TABLE OF CONTENTS:
DEDICATION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, A
WORD OF ADMONISHMENT (3)
PREFACE (10)
INTRODUCTION (11)
CHAPTER 1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MONTHESTIC ONENESS BELIEF
VERSES SATAN’S BABYLONIAN-CATHOLIC TRINITY (13)
The Biblical Doctrine of One God Verses the
Babylonian Trinity of Three Persons or gods.
The
Oneness Modalist Monarchian Doctrine or the Monotheistic Belief of the Bible
(33 AD–Present Time).
The Catholic Semi-Arian Doctrine or the Belief in
Two-Unequal-gods (70-325 AD).
The
Catholic Arian Doctrine or the Belief that Denies Jesus’ Deity (310-450 AD).
The
Catholic Binitarians Doctrine or the Belief in Two-Equal-gods (325-382 AD).
The
Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine or the Belief in Three-Equal-gods (382 AD-Present
Time).
(Comparing the Babylonian Trinity with the Trinity of
Catholicism; Noted Trinitarian Bible Scholars Confessed that the
Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine Cannot Be Found in the
Old or New Testaments.)
CHAPTER 2 THE TRINITY OF THE BABYLONIAN RELIGION (33)
Nimrod
Started the Worship of Nature in the Form of A Trinity.
Semiramis
Started the Worship of the Trinity in the Form of Three Persons.
What
Does the Bible Mean by the Term Mystery Babylon?
Nimrod
Invented the Doctrine that God Is An Omnipresent Spirit in His Essence.
CHAPTER 3 THE ONE AND ONLY GOD OF THE BIBLE IS THE
FATHER (38)
How
Important Is It to God that We Understand His Godhead?
What
Is God or How Does the Word of God Define God?
(Is God a Personal Spirit or an Impersonal Spirit? Is
God a Singular Unbegotten Spirit Who Has Form, Shape, and Locality?)
How
Many God’s Are There: One, Two, Three, or More?
What
Is the Name of the One God of the Bible?
The
Father Alone Is YHWH the One and Only God.
CHAPTER 4 THE SONSHIP
PROGRAM OF GOD THE FATHER (47)
Is
Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God or the Begotten Son of God?
(Professor Walter Martin Declared Jesus Is Not the
Eternal Son of God; Professor Lewis Mayer Taught that the Term Son of God
Referred
to Jesus’ Humanity; Jesus Is the Only Born ‘Monogenes’
Son of God: Jesus’
Sonship Began at Bethlehem.
How
Did God the Father Send the Son?
Did Jesus as God’s Son Have a Real Human Nature?
(As a Man: Jesus Was Limited in Knowledge and Had to Be
Taught; Jesus Was Limited in What He Could Do; Jesus Did Not Teach or
Invent His Own Doctrines; Jesus Had A Human Will; Jesus
Need Food, Water, and Rest to Stay Alive; Jesus Had A Human Flesh, Bone,
and Blood Body; Jesus Could Die.)
Jesus
As the Son of God Was A Spirit Filled Man Who Was Subordinate to His God
(Jesus as the Son of God Had A God He Prayed to; Jesus
as the Son of God Had A God He Worshipped, Served and Obeyed;
Jesus as the Son of God Was Subordinate to His God).
CHAPTER 5
JESUS IS THE FATHER IN HIS NATURE AS GOD (65)
Who
Is Christ?
Isaiah
Acknowledged Jesus as God the Father.
Jesus
Claimed to Be God the Father.
Thomas
Acknowledged the Supreme Deity of Jesus.
John
Acknowledged the Supreme Deity of Jesus.
Paul
Acknowledged Jesus as God the Father.
Jude
and Peter Acknowledged the Supreme Deity of Jesus.
Comparison
Between Old and New Testament Scriptures Prove Christ to Be God the Father.
(Who Is the One LORD? Who Was Pierced in His Hands,
Feet and Side? Who Created Man and the World? Who Is the Savior of All Mankind?
Who Is the Only Potentate, King of Kings and Lords of Lords? Who Is the Stone
of Stumbling and the Rock of Offence? Who Did
the Children of Israel Tempt in the Wilderness? Whom
Was John the Baptist Preparing the Way for? Who Is the Holy One of Israel? Who
Is the First and the Last? Who Is the Almighty God? Whom Was Jesus Reconciling
the World to? Who Will Come to the Mount of Olives to Set up His Millennial
Kingdom? Who Will Judge the Dead? Who Will Raise the Dead? Who Raised the Body
of Jesus from the Dead? Who Draws Men to God? Who Is the I AM of the Bible? Who
Sends the Comforter? To Whom Does the Spirit of Man Return to When He Dies? Did
Christ Preexist Before He Was Born at Bethlehem?
CHAPTER 6 GOD THE FATHER’S OLD TESTAMENT DIVINE
SPIRIT, SOUL,
AND GLORIFIED SPIRITUAL BODY (95)
My Understanding of the Godhead.
God the Father in the Old Testament Had Three Real
Natures: A Spirit, A Soul, and A Spiritual Body
God’s
Unbegotten Spirit Has Never and Can Never Be Seen.
Before
Time Began, God’s Unbegotten Spirit Begot A Divine Holy Spirit,
Who Dwelt in A Divine Human Soul and Glorified Human
Spiritual Body.
What Was the Glory Christ Had Before the Universe
Existed?
Oneness Apostolic Preachers Who Believe in God the Father’s Old
Testament Visible Glorified Spiritual Body.
The
Prophets Seen and Talked with God the Father’s Glorified Human Nature in the
Old Testament.
God the Father, as the Angel of YHWH, Appeared and
Talked to the Patriarchs in His Human Nature.
Some Human Attributes of God the Father’s Old and
New Testament Divine Humanity.
God the Father’s Glorified Human Spiritual Body
Became A Natural Body at Bethlehem,
and All of His Divine Holy
Spirit and Soul Natures Dwelt in It.
CHAPTER 7
CHRIST IS THE HOLY SPIRIT: THE LIVING WORD,
THE SPOKEN WORD, AND THE WRITTEN WORD OF
GOD (128)
Christ,
as the Holy Spirit, Is the Living Word of God in A Human Spiritual Body: (Is Only One Spirit; Is the Spirit of
the Lord Jesus Christ; Is Called by Many Titles; Is the
Spirit of the Father; Is a Personal Spirit that Can
Be Lied to, Grieved, Resisted,
Can Anoint, Teach, Bear Witness, Pray, and Make
Intercession.)
Christ,
as the Holy Spirit, Is the Spoken Word of God: (God’s Power Is in the
Spirit-Words that Proceed Out of His
Mouth and They Are the
Creative Words of God.)
Christ,
as the Holy Spirit, Is the Written Word of God.
CHAPTER 8 BIBLICAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
TRINITARIANS ASK ABOUT THE GODHEAD (136)
Do
the Titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Prove the Trinitarian Doctrine?
The
Dove and the Voice at Jesus’ Baptism Explained.
What
About Plural Pronouns Referring to God, Do They Prove the Trinitarian Doctrine?
The
Hebrew Word Elohiym Explained.
The
Hebrew Idiom the Right Hand of God Explained.
What
About Revelation 5:6-7, Does it Prove the Trinitarian Doctrine?
Jesus
Surrendering the Kingdom to the Father Explained.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (150)
ENDNOTES (154)
Copyright May 30, 1996 by Harry A. Peyton under the title of “The
Doctrines of Christ”
A Note from the
Author: Since Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ, gives His Salvation
and His Word to all freely (Rev 22:17, Mt 10:7-8), this book, and all other
books, written by Harry A. Peyton are given without charge, and can be accessed
through the Internet at the following address: http://www.DoctrinesOfChrist.com.
Therefore, fell free to copy it in digital or written form, and share it with
others. Since this book is copyrighted, the author forbids any alteration of
its contents, and the reproduction of it in any form for Marketing Purposes.
This book may be placed on anyone’s web page, as long as my website address is
attached to it.
The author believes that the Word of God is infallible in
the ORIGINAL
LANGUAGE it was written in, and all translations of the Bible regardless
of how good they may be are NOT. Since the author has implicit faith in the infallibility
of the Word of God, the author has formed his beliefs firmly on the truth of
the Bible. This author uses the ancient ANTIOCHIAN LITERAL-HISTORICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETING
THE BIBLE, which was used by early Christian Prophets and Apostles of
the Bible.
I definitely believe that the ancient Alexandrian Allegorical
Method of spiritualizing scripture, which was made popular by the ancient
Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus (13 BC – 50 AD) and later used by the
Ante-Nicene Catholic Priests, especially Origen and his student Clement of
Alexandria (200 AD), is an abomination to our Lord. Therefore, all scriptures
will be interpreted in a literal exegetical fashion, unless the language used
and the context demands a spiritual interpretation.
All CAPITALIZATION and ITALICIZATION in QUOTES used in this book is always MINE. All Biblical quotes used in this book
will be in dark red, and from the New King James version of
the Bible, unless another version is stated as the reference. The vast majority
of all translations of the Bible, as well as Hebrew and Greek Lexical
definitions and grammar, will come from BibleWorks computer software program
version 7.0. The author in most places will quote
verses from the Bible instead of commenting on a verse and giving a reference;
for He believes that the written Word of God’s has greater power to inspire and
enlighten a heart to understand and act upon truth, than the elegant oratory or
writings of any man.
If
this book has been a blessing to my beloved readers, and they would like to
send an offering to the author, feel free to do so. If anyone wishes to send
any biblical or historical materials to the author, my address is: 148 Little
Creek Hills Rd.: Alto, NM 88312: Phone # 575-336-2800: Email address:
DoctrineOfChrist@Hotmail.com.
DEDICATION
Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior came to
give Eternal Life to all who will enter into a covenant relationship with Him
through the New Birth, and walk with Him in Spirit and Truth. This book is
designed to reveal the absolute truth pertaining to the Supreme Deity of the
Lord Jesus. It is dedicated to all the courageous men, women, and children of
the present and past centuries, who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and believed
His Truths. I would especially like to acknowledge those who suffered social
scorn, loss of income, loss of property, imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom
for their faith in Christ’s New Birth message and their Modalist Monarchian
Monotheistic belief in Jesus’ Supreme Deity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like
to acknowledge my Lord, Jesus Christ, whose love, grace, and inspiration made
this book possible. May He use this work for the propagation of His Gospel, so
many souls may come to know and love Him.
This
admonishment is given to encourage all of God’s children to become students of
the Bible. Beloved, permit me to ask you, why did some of God’s children in
Jesus’ day reject their Messiah and the truths He taught them?
Did they not have God Himself as their preacher or teacher? Did they not believe
in the one true God? Did they not believe that the Bible was God’s Word? Did
they not attend church every Sabbath Day? The answer is obviously yes to all
these questions, so why did they reject their Savior and His teachings? The
answer can be found in second Corinthians
4:4; this verse reveals that Satan blinds the minds of those who do not
believe the truth. There are thousands of truths that can be found in God’s
Holy Word, but the truths concerning Salvation in Christ through the New Birth,
and the Godhead in Christ are the two truths that Satan blinds the minds of
believers the most.
How did Satan
blind the minds of the believers in Jesus’ day, and in our day? He accomplished
this by using false prophets, who filled their minds with false beliefs. It was
for this reason, Jesus warned all believers to: “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and
of the Sadducees” (Mt 16:6). What did Jesus mean by the term
leaven? In verse 12, the Bible
gives us the answer: “Then they understood that He did not tell them to
beware of the leaven of bread, but of the [false] doctrine of the
Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Even though
some of these false prophets may have dazzled and mesmerized God’s Jewish
children with their oratory and teaching skills, their doctrines were still
false. Our Savior spoke of these deceived prophets when He said: “in vain they worship Me, teaching
as doctrines the commandments of men….
Making the Word of God of no effect” (Mk 7:7, 13). It is quite evident that these
men followed some the false traditional
teachings of their forefathers in their organization, and as a result, they
became deceived and went about deceiving others.
Therefore
beloved take heed, for even though a teacher may be able to paint beautiful
spellbinding word pictures, or a preacher may be able to speak very fast and
give fiery orations, this does not
necessarily mean what they are preaching or teaching is the truth! Evidently,
not everything these Doctors of the Law and pastors taught was a lie, for Jesus
told them: you “Brood
of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things” (Mt 12:34)?
Since Jesus
was the new and unknown preacher in town, who resoundingly taught the Bible
antithetically or contrary to the accepted theologians, pastors, and preachers
of His day, therefore many of the God’s people chose to believe the teachings
of their pastors and religious organization instead of His teachings. It must
have broken our Lord’s heart! It saddens me to say that this is exactly what
many sincere Christians do today, when they hear or read God’s Messages on the
New Birth and the Godhead in Christ that were taught by Jesus and His apostles.
When I
understood how Satan blinds the minds of believers, I soon developed a healthy
fear that maybe I was not studying the Bible with an open and unprejudiced
mind. I therefore reexamined all my beliefs. As a result, I discovered that
several of my beliefs were incorrect, and I needed to repent and change them.
Even though I was afraid to change my beliefs, being an Apostolic Pentecostal
minister with a BA in Theology, I made up my heart and mind to walk in the
Light as He is in the Light. I also came to the realization that I am not
married to the doctrines of any preacher, church, Bible College, or
denomination, but to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the infallible Word of God
and the Truth (Jn 1:1; 14:6).
Beloved, if
you and I expect to hear Jesus say to us “Well done good and faithful servant” (Mt 25:21),
then we must not be afraid to change our beliefs, when we perceive that they are
not in agreement with the written Word of God; for the Bible, not men or
organizations, is the only source of absolute truth. Let us not forget, the
people who hated the teachings of Jesus and His apostles were not the sinners
among the Gentiles, or the Jewish people as a whole, but the Church Officials
such as: the High Priest, Doctors of the Law, elders (pastors), and priests,
who were entrusted with leadership positions. These church officials were more
dedicated to the traditions of their organization, than they were to almighty
God and His holy infallible Word.
Therefore, it
becomes very evident that none of these church officials was an infallible
teacher of the Bible, even though their followers thought they were. Because
many of God’s Jewish people blindly followed the teachings of the
officials of their church, they rejected their Savior and His teachings, and
die lost. This cold but sobering fact should be a warning to all believers in
Christ today!
Therefore, it
is extremely dangerous for us to deify any man or organization, by esteeming
them as our infallible teacher, regardless if they call themselves: the
Apostle, the Prophet, the Prophetess, the Pope, the Seventh Church Age
Messenger of the Branhamites, the Little Flock of the Watchtower, the Doctor of
Divinity, or the Pastor. Now, since my name, your name, your pastor’s name,
your church’s name, and the name of your denomination, are not written in the
Word of God, none of us are infallible teachers.
Every
believer needs to love and respect their teachers, but they should never place
them on a pedestal and worship them as their infallible Pope, whereby
everything that comes out of their mouth is: “thus says the Lord.” Most believers are not aware that this is
form of idolatry and God hates it. Beloved, when God saved me and delivered me
from this kind of idolatry, I made a vow to God, i.e. after I came out of
Catholicism, that I would never again place my faith in any priest, preacher,
or religious organization, but only in the Lord Jesus Christ and His holy
infallible Word. I promised my God that I would not believe anything about the
Bible, until I could personally pray about it and search it out for myself!
Now God has
blessed me with some great pastors and teachers, whom I love and respect even
to this day, but I can honestly say that I never worshipped any of them, by
making anyone of them my infallible preacher. Please do not take what I am
saying in the wrong way; I am not condemning or belittling the biblical and
holy office of a bishop, but I am placing it in a biblical and historical
context. Beloved, you may have a pastor who is a good teacher, or even a great
preacher, but I promise you he is not infallible, and I am happy to tell you
that neither am I.
Now someone
might ask me why I am happy about not being infallible. The answer is simple,
if I lead anyone to think my teachings or books are infallible, I cannot change
or correct them, if I later discover that any part of my teachings are
incorrect. Therefore, I do not want to place myself in a position, where I
cannot say: “I am wrong, please forgive
me. I make an honest and sincere mistake, and I will correct it and teach it
correctly.”
For the last 34 years, as an author, pastor, an assistant to
a pastor, an evangelist, and a student of the Word of God, I have always
admonished God’s people to become students of the Bible. I challenged them to
prove what I taught them was the truth. I did this for two reasons: FIRST, I wanted their faith to be in the
infallible Word of God and not in fallible man. I knew that they could parrot
what I taught them, but I also knew that the Word of God could not get down
deep into their hearts, unless each of them prove to themselves by their own
prayer and research, what is truth and what is error. Every child of God needs
to take their salvation seriously, for it is too precious to place it in the
hands of any man, regardless of what title he may be called by.
SECOND, I knew from the Word of God that I was not
the only mouthpiece of God in the Church. I knew every humble
Holy Ghost filled child of God was a Priest of God, and as such could receive
revelation of truth from God (1Co 14:26).
Therefore, I knew that God placed them there not only for me, as their pastor,
to equip them “for the work of the ministry,” i.e. to “become
able preachers and teachers of the gospel” (Eph 4:11-12), but also for
me to learn from them (1Co 14:31).
Because some
of God’s Jewish children, in the days of the Lord Jesus, did not take their God
given responsibility of studying the Word of God for themselves seriously: they rejected the truths He preached and died lost.
They chose instead to follow the teachings of their misguided Pastors and
leaders, who may have been sincere or insincere in their walk with God.
Our Savior warned all believers in Him not to follow their example. Jesus said
it this way: “Many
will say to Me in that day [i.e. the Day of Judgment], ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
And then I will declare to them, ‘I never [oudepote] knew you” (Mt 7:22-23). Drs. Timothy and Barbara
Friberg, in their Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, defined
the Greek word “oudepote” as: an adverb negating a point of time, never,
not at any time. [1]
Jesus did NOT DENY that these believers in Him,
who acknowledge Him as their Lord, did not do these miraculous works by faith
in His holy Name, but He did declare that these believers were NEVER in a COVENANT
RELATIONSHIP with Him, whereby they became His children. In other
words, false prophets deceived them concerning: “the strait and narrow way that led to the Eternal Life in Christ” (Mt
7:13-15). These believers in Christ evidently did NOT BELIEVE in or know the biblical NEW BIRTH message (Jn 3:5 & Tit 3:5 cp with Acts 2:38; 10:44-48;
19:1-5), which would have placed
them in the death, the burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This GOSPEL with its New Birth
message is the solid rock foundation, which all believers must build their
spiritual house on (Mt 7:24-27).
Therefore, if believers in Christ do not want to die lost, they must get their
nose in God’s Book and keep it there.
Let us always
remember, the Word of the living God commanded all of God’s Pastors and saintly
Priests, to evangelize the world for our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible declared:
“It please God
by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe…. The preaching
of the cross to them that perish is foolishness; but unto us which are saved it
is the power of God” (1Co 1:18, 21, KJV). Jesus told His Church: “You shall receive power when the Holy
Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8); and “Go therefore and
make disciples of all the nations” (Mt 28:19).
God commanded
all of His Priestly children to preach: “The
truths found in His Holy Word, not the lies of the Babylonian Religion, i.e.
Mystery Babylon (Rev 17:5); Jesus Christ and Him crucified, not the death of
Zoroaster (one of several names for Nimrod); Eternal Life through Christ, not
Lucifer’s doctrine of the eternality or godhood of man; the New Birth not
reincarnation; Water Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, not baptism
in the titles of Nimrod’s Babylonian Trinity; Spirit Baptism of the Holy
Spirit, not spiritualism. God’s people are ambassadors not diplomats, preachers
not philosophical puppets, prophets not greedy blind watchmen who are dumb dogs
that cannot bark (Isa 56:10-12).”
If any of my
beloved readers, would like to know more about the biblical and historical
truth concerning the Priesthood Ministry of all Believers, and how God set up
the Ministerial structure of the Church, I invite them to read my book
entitled, “The Heresy of the Nicolaitans,” which is given without charge
on my website, along with other books on subjects such as: the New Birth, the
Godhead in Christ, Hell, the Mysteries of the Spirit and Soul of man, Prophecy,
etc.
Biblical Rules
for Interpreting the Bible: Since Pastors in the same denomination, and
saints in the same church, differ from one another in their understanding of
certain doctrinal teachings of the Bible, is not time for all of them to use the same rules for
interpreting the Bible. This is the only way Pastors and saints can come to a real harmony or
agreement on what is truth! This can only happen if all of God’s
children are willing to love, respect, and submit to one another (Eph 5:21; 1Pe 5:3). Therefore, all of
God’s children should lovingly admonish one another to walk in truth, and to
repent of all false doctrines. This requires humility! This is why God
commanded Pastors to be: “examples to the flock,” and for Pastors and
Saints to: “submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility,
for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”
(1Pe 5:3, 5).
