By Richard Merrell, PO Box 107, Wentworth Falls, NSW, Australia 2782

At the outset let me say that I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, unless that name implies one who confesses that Christ Jesus IS the SON OF GOD, of that I stand guilty before all men. However many Christians do not accept the doctrine of the trinity, this does not make them 'lost' as the 'trinitarians' claim for salvation is by faith on the risen LORD Jesus Christ and not on some divised doctrine of men. I claim the precious blood of Christ as my only forgiveness by God the Father. It is also to be remembered that Calvin and other trinitarians burnt Michael Servetus at the stakeClick for daring to write a book called De Trinitatis Erroribus or The Error of the Trinity, so much for 'trinitarian' love. I pray that the trinitarians come to a knowledge of the truth of the Lord Jesus, who is indeed EL GIBBOR, (Mighty God) but not I believe EL SHADDAI (Almighty God) who is the Father and God of JESUS, see John 20:17. Also 'all power in heaven and earth is given to me' Matthew 28:17 it thus suffices that there was ONE who gave him this authority and said to him 'sit at my right hand' this authority is only for 'a time' for when the Son delivers the kingdom to God we read these words, 'then will come the end, when he (the SON) shall have delivered up the kingdom to even the FATHER; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign TILL he has put all enemies under his feet. And the last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under his feet. But when he said all things are put under him, it is clear that HE WHO PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM is excepted. And when all things are subdued to him, THEN SHALL THE SON also himself be SUBJECT unto HIM who put all things under him, so that GOD may be all in all' 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. (Emphasis is mine)

Numbers 23:19

FIRSTLY let us look at the new Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church 1994; and what it admits about the doctrine of (holy trinity). At Page 66 para. 251 we read these infamous words, 'In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the church has had to develope it's own terminology with the help of CERTAIN NOTIONS of PHILOSOPHICAL origin: "substance," "person," "hypostases".' What a confession of IDOLATRY, philosophy in the Church !

Now let us look at one of the ANATHEMAS or CURSES against any who do not confess the trinity, from the ANATHEMAS OF THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (533 AD). "If anyone does not confess that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one nature or ESSENCE, one power or authority, worshipped as a TRINITY of the same ESSENCE, one diety in three HYPOSTASES or PERSONS, let him be ANATHEMA." or (accursed)

On the basis of that proclamation I am therefore ANATHEMA for I do NOT confess such a TRINITY or ESSENCE, or HYPOSTASES, the words are NOT found in scripture, and are the NOTIONS of PHILOSOPHICAL thought, and the Apostle Paul warned, "BEWARE LEST ANY MAN SPOIL YOU THROUGH PHILOSOPHY AND VAIN DECEIT, AFTER THE TEACHING OF MEN, AFTER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE WORLD, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST. FOR IN HIM IS EMBODIED THE FULNESS OF THE DIVINITY." Colossians 2:18,19.

It must also be remembered that when Henry VIII split with Rome, the many VAGARIES of ROME were not rejected, along with the Pontifex Maximus, the (Pope) but kept, thus 'Protestantism' to a large degree teaches the doctrines of ROME, for they are ever as 'sacred cows' or as the 'golden calf' of Aaron and given honour as if they are of the truth!

Some CITATIONS regarding the error of trinity, some by Roman Catholic scholars

The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.'The Paganism in Our

Christianity'

Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book 'Christianity and the

World Religions' that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been

unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He

states: “Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus

far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The

distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three

hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than

enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin.

Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add

anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute

or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?

How did such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia

claims: A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. Catholic

scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological

Dictionary: The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . ,

which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation

cannot become wholly intelligible.

A PROTESTANT publication states: The word Trinity is not found in the Bible

It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till

the 4th century. (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic

authority says that the Trinity is not . . . directly and immediately [the]

word of God. New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: In Scripture there is as yet no

single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word

[tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found

in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . Shortly afterwards it

appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.

However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The

Catholic work Trinitas A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for

example, notes that some of Tertullians words were later used by others to

describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: But hasty conclusions cannot be

drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.

WELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) speak

clearly of a Trinity?

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: Theologians agree that the New Testament

also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.”

Jesuit Fortman states: The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or

formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God

there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any

trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity

in the same Godhead.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica observes: Neither the word Trinity nor the

explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.

Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: As far as the

New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of

the Trinity.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states:

The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the

Trinity. Also the Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son,

and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence said Protestant theologian Karl

Barth.

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: To Jesus and Paul

the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; they say nothing

about it. Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Historian Arthur Weigall notes: Jesus Christ never mentioned such a

phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word Trinity appear.

The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death

of our Lord.The Paganism in Our Christianity

The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: Neither the word Trinity, nor the

explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and

his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O

Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine

developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.

By the end of the 4th century - the doctrine of the Trinity took

substantially the form it has maintained ever since.(1976), Micropedia,

Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: 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. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the

title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been

nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.(1967),

Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: Christianity derived from Judaism

and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing that God is one being). The

road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth

century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching

regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this

teaching.(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, The Platonic trinity,

itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier

peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that

gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian

churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s (Plato, fourth century B.C.E.)

conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient

(pagan) religions.(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachacitre, Vol. 2, p.

