? All you did was to post Scriptures that seemed to confirm the trinity falsehood but you never proved any of the verses I posted as wrong or that the commentary was wrong.

Like I said, the early church had a very simple understanding of God being the Father, the Son being the created Word which became flesh so He is neither coeternal nor coequal with the Father, and the Spirit being an impersonal power proceeding from the Father. But the mystery Babylon in Revelation called Christianity turned this simple understanding into human philosophy at the formation of the Roman Catholic Church, adopting ancient pagan trinity beliefs originating from the first Babylon mystery religion of Nimrod, Semiramus and Tammuz. Look at Revelation and you will see that the spiritual identity of Mystery Babylon is indeed the religion of Christianity, she (a woman is always used in Scriptures to identify a people and/or religion that was supposed to represent God) is drunk with the blood of the saints and that is proven by the persecution and murder of early Christians under the Roman Catholic regime. God is calling His people to come out of her, wake up.

And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus

Why is Mystery Babylon the mother of harlots? Because all the Protestant churches today are birthed from Roman Catholic and they retain the same Babylonian trinity concept just like their mother the Roman Catholic Church.

Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

 

[Godbehonored]

The fact that there are so many confusion about the trinity shows that this concept was not from God, because God is not a God of confusion.

Nowhere in the Gospels were there any debates about the nature and identity of God in the early church under the apostles. The early church had a simple and clear understanding that the Father is the one God, and Jesus is the Savior of mankind. God had poured out His Spirit at Pentecost. End of story. There were no debates no schism on whether God is one or one in three.

But Satan had been hard at work bringing about schism and debates about a simple understanding of who God is. His motive was no more than to corrupt the faith by leading multitudes into worshipping a trinity that he first inspired in Nimrod’s mystery Babylon religion. That was why he brought about the debate on the nature of God, using Constantine and earlier heretics to sow seeds of deception into people’s understanding. Satan succeeded at the council of Nicaea in transforming the pure church and religion of God into Mystery Babylon worshipping a trinity rather than the one God.

 

[Godbehonored]

Further evidence that the Roman Catholic Church is mystery Babylon of Revelation from the Old Testament:

The women added, ‘When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?’ Then Jeremiah said to all the people, both men and women, who were answering him, ‘Did not the Lord remember and think about the incense burned in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem by you and your fathers, your kings and your officials and the people of the land? When the Lord could no longer endure your wicked actions and the detestable things you did your land became an object of cursing and a desolate was without inhabitants, as it is today. Because you have burned incense and have sinned against the Lord and have not obeyed Him or followed His law or His decrees or His stipulations, this disaster has come upon you, as you now see.’ – Jeremiah 44:19-23

The Roman Catholic Church does exactly what the people in the time of prophet Jeremiah did. They worshipped the queen of heaven, who in ancient Babylon was Semiramus. Prophet Jeremiah said they were doing a wicked thing by burning incense to the Queen of heaven!

 

[GodB4Us]

What is the use of giving me more Scriptures when you yourself have not addressed ANY of the verses I put up or the wealth of verses given in the commentary I posted that clearly and glaringly contradicts and opposes the trinity falsehood? All you did was to post Scriptures that seemed to confirm the trinity falsehood but you never proved any of the verses I posted as wrong or that the commentary was wrong.

Just showing that the scriptures opposes how you are applying those other scriptures to mean, because per my belief, your scriptures does not negate the meaning of my scriptures just because the Father is "God" over Jesus and the Father being the One God and yet Jesus & the Father are One for why the Jews tried to stone Him for referring to His deity.

Like I said, the early church had a very simple understanding of God being the Father, the Son being the created Word which became flesh so He is neither coeternal nor coequal with the Father, and the Spirit being an impersonal power proceeding from the Father. But the mystery Babylon in Revelation called Christianity turned this simple understanding into human philosophy at the formation of the Roman Catholic Church, adopting ancient pagan trinity beliefs originating from the first Babylon mystery religion of Nimrod, Semiramus and Tammuz. Look at Revelation and you will see that the spiritual identity of Mystery Babylon is indeed the religion of Christianity, she (a woman is always used in Scriptures to identify a people and/or religion that was supposed to represent God) is drunk with the blood of the saints and that is proven by the persecution and murder of early Christians under the Roman Catholic regime. God is calling His people to come out of her, wake up.

And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus

Why is Mystery Babylon the mother of harlots? Because all the Protestant churches today are birthed from Roman Catholic and they retain the same Babylonian trinity concept just like their mother the Roman Catholic Church.

Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

I believe Babylon in Revelation 18:1-24 is USA, but I agree that the RCC is Mystery Babylon. Mystery Babylon cannot be Babylon USA although Mystery Babylon can be responsible for Babylon USA corrupting other churches in other nations with her spiritual fornication since RCC is a Mother of harlots.

 

[Godbehonored]

Just showing that the scriptures opposes how you are applying those other scriptures to mean, because per my belief, your scriptures does not negate the meaning of my scriptures just because the Father is "God" over Jesus and the Father being the One God and yet Jesus & the Father are One for why the Jews tried to stone Him for referring to His deity.

I believe Babylon in Revelation 18:1-24 is USA, but I agree that the RCC is Mystery Babylon. Mystery Babylon cannot be Babylon USA although Mystery Babylon can be responsible for Babylon USA corrupting other churches in other nations with her spiritual fornication since RCC is a Mother of harlots.

Read again how Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ accusation that He was claiming to be God.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus made it clear that the Father even called mere men who received the word gods so it is not the first time the Father called man a god. That did not make those men deity.

Jesus was quoting Psalms:

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Psalms said the people of Israel are gods and children of the Most High, according to the trinity falsehood they are now all deity! What a laugh!

The written Gospel has been changed and corrupted for nearly 2000 years, it’s still being insidiously changed under the Mandela/CERN effect. I stick only to history, where the apostles was clear there was no such thing as one God in three. If you will not hear, there is no one that can save you from the delusion that has already come on those who don’t love the truth.

 

[Godbehonored]

Who did Jesus say we should be worshiping?

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth

Did Jesus ever say we are to worship a trinity as one God? No! He made it clear that it is the Father who is worshipped. So what about those verses when people worshipped Jesus? It’s because the Father was dwelling in Jesus fully that is why people worshipped the Father in Jesus upon seeing Jesus! The body of Jesus was the living temple of the Father!

 

[Godbehonored]

I believe Babylon in Revelation 18:1-24 is USA, but I agree that the RCC is Mystery Babylon. Mystery Babylon cannot be Babylon USA although Mystery Babylon can be responsible for Babylon USA corrupting other churches in other nations with her spiritual fornication since RCC is a Mother of harlots.

Babylon throughout human history had made people and rulers rich. It started with Nimrod at the Tower of Babel then onto Nebuchadnessar and so on. Those kings all committed fornication by worshipping the Babylonian gods. In revelation the city that was referred to as Babylon does not refer to USA but to the place of origin of the ancient mystery Babylonian religion. That place was where the trinity falsehood started and now RCC has taken the mantle to continue this trinity Babylonian religion. God will judge and Babylon will be destroyed. The religion of RCC will be destroyed along with all her harlot daughters and you have billions of deceived people who will be left without a faith. Then the delusion will come upon them and they will worship the dragon and the beast as prophesied in Revelation, just like how they were trained to worship the Father and Jesus all those years.

In true fact, Jesus both said to worship the Father and the Lord’s Prayer starts with Our Father in heaven. We aren’t supposed to even worship Jesus as God according to the Lord!