Beloved, we
must beware that our hatred of false doctrine, does not turn into hatred for
misinformed Pastors or individuals in and out of the church! If this ever
happens, we have turned our back on God’s way of love, and have entered into
Satan’s ballpark, for he is the author of hate. If we venture to play Satan’s
deadly game of hate, we will find ourselves the losers when we stand before God
at the end of our life. Let us remember that God hates the sins that sinners
commit, but He loves sinners and pleads with them to repent. Let us also never
forget that God has appointed many
Pastors, not one, in each church assembly to be the Judges of Truth (Eph
4:11-15; 1Ti 1:2-4; 3:2-5; 4:16; 5:17-22; 6:3-11; 2Ti 2:24-26; 3:16-17;
4:2-5; Heb 13:17). Therefore, I humbly submit to you, for your approval,
some biblical rules for interpreting the
Bible that God has given me:
FIRST, God gives revelations to us as we pray,
love, keep, hunger, and search for truth (Jn 14:15, 23; Psa 119:33-34; Pro 2:4; Mt 5:6; 1Jn 5:2-3)! Beloved, we do not understand the
teachings of the Bible by our intelligence, regardless how much or little we
may possess, but it comes by inspiration from God’s Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13; 14:26; 1Jn 2:27). Either we will
believe Satan’s lie that we can not understand the Bible, because of our lack
of education in theology, or we will believe what Jesus said: “If any man will do His
[God’s] will, he shall know the doctrine, whether it be of God” (Jn 7:17).
Therefore, we must have our mind made up that
we will settle for nothing less than truth, in our walk with our Creator and
Savior. God never intended His Word to be interpreted by the
imaginations of the mind of mankind; it makes no difference if they are called
the Apostle, the Prophet, the Prophetess, the Pope, the Seventh Church Age
Messenger of the Branhamites, the Little Flock of the Watchtower, the Doctor of
Divinity, or the Pastor. I have discovered through my own experiences that we
are beings, who love to follow the traditions of our elders, church, and
organization. This is good as long as they are teaching true, but if not, God told us to: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it” (Pro 23:23).
If
we do not buy the truth
because it is not popular, or because it offends our parents, relatives,
friends, church, organization, and so on, then we are selling our salvation for
the favor and praises of men. We become men-pleasers instead of God-pleasers.
We will esteem men much more highly than we esteem God. Pastors and saintly
Priests, who preach this great gospel, should always remember that there is a
price to pay to walk in truth! Rejection, loneliness, and heartache are often a
part of this great price; nevertheless, everyone who truly loves our dear Lord
will always be willing to pay any price, to walk with Him in truth. If we claim
to be children of the Light: we must walk
in the Light or darkness will overtake us (Jn 12:35-36, 46). Therefore,
I encourage my beloved readers to open their hearts and minds, as they open
their Bibles in search for the truth.
SECOND, we must be willing to do our homework and study the Word of God with an open,
unbiased, honest, and humble
spirit! The Bible is a Book inspired with all of God’s children in mind, and God
intended that His children should
read, study, and understand it, for it is one of our Heavenly Father’s great
and precious gifts to us. Therefore, let each of us become students of the
Bible, and eat “our
daily bread.” Let us not be lazy; let us study the Word of
God for ourselves every day.
A brother whom I lead to God’s New Birth,
once told me that his dad, who was a Protestant denominational minister, told
him that he spent four years in Seminary School so he could learn the Bible,
and twenty years unlearning what he had learned. In other words, because he was
so thoroughly indoctrinated with the beliefs of his denomination: it was a real struggle for
him to lay aside his biases, and to study the Bible with an open mind. This can happen to pastors who place their
faith in their denomination, and to saints of God who place their faith in the
teachings of their pastor. This can happen to both, if they fail to study the
Word of God with an unbiased mind.
Because God does not want His children to
be deceived by Nicolaitan pastors, teachers, and organizations, He commanded
them to: “Prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect,
will of God;” and “Prove all things,
hold fast that which is good;” and “Study to shew
thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth”
(Rom 12:2, 1Th 5:21, 2Ti 2:15, KJV). According to the
great apostle Paul, the Berean saints explicitly followed these God given
commands, for he wrote: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the
Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined
the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts
17:11, NIB). In other words, these believers did not allow
their love and respect for Paul, or any other teacher, to prevent them from
examining their teachings with the written Word of God.
I
can remember what my dear mother told me, whom was a devout Catholic, when I
was witnessing to her about the reality of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. She
told me that she had received this glorious experience in prayer in 1964, and
shortly after the Holy Spirit led her to start reading the Bible. The Holy
Spirit than began to teach her, and revealed to her, that some of the things
she was taught by her Priest was incorrect. After about six months, she went to
her Priest and asked him about these things. He then told her that she could
not understand the Bible, for she did not have Seminary training. Therefore, he
FORBADE her to read the Bible! It deeply grieves me
to say, she believed this lie and followed this command. Beloved for centuries
the Bible was chained to Catholic pulpits, written in Latin, and only a Priest
could read and interpret it. Well, the Bible is not chained up anymore, and it
is written in a language that we all can read! Therefore beloved, none of us
has an excuse why we cannot study it.
THIRD, we must be willing to lay aside our
pride, fears, and bias beliefs, whereby we
can search for all the scriptures on any given subject of the
Bible. After we find them, we must
meticulously examine all of them, and search for an interpretation that will harmonize
with all of the evidence. Since all scriptures in the Bible come
from God, not even one can contradict another, i.e., in the original language it was written in (2Ti
3:16). After we have done this, then God will be able to open our
spiritual eyes and give us enlightenment. Another way of saying this is: we
must first find all the pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, which is the
hardest part of studying the Bible, but this is where the real men and women of
God become separated from the false prophets. We must then put all the pieces together until
we can see that one and only perfect picture, which is the absolute
truth. If we fail to find most of the scriptures, we will see a picture
using the scriptures we have found, but it will probably be a distorted
picture, even though we may think it is the truth.
When one is looking for a harmony in
scriptures, and not for a debate, knowing that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, in
the original language that it was written in,
it is not that hard for two people with opposing perspectives to come to an
agreement, if their true motive is to find truth. The Bible declares: “Only by pride
cometh contention” (Pro 13:10). Since none of us
enjoys change when it comes to our religious beliefs, we react very negatively
when someone disturbs our feelings of security. If we truly love our
fellow man, then we will not be afraid to humbly tell each other the
truth, even if we momentarily become offended. No surgery is pleasant while the
doctor is cutting us open, but after the tumor, cancer, or disease is removed,
and our health is restored, what joy good health brings.
FOUTH, I furthermore admonish my beloved readers to believe that
God said what He meant and meant what He said; in other words, God intended
that we believe and understand “every word”
in the Bible He used to express His infallible
thoughts or teachings
(Psa 12:6-7; Pro 30:5; Mt 4:4). This means we must make use of Greek and Hebrew
lexicons (dictionaries). The reason for this is: Greek
and Hebrew words, like words in the English or any other language, have more
than one meaning. There is a literal meaning, and there is a figurative
meaning. Each Bible translator must choose the word that fits the context of
the scriptures surrounding the word. Hopefully, they can do this without
allowing their own religious beliefs to hinder them from choosing the correct
word.
A good example of translators missing the
truth by using the figurative meaning over the literal meaning of
Greek words, and totally ignoring the context, can be found in John 3:8.
Most translators translated it as: “The wind [Pneuma] blows where it wishes, and
you hear the sound [phone] of it, but cannot tell
where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit
[Pneuma]” (NKJ; also see the KJV, NIV, ASV, RSV,
etc). The true translation, that is, the literal
translation, which is in perfect agreement with the context is: “The Spirit [Pneuma] breathes where He desires,
and the voice [phone also means language] of Him you hear, but you
know not where He comes, and where He goes, so is everyone having received
birth from the Spirit [Pneuma]” (Morris’ Literal Translation of the
Bible; also see The Interlinear Bible by J. P. Green, and Young’s
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, etc).
In the following verse, the Greek word phone is translated language, and from
the context can only mean language: “if I do
not know the meaning of the language [phone], I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who
speaks will be a foreigner to me” (1Co 14:11, NKJ; also see NAS, NAB, NLT, ESV, RSV).
Therefore,
we must interpret
the Bible in a literal fashion. This is only way we
can fulfill the Bible command that we should not ‘wrest’ or ‘twist’ or
‘pervert’ the scriptures to our “own destruction” (2Pe 3:16). All
scriptures must be taken literally,
unless it is a Jewish idiom, or the language and context demands a spiritual
interpretation. If
a symbolic interpretation is what God intended, then God will interpret the
symbolic word or phrase somewhere in His Holy Word. God ordained that each scripture should be interpreted in
the light of other scriptures (1Co
2:11-13).
Jesus taught us that we would know false
prophets by their fruits. The major fruit of all false prophets, in all
ages, is their frequent use of the allegorical
method to interpret the Bible.
A favorite
saying among those who have already been deceived by false prophets is: “I know this teaching is not of God because it brings
in confusion.” Therefore, many believers will follow the example of
their deceived teachers, and place a literal meaning on the scriptures they
want to believe in, and a figurative meaning on the scriptures that seem to
bring confusion to them. Because they are not willing to change their beliefs,
they will not look for an
interpretation that will harmonize with all the scriptures on that subject,
i.e. of course using the literal method. Therefore, they would rather
believe a lie and spiritualize away
the scriptures that seem to bring confusion to them. Beloved, if you are guilt
of this sin, God is calling you right now to repent.
Beloved, we must learn patience, and wait
upon our Savior with faith in our hearts, expecting Him to give us
enlightenment as we pray and study His Word. Let us always remember that it is
our God given responsibility to seek for truth, and it is our Heavenly Father’s
responsibility to reveal truth (Mt
7:7-8). Beloved, do not be afraid to test or
thoroughly examine your beliefs, for truth can be placed under a microscope and
thoroughly dissected, and it will shine brighter than ever, as long as we
follow the biblical guidelines that are given in the Bible for studying the
Word of God. These are some of the biblical rules that can be found in
my book
entitled How to Study the Bible, which is also given
away on my website.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the author of this book is asking his beloved readers to prayerfully
read this book to the end, so that they may comprehend the entire teaching.
After doing this, then dissect and examine this book by looking for a harmony
in all the scriptures that I use, and the scriptures you know of that pertain
to this subject, as both of us interpret them in a literal fashion. After you
have done these things, then judge for yourself the validity of this teaching.
As my beloved readers read the following study, I
challenge them to love God enough to prove this message either true or false;
for many, like myself, have discovered truth by trying to prove it wrong! I
rather you read this book and become either angry or glad, but please do not
become indifferent; for if you are angry you will try to prove it wrong, but if
you are glad, that means God has given you the revelation of this truth. If you
are unresponsive that means you do not take your salvation seriously!
I would much rather see someone fight against the
truth, as the apostle Paul did before God gave him understanding, than for that
person to be indifferent toward truth and die lost! I do not say this in
the spirit of pride or in claiming infallibility, but I put forth this
challenge in hopes that they will earnestly and thoroughly examine this truth.
If anyone believes he or she has found an error in any portion of the above
teachings, or in the following teachings, I admonish him or her to love me
enough to correct me, and to show me how their belief is in perfect harmony with all of God’s reveal will on this
subject. Also, if you have any biblical or historical materials you
would like to share with me, please send them to me, or email them to me, at
the above address.
Beloved,
truth is the greatest gift of love that any preacher can give to those who listen
to their spoken message, or reads what he or she has written. The more truth
any child of God places in their heart, the more of Jesus they have, for He is
the Truth (Jn 14:6). Beloved, it
is impossible for you to say you love Jesus and not love the Bible, for Jesus
is the Living Word (Jn 1:1), and every word in the Bible are His Words. My
prayer for you is that the Lord Jesus Christ, who is both the Almighty God and
the Son of God, will open your heart and mind to understand His message of
truth. With all the above truths in mind, let us begin our SEARCH FOR TRUTH!
Your Loving
Servant In Christ,
PREFACE
Napoleon Bonaparte
speaking of the Deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the conquering
power of His Cross said: I know men; the life and death
of Jesus Christ was not that of a man. If the death of Socrates was that of a
sage, the death of Jesus Christ was that of God. The gospel of Jesus Christ is
no mere book but a living creature with vigor, a power that conquers all that
opposes it. Alexander, Charlemagne, and myself have founded great empires, but
upon what did the creation of our genius depend, upon force: but, this man
Jesus Christ has founded His empire upon love, and to this day millions would
die for Him. [2]
“In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. He was in the world,
and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him…. And the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as
of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:1,
10, 14); also “And without controversy
great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified
in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up in glory;” and “Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (1Ti 3:16, Heb
13:8).
Throughout this book the author will lay aside his
theological biases, and present a book based on investigative research, with
one objective in mind, that is: to examine all the scriptures in the Bible that
are given on this extremely important doctrine, and after this, to harmonize
each scripture whereby all of them are in complete agreement. The author is a
one God, Jesus’ Name Pentecostal Preacher. After 38 years of studying the
godhead, I can honestly say I do not believe it exactly the way I did when I
started.
Some of the conclusions I have reached are definitely
different from the two-god doctrine of the early Catholics, and the Trinitarian
doctrine of the later Catholics. It is also different from the early Arians and
their later counterpart the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Even though it is different
from the Catholic, Protestant, and Arian doctrines of the godhead, it is
not different from the One-God doctrine of the early
Apostolic Pentecostals of the first and later centuries.
My disagreement with all these denominations on the godhead
is not a boastful or arrogant statement. Nevertheless, I must walk in the light
of what God has shown me through my prayers and studies, just as all men who
love the Lord Jesus Christ must do. It is not a sin to change your beliefs on
any given subject of the Bible when you perceive you are wrong, that is part of
the growing process of being a Christian, but it is a sin to compromise or sell
out one’s beliefs because of fear of a preacher, church, organization,
financial loss, or persecution. I cannot help but believe that there are
preachers in every denomination, who know truths about the godhead, which they
are afraid to preach.
Even though I
firmly and vigorously opposed the Trinitarian doctrine taught by Catholic and
Protestant theologians, pastors, preachers, and priests, and lovingly chide or
reprove them throughout this book, I do not hate them. We are all human and are
subject to mistakes; we all have biases and are subject to follow them.
Therefore, it behooves all of us to be determined to study the infallible Word
of God with an open, honest, and unprejudiced mind! Preachers of this great gospel
must ask themselves some important questions. Is the approval of my people or
organization more important to me than my sweet Lord's approval, which comes
from obedience to Him? Am I willing to sell my soul for a position, salary, or
anything else? Preachers should always remember that there is a price to pay to
walk in truth!
INTRODUCTION
Is God one, two, three or more persons? Is God an
omnipresent Spirit in His personal essence, or is this one of the qualities
God’s many attributes? In other words, does God fill the universe with the
Spirit-Words that came out of His mouth at creation, or does He physically
dwell in all matter, even in Hell and in Satan, with His personal Essence (Jn 6:63; Heb 1:3, 11:3; Psa 139:7-8)? Is the Word or Logos the eternal Son of God, or is He the
begotten Son of God? Was Jesus begotten by God the Father before time began, as
some have taught, or was He begotten at Bethlehem, or was He begotten at both
times?
Is Jesus God? If Jesus is God, is he a part of God, meaning
one third of God, or is He all God? Is Jesus God the Father, is He God the Son,
or is He both? Did Christ have a dual nature, that is, a Divine as well as a
Human Nature before Bethlehem, or was it after it, or was it at both times? Who
was the Father of Jesus when He was conceived in the virgin Mary, was it God
the Father, was it the Holy Spirit, or was it both? Is the Holy Spirit a
person? If the Holy Spirit is a person, how can He be in a million believers at
the same time?
Why are their scriptures in the Old Testament that speak of
God’s Soul Nature in the present tense? For
example, God the Father told Israel, if you keep My commandments: “I will set My tabernacle among you: and My Soul
shall not abhor you,”
but if you do not, “My
Soul shall abhor
you” (Lev 26:11, 30). When Israel repented: “They put away the foreign gods from among them and served
the LORD. And His Soul could no longer endure the misery of Israel” (Jud 10:16). How does one explain these scriptures? These are just a
few, of many scriptures, which speak of God’s Soul in the Old Testament.
Why is it that no book of theology, at least the ones I have read, ever mention
that the one God of the Old Testament had a Soul Nature as well as a Spirit
Nature.
Why does
Jesus refer to His preexistence as the “Son of Man,” that is a “Man” or “Human Being,” before He was born of Mary? Jesus said it this way: “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended
from heaven, {even} the Son of Man” (Jn
3:13, NAS); and “What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend [to heaven] where He was before [proteron]” (Jn 6:62)?
According to Doctors Friberg, the Greek adjective “proteron,” which is “used in reference to time” means: earlier, former or prior? The verb “He
was” is in the imperfect or past tense and it obviously refers to
the place where the “Son
of Man” dwelt before He came to earth.
Since we know God is omniscient, what does the following
passages of scripture mean? “The
LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved
in His heart” (Gen
6:6, NAS); also “I am going down to see whether these reports
[of the
sins of Sodom and Gomorrah] are true or not. Then I will know” (TLB);
or “I will therefore go
down and see, if they [i.e. the reports] completely
correspond with the cry which comes to me, and if not,
that I may know” (LXE); or “I will go down now, and see if their acts
are as bad as they seem from the outcry which has come to me; and
if they are not, I will see” (Gen 18:21, BBE). We know that Jesus was omniscience in His Nature as Deity
or God in the New Testament, but as the Son of Man He was
limited in knowledge. Jesus speaking in His Human Nature of His
second coming said: “But of that day and hour no one has
knowledge, NOT even the angels in heaven, or the Son, but the
Father [i.e. Deity] only” (Mt 24:36, BBE). Is
there any connection between all of the above passage of scriptures?
Did God appear to the Patriarchs and Prophets in the Old
Testament as a theophany, which many erroneously claim was a temporary
human manifestation of Deity (Gen
18:1-2, 13-14, 32:24-30)? If He did, then why did the apostle Paul write
that Christ “existed in the form
of God” in the Old Testament, before He took on a “slave’s
form” or fleshly
natural body at Bethlehem (Phi 2:6, NAS, compare with Jn 1:1 &
Heb 1:3)? What was this “form” or “body” He had in the Old Testament?
The word “form” is the Greek word “morphe.” Dr. Joseph Thayer, in his dictionary entitled A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, defined “morphe” as: 1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision [i.e.] 2) external appearance. [3]
What does this and all the above verses really teach? We will find out later in
this book.
CHAPTER 1
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MONTHESTIC
ONENESS BELIEF
VERSES SATAN’S BABYLONIAN-CATHOLIC
TRINITY
This chapter is excerpt from my book entitled, A History of Oneness through the Centuries.
It contains selected passages from this book.
Have you ever wondered why there are so many different
teachings or diversity of beliefs in Christendom pertaining to the doctrine of
godhead? Have you ever wondered how one God can be three separate persons or
beings? If so, let me assure you, that you are not alone. There has been a host
of others throughout all ages that have asked the same question.
The Biblical Doctrine of One God Verses the Babylonian
Trinity of Three Persons or gods: God’s people in the Old Testament went
into apostasy several times. They keep going into Lucifer’s Mystery Babylonian
Religion, or in other words, Lucifer’s Babylonian Trinity. This trinity
consisted of: Baal, Ashtaroth, and Tammuz. Baal represented god the father, the
sun god; Ashtaroth represented the mother god or the mother of the gods, the
moon goddess; Tammuz represented the son of god or god the son, who was also
known as the sun god.
The Bible stated: “They [the Children of Israel] forsook the LORD, and served Baal
and Ashtaroth” (Jug 2:13). God told Ezekiel: “You will see greater abominations that they [the House of Israel] are doing.’ So He
brought me to the door of the north gate of the LORD’s house; and to my dismay,
women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz” (Eze 8:13-14). God
told Jeremiah: “The children gather wood, the fathers kindle
the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the Queen of Heaven;
and they pour out drink offerings to other
gods, that they may provoke Me to anger” (Jer 7:18).
God’s people did not
fall into this apostasy one time, but throughout their history Israel forsook
the LORD, worshipped, and served the Babylonian Trinity. Here are two more
examples: the prophet Samuel speaking to the house of Israel said: “If you return to the LORD with all
your hearts, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths
from among you, and prepare your hearts for the LORD, and serve Him [not
them] only; and He [not them] will deliver you
from the hand of the Philistines. So the children of Israel put away the Baals
and the Ashtoreths, and served the LORD only” (1Sa 7:3-4). Years later after the people of
Israel went into Baal worship again, they cried unto the LORD and said: “We have sinned, because we have forsaken the
LORD and served the Baals and Ashtoreths; but now deliver
us from the hand of our enemies, and we will serve You” (1Sa 12:10).
There has been in the history of the Christendom five
teachings on the godhead, and each appeared in the following order:
The Oneness Modalist Monarchian Doctrine
or the Monotheistic Belief of the Bible
(33 AD–Present Time)
This is the oldest teaching known in church history; it
started with the apostles in 33 AD
and it can be found throughout church history. It declared that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were titles,
offices, modes of revelation, or characters as in a play, that the one person
of God has revealed Himself to His Children. As the Father, the one God
revealed Himself as the Creator of man and the cosmos. As the Son of God, the
Father revealed Himself as the Savior of all mankind by becoming a Human Being,
i.e. with a real flesh, bone, and blood physical body, and as a man died
for their sins. As the Holy Spirit, the Father revealed Himself as the
Regenerator of man, by dwelling in him for the purpose of redeeming,
empowering, and transforming him into Christ’s likeness.
According to Catholic and Protestant Church
Historians, God’s Apostolic Pentecostal Modalist Monarchian Churches were in
the vast majority for the first four centuries. It is a crime against God that
the Vatican destroyed the writings of these Post Apostolic Pentecostals. Thus,
the only history we have of these Men of God, and what they believed, are what
their Catholic antagonist wrote against them in their early histories, which
can be found in the Ante Nicene Fathers, and the Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers. It is obvious from the writings of these Catholic Priests
that many books were written against them, i.e. by the Apologists of God’s
Apostolic Pentecostal Church and others.