1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: The trinity

of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of person and

nature which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not

appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long

controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and

substance were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.(New York,

1965), p. 899.

What about JOHN 1:1?

At JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theos' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of theos']"). This first theos' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as 'divine,' 'godlike,' or 'a god.' On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ('the'), but it did not have an indefinite article ('a' or 'an'). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun (theos) cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"

Some people make the claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the (definite) article when it follows the verb; it does not have the (definite) article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (theos), the predicate, precedes the verb "and [theos] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and (the) God was the Word."

But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it. See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.

Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ("a" or "an") in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.

Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell's questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God's Word.

Will saying that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Bible's teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones (Hebrew, acute; elohim')," that is, angels. In Jesus' defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that "the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed," that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6)

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as "gods," mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is "a god." Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a "Mighty God."—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But does not "Mighty God" with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called "Mighty," there can be only one who is "Almighty." To call Jehovah "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os' is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, "in none of these instances is 'theos' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho Theos,' that is, the Supreme God." And the Bulletin adds: "If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?"

But what about the apostle Thomas' saying, "My Lord and my God!" to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like "a god," especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that the Father alone is "the only true God." John 17:3.

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, the Father(Jehovah,Yahweh) was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

Just three verses after Thomas' exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: "These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God," not that he was Almighty God. And it meant "Son" in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.

And besides...John 1:1 only mentions 2 people, a trinity proof text requires the mention of three.

And as to 1 JOHN 5:7 cited by trinitarians to prove a 'trinity'even the most 'die hard' trinitarians admit it is a interpolation and corrupts the text. A proper reading of 1 John 5:7,8 is thus ' And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth. And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one.' or 'agree in one' that's UNITY. Quoted from the HOLY BIBLE from the Ancient Eastern Text, from the Aramaic of the Peshitta.

Whilst the Complete Jewish Bible puts it thus, ' There are three witnesses - the Spirit, the water and the blood - and these three are in agreement'

Also if a 'threefold' formula is used to formulate a trinity, then I could use these words of Paul to arrive at a trintiy, 'Before God, the Messiah Yeshua and the holy angels..' 1 Timothy 5:21; and if the 'trinity' was of such importance Paul must have missed it for neither he nor any other Apostle taught it anywhere, neither did our Lord teach such a thing !

So now having 'hung' myself by denying the trinity doctrine I may as well go all the way and say that Jesus is NOT the eternal Son of God, but the Son of the Eternal God, for there was a time when the Son was not, when the 'word' was with God, for the word took upon flesh and THEN became the SON of God, this agrees with the words of Gabriel to Miriam, 'the holy word born to you shall be called the Son of God' Luke 1:35. It is also of interest that Jesus is again called the WORD of God, when he comes again. See the Apocalypse 19:13; it thus appears he has taken again the title he had BEFORE the conception in Miriam.

Lastly let me say that I am NOT a 'modalist' or a follower of Arius, but it is clear to me that the BIBLE teaches two distinct beings, one the Father whom I call GOD and the other the Word who was with God and became flesh, thus being called the Son of God, who is the EXACT IMAGE of the invisible God, but NOT the same, but what I might call a 'copy' if you will of THE GOD, for no one has ever seen God, but the Son has revealed him to us. Isaiah 9:6 says the 'Son shall be called the 'everlasting Father' but that is the KJV 'massoretic text.' However this text is NOT found in the SEPTUAGINT,which were the scriptures used and cited by the Apostles and the Early Church; nor is it mentioned in the gospels or the Epistles. God remains in unaproachable light and is seen by no man, but the SON alone, through whom we have access to the GRACE and NATURE of God, for the SON is as I have said the EXPRESS IMAGE of God, amen and amen. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth, the POWER by which God works in Christ and in us who believe. It is to be noted too that God is neither male nor female, but these genders are used that we might have understanding for we are but man, male and female, whilst God as Jesus declared is 'SPIRIT' and the Spirit is spoken of in scriptures (in Greek) as both masculine and neuter gender. If you do not believe me check it out.

Now may God bless each of you and make his face to shine upon you, that you may know the excellencies of his great power towards us in the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he raised from death, if I have offended any I ask forgiveness in the name of Messiah Yeshua/Jesus our Lord and Saviour. God bless you all {{smile}}

THE SCRIPTURES SPEAK OF 'TWO LORDS' THE FIRST IS GOD THE FATHER AND THE SECOND LORD IS YESHUA THE 'LOGOS' IN FLESH, HIS SON, THEY ARE MENTIONED IN JOHN 1:1 AND IN 1 JOHN 1:1,2. see Psalm 110:1. See Proverbs 8:22 - 31; Hebrews 1.......THUS THE SCRIPTURES SPEAK OF THE FATHER AND THE SON

GOD IS GOOD IN THAT HE GAVE THE TEACHING REGARDING THE TWO LORDS THROUGH DAVID AT PSALM 110:1; AND IT WAS TAUGHT ALSO BY THE MESSIAH.............THUS GOD FOREKNOWING THAT THE TRINITARIAN AND ONENESS HERETICS WOULD COME GAVE HIS PEOPLE HOLY GROUND TO STAND UPON