Introduction
On this page we explain a little about the Godhead and why some aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity are not entirely Biblical. We do of course believe that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in accordance with 1 John 5:7 There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. “There are three” – you may ask, “three what?” We will now shed some more light on this.
The “Trinity” – a Definition
A definition of the doctrine of the Trinity is given in the IVP New Bible Dictionary as follows:
“that there is but one God, that the Father, the Son and the Spirit is each God, and that the Father, the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person.”[1]
It is often also stated that these three distinct persons are co-equal.
The word “person” means “individual being”[2] and the word “distinct” means “not alike different, or separate”2.
So we see the teaching of the trinity appears to be that God is three individual beings that are not alike. You maybe think that is not what is meant when it is said “one God in three distinct persons”. Well if the words “distinct” and “person” mean something else not defined in the English dictionary then what do they mean? Why not use words we can all understand? Why not just use words that the Bible uses?
In John 14.28, Jesus said that the Father was greater than himself. How could this be if Jesus was a co-equal person with God the Father as is often claimed by Trinitarians?
Jesus also stated that there is none good but God the Father (Mark 10.17-18). Why would Jesus have said this if he were co-equal with God?
A Rule of Greek Grammar
Throughout the New Testament we find phrases such as according to the will of our God and Father (Gal. 1:5 NKJV), With it [the tongue] we bless our God and Father (Jas. 3:9 NKJV) and Looking for the blessed hope, and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13 NKJV). It is commonly understood that our God and Father is one person and that our great God and Saviour is one person – Jesus Christ, yet few people seem to realise that there are similar phrases linking God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (as in Gal 1:3, 1 Thess 3:11, Titus 1:4). All these phrases are governed by the following rule of grammar: According to p.31 of “Wuest’s Treasures in the Greek NT”, I quote, a rule of Greek grammar says that “when two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word ‘and’ and the first noun is preceded by the article ‘the’ and the second is not preceded by the article, the second refers to the same person or thing to which the first noun refers and is a further description of it.” On the basis of this rule of grammar, the above passages therefore mean that Jesus Christ is God and is both Father and Lord, just as God and Father means that God and the Father are one and the same Person. So lets consider the meaning and origin of the words “person” and “trinity”.
Origin of the words “Person” and “Trinity”
The doctrine of the ‘Trinity’ is often summed up as “one substance, three Persons”. If we examine the history of this doctrine, we find that it has not just sprung up overnight; it has been a gradual development over almost 2000 years of much thought and speculation and some very old ideas. In this section we shall examine the origin of the words in which this dogma has been formulated, the use of some of these in the Scripture, and who most of the main people who formulated it were.
Person
The word “person”, in English, as we have already mentioned, simply means a human being, a living human body, or bodily appearance. Check your dictionary! I don’t think we can really call God human; he is a spirit. Neither is he three beings: that would mean he were three Gods. Therefore the word person is totally inadequate to describe the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. So the modern idea of God in Three Persons is obviously a little flawed. But what was the origin of this phrase? Read on to find out.
Persona
The idea of three persons in the Godhead did not of course originate from those who spoke English. It began with the Latins. The word “person” as can be seen in some dictionaries, is derived from the Latin word “persona” which did not originally mean “individual being” as the English word person does. No, in the words of J C Hardwick, “the Latin word persona originally meant a mask, especially that used by stage players… and was varied according to the different characters to be represented. From this it came to mean a personage, character, or part represented by an actor; and from this the part or character which anyone sustains in the world. Thus when it was said that there were three persons in God, it was meant that God revealed himself in three characters – as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not that there were three Gods” (J C Hardwick, “What to Believe” p.124. See also E J Fortman, “The Triune God”, Baker Book House, p.60). So we can see that when these early Christians said there were three persons in the Godhead, they did not mean the same as we do today when we say three persons. Now this fact is ignored by most books which defend the doctrine of the Trinity. Could this be because such books are written to try to convince their readers that the church has always believed that there are three individual beings (persons) in the Godhead?