Professor Charles Guignebert, in his historical
work The Early History of Christianity, confirmed the above truth when
he declared: various Christian people had written a great deal against her [Catholicism], or concerning her; this
literature has almost entirely disappeared and the little that remains is only
enough to show us how great would be the service it might render. Because it
has no alternative but to use (a) polemical or exegetical writing
mainly, badly emended by accounts reputed to be historical, but written
long after the events and at a time when they were scarcely understood....
It is right and necessary that we should not forget that fact…. For
example, to try to exact from the collection of [Catholic] Christian documents alone an
exact idea of the early times of the Church was to give way to a tantalizing
delusion; whether the fact was realized or not, the undertaking [of it
by historians]
was inspired by prejudgments of the faith.... They [historians] endeavored to preserve its old
standing as an originality, and this desire was fed from more than
one root in the theological postulate of revelation. [4]
Therefore, any unbiased student of history must
overlook the venom, slander, distortion, and outright lies these early
Catholic Priests wrote against God’s Apostolic Preachers. For this reason,
an unbiased student of the Bible must judge these Men of God by what they taught
about God, and how it agrees with God’s Biblical record. The Catholic
Encyclopedia gave a fair explanation of the origin and differences of
belief between God’s Modalist Monarchians and the early Catholic Priests. It
revealed that the Jesus’ Name Monarchians: made the Son and the Holy Ghost
merely aspects or modes of existence of the Father, thus
emphatically identifying Christ with [the
Father] the
one God.... They spoke of the Father as Spirit, and the Son as flesh.
This encyclopedia went on to reveal, that the
God’s Apostolic Pentecostals were against the Catholic adoption of
Plato and Philo’s doctrine of two-unequal-gods; that is: the learned philosophizing of the Christology of Catholicism. It also declared that the Catholic
godhead doctrine: looked too much like a mythology or a Gnostic emanationism.
God’s Apostolic: Monarchians emphatically declared
that God is one, wholly and perfectly one, and that Jesus
Christ is God, wholly and perfectly God. This was right,
and even most necessary, and whilst it is easy to see why theologians like Tertullian
and Hippolytus opposed them [i.e. the Oneness Pentecostals] for their protest was
precisely against the Platonism, which these theologians had
inherited from [their Catholic predecessors
i.e.]
Justin and
the Apologists.
It went on to declare the Egyptian Catholic
allegorists, that is: The Alexandrians alone insisted rightly on the generation of the Son
from all eternity; but thus the Unity of God was even less
manifest. The writers who thus theologize may often expressly teach the
traditional Unity in Trinity, but it hardly squares with the Platonism
of their philosophy. The theologians were thus defending the
doctrine of the Logos at the expense of the two
fundamental doctrines of Christianity, the Unity of God,
and the Divinity of Christ. They seemed to make the
unity of the Godhead split into two or even three, and
to make Jesus Christ something less than the supreme God the
Father. This is eminently true of the chief opponents of the
Monarchians, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian. [5]
I sincerely thank the Catholic Priests, who wrote this Catholic history, for
their honesty and forthrightness.
Praxeas’ Godhead Doctrine:
With the above truth in mind, let us examine the ancient Modalist Monarchians
belief in the Godhead. Quintus Septimius Florens, better known as Tertullian,
wrote against Praxeas and other one God Pentecostal Preachers around 200 AD, whom he vehemently hated. According to Elgin
Moyer in his Who Was Who in Church History, Praxeas: came to Rome in the time of
Marcus Aurelius [161-180 AD]. [6]
If this was so, then Praxeas would have came to Rome when Eleutherus was the
Bishop-Pope of the Catholic Church in Rome. The renowned twentieth century German Lutheran professor Adolph Harnack, in his
History of Dogma, declared that
Eusebius claimed that Eleutherus (AD 174-189) was
converted to the oneness doctrine. Professor Harnack wrote: If this Bishop was Eleutherus,
and that is probable from Eusebius H.E. V. 4, then we have four Roman
Bishops in succession who declared themselves in favor of the
Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, and
Callistus. [7]
Praxeas may have come to Rome twice and was the
one who converted Catholic Bishops Eleutherus and Victor to the truth. He was
evidently a great preacher and teacher of the Gospel of Christ. According to
Tertullian, Praxeas was a confessor for Christ. The Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary defined confessor as: one who gives heroic evidence
of faith but does not suffer martyrdom. Tertullian ridiculed Praxeas’ suffering in a Roman prison
for his unwavering faith in Christ by saying: it was simply
and solely because he had to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison. [8] Therefore, when this great preacher came to visit
the Modalistic Monarchian Pentecostal Church in Rome, both of these Catholic
Bishops of Rome were no doubt very impressed by his preaching and his
reputation as a confessor for Christ.
Tertullian stated Praxeas Godhead doctrine as: Praxeas introduced a [an assumed] heresy, which
Victorinus [i.e. Victor, the Catholic Bishop-Pope of Rome -
189-198 AD]
was careful to corroborate. He asserts that Jesus Christ is God the
Father Almighty. Him he contends to have been crucified, suffered, and
died. [9]
Tertullian continued: In the course of time,
then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself,
the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be
Jesus Christ…. The older [so-called] heretics, much more
before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday…. which
supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot
believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person….
The simple, indeed, (I
will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority
of believers, are startled at the Dispensation ([supposedly]
of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws
them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God….
They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of
two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently
the credit of being worshippers of the One God…. We,
say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God). And so, as far
as the sound goes, do even Latins…. Well, then Latins take pains
to pronounce the monarci>a (or Monarchy), while Greeks
actually refuse to understand the oijkonomi>a or Dispensation ([supposedly]
of the Three in One)…. I am, moreover,
obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy
at the expense of the Economy) they contend
for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit . [10]
Tertullian continued: They distinguish two,
Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus;
and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ….
See, say they, it was announced by the angel: ‘Therefore,
that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God.’ Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh
that was born, it must be the flesh that is the Son of
God. [11]
Praxeas and all other oneness Pentecostals taught that God the Father, the one
and only true God, was manifested in the human flesh at Bethlehem (1Ti 3:16; Jn 1:14); and because of Christ’s flesh and
blood body, He became known as the Son of God.
Let my beloved readers take note,
Tertullian indisputably declared that God’s Modalist Monarchian Pentecostal
Churches were in the vast majority in the second century, and not
only in the second century but much more before it, i.e. the first
century. Tertullian also declared that God’s Apostolic Churches were scattered
throughout the Roman Empire, i.e. in all the Latin and Greek
speaking nations. In fact, the Greek language was the common language of the
nations in the Roman Empire. It was definitely use by God’s Jewish apostles in
writing the New Testament.
In fact, Ignatius wrote against them in
107 AD, when he said: There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or
three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore
also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all
nations, commanded them to ‘baptize in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three who became
incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor. [12]
In his Epistle to the Trallians, he
tried to defame God’s people by saying, the Oneness Pentecostals teach: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same
person. [13]
Noetus’ One God
Doctrine: Catholic Bishop Hippolytus
of Pontus, which was near Rome, passionately hated Noetus and other Oneness
Preachers; he wrote against them around 225 AD.
He declared: Noetus
affirms that the Son and Father are the same, no one is ignorant. But he
makes his statement thus: ‘When indeed, then, the Father had not
been born [of Mary at Bethlehem], He yet was justly
styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation,
having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another’s.’ For
in this manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that Father
and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual
produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled
by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times [or at
different time periods].
But that He is one who
has appeared (amongst us), both having submitted to generation from a
virgin, and as a man having held converse among men. And, on account
of the birth that had taken place, He confessed Himself to those
beholding Him a Son, no doubt; yet He made no secret to those who
could comprehend Him of His being a Father. That this person
suffered by being fastened to the tree, and that He commended His spirit unto
Himself…. And He raised Himself up the third day, after having been interred in
a sepulcher, and wounded with a spear, and perforated with nails. [14] Jesus being God the Father did raised the
Temple of His Human Body from the dead, as the Word of God teaches (Jn 2:19 cp with Gal
1:1).
Hippolytus informed us that Roman Catholic
Bishops-Popes Zephyrinus (198-217 AD)
and Callistus (217-222
AD) became disciples of Cleomenes,
who was a disciple of Epigonus, who was a disciple of Noetus. Epigonus came to
Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, or shortly before c. 200, and started a School of Theology, which
flourished during the Bishopric of these two men. Hippolytus says it this way: Now a certain man called
Epigonus becomes his [Cleomenes’] minister and pupil, and
this person [Epigonus] during his sojourn at Rome disseminated
his [so-called] godless opinion. But Cleomenes, who had
become his disciple… was wont to corroborate the (Noetian) doctrine. At that
time, Zephyrinus… [convinced] those who were present
for the purpose of becoming disciples of Cleomenes…. The school of these
[so-called] heretics during the succession of such bishops,
continued to acquire strength and augmentation, from the fact that Zephyrinus
and Callistus helped them to prevail. [15] Cleomenes remained the head of this school until
215 AD, when Sabellius succeeded him as the head
teacher until 220
AD.
And he adds, that this is what has been declared by
the Savior: ‘Believest thou not that I am in the
Father, and the Father in me?’ For that which is seen, which is man,
he considers to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained
in the Son, to be the Father.’ For, says (Callistus), ‘I will not
profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one. For the Father,
who subsisted in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself
our flesh raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into
union with Himself, and made it one; so that Father and Son must be styled one
God, and that this Person being one, cannot be two.’ And in this way
Callistus contends that the Father suffered along with the Son; for he does not
wish to assert that the Father suffered, and is one Person…. all consented
to his [Bishop
Callistus’ so-called] hypocrisy —
we, however, did not do so — and called us worshippers of two gods.
[17]
Let my beloved readers take note, according to
Hippolytus the Modalist Monarchian Pentecostal Church of Rome, and the converted
Oneness Catholic Church of Rome, contained the majority of Christians in Rome
at that time. Both Catholic Bishops-Popes of Rome accused Hippolytus’ small
band of Catholic rebels of believing in two separate persons or gods in the
godhead. They did not accuse them of being Trinitarians, which is the belief in
three separate persons or gods.
It is also seems that Catholic Bishop Callistus
held a slightly different viewpoint on the godhead than Praxeas, Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Sabellius, and other
Modalist Monarchians. For he seems to have believed, God in His essence was an
omnipresent spirit, unless he is speaking of the attribute of omnipresence; it is hard to tell from the information that is
given. Because Callistus
and Sabellius held different Christology views, Callistus when he became the
Bishop of Rome accused Sabellius of hold unorthodox beliefs on the Godhead, and
brought pressure on him to teach his former belief, which was the belief
of Cleomenes and Noetus. Hippolytus says it this way: Sabellius…
was wrought upon to relapse [go back]
into the system of Cleomenes by this very Callistus, who alleges
that…. Sabellius as not entertaining orthodox opinions. [18]
God’s essence will be discussed in
chapters two and six.
In 355 AD, the
Arian Catholic Church published the Lengthy Creed of Sirmium. This creed
cursed all forms of Oneness. It stated:
And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and
irreligiously take the Three Names of one and the same Reality and Person, we
justly proscribe from the Church, because they suppose the illimitable and
impassible Father to be limitable withal and passible through His becoming man:
for such are they whom Romans call Patripassians, and we Sabellians. [19]
God’s Apostolic Churches, not only existed in
the first century, but also were in the majority at that time and through
the fourth century. Catholic Bishop Ignatius, in 107 AD, wrote against them in his Epistle to the
Trallians, in which he mocked God’s truth by saying the Oneness
Pentecostals of his day taught: the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person. [20]
Ignatius apostatized from the truth of the Godhead and the biblical
ministerial structure of God’s Church in or shortly after 70 AD. Satan used this heretical Bishop to
start his Nicolaitan Catholic Church. Justin Martyr, in 150 AD, wrote against God’s Oneness Jesus Name People that existed in the
second century.
Justin, who
started the first Catholic school of theology at Rome, in his First Apology wrote: For they, who affirm that the Son is the Father,
are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that
the Father of the universe has a Son.
[21]
Methodist Professors John McClintock and James Strong, in their Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theological and
Ecclesiastical Literature
Doctors McClintock and Strong spoke of Justin’s denunciation of the One God
Jewish and Gentile Pentecostals this way: Modalist Monarchianism is generally
supposed to have originated about the end of the second century. It seems to
us, however, that this [assumed] heresy may be traced to the very earliest times of Christianity.
Justin Martyr expressly denounces it, and his notice guides us to its source,
for he finds the [assumed] heresy to exist both among the Jews and Christians. He condemns the
Jews for thinking that, when God was said to have appeared to the patriarchs,
it was God the Father who appeared. [22]
Protestant professor Harnack confessed that God’s
Apostolic Pentecostal Churches were in the vast majority before the Nicene
Council. He blatantly admitted that during the second half of the second
century through the second half of the third century many of the Catholic
Churches in the Roman Empire were converted to the one God
doctrine of God’s Jesus Name Modalist Monarchian Churches. Dr. Harnack said
it this way: The
real dangerous opponent of the [Catholic] Logos Christology in the period
between AD 180 and 300 was not Adoptianism, but the doctrine which saw the
Deity Himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in
a human body, the Father becoming flesh.... Modalism, as we now know
from the Philosophumena, was… the official theory in Rome... The Modalistic
doctrine which sought to exclude every other... was embraced by the great
majority of all Christians
before the Nicene Council. [23]
English Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, like
Dr. Harnack, made the same confession, when he was scolding the Protestants
about Luther’s protest. He referred them to the protest that was made by the
one God Jesus’ Name Apostolic Christians, who taught in the first through third
centuries. Professor Newman in his work entitled Essays and Sketches wrote: Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in the third
century protested against the Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy
Trinity.... Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in
Africa…. We read... their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then
and at an earlier date [or centuries], to a very great extent, and the true faith [meaning his Babylonian-Catholic
faith] was hardly
preached in the churches. [24]
Novatian (257 AD), a Catholic Bishop of
Rome hated the fact that God’s Apostolic Pentecostals were in the majority. He
confessed this truth when he wrote against them and said: MANY [so-called] heretics, moved by the magnitude and
truth of this divinity [Christ’s Divinity], exaggerating His honors above measure, have dared to
announce or to think Him not the Son, but God the Father Himself….
VERY MANY [so-called]
heretics, as we have said, have so accepted Him as God, as to think that He
must be pronounced not the Son, but the Father. Therefore, let it
be considered whether He is God or not, since His authority has so affected
some, that, as we have already said above, they have thought Him God the
Father Himself, and have confessed the divinity in Christ with such impetuosity
and effusion…. They thought that He whom they read of as the Son, because they
perceived Him to be God, must be the Father. [25]
The Catholic
Semi-Arian Doctrine or the Belief in Two-Unequal-gods (90–325 AD)
This was the second teaching on the godhead to arise,
according to church history. This was the teaching of an apostate group
Preachers, which broke from the monotheism of the Modalist Monarchian Preachers
somewhere in 70 AD or
shortly after. These apostates started the Catholic
Church and called themselves Catholics; none of these heretics taught the
present day Catholic and Protestant doctrine of the Trinity.
They taught that the Father and Son were two separate and distinct persons, beings, or gods. They did
not teach an equality of persons. They taught that the Father was the highest or greatest
God, and He created a lesser god, being, or person before the world began,
which He called the Son. They also believed that the Holy Ghost was an
impersonal spirit and another name for Christ. Therefore, they did not believe in
or teach the Trinity of three equal persons in one God!
Who were the
early apostates who started the Catholic Church? According to history, they
were: Ignatius of Antioch (c. 70), Clement of Rome (c. 70), and Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 70) were among the first heretics to form the
Catholic-Babylonian Church in the first century. The main Catholic-Babylonian
heretics of the second and third centuries were Justin Martyr (c. 150), Clemens of Alexandria (c. 200), Tertullian (c. 200), Hippolytus (c. 225), Origen (c. 215),
and Cyprian (c.
250). All of these heretics loved
the writings of the Greek philosophers, especially Plato, and the allegoric
method of interpreting the scriptures that was used by Philo, a first century
Jewish heretic.
Harvard University professor Harry A. Wolfson, in
his church history The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, boldly
confessed the above truth when he stated: these men
[i.e. the Catholic Ante Nicene Priests] did not believe in a preexistent
Trinity.... Before His [Jesus’] birth, there were only two preexistent beings, God
and the Holy Spirit, the latter identified with the preexistent
Christ, and, if the term Logos is used it is identified with
the Holy Spirit…. [Like] Philo, the [Catholic Ante Nicene] Fathers attributed to the Logos...
two stages of existence prior to the creation of the world, [26] which according to Philo
was the internal and external Logos that was also called by the
title of the Holy Spirit. According
to Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary,
Philo Judaeus (13
BC-50AD) was a: Jewish philosopher of
Alexandria; [he
was] often
regarded as forerunner of [Catholic] Christian theology in his attempt to reconcile
revealed religion of Jews with Greek philosophy.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gave a fair summation of the godhead doctrine of
these early Catholic Priests; under the heading, “the formation of the
doctrine of the Trinity” we
read: In the
nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment….
In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas
deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced
what is known as the [Catholic] Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son
as a prolation [i.e. an extension] of Deity reduced to such
dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile,
to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether. [27]
Ignatius’
Doctrine of Two-gods (107 AD): Ignatius, who was the first Catholic to
teach this doctrine in written form, emphatically proclaimed many times in his
letters that God the Father was uncreated and the highest God, and Christ was
created by the Father before the universe was spoken into existence. He
definitely spoke of the Logos as a separate being or person from the
Father and called Him the begotten god, who was not equal to the Father.
In his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius affirmed his belief in
two-unequal-gods by declaring: He [the Logos]
being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time,
was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same forever.
[28]
In this passage, Ignatius connected the Logos with the Son and proclaimed that
the Son was begotten and therefore was not an eternal being.
Ignatius ends
his letter to the Ephesians with these words: Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable
Spirit who is Jesus Christ. [29]
Ignatius indisputably proclaimed that the Holy Ghost was Jesus, that is,
another title of Christ. He obviously did not believe in the doctrine of the
Trinity, i.e. three equal and eternal persons in the godhead. Let my beloved
readers take note, Ignatius used the above passages of scriptures to verify His
teaching that Christ was a begotten God, and He was also the Holy Spirit. From
this time on, all Catholic Priests used Ignatius teachings on the godhead in
their writings, and some will even put their own religious twist to it, but all
will claim that the Father and Son are two separate beings or gods.
Justin’s
Doctrine of Two-gods (150 AD): Justin in his First Apology called
the Logos: the first-begotten of all
creation. He then stated that the Holy Spirit is the Logos. He says: It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit
and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the
first-born of God. [30]
Justin, like Ignatius, connected the term “first-born”
with the creation of the Son before the creation of the universe. In Justin’s Second
Apology we read: The Father of
all, who is unbegotten…. The Word, who also was with him and was begotten
before the works [i.e. creation].[31]
Justin continued: The
Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the
Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically
distinct from that which begets, any one will admit…. I asserted that this
power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not
by abscission, as if the essence
of the Father were divided. [32]
Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho a Jew
clearly defined his heresy of two-unequal-gods. He says: I shall give you another
testimony, my friends,’ said I, ‘from the Scriptures, that God begat before all
creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself…. He was begotten of the Father by an act of will…. The Word of Wisdom, who
is Himself this God begotten of the
Father…. But this Offspring, which
was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the
creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon
has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning
before all His creatures and as Offspring by God.
Justin then quoted Proverbs, the eight chapter,
to prove that the Logos was begotten by the Father. He says: And it is written in the book of
Wisdom… ‘The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the
beginning, before He formed the earth…. He begets me before all the hills.’
When I repeated these words, I added: ‘You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow
attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by
the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically
distinct from that which begets, any one will admit. I have discussed briefly
in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father,
by His power and will, but NOT by abscission,
as if the ESSENCE of the Father were DIVIDED; as all other things partitioned
and divided are not the same after as before they were divided. [33]
No one can
read the writing of the early Catholics and believe they taught the eternal
Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is part of teachings of the Trinitarian
doctrine. It is a pity that this blind apologist understood these scriptures
through the eyes of Plato and Philo. For instead of seeing the Logos as the
embodiment of God or the Father’s visible Self with a human nature as Paul
taught (Col 2:8-9; 1:15), he saw
Him as a person existing outside of or next to God.
Tatian’s Doctrine of Two-gods (160 AD): Tatian was a disciple of Justin
Martyr. He, like his master, also believed that the Logos had a beginning, and
the Holy Spirit was just another name for the Logos. He wrote: For the Lord [i.e. the Father] of the universe… inasmuch as no creature
was yet in existence, was alone…. The Logos Himself also, who was in
Him subsists…. And by His [i.e. the Father] simple will the Logos springs forth;
and the Logos not coming forth in vain becomes the first-begotten
work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of
the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission.… The heavenly Logos, a Spirit emanating
from the Father, …in imitation of the Father who begot Him, made man an
image of immortality. [34]
No eternal Trinity can be found here.
Theophilus’ Doctrine of Two-gods (170
AD): Theophilus taught the same godhead doctrine as all the others. He
wrote: God, then having His own Word internal within His
own bowels, begot Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before
all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by
Him, and by Him He made all things.... He [the Logos] then being the Spirit of God, and
governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the Highest, came down upon the
prophets and through them spake. [35]
Here Theophilus clearly revealed that Christ was begotten before time began,
and He was the Holy Spirit. No one can accuse Theophilus of being a
Trinitarian.
Theophilus also declared: The God and Father, indeed,
of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for
there is no place of His rest…. The Word,
then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father
of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and
is found in a place. [36]
According to this Catholic
Priest, God the Father is omnipresent and has no form, but Christ who was
begotten by the Father has form and a dwelling place.
Other
Catholic Priest, such as Tertullian, will use Theophilus’ godhead teaching, and
also claim God the Father emitted His Son from His own bowels, by speaking Him into existence. No one can
accuse Theophilus of being a Trinitarian, even though he is the first Catholic to use the word Trinity.
Theophilus, being an allegorist like His Catholic predecessors in the ministry,
in his teaching on the sun and moon compares the godhead to them; he says: In like manner also the three
days which were before the luminaries,
are types of the Trinity: of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom. [37]
Let my beloved readers take note, Theophilus used the personal pronoun His to show that the Word of God and the Wisdom of
God belong to God the Father.
Irenaeus’ Doctrine of Two-gods (180 AD):
Irenaeus, like his fellow Catholic bishops, taught that the Logos was a created
being, whom the Father begot before time began. Irenaeus declared: If any one, therefore, says to us, ‘How then was the
Son produced by the Father?’ We reply to him, that no man understands
that production or generation… but the Father only who begat, and
the Son who was begotten. [38]
From the Fragments of the Lost Writings of Irenaeus we read: Christ,
who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in
the fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood…. He
also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the
Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God who
was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the
universe. [39]
Irenaeus continued: I have also largely demonstrated that the Word,
namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom
also, which is the Spirit was present with Him anterior
to all creation. He declares by Solomon…. ‘The
Lord created Me the beginning of His ways in His work: He set me up from everlasting
in the beginning before He made the earth…. He brought me forth.’
And again: ‘When He prepared the heaven, I was
with Him, and when He established the fountains of the deep; when He made
the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I was He in whom He rejoiced,
and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at
the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men.’ [40]
Irenaeus applied the title the only begotten God to the Son of God, that is,
the Logos, when He was created at the beginning of time. He stated: His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the
benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father’s brightness, and explained
His purposes (as also the Lord said: ‘The only-begotten
God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].’ [41]
Irenaeus
called Christ the Holy Spirit of the Father. He wrote: For He [Jesus] is indeed Savior, as being the Son
and Word of God, but salutary [i.e. producing a beneficial
effect]
since (He is the) Spirit for he says: ‘The Spirit of our
countenance Christ the Lord.’ But (for) salvation as being flesh: for
‘the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. [42]
According to this passage, Irenaeus declared that Jesus being both the Son of
God and the Word of God has beneficial effects, because as the Word of God or
as Christ He is the Holy Spirit of God, and as the preexisting Son of God He
became flesh and blood at Bethlehem. He also declared: He [Jesus],
who is the perfect bread of the Father, offered Himself to us.... He did this when He appeared
as a man…. [We
who]
become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God, may be able also to
contain in ourselves the Bread of immortality, which is the Spirit of
the Father…. Those upon whom
the apostles laid hands received the Holy Spirit, who is the food
of Life (Eternal). [43]
Tertullian’s
Doctrine of Two-gods (200 AD): It is
in Tertullian that Trinitarians make their boast. They probably surmise, surely
someone who writes against Oneness Pentecostals, uses the word Trinity in his
writings, and speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be a Trinitarian,
NOT SO! According to Dr. Schaff: Tertullian cannot escape the
charge of subordinationism. He bluntly calls the Father the whole divine
substance, and the Son a part of it.
[44]
Tertullian declared: For before all things
God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all
things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him
but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He
possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason…. The Word
was in the beginning with God, although it would be more suitable to regard Reason
as the more ancient…. Although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him
within Himself…. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His
own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word, which He
was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse…. I may therefore
without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even
then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had
within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word,
which He made second to Himself by agitating it within
Himself…. [In other words, the Word was inside the
Father because He had not spoken it out thus far to become a separate person.]
Therefore, does the Word
also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance,
when God says, ‘Let there be light.’
This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds
forth from God…. By proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten
Son, because begotten before all things. [45]Tertullian
concluded by saying: Whatever
therefore was the substance of the Word that I designate a
Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the
Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father…. For the
Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a
derivation and portion of the whole…. Besides, does not the
very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount
to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? [46]
Tertullian taught the Spirit was Christ: The Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is
the body of the Word…. The Spirit is the substance of the Word, and
the Word is the operation of the Spirit, and the Two are One (and
the same)…. We declare, however, that the Son… is God and the Word and Spirit
of God. [47] Now, where can anyone find the eternal Sonship
doctrine, or the Holy Spirit being a separate person from the Logos in any of
these passages? Tertullian did not teach the Trinitarian doctrine.
Dr. Harnack speaking of the pagan godhead doctrine of
the Ante Nicene Catholic Priests wrote: It is not Judaeo-Christianity that lies
behind the [Babylonian-Catholic] Christianity and doctrines
of the apologist, but Greek philosophy - Platonic metaphysics, Logos
doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic and Stoic ethics - the Alexandrine-Jewish
apologetic... particularly in that of Philo. [48]
Because most Christians are not aware of the Babylonian origin of the Trinity
doctrine, let us briefly look at the affinity these men had for the Greek
philosophers and Mystery Religion, so we can comprehend how the Pagan-Catholic
Church came up with their Babylonian-Trinitarian godhead and baptismal beliefs
in the late fourth century.
Philo’s Doctrine of Two-gods (57 AD):
Philo was an apostate Jewish Rabbi and commentator, who interpreted the Old
Testament Scriptures by the use of the Greek philosophical allegorical method.
He took Plato teaching of a dual god or two-unequal-gods, and tried to bring it
into Judaism. Elgin Moyer, in his book
entitled Who Was Who in Church History, revealed Philo’s role in the
development of the Catholic doctrine of a greater and lesser gods. He says that
Philo was a: Jewish Hellenistic philosopher.... As a philosopher, [he] sought to reconcile Greek
philosophy and the Old Testament by means of allegorical interpretation....
Philo’s method of allegorical interpretation had much influence on the
allegorical method of interpretation followed by the [Catholic Ante Nicene] Alexandrian Church Fathers,
especially Clement and Origen. [49]
Dr. Levi L. Paine, in his book The Ethnic Trinities, gave us some insights to the origin of Philo’s
godhead doctrine. He says: On the whole, it may be said that Philo is the historical
founder of the Logos theology. He placed the Logos as the great
principle of divine mediation in the forefront of his philosophical
system. [50]
He went on to say that Philo received his Logos idea from Plato. He said Plato
did not call his mediator Logos but the World Soul. Philo
in his godhead teachings taught that the Father was so holy that He could
not come into contact with the world personally, so He created a second
god called the Logos who could. Philo
taught that the Logos was not the Father, but was a separate being or person
from the Father; the Father being the highest or greatest god, and the Logos an
inferior or lesser god, which mediated between God and man.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explained Philo’s doctrine of
two-unequal-personal-gods this way: The internal Logos is the firstborn, the second
god, the mediator, the ransom, [and] the image of god.... The
external Logos abides in man is the prophet, shepherd, ambassador, artist,
elder, interpreter, [and] the shadow of god.... The Logos mediates between god
and the world, but partakes of the divine nature only. [51]
According to many theologians, Philo’s internal Logos was a very real
being or person who existed outside of God. Philo’s
external Logos or Holy Spirit was the impersonal Spirit of the second god or
the internal Logos. Because of this teaching, the early Catholic Priests taught
that the Holy Spirit was just another name for Christ. Philo, as well as the
Ante-Nicene Catholic Priests, did not teach a trinity.
Dr. Wolfson confirmed the above truths by
stating: We have shown that Philo’s view,
like that of Justin Martyr, maintained that the antemundane [i.e. before creation the] Logos had two stages of existence, and that while
during its first stage it existed only as a power in
God, during the second stage it existed as a real being
outside of God…. Justin
Martyr already describes the Logos as one whom ‘God begot from Himself....
Justin Martyr maintained that the Logos is distinct from the Father ‘in number’
and not ‘in name only. [52]
Justin no doubt wrote this against God’s oneness Apostolic Pentecostal
Preachers who branded him as a heretic.
Bob L. Ross, a Baptist Preacher, in his book
entitled The Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, definitely told
an intentional lie when he stated: in Philo [there] is no real personal
being to the Word beyond the abstract [i.e.
an idea in the mind]. [53]
No doubt, many Trinitarian theologians and historians, like professor Wolfson,
would definitely declare this a lie; of course, they would probably use the
word fabrication or say that Mr. Ross is simply ignorant of Church
history.
Plato’s Doctrine
of Two-gods (387 BC): Dr. Paine
declared that Plato’s World Soul: was not an eternal divine being,
but a created mediating being whom God made to be the connecting
link between things, or, in more philosophical language idea and phenomena. [54]
Justin Martyr in his First Apology speaking of Plato’s teaching of the
godhead in the Timoeus quotes Plato as saying: the power [i.e.
second god] next to the first
god was placed crosswise in the universe….’ For he [Plato] gives the second place to the Logos,
which is with God, who he said was placed
crosswise in the universe. [55]
Zoroaster’s
Doctrine of Two-gods (3000
BC): The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia declared: Zoroastrianism was an active, missionary religion
that has exerted a profound influence on the world’s thought…. [The Magi] brought teachings that effected a far-reaching
modification of popular views and produced an influence on so basic a
writer as Plato himself. [56]
The doctrine of two-unequal-gods was not very new
in the Greek, Roman, and all other pagan societies of their day. Professor Levi
Paine in his book entitled, The Ethnic Trinities, gave us some insights
to the origin of this godhead doctrine. Paine speaking of the “earliest stages
of Zoroastrian Trinitarian evolution” wrote: ‘Mithra, or Mitra’ is a ‘creature
of Ormuzd,’ the created light that is a sun god. As such he is ‘a
servant and organ’ of Ormuzd, mediating between Him and man. [57]
Arkon Daraul in his book entitled Secret
Societies compared Roman Mithraism with that of Roman Catholicism. He
stated: It
is claimed by those who still believe in its Mysteries and celebrate
them, that [Roman Catholic] Christianity did not so much supplant Mithraism
as absorb it. [58]
Hermes’ Teaching on Two-gods: Around 300 AD Lactanius, who believed in the doctrine
of two-unequal-gods, wrote some of its history in his writings. He said this
godhead teaching could be found in: Trismegistus
and the predictions of the Sibyls. He went on to describe Hermes as an
ancient pagan god who served as a herald and messenger of the other gods, who
was called Mercury by the Romans. Hermes was also the god of science,
eloquence, cunning, the protector of boundaries and commerce, and the guide of
departed souls to Hades. Let us hear what Lactanius says Hermes taught. He
says: Hermes, in the book which is
entitled The Perfect Word, made use of these words: ‘The lord and
creator of all things, whom we have thought to call god, since He made
the second god visible and sensible.... He hallowed him, and altogether
loved him as his own Son.
The
Ancient Sibyls’ Teaching on Two-gods:
Lactanius also quotes from the Sibylline Books that were composed by women who
were considered by the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans as
prophetesses. There were about ten Sibyls that are known in history. Lactanius
says: The
Erythraean Sibyl, in the beginning of her poem, which she commenced with the supreme
god, proclaims the son of god as the leader and commander
of all, in these verses: ‘The nourisher and creator of all things [god
the father],
who placed the sweet breath in all, and made god [the
son] the
leader of all.’ Speaking of the Son of God at the end of this
poem she says: ‘But whom god [the father] gave for faithful men to
honour.’ And another Sibyl enjoins that he ought to be known: ‘Know him as your
god, who is the son of god. [59]
It is very clear or evident from the above
historical references that Zoroastrianism was the origin or source
of the godhead teachings of Philo, Plato, some of the earlier Greek
Philosophers, and early religions. Zoroastrianism preceded the Babylonian
Religion and became part of its teachings. From the time the pagan priests of
Babylon left their religious temple called the Tower of Babel, and were
scattered throughout the earth, they and their descendants have been placing
their own religious twist to the teachings of Mystery Babylon in all the pagan
religions they started. The Word of God clearly revealed that Mystery Babylon
is the mother of all false religious systems (Rev 17:1-6). Between
Hermes, Plato, Philo, and the Sibyls, it is not hard to perceive were all of
the early Catholics Priests received their inspiration and revelation of the
godhead.
It appears to
me that at the beginning of the fourth century, and not at the middle,
many of the Catholic Churches in the Roman Empire abandoned their One God
belief and went back to their Semi-Arian belief of two-unequal-gods
in the Godhead. Professor Harnack spoke of
it this way: It
was only from the second half of the fourth century that the West was
invaded by the Platonic theology which [Justin
Martyr,]
Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Novatian had cultivated, to all appearance without
any thorough success. Some of its results were accepted, but the
theology itself was not.... Yet there is no mistake, on the other hand, as
we are taught by Institutiones of Lactantius as well as the Tractates of
Cyprian, that the rejection of Modalism and the recognition of Christ as
the Logos forced upon the West the necessity of rising from faith to
a philosophical and, in fact, a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic.
It was simply a question of time when the departure should take place. [60]
The Catholic Arian Doctrine or the
Belief that Denies Jesus’ Deity (310 – 450 AD)
This was the third teaching on the godhead to arise. It
started in 310 AD with a Catholic Presbyter in Egypt by the name of Arius.
Since the Nicolaitan Catholic Church at this time taught Jesus was God, but a lesser
god that the Father, it was not hard of Satan to get many of these Catholic
Priests to deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ altogether.
For in a short time, this Catholic Priest had a large following that challenged
the godhead doctrine of their fellow Catholic Priests. This teaching stated
that the Father is the one and only God, and Jesus is not God in any sense, but
is the highest or greatest being in God’s creation, which is now the doctrine
of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Trinitarian German Reformed Church Professor
Philip Schaff, in work entitled History of the Christian Church, declared: The Arians made the
Holy [Spirit] the first creature of the Son, and as subordinate to the Son
as the Son to the Father. The Arian trinity was therefore not a trinity
immanent and
eternal, but arising in time and in descending grades, consisting of the uncreated
God and two created demi-gods [i.e. half-gods]. The Semi-Arians here, as
elsewhere, approached the [so-called] orthodox doctrine, but rejected
the consubstantiality, and asserted the creation of the Spirit. [61]
The Catholic Binitarian Doctrine or the
Belief in Two-Equal-gods (325 – 382 AD)
The fourth
teaching on the godhead was a belief in two-equal-persons or gods. This
doctrine started in 325 AD. The
Catholic Church started this doctrine in an effort to combat the Arian doctrine
of the godhead. Therefore, these Nicene Catholic Priests changed their doctrine
of two-unequal-gods to a doctrine of two-equal-gods, but only after the Arian
doctrine gained acceptance. They put their doctrine into a written form and
called it the Nicene Creed.
Before
we examine this Creed, let us evaluate the spiritual condition of the Catholic
Church and its Bishops at that time. Professor Guignebert speaking of
Catholicism’s political compromise with the state during Roman
persecutions says: Babylonian Catholic Christian ethics and Christian resignation to the
world’s continuance had reaffirmed allegiance to all social regulations.
Above all a community of believers, united, disciplined and directed by leaders
whom they obeyed [as gods], presented to the State a cheering
spectacle of order, the product of a well administered government, which
already shows signs of developing a political consciousness.... It was
time for both State and [Babylonian] Christianity to think of a compromise. [62]
According to The Cambridge Medieval History,
Constantine chose Catholicism to be his bride in 313 AD when he gave the Edict of Milan. It revealed: he [Constantine] exempted the clergy of the
Catholic Church - not those of the sects [i.e.
God’s Apostolic Church & others] - from the decurionate [i.e.
the military]
and other burdens, he gave them only the privileges already enjoyed by some of
the heathen priests and teachers. But the relief was great enough to cause an ungodly
rush for holy Orders [into Babylonian-Catholic Priesthood]…. The [Catholic] Church was not quite, what Constantine
wanted it to be. He was not more attracted to it by its [so-called] lofty monotheism than by the imposing
unity, which promised new life to the weary State. For six hundred years,
the world had been in quest of a universal religion.... If the Church
was divided against itself, it could not help the Empire. Worse than this,
it could hardly be divided against itself without being also divided against
the Empire. [63]
Money and power has always been the prime motivating factors behind all that
Vatican has done throughout the centuries.
Lutheran
professor Harnack in his history, The Mission and Expansion of
Christianity, gave us some of the reasons why pagans were attracted to
Roman Catholicism. He revealed that this daughter of Mystery Babylon Christianized
many of doctrines of pagan religions. Harnack speaking of this apostasy
declared: The most momentous result was
the gradual assimilation of the entire [Catholic] Christian worship to the nature of the ancient
mysteries. By the third century [200 AD] it could already rival the most imposing cultus
in all paganism, with its solemn and exact ritual, its priests, its
sacrifices, and its holy ceremonies. [64]
Dr. Harnack,
in another history entitled What Is Christianity, spoke of some of the
pagan doctrines that Catholicism Christianized. He declared: The worshipper can only get to God by the
priests’ mediation…. Living faith was transformed into deification [of men]…. Miracles and miraculous cures disappear altogether,
or else are by priestly devices…. Fervent prayers become solemn hymns and
litanies…. The Spirit becomes law and compulsion. In its external form as a
whole this [Babylonian-Grecian] Church is nothing more than a continuation of
the history of Greek Religion under the alien influence of Christianity,
parallel to the many other alien influences which have affected it... It takes
the form, not of a Christian product in a Greek dress, but of a Greek
product in a Christian dress…. No one can look at this Church from outside,
with its forms of worship, its solemn ritual, the number of its ceremonies, its
relics, pictures, priest, monks and compare it on the one hand with the [Apostolic Pentecostal] Church of the first century. [65]
Professor Guignebert also spoke of Catholicism
absorption of pagan doctrines, ceremonies and rituals stated: In the third century it [the
Babylonian Catholic Church] could meet and overcome the entire pagan syncretism [i.e.
the combination of different forms of belief or practice], because it had itself become a
syncretism in which all the fertile ideas and the essential rites of pagan
religiousness were blended. It combined and harmonized them in a way that
enabled it to stand alone, facing all the inchoate beliefs and practices of its
adversaries without appearing their inferior on any vital point. This extensive
work of absorption, which helps us to understand, that a moment came when [Catholic] Christianity was able to arouse
favorable attention to itself on the part of the manifold sympathies active
in the Greco-Roman world…. Toward the end of Constantine’s
reign [337 AD], the union of Church and the State, the absorption
of paganism by Christianity, and its total destruction with the
connivance and, if necessary, the help of the State, could have been foreseen. [66]
Guignebert informs us that one of the major
doctrines Catholicism Christianized was the birthday of the Zoroastrian god
Mithra. He wrote: Mithra is a solar deity, and his birth occurs upon the 25th
of December, i.e. the winter solstice. [67] The winter
and summer solstice were two days that all pagan religions held sacred in which
they worshipped their gods. This heathen pre-Christian religious rite has not
change much has it!
Ronald Holmes in his book Witchcraft in
History revealed that Roman Catholicism used this day to bring in pagans
into their Zoroastrian-Babylonian religion. He stated: The early [Catholic] Christians had tried to be as
flexible as possible in their spreading of the gospel in order to provide
further links for potential converts between Christian and non-Christian
beliefs…. But what was perhaps the master‑stroke in this approach…
[was] when the [Catholic] Church Fathers declared the birthday
of Christ to be December 25…. By this stratagem Christ was made identifiable
in the minds of many pagans with the particular sun-god [Mitra] they worshipped, and a
connection was supplied which serve as a strong bridge to [Zoroastrian-Babylonian-Catholic] Christianity. [68]
Stephen E. Jones in his book entitled The Babylonian Connection boldly told the truth and did not try to water it
down, when he stated that Roman Catholicism: began to be paganized or, as
some prefer, paganism was Christianized.
[69]
The noted
English Historian Edward Gibbon confirmed the above truths, in his classic work
entitled The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He declared: The Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by
the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of
religion, as it is connected with civil government.... Constantine and
his successors... continued to exercise a supreme jurisdiction over
the ecclesiastical order; and the sixteenth book of the Theodosian code
represents, under a variety of titles, the authority which they assumed in the
government of the Catholic Church. [71]
This code of the Catholic emperor Theodosius I (379-395 AD) pronounced the death sentence on any so-called
heretic who denounced the Nicene Creed. By now my readers should be able to
understand why Constantine chose Catholicism to be his bride. With the above
truths in mind, let us now examine the Emperor-Pope Constantine’s Nicene
Creed.
According
to Catholic Church historian Socrates Scholasticus (380-439 AD): Constantine convoked a General Council
summoning all the [Catholic] bishops by letter to meet him at Nicaea in Bithynia [i.e. NW Turkey]…. The emperor arrived... and on
his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his place, until the
bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated. [72]
Let my beloved readers take note, Constantine did not summons the one God Jesus
name Bishops, who were in the majority at that time, as Tertullian, Hippolytus,
and Church historians have declared. Therefore, the obvious question to ask is:
why not? The answer is simple, Constantine knew he could not control them
and become their Supreme Pontiff. He also knew that the pagan religions
of the Roman Empire would not join up with true Christianity. This is why he
chose the Roman Catholic Church to be the bride of the Roman Empire, i.e. the
State Religion, as shown above.
The Nicene Creed: Socrates recorded the conference of Nicaea and
its Creed as following: the agreement of faith, assented to with
loud acclamation at the great council of Nicaea is this: ‘We believe in one God
the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible: — [and
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father before all
ages] and [of the same]
substance of the Father; God of God and Light of light; true God of true God; begotten,
not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom all things were made,
both which are in heaven and on earth: who for the sake of us men, and on
account of our salvation, descended became incarnate, and was made man;
suffered, arose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens and will
come again to judge the living and the dead. [We]
also [believe] in the Holy Spirit.’
But
the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say ‘There was a
time when he was not,’ and ‘He was not before he was begotten’ and ‘He was made
from that which did not exist,’ and those who assert that he is of other
substance or essence than the Father, or that he was created, or is
susceptible of change.’ This creed was recognized and acquiesced in by three
hundred and eighteen [bishops]…. Five only would not receive it, objecting to the
term homoousios, ‘of the same essence,’ or consubstantial. [73]
As a result, these five bishops were sent into exile by the emperor-pope. In a
very short time, two of the Catholic Bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice
saw the light of Pope Constantine infallible wisdom and accepted his consubstantial doctrine and
Nicene Creed.
Socrates mentioned Eusebius Pamphilus of
Caesarea, who was also a Catholic Bishop and church historian, as attending
this Council. He says: Eusebius held aloof for a short time…. at length
acquiesced in it, and subscribed it with all the rest: he also sent to the
people under his charge a copy of the Creed, with an explanation of the word homoousios,
that no one might impugn his motives [i.e. accuse him of lacking
integrity or having false motives] on account of his previous hesitation. [74] Eusebius wrote: we believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith. It is
this: ‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible
and invisible: — and [in one Lord Jesus Christ the only] begotten Son, born before
all creation, begotten of God the Father before all ages….’ It was
generally admitted that ousias (of the essence or substance) simply
implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part
of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine, which
declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his
substance….
On the same grounds we
admitted also the expression ‘begotten, not made’: ‘for made,’
said they, ‘is a term applicable in consequently he is no creature like those
which were made by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which
substance the Divine Oracles [i.e. Pro 8] teach was begotten of
the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be
explained nor even conceived by any creature.’ Thus also the declaration that
‘the Son is consubstantial with the Father’ having been discussed, it
was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense, or in
any way analogous [i.e. similar] to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division
of substance, nor by abscission, nor by any change of
the Father’s substance and power, since the underived nature of the
Father is inconsistent with all these things. That he is consubstantial with
the Father then simply Father only who begat him; and that he is of no
other substance or essence but of the Father. [75]
Let my beloved readers take note, Emperor
Constantine and these Catholic priests confessed that Christ existed in some mysterious
and unexplained way before he was begotten by the Father before
time began. This is pure nonsense! If Christ existed in some substance,
which they would probably call god, which was not of the Father’s substance,
than why did He need to be begotten by God the Father.
Emperor-Pope Constantine and these priests also
declared that Jesus was begotten by the Father before time began, and He
was “consubstantial” or “homoousios”
with the Father, i.e. the Logos was begotten out “of the same substance” as the Father. This made Jesus equal
with God the Father, since both the Father and He shared in a substance called
God. Therefore, these Catholic Priests change the godhead doctrine of their
forefathers, who believed in two-unequal-gods, for a belief in two-equal-gods.
This Creed speaks of the Holy Ghost, but does not tell us what they believed
about the Holy Ghost.
Roman Emperor
Constantine Invented the Consubstantial or Homoousios
Doctrine: Socrates in his
history revealed that Constantine is the one who declared that the Father and
Son were consubstantial, i.e. of the same substance. In a sense, Constantine
was acting as their first Pope. Socrates revealed that the Emperor Constantine
in his final speech to these Catholic priests incited: all to unanimity. At length he
succeeded in bringing them into similarity of judgment and conformity of
opinion on all controversial points.... Exhorting all present [with the power of an
Emperor-Pope who controlled the secular sword] to give their assent and
subscribe to these very articles; thus agreeing in a unanimous
profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word ‘homoousios’
consubstantial, an expression which the Emperor himself explained. Let my beloved readers take note, Constantine,
who was acting as their apostle and theologian, inserted the word “consubstantial” or the Greek word “homoousios” into the Catholic Nicene Creed, and even gave his
definition of it so none of his fearful obedient Bishops would place
their own definition on it.
How did Pope Constantine define this word? Socrates
says the Emperor defined it: as not indicating corporeal [i.e.
physical bodily] affections [i.e. feelings] or properties [i.e.
attributes];
and consequently that the Son did not subsist from the Father either by
division or abscission…. For said he [the Emperor], a nature which is immaterial and incorporeal
cannot possible be subject to any corporeal affection; hence our
conception of such things can only be in divine and mysterious terms.
Such were the philosophical views of the subject taken by our most wise
and pious sovereign; and the bishops on account of the word homoousios
drew up this formula of faith. [76]
Let my beloved readers also take note, Constantine claimed the nature or
substance of the Father and Son was immaterial i.e. not consisting of matter,
and incorporeal i.e. having no material body or form.
Anyone with any common sense would ask himself or
herself, why after many years of bickering among these Catholic Bishops would
the Arian Catholic Bishops who did not believe in the Deity of Christ, and
their fellow Catholic Bishops who believed in two-unequal-gods, now agree with
Emperor-Pope Constantine’s doctrine of two-equal-gods, who were homoousios or
of the same substance called god? In other words, why would both of these
groups of Catholics, who believed the Son was not equal to God the Father,
would now subscribe to a creed that denied their godhead teachings of the past?
Why would they both agree to a doctrine that they and their forefathers never
believed? One might say, well Constantine was a great theologian, but the truth
was: as
their Emperor who carried the secular sword, he was their infallible pagan High
Priestly-Pope who interpreted and made all doctrines pertaining to religion!
Socrates explained Constantine’s Nicene Creed
this way: the
meaning of these terms was clearly defined; when it was generally admitted that
ousias of the essence or substance simple implied that the Son is of the Father
indeed, but does not subsist as part of the Father [i.e. His personal essence]; to this interpretation of the
sacred doctrine, which declares that the Son is of the Father but is not a
part of His [personal] substance. [77] According to Pope Constantine’s Creed, the
Father at some point in eternity past begot or generated the Son from a
substance that must be called God. The Father begot the Son not from His
portion of God’s substance but from a different portion of God’s substance, or
in other words, they both had a different portion of a substance called God.
Now, since they declared that the Father and Son were two separate and distinct
persons, beings, or Gods, this can an only mean neither one is wholly
God but only a part of God.
Since Pope Constantine and these Catholic priests
declared that the Father begot or generated the Son from a different portion of
God’s substance than His own, where did the Father get this other portion? One
would have to conclude that before the Son was begotten, there were two beings,
one called God and the other called the Father, and the Father had a portion of
the substance of the being called God. Now, if the Son received a portion of
God’s substance, than you have two beings that share a portion of a substance
of a being called God, i.e. the Father and, the Son. When one analyzes this
doctrine, he or she is left with two questions, i.e. how much of a portion of
God’s substance does the Father and Son have, and how many more portions of
God’s substance are left in the being called God, whereby other beings may be
begotten and also share in a portion of God’s substance? If you believe in
Nimrod’s doctrine, or the Catholic-Protestant-Pentecostal doctrine, that god
is an omnipresent spirit in his essence, than the answer would be: there is no limit in the number
of beings who can share in the substance called god.
If
the Father, Son, and God had equal portions of God’s substance, than
each would be one third of God. For example, if you cut an apple into three
equal portions, each portion is considered as a third of an apple. No one with
any intelligence would call a third of an apple the whole apple, even though it
has all the characteristics, properties, and nature of the whole apple. Unless
they, like Pope Constantine, profess the godhead is a mystery. How can
three different and separate divine persons or beings be one God? Moreover, if
there are three beings called God, then why did these Catholic Bishops
declared: the one
God [was] the Father Almighty in their Creed?
Socrates also spoke of the First Creed of
Sirmium, which was published in 352 AD in presence of the Emperor-Pope
Constantius II. Some historians suggest
that this creed belongs to some other council than the First Council of
Sirmium, and Constantius was an Arian in his belief on the Godhead. Anyway,
this Emperor-Pope, like his Father Constantine, commanded his Catholic Bishops
to meet with him to draw up this creed because many of the so-called Catholic
Orthodoxy objected to the word consubstantial in the Nicene Creed and would not use it in
their teachings. Socrates said it
this way: Since
it troubles very many to understand about that which is termed substantia in Latin, and ousia in Greek; that is to
say, in order to mark the sense more accurately, the word homoousion or homoiousion, it is altogether
desirable that none of these terms should be mentioned: nor should they
be preached on in the church, for this reason, that nothing is recorded
concerning them in the holy Scriptures; and because these things are
above the knowledge of mankind and human capacity, and that no one can
explain the Son’s generation.
Socrates recorded this creed thus: ‘We
believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all
things, of whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named, and in his
only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the
Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, by whom all things
visible and invisible, which are in the heavens and upon the earth, were made: who
is the Word, and the Wisdom, and the true Light, and the Life…. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, that is to say
the Comforter, whom, having promised to his apostles after his ascension into
the heavens, to teach them, and bring all thinks to their remembrance, he sent;
by whom also the souls of those who have sincerely believed in him are
sanctified. But those who affirm that the Son is of things which are not, or
of another substance and not of God, and that there was a time or an age
when he was not, the holy and catholic Church recognizes to be aliens…. If
any one should say that the Son is unbegotten, and without beginning,
intimating that there are two without beginning and unbegotten, so
making two Gods, let him be anathema. [78]
Let us now examine the statement concerning the
Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed: (We believe) also in the Holy Spirit. What did they believe about the Holy Ghost?
Whatever they believed about the Holy Spirit, the majority of them did not
believe he was a third person in a Babylonian Trinity. In fact, most of
them did not know what to believe about the Holy Ghost.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia definitely
informed us what the Catholic Bishops at Nicaea believed about the Holy Ghost.
Under the heading of the Trinity, the
Catholic Church made a good and honest confession about the development of
their Babylonian-Trinitarian doctrine. It stated: In the last analysis, the 2nd century
theological achievement was limited…. A Trinitarian solution was still in
the future. The Apologists spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a
measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.... On the eve
of Nicene 1, the Trinitarian problem raised more than a century earlier was
still far from settled. It was the problem of plurality within the single,
undivided godhead. [79]
Dr. Schaff speaking about the Holy Spirit wrote: Even among the adherents of the [so-called] Nicene orthodoxy, an
uncertainty still for a time prevailed, respecting the doctrine of the third
person of the Holy Trinity. Some held the [Holy] Spirit to be an impersonal
power or attributes of God; others, at farthest, would not go beyond
the expressions of the Scriptures.
Even as late as 375 AD, in the time of the
Catholic theologian Gregory of Nyssa, most Catholics Bishops did not believe
the Holy Spirit to be a personal being. Gregory wrote: Of the wise among us, some
consider the Holy Ghost an influence, others a creature [meaning an angel], others God himself,
and others know not which way to decide. [80]
After the
Nicene Council, Constantine in his new position as Emperor-Pope issued an
Edict. Did this new Edict grant religious freedom to all who would not believe
in or teach Constantine’s Nicene Creed? Let us hear what this great Pagan
Catholic Pope has to say about religious freedom. Eusebius recorded
Constantine’s Edict as:
Victor Constantinus
Maximus Augustus: Forasmuch, then, as it
is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning
by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble
yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived
of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies:
and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your
superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private
house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of
embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering
the Catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will
be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth….
And in order that this remedy may be
applied with effectual power, we have commanded, as before said, that you be
positively deprived of every gathering point for your
superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if such be worthy of
the name, which belong to heretics, and that these be made over without
delay to the Catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the
public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering;
in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may
presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made
public. [81]
This Roman
Edit meant that the TRUE CHRISTIANS
had to hold secrete underground meetings. Emperor-Pope Constantine made it very
clear to God’s people, that they either join his Roman Catholic Church and
confess Satan’s doctrine of two-equal-gods or face persecution by the Roman
Empire. Professor Schaff speaking of this new Roman persecution says: The successors of Constantine… enforced the [Babylonian-Catholic] Christian religion to the exclusion of every other;
and not only so, but they enforced [so-called] orthodoxy to the exclusion of every form of dissent,
which was punished as a crime against the State….
Theodosius [380
AD]… in the course of fifteen
year… issued at least fifteen penal laws against
[so-called] heretics,
by which he gradually deprive them of all right to the exercise
of their religion, excluded them from all civil offices, and threatened
them with fines, confiscation, banishment, and… with death.
[82]
What did
Lucifer hoped to gain from this new persecution by these so-called Christian
Roman Emperors, who were not going to have their empire divided by religion?
The answer is obvious, Satan knew no amount of physical persecution from Pagan
Roman Emperors could persuade God’s children to give up their inheritance in
God. Therefore, the Old Serpent hoped that persecuting them as heretics would
bring confusion to the masses of true Christians. He hoped to deceive them into
believing that God’s blessings were on the Catholic Churches. He hoped that
they would accept the Catholic godhead and other doctrines as truth. By this
stratagem, the Lucifer hoped to gradually bring some or many of God’s children
into the Catholic Church; but thank God, most of God’s Apostolic Pentecostal
children remained faithful to their God and Savior, and endured their
persecution as good soldiers of Christ.
The Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine or the
Belief in Three-Equal-gods (382 AD-Present Time)
The fifth
teaching to arise on the godhead was the Trinitarian doctrine. In 381 AD, Catholic Bishops dreamed up yet another
dogma, which they called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This creed was
the same as the Nicene Creed, but it may have made the Holy Ghost a person
in the godhead; it is hard to tell, for
their doctrine of the Holy Spirit is not very explicit. Therefore, no one can
say with any degree of certainty that they did! The only thing this creed says,
which was different from the Nicene Creed is this: We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adored and honored
together with the Father and the Son; he spoke through the prophets.
In 382 AD
Bishop-Pope Damascus called a Council in Rome in which the Catholic Church drew
up a clear Babylonian-Trinitarian godhead creed; there cannot be any doubt that
this creed definitely declared that the godhead is composed of
three-equal-persons, beings, or gods; it also connected the formula of baptism
with the godhead for salvation. It stated: Therefore this is the salvation
of Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, and being baptized in the Trinity. These Babylonian Nicolaitan Bishops also declared: (1) We pronounce anathema against
those who do not proclaim with complete freedom that He the Holy Spirit is of
one power and substance with the Father and the Son.... (10) If anyone denies
that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit
is eternal: he is a heretic....
(16) If anyone denies that the
Holy Spirit is truly and properly from the Father, and, like the Son, is of the
divine substance and is true God: he is heretic. (17)
If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit has all power and knows all things, and
is everywhere, just as the Father and the Son: he is a heretic.... (18) If
anyone says that the Holy Spirit is a creature, or was created by the Son: he
is a heretic.... (20) If anyone denies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
have one divinity, authority, majesty, power, one glory, dominion, one kingdom,
and one will and truth: he is a heretic.... (21) If anyone denies that the
three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are true persons,
equal, eternal, containing all things visible and invisible, that they are
omnipotent, judge all things, give life to all things, make all things, and
conserve all things: he is a heretic.
[83]
Lucifer’s Babylonian Catholic Trinity now became
a reality. Therefore, these heretics changed their godhead doctrine
again; they traded in their belief in two-equal-gods, for a belief in
three-equal-gods. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost were now three separate and
distinct persons (Greek - hypostases)
or beings. Catholic Bishop Jerome (390 AD) confirmed this Council’s decision when he wrote:
it is the
custom at baptism to ask, after the confession of faith in the Trinity, do you
believe in the Holy Church. [84]
In all centuries past, many students of history
have known the origin of the Catholic Babylonian Trinity. Ex-President Adams
wrote a letter to ex-President Thomas Jefferson in which he spoke of the origin
of the Catholic Trinitarian doctrine. On June 28, 1813, he wrote: Professors Priestley and Lindsey have both denounced as idolaters
and blasphemers all the Trinitarians and even the Arians.... Priestly barely
mentions Timaeus; but it does not appear that he had read him. Why has he not
given us an account of him and his book? He was before Plato, and gave him the
idea of his Timaeus, and much of his philosophy.... I wonder that Priestly has
overlooked this, because it is the same philosophy with Plato's, and would have
shown that the Pythagorean, as well as the Platonic philosophers, probably
concurred in the fabrication of the [Catholic-Protestant] Christian Trinity. [85]
The Jewish
Encyclopedia under the heading of the Trinity reproved both Catholicism and
Protestantism when it declared: The idea
of a Trinity, which, since the council of Nice, and especially through Basil
the Great [370 AD], had become the Catholic dogma, is of course regarded
by Jews as antagonistic to their monotheistic faith and due to the
paganistic tendency of the [Roman
Catholic] Church: God the Father
and God the Son, together with the Holy Ghost... have their parallels in
all the heathen mythologies, as has been shown by many Christian
scholars. [87]
Noted Trinitarian Bible Scholars
Confessed that the Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine Cannot Be Found in the Old or
New Testaments: The Encyclopedia
Britannica speaking of the Trinity stated: In general we may say that the Trinity takes on four differing aspects
in the Christian church: in its more common and easily apprehended form as three
gods, in its ecclesiastical form as a mystery which is above
reason to be accepted by faith.... To some Christians the doctrine
of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God,
which is emphasized in the Scriptures.
[88]
In The
Encyclopedia of Religion, which is composed by many Trinitarian scholars,
we read: Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement
that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity....
Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New
Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity....
Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is
therefore arbitrary [meaning based on one’s preferences, notions, or whims]; while it is incontestable that the doctrine
cannot be established on scriptural evidence alone. [89]
Dr. James
Hastings, in his Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, under the heading
of the Trinity declared: The Old
Testament could hardly be expected to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity....
In the New Testament, we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything
like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannie theology….
The story of the Trinity in ecclesiastical history is the story of the
transition from the Trinity of experience, in which God is
self - revealed as the Father or Creator and Legislator, the Son or Redeemer,
and the Spirit or Sanctifier, to the trinity of [Catholic and Protestant] dogma…. To say that there are three
separate personalities in the Godhead would be polytheism. [90]
I would add: “to say that there are three
separate persons, i.e. three separate Spirits, Souls, and Bodies in the godhead
would be polytheism.”
Trinitarian
Methodist professors John McClintock and James Strong affirmed the above
statements on the Trinity when they wrote: Respecting
the manner in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 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. [91]
What these scholars are saying is that the Babylonian Trinity is a mystery.
Now, have you not heard other Trinitarian theologians, pastors, and preachers
say the same thing?
Lutheran
professor Harnack wrote: The doctrine of
the Trinity, as professed by the Church [i.e. Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches], is not contained in the New Testament….
At first, the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly
ontological reference [i.e. in the
beginning, or as it first existed].
It was not so in the apostolic and sub‑apostolic ages,
as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so
even in the age of the [Catholic] Christian apologists. [92]
What Dr. Harnack is saying is this, Catholic apostates of the apostolic and sub‑apostolic
ages, along with their deceived converts, did not believed in a Trinity of
three persons in the Godhead. None of these Catholic heretics considered the
Holy Spirit to be a separate person in the Godhead in any sense of the word;
also, none of these Catholic Priests considered the Son to be equal with the
Father in origin, power, and other attributes.
Cardinal
Newman then proceeded to make a very shocking confession. Let us hear this
Priest’s confession, and see if He makes a good and true confession, before we
grant him absolution. He declared: all
parties must confess, the
Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not brought out in
form upon the surface of Scriptures. As I have said more than once, to
allege, that all points that are beyond clear Scripture proof are mere
peculiarities of each sect [i.e.
different religious systems]; so
that if all Protestants were to agree to put out of sight their respective
peculiarities [i.e. unscriptural
doctrines], they would then have a
Creed set forth distinctly, clearly, and adequately, in Scripture. For take
that single instance, which I referred to in a former Lecture, the doctrine of
the Holy Trinity. Is this to be considered as a mere peculiarity or no? Apparently,
a peculiarity [for] it is not brought out in form in Scripture.
First, the word Trinity is not in Scripture. Next, I ask how many of the verses
of the Athanasian Creed are distinctly set down in Scripture? [94]
Professor Newman continued his confession and
reproach of Protestants by saying: He
who admits the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in spite of
felling its difficulties, whether in itself or in its proof
‑ who submits to the indirectness [meaning lack] of the Scripture evidence as regards that particular doctrine ‑
has a right to be told those other doctrines, such as the apostolic succession.
[95]
This Catholic Priest proceeded with his confession and reproach to the fallen
away daughters of Catholicism by saying: not
Scripture, but history [i.e. the
tradition of the Ante Nicene Priests]
is our informant in Christian doctrine…. [All Protestants] who
consider the Bible as the one standard of faith, [i.e. those who say they base
their beliefs on the Bible and not tradition], let no one take refuge and comfort in the idea that he
will be what is commonly called an orthodox Protestant… [if] he
will admit the doctrine of the Trinity, but not that of the Apostolic
Succession…. This is an impossible position: it is shutting one eye, and
looking with the other, shut both or open both. [96]
Confessor Newman in his reproof to Protestant
theologians and preachers clearly told them: since you have accepted and
believed the Catholic dogma of the Trinity by faith, without any real
scriptural proof, you have earn for yourselves the right to accept and believe
by faith all other Catholic doctrines, which are also not taught in the Bible,
as Newman openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. In other words, open both of your eyes and find
the truth, or close both of your eyes and become a Catholic Priest. No matter
what people may or may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe this
Catholic Priest made a good and true confession, for which God’s Apostolic
Pentecostal people everywhere do thank him, and grant him absolution.
Conclusion:
Therefore, as most Trinitarian theologians, pastors, and preachers know,
but will not publicly confess, it took the Catholic
Church over 260 years to develop the Catholic and Protestant doctrine of the
Trinity. That is, from 90
AD when Catholicism began with Ignatius of
Antioch and Clement of Rome to so-called Roman Pope Damascus of Rome in 350 AD
to the Nicene-Constant Creed of 382 AD.
CHAPTER 2
THE TRINITY OF THE BABYLONIAN RELIGION
This chapter is excerpt from my book entitled, A History of Oneness through the Centuries.
It contains selected passages from this book.
The Word of God speaking about some of the people that
lived after the flood of Noah stated: “Although they knew
God [referring
to His godhead], they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their
thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they
became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made
like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things….
Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the
creature [ktisis] rather than the
Creator” (Rom 1:21‑23, 25).
Dr. James Strong
in his work entitled Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the
Bible defined the Greek word “ktisis” to
mean: creation. [97]
It is obvious from the above passage that the godhead was not a mystery to
these people, but as many Catholic and Protestant theologians, bishops,
preachers, and priests of today, they did not like this truth. Since the Bible
clearly stated that these people knew the truth about the godhead and changed
it to nature worship or Pantheism, what was the truth
they knew, and who were these people that perverted this truth?
Nimrod Started the Worship of Nature in
the Form of a Trinity
The truth concerning the godhead, the soul of man, and the
soul’s future destiny were totally perverted at the Tower of Babel around 2,300 BC.
It was at this Tower where the first false religion began, which was created by
Nimrod who was the son of Cush, who was a son of Ham, who was a son of Noah (Gen 10:1‑8). This religion was called the Babylonian Religion, which
in the Bible is known as Mystery Babylon. According to some reports of history,
Nimrod became so perverted that he married Semiramis, his own mother. In Egypt
Semiramis was known as Isis, and Arnobius (300 AD) stated this truth
this way: Is it Isis, tanned by Ethiopian suns,
lamenting her lost son and husband torn limb from
limb? [98]
In his rebellion against God, Nimrod started through
Satan's tutoring a priesthood that practiced witchcraft, magic, astrology, the
worship of Lucifer as the sun god, and Lucifer's demons as various planets,
stars and constellations. Nimrod’s religion was nature worship, which consisted
of Pantheism, Animism, and Polytheism. Nimrod
was the first to teach that the godhead consisted of a Trinity. Nimrod’s Nature
Trinity consisted of Anu, Ea, and Bel; Anu represented the heavens or air, Ea
represented water, and Bel represented the earth.
Stephen E.
Jones revealed: Nimrod combined Semitic
monotheism with Accadian animism to produce pantheism. He taught that god is
nature itself, and each nature-spirit [even man] is part of god. [99]
Thus, creation itself was worshipped as god or the universal soul. This is
exactly what the Bible declared happen in the above passage of scripture. We
will examine Nimrod’s doctrine of god being an impersonal omnipresent spirit in
his essence, which fills the entire universe at the end of this chapter.
Nimrod’s
history and his religion of nature worship can be found in a work entitled the
“Recognition of
Clement,”
which some believe was written by Clement of Rome in 100 AD. It revealed that
it was: Ham [who] unhappily discovered the magical act, and handed down
the instruction of it to one of his sons [i.e. Cush], who was called Mesraim, from whom the race of the Egyptians and Babylonians and Persians
are descended. Him the nations who then existed called Zoroaster, admiring him as the first author of the magic art [i.e. Cush or Zoroaster wrote many
books on magic]…. He
therefore, being much and frequently intent upon the stars, and wishing to be esteemed a god among them, began to
draw forth, as it were, certain sparks from the stars [i.e. lighting from the sky], and to show them to men in order that
the rude and ignorant might be astonished, as with a miracle; and desiring to
increase this estimation of him, he attempted these things again and again, until he was set on fire, and consumed by the demon
himself, whom he
accosted [or
approached] with too
great an importunity or with too many request and demands. He therefore was struck by lighting.
But the foolish men, who were then, [erected]… a sepulcher to his [Cush’s] honor, they went so far as to adore him
as a friend of God, and one who had been removed to heaven in a chariot of lightning, and to worship him as if he were a living
star. Hence also, his name was called Zoroaster after his death, that is, a living star…. The magic art having been handed down to him [Nimrod, the son of Cush] as by a flash, whom the Greeks also called Ninus, and from whom the city of Nineveh took its name. Thus,
therefore, diverse and erratic superstitions took their beginning from the
magic art. For, because it was difficult to draw away the human race from the love of God, and attach them to deaf and lifeless images, the magicians made use of higher efforts, that men
might be turned to erratic worship, by signs among the stars, and motions brought down as it were from heaven, and by
the will of God. And those who had been first deceived, collecting the ashes of Zoroaster [Cush]… brought them to the Persians, that they
might be preserved by them with perpetual watching, as divine fire fallen from
heaven, and might be worshipped as a heavenly god. [100]
Nimrod being angry invented the religion of Zoroastrianism,
with it dualistic system of a good god i.e. his father Zoroaster (a title of Lucifer)
and evil god i.e. YHWH, who destroyed the world with a flood and killed his
father Cush. Thus, Nimrod combined Nature Worship with Zoroastrianism.
Semiramis Started the Worship of the
Trinity in the Form of Three Persons
After Nimrod died, Semiramis had Nimrod deified as “Baal the sun god” or “god
the father” (1Ki 18:21‑40). Nimrod became the second deified man in history,
for his father Cush was the first. Semiramis also had herself deified as “Ashtoreth (Hebrew) or Astarte (Greek), the
Queen of Heaven or the mother of the gods” (Jer 44:17‑25). Semiramis thus became the first deified woman in history
and she was identified with the moon. Semiramis also had Tammuz, her
illegitimate son, deified “as god the son” (Eze 8:14). This
made Tammuz the first living god in history. This demonic woman claimed that
Nimrod came back in the spirit and impregnated her. Therefore, Tammuz received
his supposed deification from both Nimrod and Semiramis.
Hislop stated the above truth this was: The scheme, thus skillfully formed, took effect.
Semiramis gained glory from her dead and deified husband…. The licentious and
dissolute life of Semiramis gave her many children, for whom no ostensible
father on earth would be alleged…. All that was needful was just to teach that
Ninus [i.e. Nimrod’s soul] had reappeared [i.e. reincarnated] in the person of a posthumous son, of a fair
complexion, supernaturally borne by his widowed wife after the father [i.e. Nimrod’s spirit] had gone to glory.... It was from her son that she
derived all her glory and claims to deification…. [Semiramis]
was worshipped by the Babylonians and other eastern nations under the name of
Rhea, the great goddess mother. [101]
Because the
Catholic Church believes and teaches the doctrines of Mystery Babylon, it had
to deify Mary and give her the title “the
Mother of God,” so she could be worshipped as Semiramis. The Catholic
Church in mystery form made her the Holy Ghost or the third person in their
Babylonian Trinity; this is why there are many pictures of Mary with a dove
above her head in Catholic Churches! Hislop declared that many of the ancient
pictures and statues of Semiramis, with a dove above her head or holding Tammuz
in her arms, were Christianized by the Catholic Church.
It was at
this point the Babylonian Trinity of three separate persons or beings in the
godhead came into existence, and Lucifer's doctrines of Immortality,
Reincarnation, and Perfection of the Soul that was taught by Nimrod was
confirmed. These doctrines and a few others became know as the Babylonian
Mysteries, and thus Secret Societies were born. In time Semiramis’ Babylonian
Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead, became more important than Nimrod’s nature
doctrine of the godhead in the Babylonian Mysteries, because this father, son and
mother were suppose to be the first humans to become deified, which gave their
followers hope of returning back to paradise and also becoming deified. In
other words, the Babylonian Trinity was connected to the ancient pagan and
heathen doctrine of man’s deification.
It is very
evident to anyone who studied the Babylonian Religion that Lucifer must have
discovered the true doctrines of Christ sometime after his fall and rebellion.
Satan could have received these prophetic truths by learning how to read the
stars; the Bible could have stated this belief when it declared: “Your
word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens [shamayim]” (Psa 119:89, NIV). The Hebrew noun “shamayim” is plural in number. No matter how Lucifer discovered the doctrines of
Christ, he evidently imitated and perverted them with his
Mystery Religion.
What Does the Bible Mean by the Term
Mystery Babylon?
John speaking
about this false religious system says: “Upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery Babylon, the
great mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Jn 17:5).
Since the Bible called this religion “Mystery Babylon,” or the “Babylonian
Mysteries” and the mother of all false religious systems, what does the word
“mystery” mean? The word “mystery” is the Greek word “musterion” which means: a secret i.e. through the idea of silence impose by
initiation into a religious rite. [102]
Since this is
an occult mystery, let us inspect what the occult authorities have to say about
it. The Encyclopedia of Occultism and
Parapsychology, under the heading of “Mysteries,”
revealed that it was: A term for what is
secret or concealed in a religious context.... The mysteries were secret cults,
to which only certain initiated people were admitted after a period of
preliminary preparation.... But the mysteries appear to have circled
around the semi‑dramatic representation or mystery‑play of
the life of a deity. [103]
Let my readers take note, the doctrines of the “mysteries” centered on their teaching of the godhead or the
Trinity. In the book entitled Secret
Societies and Subversive Movements, by English historian Nesta Webster,
under the sub‑title The Mysteries we read: Now from the earliest times groups of initiates or
wise men have existed, claiming to be in possession of esoteric doctrines known
as the Mysteries, incapable of apprehension by the vulgar, and relating
to the origin and end of man, the life of the soul after death, and the nature
of god or the gods…. The Initiates believe that the sacred mysteries
should not be revealed to the profane but should remain exclusively in their
own keeping. [104]
Nimrod Invented the Doctrine that God Is
an Omnipresent Spirit in His Essence
Since Nimrod
taught that nature was god (Recognition of
Clement, the Worship of the Sun & Stars, Rom 1:21‑25), it was only natural for him to make his god
an impersonal omnipresent spirit, out of which a good god and evil god later
evolved to create all things. Therefore, the entire universe was composed of
god’s substance or omnipresent spirit essence. John Blunt, in his Dictionary
of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought,
defined Nimrod’s doctrine of pantheism, as it was taught by the religion of
India, which was one of the daughters of Mystery Babylon.
Blunt declared:
Those who hold the opinion that God is
everything, and everything is God… supposes an infinite [omnipresent]
eternal substance, which arouses itself into action by self-energy, and
clothes itself in a multiplicity of forms, that in the aggregate make up the
universe. Thus, the divine idea as the whole is all things, and all things are
the whole, and in the end all things will return once more into the inscrutable
oneness from whence they came forth. Such was the groundwork of the Brahmanical
system, and of the cosmogony of the most ancient Indian writings.
Blunt went on to describe the Brahman’s idea
of creation: Brahma the primal
substance, the absolute, awakening into consciousness, gave birth to
Maja, spectral matter, the illusive source of all that appears to exist.
A threefold manifestation of himself [i.e. a Trinity] is put forth by Brahma: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu
the Preserver, and Siva the Destroyer…. All creation proceeded forth
from the joint energy of Brahma and Maja.... Thence the world of spirits and of
men evolved…. Only when a man recognizes [that] all
things [are] in Brahma does he wake up from his dream, and gain
the use of thought…. [In which] the truth is apprehended that the contemplative mind
is one with the Infinite.
[105]
Anyone with an ounce of common sense should
be able to understand that the theory of evolution is an ancient heathen
religious doctrine; for the ancient priests of Brahma and other pagan religions
definitely received their teaching on evolution from the Babylonian religion.
Athenagoras (177 AD) a Christian Grecian philosopher declared the
Greek philosophers taught the gods of the Greeks were humans, and they evolved
from the ocean. He said: Homer
speaks of ‘Old Oceanus, the sire of
gods ….’ He, too, has fixed their [the
human gods of the Greek] first origin to be from water: ‘Oceanus, the
origin of all.’ For, according to
him, water was the beginning of all things, and from water
mud was formed, and from both was produced an animal. [106]
Athenagoras went on to reveal that the Greeks received their stories of the
gods from the Egyptians.
Let us compare the theory of evolution
taught today with Satan’s ancient Indian teaching. Braham or the primal
substance to the evolutionists - would be hydrogen-atoms that came into existence
from no one and no place. Braham awakening into consciousness to these
so-called scientific priests of Satan would be the burning of hydrogen atoms as
they gather into a gas cloud. The giving of birth to Maja or matter to the
evolutionists would be the BIG BANG. To the Brahmins and to the evolutionists
the world of spirits would be the forces of nature. The evolving of men from
the primal waters would be the evolving of man from one-cell creatures from the
sea in the religion of the evolutionists.
This is why I
have said many times: “evolution is not
science but religion, and those who teach it are not scientists, but pagan
priests of heathenism!” None of these so-called scientists or pagan
priests can tell us where this primal substance or the first hydrogen atom came
from. Therefore, they are force to admit that the primal substance or the first
hydrogen atom must be their god, since they claim that all things came from it.
I might also add how can the pagans’ lifeless, unintelligent, impersonal god
give life, intelligence, and personality to multitudes of offspring, and not
possess these attributes itself? It is ridiculous to believe that some of
the offspring of this one spiritual substance have intelligence and
personality, but their creator does not! This is why Einstein and other true
scientist found it impossible to believe that life, order, and intelligence
could spring forth from disorder, non-intelligent, and non-living things. Where
there is a design, there must be a designer.
These pagan
priests also must admit that their god has no spoken word or moral laws for his
creation to follow, since their god is not a personal god. Thus, you have the
doctrine of humanism; man becomes his own god and makes his own laws, whether
they are moral or immoral. Therefore, all those who believe in these damnable
doctrines are force to admit that all religions, even their own, are nothing
but man made. All their religious doctrines, even their doctrines of the
eternality and reincarnation of man’s personal soul would be a lie. Their
religion in all reality would rob them of any hope in this life or the one to
come.
Nimrod’s
Babylonian omnipresent spirit doctrine makes the true God’s personal
substance in everything and in all empty space. If this lying doctrine is
true, then will someone tell me why God forbid men to make graven images of
earthly and heavenly objects that were known as gods, if He personally dwells
in these things and they are nothing but manifestations of Him? God gave the
Second Commandment against this kind of foolishness: “You shall not make for yourself a carved
image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them [as
gods]. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity
of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of
those who hate Me” (Exo 20:4-5).
I have asked
several Christian preachers, who believe in Nimrod’s omnipresent spirit
doctrine: “If God is a shapeless,
formless omnipresent Spirit that fills the universe with His own personal
substance as you claim, then He must be in the sun, moon, stars, trees, rocks,
and in all matter such as human beings. If I hold a glass of water in my hand,
am I holding a part of god in my hand?” When I ask them this question, I
am not trying to be sarcastic or insulting to them or to God, but I do want
them to stop and think about their belief in this false doctrine.
Now every
preacher can see that this is ridiculous, but all some of them can say is: “God as a Spirit is not matter.” I then say: “If God is an omnipresent Spirit in His own personal
substance that fills the universe, as you teach, then He must be in these
things or there are some places where He is not!” Some preachers will
respond to this by saying: “God fills all
empty space not matter. He is like the air, which is everywhere.” I
usually take my hand and grab a hand full of air and say: “Do I have God in my hand? Does air have intelligence?
Can air think, talk, see, hear, feel, smell, and have a mind and will? The God
I serve has all these attributes and a whole lot more, and besides this empty
space in the universe has no air in it! This again according to your doctrine
would mean that there are places were God is not!”
My beloved
readers by now should begin to understand how ridiculous Nimrod’s pagan
omnipresent spirit doctrine is. If God is not a personal Spirit Being that has
form, shape, and locality, which the Word of God declares dwells in Christ
alone, but is an omnipresent spirit in His essence, then the heathens were
right when they worshipped the different parts of creation, for god would have
been in these things. That is, all these things would have been manifestations
of god’s substance. However, my Bible tells me God cast off the heathen for
this belief, and punished His Old Covenant children for this sin, when they
forsook Him, and worshipped Baal and other nature gods. Do you think He is
going to excuse His New Covenant children for believing the same lie? This
doctrine is not a Biblical doctrine and it surely robs God of His personal
unbegotten Spirit essence. The omnipresent spirit doctrine is nothing but pure
mysticism, and it originated in Nimrod’s Zoroastrian-Babylonian Religion or
Mystery Babylon.
God, as a
personal unbegotten Spirit Being, will be discussed in the next chapter under
the subtitle, “Is God a
Singular Unbegotten Spirit Being, Who Has Form, Shape, and Locality.” God’s attribute of omnipresent will
be discussed in chapter seven under the subtitle, “The Holy Spirit Is Christ, the Living Word,
the Creative Word, and the Written Word of God.” If my beloved
readers would like to learn more about Oneness history, or the history and the
development of the Trinitarian doctrine, or the history of the Trinity of the
Babylonian Religion, I would suggest reading my book entitled, A History of Oneness through the Centuries.
CHAPTER 3
THE ONE AND
ONLY GOD OF THE BIBLE IS THE FATHER
How Important
Is It to God that We Understand His Godhead?
Paul stood on Mars’ hill and told the: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you
are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects
of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now
what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you…. We should
not think that the divine being [He not them] is like gold or
silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God
overlooked such ignorance [men
not knowing the godhead], but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:22‑23, 29-30, NIV).
The great
apostle told us in plain words that it is God’s will for all men every where to
know God's Godhead, so therefore it cannot be a mystery that God's children can
not know. In fact, God is commanding His children to know His Godhead. God
thought it was so important that He gave us Commandments that we may know, love
and obey Him by. The first and greatest Commandment is: “I am [not we are] the LORD your God…. You shall
have no other gods before Me”
not us (Exo 20:2‑3).
Jesus
speaking as a man about His deity said: “This is eternal life that they may know You [Father], the only true God,
and Jesus Christ [Your humanity] whom You have sent” (Jn 17:3). Jesus Christ, who was, is, and
shall ever be the humanity of God the Father, connected salvation or Eternal
Life with knowing that the Father is the one and only true God.
There are many that confess Christianity, who say that knowing the godhead is
not important; if what Jesus said is true, and it is, then they will no doubt
be surprised in the day of Judgment.
What Is God, or How Does the Word of God
Define God?
The apostle
John speaking of some of the attributes of God wrote: “God is light” and “God is love;” but only the Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator
Himself, gave us a definition for God when He said: “God is a Spirit [Pneuma]” (1Jn 1:5; 4:7; Jn 4:24). This is the only
verse in the Bible that tells us what God is. Therefore, what did our Lord mean
by the word “Spirit.” Did He mean
that God is a personal Spirit Being, and His essence is composed of a “substance” called Spirit, which has form,
shape, and locality, or did He mean that God is an impersonal spirit, whose
omnipresent substance fills the universe?
Is God a Personal Spirit or an
Impersonal Spirit?
The Encyclopedia of Religion speaking
about the essence and nature of God stated: The
basic issue concerning the nature of the divine is whether God is to be
considered a personal being… or... impersonal.... Monotheists have struggled
through the ages with questions concerning the corporeality of God, including
shape and dimension.... The tension between the two concepts, the God of form,
and God without form has arisen in multitude of ways for faithful persons of
various traditions. [107]
The Jewish Encyclopedia speaking of God’s attributes of being corporeal
and incorporeal stated: Several Biblical
expressions apparently favor a conception of God as a carnal being, and many
teachers take these expressions literally. It is the nature of a
carnal body that it is limited and defined by space. God, as a non-corporeal
being is not limited by space… [for] the universe has not sufficient room for Him; it
cannot contain Him. [108]
Certain
Jewish Rabbis, who were initiated into the doctrines of Mystery Babylon after
they went into Babylonian Captivity in 606
BC, taught Satan’s omnipresent spirit doctrine. Many forms of
Christianity still teach this lie. Heathen
religions could not exist without their omnipresent spirit doctrine,
for many of their important doctrines are totally dependent on this one,
such as, the deification of man, the reincarnation of the
soul of man, and so on. Believe me when I say, Lucifer’s
omnipresent spirit doctrine is the foundation for his godhead doctrine of
Zoroastrianism and his later development of his human Babylonian Trinitarian
doctrine.
In other
words, if this so-called Luciferian omnipresent spirit god wanted to create the
good and evil gods of Zoroastrianism, to be his agents to create all things,
what would stop this omnipresent god from doing so? In addition, if this god
wanted to reveal to humanity that they were gods, because they were all part of
his, her, or its substance, and therefore devised the Trinity of the Babylonian
Religion to teach them this lie, what would stop this omnipresent spirit god
from doing so? The Word of God nowhere teaches that the true God is in
omnipresent Spirit in His ESSENCE,
but this is one of His many ATTRIBUTES!
Christian and
Jewish theologians, when speaking of the difference between theism and
pantheism, hardly ever bring out the fact that they also believe in a personal god who fills the universe with His own
personal spirit substance. These theologians always make it sound as
though they believed in a God of form and locality, who has personality and
self-consciousness, while all heathens believe in an impersonal omnipresent
spirit god, who is nature or the universe itself. Let us now examine how some
theologians have tried to explain the difference between theism and pantheism.
Dr. Levi L. Paine in his book Evolution of Trinitarianism says: Monotheism, or theism, in the philosophical sense,
holds that God is a single personal being. It emphasizes personality as the
true center and test of all spiritual substance. The spiritual world is
composed of persons. If God is spirit, He is a person. Moral life involves a
moral self-consciousness with its capacity of distinguishing the Ego from the
non-Ego, and this is what is meant by personality. The limit of a spiritual
substance is its range of self-consciousness. There are as many spiritual
beings as there are centers of self-consciousness. Theism holds that God, in
whose moral image we are, is such a self-conscious being. Pantheism, on the
contrary, makes self-consciousness, or personality, only a quality or accident
of [their
god’s] substance, so that there
may be only one spiritual substance and yet many persons. [109]
If the one
and only true God is an omnipresent Spirit in His essence as certain Christian
and Jewish theologians teach, than what is the difference between: one omnipresent spiritual substance in the many
persons of Pantheism that have self-consciousness, and the one omnipresent spiritual substance in three persons
with self-consciousness? In addition, if the true God is an omnipresent
Spirit in his one spiritual substance, what is preventing Him from sharing His
divine substance that fills the universe with a million other persons or gods,
whom He could create? Is there any difference between this damnable doctrine
and the Babylonian pagan belief in god?
Therefore,
those in Christendom and in Judaism who teach that God’s personal Essence fills
all matter and space are in all reality teaching that God is an impersonal
spirit, or the doctrine of pantheism, which theologians do their best to deny
with their theological gibberish. These theologians because of their knowledge
of what pagan religions, the Greek Philosophers, and certain Catholic Nicene
Priests taught about God’s Spirit Essence, they have taken certain scriptures
that speak of God’s attribute of
omnipresence (1Ki 8:27, Jer 23:24),
and ASSUMED that God is
omnipresent Spirit in His personal Essence.
I believe
that the God of the Holy Bible is a singular personal intangible, invisible
Spirit Being, whose Essence has form, shape, and locality. The Bible
emphatically and indisputably declares: “In
Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily
form” (Col 2:9). In
other words, all, not a part, of God’s spiritual substance dwells in the one person
of Christ. Therefore, God’s personal essence cannot dwell in anything or
anywhere but in Christ! The Expositor's
Greek Testament did an excellent job in revealing this truth. It defined
the Greek words used in this verse this way: En auto’ is emphatic, ‘in Him and in
Him alone.’
‘Katoikei’ [means] ‘permanently
dwells....’ ‘Pan’ [or all] is emphatic, ‘the whole
fullness dwells in Christ....’ The addition of ‘theotetos’ defines ‘pl’ as
the ‘FULLNESS of DEITY.’ The word is to be
distinguished from ‘theiotes… being divine or God-like’ [used in Acts 17:29].... All the FULLNESS of the GODHEAD dwells in Christ;
therefore, it is VAIN to
seek it wholly or partially OUTSIDE of HIM. [110]
This is why I
believe my God is omnipresent, not in His Essence, but in the Spirit-Words that went out of His mouth at
creation; for “by
the breath [Ruwach – Spirit] of His mouth” all
things were made; Jesus said it this way: “the Words that I speak to you are Spirit”
(Psa 33:6; Jn 6:63). One of God’s many attributes is omnipresent, and
through this attribute, which I call His Spirit-Words, He is everywhere and in
everything, even in hell (Psa 139:7-8).
Now, no one in his or her right mind would ever claim that God in His personal
Essence dwells in hell. Therefore, since the Bible clearly declared that God is
in hell, it cannot be speaking of God’s personal Essence, but the Spirit-Words
that came out of God’s mouth when He created Hell.
The Word of God emphatically proclaimed
that God spoke the worlds into existence, through the power of the Spirit-Words
that came out of His mouth at creation (Heb
1:3; 11:3). Therefore wherever His Spirit-Words are, there God has a
presence. As long as God’s spoken Spirit-Words dwells in the sun, the moon, the
stars, the planets, the universe, and even in hell itself, they will continue
to exist. God’s attribute of omnipresent, and the scriptures that speak of it,
will be discussed in chapter seven. Therefore, my assumption is based on
this and the following facts.
Definition of Spirit and How It Is Used
in the Bible: The Hebrew word “ruwach” is the word for “spirit” in the Old Testament. Ruwach is used 378 times. The King James translators
translated it 227 times as spirit, 5 times as spirits, 1 time as spiritual, 6
times as mind, 27 times as breath, 1 time as air, 82 times as wind, 11 times as
winds, 1 time as windy, cool, tempest, 4 times as blast, 2 times as vain, 5
times as side, 1 time as sides, courage, anger and quarters. The Greek word “pneuma” always means “spirit” in the New Testament, just as anemos means wind, and pneo
means breath. Pneuma is used 385 times in the New Testament. The King James
translators translated it 257 times as spirit, 32 times as spirits, 92 times as
ghost, 1 time as spiritually, 1 time as spiritual, 1 time as life, and 1 time
as wind (Jn 3:8 - Spirit).
God Is a Personal Spirit: Pneuma and
Ruwach are used in the Bible to designate God’s Spirit Nature (Jn 4:24; 1Pe
1:10-11; Psa 51:11). The Bible informs us that God
and His angels, and Lucifer and his angels are all personal spirits,
who have form, shape, and locality. Demons are disembodied spirits. By examining
the scriptures that speak of these personal spirit beings, and also the spirit
nature of man, we should be able to understand God as a personal Spirit Being
in a greater light; for it is UNREASONABLE to BELIEVE that all other spirit beings have form,
shape, and locality, but God as a personal Spirit Being does not. Therefore, as
we examine the scriptures that use Pneuma and Ruwach in them, we can discover
important facts concerning spirit beings.
Demons Are Personal Disembody Human
Spirits: The Bible reveals that all spirit beings do have spirit bodies,
which can be seen, when they chose to reveal themselves. The proof of this can
be found when Jesus stood in the midst of the apostles, who were: “terrified and affrighted,
and supposed that they had seen a spirit [pneuma i.e. a demon spirit ].” However, Jesus calmed their fears by telling
them: “Behold My hands and
My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit [pneuma i.e. a demon] does not have flesh and bones as you
see I have” (Lk 24:37, 39). It is obvious from the above verses
that the apostles believed that they saw a demon spirit that look like their
Lord. According to our Lord, demon spirits do not have tangible
spiritual bodies, but spirit bodies.
Demons are
personal evil spirits: for “all the devils besought Him [Jesus], saying, send us into the swine, that we
may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean
spirits [pneuma] went out [of the man’s body], and entered into the swine” (Mk 5:12‑13; compare with Mt 12:43-45; 14:26;
Lk 24:37; 9:39; 10:20; 11:24-26; Acts 8:7; 19:12). In these verses and
all others dealings with evil spirits, we perceive demons as intangible
spirits, and they have personality and intelligence. There can be many demons
living inside of the body of one man; they can also be cast out. I have been
told by some who were possessed by demons, that is, after God used me to cast
these unclean spirits out of them, that demons have spirit bodies that look
like vapor that you can see through, and their bodies are ugly and deformed,
but have the same outward appearances as men.
What are the
demons and where do they come from? Some believe they are the fallen angels
that fell with Lucifer at the beginning; others believe that they are the
fallen sons of God or angels that fell from heaven in Noah’s day. I personally believe
they are the human spirits of the wicked dead; and at the White Throne Judgment,
they will be reunited with their souls and earthly bodies, and then be thrown
into the Lake of Fire. Since the human spirit of a man or woman does not fall
asleep with their soul, their spirit, which is in a conscious state, returns to
God. Since no lost spirit stay in heaven, I believe God sends these
spirits back to earth, where they stay until the resurrection of their soul and
body. I believe there are many unsaved human spirits, who are on the
earth, that are not wicked spirits. Therefore, they are not demons who try to
either make contact with or enter into living human beings.
God’s Angels Are Personal Spirit:
Pneuma is also used to refer to
the God the Father's holy angels. Paul said God made “His angels spirits [pneuma] and His ministers a flame of fire” (Heb 1:7). In Psalms 104:4, David used the Hebrew word ruwach in reference to God’s angels, who are
always referred to as “rational being.”
Jesus spoke of His holy angels when He said: “The Son of man shall send forth His angels [pneuma], and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that
offend, and them which do iniquity [sinners]; And shall cast [ballo - to throw violently] them into a furnace of fire” (Mt 13:42-43).
The above
passage is positive proof that angels, who are spirit beings, are
not only intelligent beings who can follow instructions, but must have a
spiritual tangible bodies that are capable of pick up and violently throw
men with natural physical bodies into the Lake of Fire? It is obvious that lost
mankind is not going to volunteer to jump into the Lake of Fire, therefore,
they will have to be thrown in, which means men will be fighting with God’s mighty
angels in that day. Therefore, I believe that angels have two natures, i.e.
a spirit and a tangible, visible, spiritual body. Probably a spiritual body
that is made of a spiritual flesh and bones, just as man will have in the
resurrection (Lk 24:37-39; 1Co 14:42-44).
I do NOT KNOW if angels have a soul
nature. The Bible definitely reveals that Christ, in both the OT and NT,
and mankind have a soul nature, which will be discussed in chapter six.
The prophet
Daniel saw Gabriel the archangel and described him. He said Gabriel had “the appearance of a man”
(Dan 8:15-16). Notice that this spirit being looked like a man, and had
the ability to understand and explain the mysteries of God to Daniel. This
definitely proves that angels are rational beings who have spiritual tangible
bodies, which looks like man’s body. Gabriel told Daniel, he would have come
sooner but “the
Prince of Persia [a fallen
angel or a spirit being who Satan place over the nation of Persia] withstood me one and twenty days: but lo,
Michael one of the chief Princes [i.e.
archangels of God],
came to help me” (Dan 10:12-13).
This means, as I stated above, God’s angels are spirit beings who have
spiritual tangible bodies that are capable of fighting with other spirit beings
such as Satan’s angels.
I believe
that God’s OT Spiritual Body, like angels spiritual bodies, could dim the light
that radiated from inside their bodies, and look like an ordinary man when they
appeared to mankind. I do not believe that God or His angels took on or
created a body when they appeared to man, and then that body simple went out of
existence when they finished communicating with man. That is, I do not believe
the satanic garbage of the theophany doctrine of Jewish mysticism, that is the
Zohar, which is one of the books of the Cabala. Therefore I say again, I do NOT KNOW
if angels have a SOUL NATURE;
there is no scripture that I know of that teaches they do, but this is NOT absolute
PROOF that they do not!
Satan and His Angels Are Personal
Spirits: John declared: “there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels fought
against the dragon [Satan]; and the dragon fought and his angels…. [As a result, Satan’s] angels were cast out with him” (Rev 12:7-9). According to these verses,
there was a tremendous fight in heaven between God’s angels and Satan and his
angels. Consequently, we see that Satan and his angels lost their access to
heaven forever in the middle of the tribulation period. There can be no doubt
this was not a war of words, but one of real physical confrontation. God’s
angels will definitely have a real physical confrontation with men, when they
hurl them into the Lake of Fire.
Men, Like Other Spirit Beings, Have a
Spirit Nature: The Jewish
Encyclopedia speaking about the human spirit stated: In most languages, breath and spirit are designated by
the same term. The life-giving breath [spirit] cannot be an earthly origin, for nothing is found
whence it may be taken. It is derived from the supernatural world, from God.
[111]
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
defined man’s spirit this way: the
Scripture speaks of spirits of just men made perfect (Heb 12:23), where there
can be no thought of a material or physical or corporeal organization.... The
spirit is thus... the spiritual part in man as that, which thinks, feels,
wills, and also denote certain qualities which characterize the man.... Hence,
we [i.e.
the souls of men] are called upon
to rule over our own spirit (Pro 16:32; 25:28), and are warned against
being overmastered by a wrong spirit…. God is called the Father of spirits.
[112]
In the
following scriptures, man’s spirit cannot be a non-personal entity or symbolism
for his life or breath. Try substituting the word life or breath
for the word spirit and see if they have any meaning. Man's spirit or ruwach
can be: revived - Gen 45:27, hardened -
Deu 2:30, stirred up - 2Ch 36:22, preserved by God's visitation - Job 10:12,
constrain from doing something - Job 32:18, with or without guile - Psa 32:2,
renewed - Psa 51:10, breached or split by a perverse tongue - Pro 15:4, broken
by deep sorrow - Pro 15:13, ruled by the soul - Pro 16:32, wounded or hurt and
also can sustain man's infirmities - Pro 18:14, vexed - Ecc 1:14, in error -
Isa 29:24, troubled - Dan 2:1, quieted or calmed - Zec 6:8.
Man’s spirit
or pneuma can become: holy - Rom 1:4 and can be made perfect by God’s molding hand - Heb 12:23. The Word
of God teaches that the LORD “formed the spirit [ruwach] of man within him”
(Zec 12:1). The word “formed”
is the Hebrew word “yatsar” which
means: to squeeze into shape. [113]
There is no scripture that I know of, which tells us when our spirit came into
us, whether it took place at conception, or birth, or sometime in-between. The
spirit of man can be saved or lost at the Judgment. The apostle Paul told the church
to deliver the sinful brother unto “Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit
[pneuma] may be saved in the day of the
Lord Jesus” (1Co 5:5). The
human spirit inside of man can pray; Paul said it this way: “For if I pray in an
unknown tongue, my spirit [pneuma] prays, but my understanding [soul] is unfruitful” (1Co
14:14). Therefore, all the above scriptures definitely teach that a real
spirit nature lives inside of man, which along with his soul gives man life,
intelligence, and personality.
Summary of Facts: From all of the
above scriptures in this section, we can clearly perceive that spirit beings
such as God’s angels, Lucifer, the fallen angels, demons, and man’s human
spirit are rational personal spirits that have intelligence. It appears that
God’s angels, Lucifer, and his angels also have some type of spiritual tangible
bodies. Demons and the spirits of living men have a spirit body that also
resembles man’s physical body (Lk
24:37-39). Demons are disembodied spirits who no longer have a physical
body of their own; whereas the spirits of living men live in a physical body.
Therefore,
since God the Father created the spirits of both angels and men, and their
spirits were made in the image and likeness of His Spirit Nature, why should it
be hard for theologians to believe that God, in His personal essence, is also a
Spirit who has a Spirit Body? In chapter six of this book, we will discover
that God, like the angels also had a Spiritual Tangible Body in the OT, but
unlike the angels, He also had a Soul Nature as well, that is, God had three
separate and distinct natures in OT, a Spirit, a Soul, and a Human Spiritual
Body.
How Many Gods Are There: One, Two,
Three, or More?
The Word of
God explicitly declares to the entire world that there is One and only One God.
The Jewish Scribe said unto Jesus: “for there is one God and there is none other but He”
not them (Mk 12:32). Paul
confirmed this great truth when he said there is only: “one God” who
can justify the believer (Rom 3:30).
He also said: “God
is one” (Gal 3:20). The apostle James said it this way: “You believe that there is one God. You do
well. Even the demons believe and tremble” (Ja 2:19). The word “one” in all these verses, and all others
that apply to God being “one” in
the New Testament, is the Greek word “heis” which according to Dr.
Strong means: a primary numeral one not one in unity. [114]
All passages
in the New Testament that speak of the husband and wife becoming one flesh uses
the Greek word “mia,” which refers
to “one in unity or uniting something;”
for example, “The two shall become
one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one [mia] flesh” (Mk 10:7‑8). The pagans worshipped
Diana: “with
one [mia - united] voice” (Acts 19:34).
Paul used both of the Greek words together when He said: “stand fast in one [heis - numerical] Spirit… [and] with one [mia – a united] mind” (Phi 1:27). Paul,
unlike Trinitarian preachers, knew the difference between heis and mia!
Therefore, my
beloved readers should be able to perceive the difference between how a husband
and wife are one in unity and God is one in number. No preacher that claims to
be a Christian will ever declare claim there are numerically two, three, or
more gods. Besides all this, where does the Bible ever compare the oneness of a
husband and wife to that of the godhead? The answer is nowhere! There is not
one place in the Bible where the Word of God proclaimed a family of gods or
declared that godhead is composed of three persons united (mia) in God, but it
does declare in many places that the godhead is composed of one person or one
numerical (heis) God!!
What Is the Name of the One God of the
Bible?
The one God
openly declared that His personal name in the Old Testament is YHWH. The one
God of the Bible proclaimed: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God is one LORD,”
not three LORDS (Deu 6:4). In the Septuagint “one LORD” is written as “ku,rioj ei-j.” The Greek word used here is “heis.” Therefore, Moses cannot be teaching a “unity of LORDS” or “two or three beings or persons called LORD.”
There can only be one person here who is called by God’s personal name of YHWH,
which is used 6,519 times in the Old Testament, which no one knows how to
pronounce.
God told His
people that His name should not be used in a wrong way; He declared: “You shall not take the name [not names]
of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless
who takes His [not their] name in vain” (Exo 20:7). YHWH also said He would not give
His glory to another, which includes His name; He said: “I am [not we are]
the LORD: that is My [not our] Name: and My glory will I not give to another” (Isa
42:8). The great prophetic prophet Isaiah also confirmed that God’s name
was YHWH. He declared: “You O LORD are our
Father, our Redeemer, from Everlasting is Your [not
their] name” (Isa 63:16).
Now
Trinitarian preachers openly contradict God prophets by claiming that there are
three persons called by the name of YHWH, that is, they all share this name
together. This is utter nonsense for there cannot be two or three Fathers and
redeemers who are called LORD here, and all the pronouns in this verse and all
others are singular not plural! Who are we going to believe, Trinitarian
preachers or the prophets Moses and Isaiah, who proclaimed that there is only
one God and person in the godhead whose name was YHWH, which no one knows how
to pronounce in English or any other language. God’s name is not and never will
be Jehovah or Yahweh! If my beloved readers would like to discover the occultic
origin of the name Jehovah, I invite them to read my book “Preacher, What
Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life.”
The Father Is YHWH the One and Only God
The Bible in
both the Old and New Testaments unequivocally and unerringly declared that the
One and Only God is the Father. Jesus being the one God manifested in the
flesh, for the most part in the gospels, speaks as a man and not as God. Jesus
speaking through His human nature called His Father God. He said: “Him [the humanity of the Father] has God the Father sealed”
(Jn 6:27). The man Christ Jesus called His Father the one and only true
God. He said: “This is eternal life,
that they may know You [Father], the only [monos] true God, and Jesus
Christ [Your humanity] whom You have sent” (Jn 17:5).
The word “only” is the Greek word “monos” which according to Dr. Strong means: sole or single. [115]
According to the above scripture, if Jesus is not the Father’s visible humanity
as Trinitarians theologians deny, then He cannot be the one and only true God.
Therefore, the Trinitarian doctrine robs our Lord of His deity. There is no way
Trinitarian theologians can make 3 gods or persons in the godhead out of this
scripture, or any other. They must confess Jesus to be the Father, the one and
only God, or become an Arian i.e. a Jehovah’s Witness and denounce His deity.
The Jews or
God’s old covenant people would never believe in three gods in the godhead.
They only knew one God, which was the Father. The Jews proudly told our Lord: “We have one Father, even
God” (Jn 8:41). The great Apostle Paul indisputably declared that
the one God is the Father, who is in all of His children. He boldly stated
there is only one Spirit, one LORD or YHWH, who is: the “one [heis] God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in
you all” (Eph 4:4-6).
Paul
reiterated this same great truth when he wrote: “But to us [Christians]
there is but one [heis] God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one
Lord Jesus Christ,” who is
the humanity of the Father. Then Paul goes on to make a very profound
statement. He said: “Howbeit there is not in everyone that knowledge”
(1Co 8:6‑7). The word “one” in all the preceding verses is the
Greek word “heis,” which as I said
before means: numerical one. There is no unity of persons
called God here, just like there is no unity of persons called Spirit, or YHWH,
or Jesus Christ. Now Paul told all Christians that the Father is the numerical
one God, the sole or single God. Therefore, Jesus must be the Father’s humanity
or He cannot be God.
The Apostles James and Peter, like
Paul, declared that the one God is the Father. James stated this truth this
way: with the tongue “bless we God even the Father” (Ja 3:9).
Peter said it this way: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”
(1Pe 1:3). The prophet Malachi also joined the mighty host of witnesses
by saying: “Have
we not all one Father? Has not one God created us” (Mal 2:10)?
The Septuagint translated this verse as: “qeo.j ei-j,” using the Greek word “heis” to express that
the Father is the one and only God. Therefore, the apostles and prophets are
unanimous in declaring that the one God is the Father.
Nowhere does the Bible ever use the
term “God the Son.” The Deity of
the Son comes not from being the Son, but by being God the Father. This is why
the Bible declared that the Father or the one “God was
in Christ,” or as the man Jesus expressed this relationship, God “the Father dwells in Me”
(2Co 5:19; Jn 14:6-11). Therefore, if any theologian looks for the Deity
of the Lord Jesus Christ, outside of the Father, he will not biblical find it;
for if Jesus is not God the Father, then He cannot be God!
If any Trinitarian theologian believes
in or knows of another God besides YHWH the Father, then he knows something the
nation of Israel, and all the Prophets of God, did not know. The Father clearly
and boldly declared in the First Commandment: “I am [not we are] the LORD [YHWH] your God... You shall have
no other gods before Me” not us (Deu 5:6‑7).
Moses speaking about the Father said: “The LORD He is [not they are] God; there is none else beside Him [not them]….
The LORD He is God in heaven above, and upon the
earth beneath: there is none else” (Deu 4:35, 39). King David
stated this great truth this way: “You are great, O Lord
GOD. For there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You
[not you
three], according
to all that we have heard with our ears” (2Sa 7:22). King Solomon stated this truth in his
prayer of dedication of the temple by declaring: “all the people of the earth may know that
the LORD is God, and that there is none else” (1Ki 8:60).
If any Trinitarian theologian believes
in or knows another God beside YHWH the Father, then he is smarter than God
Himself, or in other words, he knows something that God does not even know;
for, God the Father proclaimed: “Ye are even My [not our] witnesses. Is there a God beside Me [not us]? Yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isa 44:8, KJV).
God gave a message to Cyrus king of
Persia through His prophet Isaiah, a 150
years before he was born in which
He declared: “I am [not
we are] the LORD, and there
is no other; there is no God besides Me [not us]. I will gird you, though you have not known
Me, that they [meaning you and the nations] may know from the rising of
the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the
LORD, and there is no other” God (Isa 45:5-6).
Our Heavenly Father is not only
speaking to Cyrus, but He wants all Christians everywhere to know and believe
that the Father is the one and only God. If you are a Christian, hear what the
Word or Logos is saying to you: “I am [not
we are] God, and
there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me” not us (Isa
46:9).
How many
times does the Father have to tell Trinitarian preachers, in His holy and
infallible Word, that He and He alone is the one and only God before they
believe Him? The Bible reveals that out of the mouth of two or three witnesses
let ever word, doctrine, or belief be established. In all of the preceding
Scriptures, you have not three, but many witnesses, which boldly and clearly
proclaimed that the Father is the only true God. Therefore, the obvious
question is, why do Trinitarian theologians not believe it.
I was praying
for the sick one day in a hospital in New Orleans, when I went into a room
where there was a Jewish man. As I talked with him, I asked him this question: “What is the main teaching of the Jewish Faith?”
He replied without hesitation: “We Jews
believe that God has spared and preserved us for one reason, so we might be a
witness to the world, that there is only one God.” I then told him: “Praise God, I believe it, and I am so happy to know
that the Lord Jesus Christ is God the Father manifested in flesh.”
CHAPTER 4
THE SONSHIP PROGRAM OF GOD THE FATHER
In the beginning
of this book, I said that the sonship program of God began at Bethlehem; it is
now time to prove this statement. In the following sections on the Sonship of
Christ, I will not be focusing on
the supreme Deity of Christ, Who
is the Almighty God, but my focus is to help my beloved readers understand what
the Sonship Program of God the Father is all about. The term Son of God, as it
applies to our lovely Lord, does not refer to His Deity but to His Humanity as
a Spirit filled Man. Christ or the existed in the Old Testament, not as the
so-called Eternal Son of God, but as the Logos i.e. the Word of God. In the
Bible, the term Son of God always referred to someone who was filled with the
Spirit of God, whether it was an angel or man.
Is Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God
or the Begotten Son of God?
Trinitarian
theologians believe that Jesus is called the Son of God because He eternally
existed with His Father as such. This is pure nonsense, as I will prove in this
section of my book. Now all oneness Pentecostals believe Jesus existed in the
OT as YHWH i.e. God the Father, Who was known as: Christ, the Word of God, the
Holy One, the Angel or Messenger of God, the Form or Image of God, etc., but not as the eternal Son of God. As I have
shown above, Jesus as the Son of God had a very real Human Nature. It is now
time to discover why and when Jesus became known as the Son of God.
Professor Walter Martin Declared Jesus
Is Not the Eternal Son of God: Professor Martin a well-known trinitarian
scholar, along with many other trinitarian theologians, realized that the
doctrine of the “eternal Sonship”
of Christ is not one that can be biblical defended, without twisting and taking
out of context many passages in the Word of God. Dr. Martin in his book
entitled The Kingdom of the Cults
admonished his readers to fix the following statements in their minds. He
declared that the doctrine of eternal generation or eternal Sonship of Christ: “A) springs from the Roman Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in AD 230....
B) The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus
Christ the ‘eternal Son of God,’ and He
is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation, except in prophetic passages in the Old Testament....
C) The term ‘Son’ itself is a functional term, as is
the term ‘Father’ and has no meaning apart from time. D) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by
the illogical ‘eternal Sonship’ or
‘eternal generation’ theory of Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately carried
over to some aspects of Protestant theology. E) Finally; there cannot be any
such thing as ‘eternal Sonship,’ for there is a logical contradiction of
terminology due to the fact that the word
‘Son’ predicates time and the involvement of creativity…. In summary, since
the word ‘Son’ definitely suggests
inferiority and derivation [origin] it is absolutely essential then that Christ as the Eternal Word and not as the
‘Eternal Son’ be pointed up as an antidote to the Arian heresy of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. [116]
Professor Lewis Mayer Taught that the
Term Son of God Referred to Jesus’ Humanity: In The Biblical Repository, the January
1840 issue, Rev. Lewis Mayer, D.D., of York, PA, in an article entitled,
The Sonship of Christ, clearly
revealed that the term Son of God is not a term that expresses the deity of our
Lord but His Humanity. This protestant Trinitarian professor definitely
believed in the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but like Professor Walter
Martin and Dr. John MacArthur, he denied the Trinitarian doctrine of the
eternal Sonship of Christ.
Dr. Mayer
commenting on God’s Sonship program found in Roman 1:4 wrote: The term
Spirit of holiness does not designate the divine nature of Christ, and His
Sonship is not in His divinity…. Jesus Himself gave no such explanation of the
appellation ‘Son of God’ as to make it a title of divinity, and the New
Testament contains none…. This error, as far as I know, is universal…. If this title [Son of God]
were always a designation of the compound
person, the God‑man, as such, and not used with reference to His human nature, it would follow that
the God‑man, as such, is inferior to the Father, could do nothing
of Himself… [and] knew not the day or the hour of the judgment, etc.
But if these consequences must be admitted, they will prove that the divinity of Christ is not true
divinity....
As the God‑man our Redeemer could not be
subordinate to God, could not be exalted
and could not in any sense be dependent, but as the Son of God He is all this.
Consequently, the title ‘Son of God’ is not properly a designation of the God‑man,
but of the man Jesus.... It was the
Son of God that was given; the Son that was sent; the Son that was born, that
agonized in Gethsemane, that died upon the cross, that was raised from the dead
by the Father, was exalted to the right hand of God, was constituted the head
of the church, etc. Nothing of all this can be predicated [affirmed]
of divinity; and it, consequently, shows that as the Son of God, Jesus is a man [117]
Baptist Bob Ross, in his book The Trinity
and Eternal Sonship of Christ, defamed Oneness Pentecostals as: detractors from the Gospel of Christ. He added: Oneite groups… deny His natural (Son of God by nature)
and His eternal (without a beginning as ‘son’) Sonship. [118]
His insulting remarks against One God Pentecostals, and especially Rev. David
Bernard, deserve an answer. Therefore, in this chapter I will examine some of
his arguments for the Trinity and the eternal Sonship of Christ. Since this
man, like the Jehovah Witnesses and other cult groups, uses the allegorical
method of interpreting scriptures, it will not be a difficult task to prove him
wrong in his belief system.
Ross openly confessed: There are some Baptists, such as the popular John
MacArthur, who are short of the mark on the eternality of the Son of God. [119]
No doubt trinitarian professor Walter Martin would be included in his group, “who have missed the mark.” I wander why Ross used the term: short of the mark, to express his feelings of disgust towards
these trinitarian theologians? Now as most people know one of the definitions
for sin is to “miss the mark,” or “do
wrong [i.e.] transgress. [120]
What Ross has failed to point out to his readers is that all of these
trinitarian Baptist scholars believed in the eternality of Christ as the Word,
but not in the eternality of His office as Son of God, as Dr. Martin has
already pointed out in the paragraphs above.
Now, if the Bible taught
that the Christ was called the Son of God in the Old Testament, I, like Drs.
Martin and John MacArthur, would have no objection in using this title to
describe His Deity. But since all the scriptures in the OT, which use this
title are prophetic, and are connected to Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem, it would
be a gross injustice to God and to His holy Word to connect eternality
to this title of the Messiah our Savior! In other words, Christ is
eternal because He is God the Father, and not because He is called the Son of
God. I will discuss the meaning of the title Son of God later in this chapter.
Let us examine Ross’ arguments for the
eternal Sonship of Christ, and see who has “miss the mark” in their teaching on this subject. Ross bases much of his arguments for
the eternality of God’s Sonship program on Psalm 2:7: “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My
Son, today [yowm] I have begotten [yalad] You;” the New International Version translated it as: “I will proclaim the decree
of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your
Father;” and the Jewish Publication Society translated it as: “Let me tell of the
decree: the LORD said to me, ‘you are My Son, I have fathered you this day” (Tanakh - 1985).
Now how does Ross define the words “today” and “begotten” or the Hebrew words “yowm” and “yalad?” Does he go to a good Hebrew lexicon to
acquire a proper meaning and understanding of these words? No, he does not, and
the reason why is because he knows that these words have reference to the “act of begetting at a certain period of time,” and this is not what he wants he readers to
believe. Therefore Ross erroneously defined the term “begotten” to mean: the son’ is of the same stock, or essence, as the ‘father….’
This father-son relationship is ‘anthropomorphic’
of the Eternal Father – Eternal Son relationship…. ‘Begotten’ was not intended
to teach us that the Father and Son are exactly the same as the human father
and son [relationship]. It was intended to teach us that the Son is of the
same nature and essence as the Father…. ‘Begotten’
is simply anthropomorphic of their
eternal relationship. [121]
Let us rain on Ross’ parade. The word “begotten” is the Hebrew word “yalad,” which is use 498 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as: beget 201 times, bare
110 times, born 79 times, bring forth 25 times, bear 23 times, delivered 5 times, borne
3 times, birth 2 times, labour 2 times, and misc. 48 times. It
is not one time translated by the
King James translators or any other translators as “same substance” as Mr. Ross fallaciously
declared. The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament by Dr. l. Laird
Harris defined “yalad” as: to bear, bring forth, beget… of child birth… to be born… to beget (a
child). [122]
The Septuagint uses the Greek word “gennao,”
which is used in the NT 97 times,
and it was translated as: begat 49
times, be born 39 times, bear 2 times, bring forth 1 time, be
delivered 3 times, and misc. 3 times. Louw-Nida
Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament by Drs. J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida
defined it as: the male role in causing the conception and birth of a child – ‘to be the father of, to procreate, to beget. [123]
Therefore, the above declaration by Ross is
out of the realm of reality, and it goes into the realm of fantasy, because
Ross used Philo’s allegorical method to
interpret the scriptures, he definitely takes scriptures out of their
contextual settings, and totally ignores the meaning of the words God uses to
express His truths. Is it not a pity that Ross resorted to Catholic tradition,
and not the Bible, to define the word begotten; in fact
he uses Emperor-Pope Constantine’s teaching of “consubstantial,” which according to Catholic Bishop Socrates of
the fourth century is: an expression which the Emperor
himself explained” at the Council of Nicaea. [124] The word “consubstantial” is the Greek word “homoousios,” which means: of the same substance as I stated
before in the history of the Nicene Creed!
I would also like my beloved readers to take note
to Ross’ statement, which declared the term “begotten”
is an anthropomorphic expression. What Ross is telling his readers is
that they should interpret this term in an allegorical
fashion, as he and his forefathers the Ante-Nicene Catholic Priests have done.
In other words, use the Catholic method of interpreting Scriptures, which is to
hide the truth by spiritualizing the Bible, or to take the
Word of God figuratively whenever it
does not agree with their beliefs. This is exactly why many of the Jewish
Rabbis in Jesus’ day rejected their Messiah; and also why some the earlier
Bishops in God’s Pentecostal Church apostatized from the truth, and formed the
Catholic Church around 70 AD. The allegorical method of interpreting the
Bible is a great abomination in the sight of Almighty God!
In the
following discourse Ross, using the allegorical
method of interpreting the Bible to stretch the word “today” out of the realm of time to mean eternity. He deceivingly stated: If everywhere we read ‘day’ it meant a ‘day in time’
we would certainly be in a ‘pickle’ for understanding the Scriptures. Actually,
where there is obviously an abstract
use of the word… This is the sense in which the word [today] is
used; that is, the circumstance or the occasion indicates the ‘day,’ and that
dictates the sense to be understood…. The decree [in Psalm 2:7] itself is eternal, as God’s decrees are said
to be before the world, from everlasting. [125]
Let my
beloved readers take note that Mr. Ross declared that the Son is eternal
because this decree of prophecy is eternal. Now if we use this idiotic and
illogical line of reason, than Ross must declare that John the Baptist was an
eternal being who existed with God before time began, because God also made a
eternal prophetic decree concerning his birth (Isa 40:1-6). Even though Ross speaks of Biblical Hermeneutics
in his book, when he consistently interprets God’s Word this way, I do not believe
he even has a clue as to what it means or the principles it teaches.
Let us again examine Ross’ arguments: FIRST
point - the word “today” in the
above reference is the Greek adverb “semeron,” which is used in Heb. 1:5 and Psa. 2:7 in
the Greek Septuagint. SECOND and final point – even though the decree
was in God’s mind before the beginning of time, that does not make it eternal;
for the church was also in God’s mind at that time (Eph 1:4-5), does that mean the church existed
as a living entities at that time. Anyone who would say it did, would be
considered as a heretic by all Pentecostal preachers and most protestant
preachers. God decree in Psalms 2:7
had a beginning when God spoke it through the prophet David; and it had a
fulfillment when the Christ was born at Bethlehem on a certain day in time!
Therefore, let us not twist or pervert the Word of God by using the allegorical method of interpreting the
scriptures. Let us interpret God’s Word by using the literal method. The only
time we should use the allegorical method is when the language use is
figurative or the context demands a figurative meanings. I believe with all my
heart that “God meant what He
said, and said what He meant.” God speaking about his holy infallible Word declared: “Every word of God is pure…. Do not add to His
words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Pro 30:5-6). Mr. Ross and all other
preachers who use the allegorical method should definitely take heed to this
verse of Scripture, i.e. if they do not want to stand before God at the White
Throne Judgment!
So, with the
above verse in mind, let us look at how the Hebrew and Greek lexicons define
the words “today” and “begotten.” The Hebrew word “yome” is used 2,274 times, and according to Dr. Harris: Our word is the ‘most important concept of time in the OT, by which a point of time as well as a sphere of time can be expressed….’ It
can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague ‘time,’ 4. a point of
time, 5. a year (in the plural; 1Sam 27:7; Exo 13:10; etc.). [126]
The Greek
Septuagint translated the Hebrew “yome”
by the Greek adverb “semeron,”
which according to Drs. Friberg is: an adverb of time; (1) generally designating the present today, this day (MT 11.23), in contrast
to evcqe,j (in the past);
(2) as an unspecified period of time between past and future periods for the present, at this time (LU 13.32,
33); (3) as the twenty-four-hour period beginning at sundown today, this very day (MK 14.30); (4) as
designating the same period of time as the day of the discourse today (MT 21.28); (5) as a religious
technical term identifying the limits of the time God has put at man’s disposal
for some purpose today (HE 3.13).
[127]
The Greek adverb
Semeron is used 41 times in the New Testament and was
translated by the KJV translators as: this day 22 times, today
18 times, and this 1 time. Gee, I wander why the KJV translators and no other modern translator ever translated the above Hebrew and Greek
words as “eternal or eternity;” or
why no Hebrew or Greek lexicon define
these words as “eternal or eternity,”
if they have that meaning and can be use in that sense! I know that the apostle
Peter compared one day, that is the Greek noun hemera, to a time of a thousand
years (2Pe 3:8), but I do not find one scripture where even hemera means
eternity. Let us remember that eternity cannot be measured by days,
week, months, or even years. There is an old proverb that goes like this: “if an eagle came to earth every million years, and
scratch the surface of the earth with it claws, by the time the eagle wore-down
the earth to nothing, eternity would just be starting!”
Now, how Mr. Ross can spiritualize “yome” in Psalm 2:7 in the
Hebrew Bible, or “semeron” in the Greek Septuagint and the NT to mean
eternity is beyond me. The word is definitely connected to a period of time, therefore it cannot mean
eternity; for as I stated
before, eternity has no time. In Luke
23:43, the Greek adverb “semeron” is used when Jesus told the thief on the cross: “today you will be with Me
in Paradise”
(Lk 23:43). Now Mr. Ross how are you going to interpret “semeron” or “today” in this verse? Are you going to use the illogical
allegorical method of interpreting it by saying the thief was in Paradise in eternity past, or are you going to
use God’s literal method of interpreting this verse and say it meant the thief went to Paradise that very day with His Savior? I will show in the next section of this
chapter that Hebrews 1:1-6, which quotes and explains the above verse,
reveals that the Father begot His Son at Bethlehem.
Now, there is
not one verse in the entire Bible
that ever calls Christ or the Word the “eternal
Son of God.” This may be a startling and very shocking revelation to
many trinitarian preachers, especially to Mr. Ross, but it is the truth any
way. In fact, the Bible never uses the term “God
the Son,” and the reason for that is because Jesus does not receive His
deity from His sonship or humanity, but Jesus is deity because He is God the
Father incarnated into flesh, and as God the Father He is eternal or without
beginning or end. Not only this, but also the terms “eternal Son of God” and “only born Son of God” have exactly opposite meanings. The very fact
that the apostle John clearly used the term “only begotten Son of God” in the above verses and several
others, definitely implies or teaches that the Word was first called the Son of
God at Bethlehem, and therefore the Sonship program of God had a beginning.
Jesus’ Sonship
Began at Bethlehem: The first chapter of the Book of Hebrews definitely
reveals that the Sonship program of God began at Bethlehem, or in other words,
it was at Bethlehem when the Word or Christ first received the title of “Son of
God,” or became known as the “Son of God.” The apostle Paul
expressed this truth this way: “God, who at various times and
in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last
days spoken to us by His Son whom
He has appointed heir of all things,
through [dia] whom [hos] also He made the worlds.
Who [the Son] being the
brightness of His glory and the
express image of His person [hupostasis], and upholding all
things by the Word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
having become so much better than the
angels, as He has by inheritance
obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He
ever say: ‘You are My Son, Today I
have begotten You’? And again: ‘I will be [esomai or e;somai] to Him a Father,
and He shall be [esomai or e;stai] to Me a Son’?
But when He again brings the firstborn
into the world, He says: ‘Let all the angels
of God worship Him….’ But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever… Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions” (Heb 1:1-9).
Let us
examine each verse and look for a harmony
of thought as we compare each one with the other. In verse one the Son is mentioned as speaking after the prophets, and not before them.
Therefore Paul is giving the order of
revelation, in other words, God spoke through the prophets first, before He
spoke through the Son. According to the Bible, it was Christ as the Holy Spirit
who spoke through the prophets in the OT (1Pe
1:11). Since the Sonship program of God did not start until Bethlehem,
as this chapter will clearly reveal, it was not the Son of God that spoke
through the prophets but Christ as the Holy Spirit!
Verse 2: Meaning of words: The
Greek relative pronoun “hos” and the preposition “dia” are both in the genitive
or possessive case. Drs. Friberg revealed that the Greek preposition “dia” has several meaning
when it is use: with the genitive [case]…. (4) causal; (a) of the efficient cause
[i.e. reason] in consequence of, by, on the
basis of, on account of (RO
12.1). [128] Since the Bible
clearly stated that God spoke through the Son in the “last days”
and not in the OT, the time period must be sometime after Christ became the Son of God at Bethlehem, as
the verb “shall be
to me a Son” in verse 5 reveals, which is in the future tense.
Therefore, I believe the
preposition “dia” is used in the causal sense in which Christ, the
Almighty God, is declaring the reason
why He made the worlds; i.e. He made it for His Son or Humanity in whom He
would redeem the creation He made. For this reason, I believe that this verse
should read: “on account of Whom He made the worlds.” The Bible definitely
teaches that God was in Christ: and “all
things were created through Him and for Him” (Col 1:16). Regardless of what
interpretation is correct, Christ did not exist as the Son until He was born of
Mary.
Let my beloved readers take note, God or Deity “appointed” His Son or Humanity heir of all things; in other words, the Son inherited “all things” because God gave it to Him. This definitely reveals that the Son or the Father’s Humanity was subordinate to God (Phi 2:8), i.e. the Son was in a lower position as One who is given a gift, and the Father was in a higher position as the One who gave Him the gift. Therefore, Trinitarians preachers are in a pickle, who proclaimed that the Father and Son are equal in power and authority. For either they have to change their teaching and proclaimed that the Father is a greater God and the Son is a lesser God, or they have to teach as Oneness Apostolic Penteco