Prosopon, hypostasis and Athanasias
In the Greek language, another word was used for “person” as we will see. From Hardwick p. 126 I quote “The natural Greek equivalent for the Latin persona is prosopon, which, though originally it meant ‘face’ or ‘countenance’, (see Bullinger p.582, Vine p.66) was also used to signify a dramatic part or character. This term was indeed used by Sabellius, and it was perhaps his use of it that put it out of theological currency. The term chosen to translate persona was eventually hypostasis, which is in Greek almost the exact equivalent of the Latin substantia!”. The word substantia is where we derive our word substance from. This word hypostasis means “foundation, under-layer, or essence” (E W Bullinger, “A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek NT” p.582,746, Vine, “Expository Dictionary of NT words” under “person” and “substance”). If we take the plain meaning of words, if God is in three hypostases, this therefore means that God is three essences or foundations. This can only mean three gods, unless of course the meaning of the word was changed.
Athanasias, the famous defender of the faith of the Nicene Council wrote about his view of this Greek word for “person”. According to Fortman p.75 “Even as late as 369 he [Athanasius] wrote that ‘hypostasis is the same as ousia [the Greek word for ‘substance’ -see Bullinger, p.746, and Vine] signifying nothing other than being itself.’ But in the council of Alexandria in 362 he agreed that the formula ‘three hypostases‘ could be used legitimately to express the distinct subsistence [means of livelihood or existence] of the three in the consubstantial [of identically the same substance] Triad, provided that it did not carry the Arian connotation of three alien and separate substances.” So we can see that even though Athanasias believed in one foundation or essence (hypostasis) of God at the time of the Nicene Creed in 325, he later changed his view and began to believe in three hypostases in the Godhead. Now assuming that the meaning of the word hypostasis was not changed, this means he began to believe in three essences or foundations in the Godhead, even though he continued to believe in one substance (ousia) in the Godhead.
However what finally settles the usage of this word for “person” must be the Scripture. One of the six occurrences of the word hypostasis in the Scripture is in Heb 1:3, where God’s person is mentioned. This implies that God has or is only one hypostasis, or person. Taking a literal translation of the Greek, this verse states that the Son is the impressed mark of God’s essence. There is no mention of any second person (hypostasis) here. The Son is not another person (hypostasis) but the image of God’s one person. Apart from in Hebrews 1:3, the Bible never ever uses the word “person” when referring to God, so why should we?
Origen
Athanasias was not actually the man who coined this phrase “three persons”. Origen was in fact the first Greek to say that God was three hypostases. He also believed, I quote, “only the Father was God in the strictest sense, ho theos, autotheos [God]. The Son was only theos, ‘a secondary God’ [similar to the Jehovah’s Witness’ belief]… He did not see the oneness of the Father and the Son as an identity of substance but as a moral union of virtually identical wills or a union like that of man and wife to form one flesh [ie two gods] … We should not pray to any generate being not even to Christ but only to the God and Father of the universe” (Fortman p.56). It is commonly known that he also believed that all men would eventually be saved, that Christ was not our High Priest and that there is no second coming of Christ. There is no record of him winning anyone to Christ. He did not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and was head of a school of theology which was involved in corrupting the word of God. This is of course not my only proof that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong – just because certain people associated with it were unbelievers (guilt by association). But I am saying that the people who first introduced this idea of three persons into the church were unbelievers. Doesn’t that put a question mark over the whole doctrine of the Trinity?
Augustine
Augustine was also involved in the “full formulation” of the Trinity dogma (IVP “New Bible Dictionary” p.1221). Augustine wrote “The City of God” in which he states “Even today miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, sometimes through the intercession of the relics of the saints” (John Wimber, “Power Evangelism” p.155. See also A Hislop, “The Two Babylons” p.176). Other statements of Augustine include “This divine indwelling… begins with baptismal regeneration” -p.147 Fortman. It is commonly known that he believed Jesus was a ‘lesser god’.
Can we expect men who believe such unbiblical doctrines as a three-essence God, baptismal regeneration and relics, and believe Jesus to be a lesser god to be trustworthy? Surely a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). It would be wise to heed the following Scriptures in 1 Cor 3:11: For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ, and Eph 2:20: …being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone and 2 Tim. 3:14: Continue in the things you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learnt them. The Trinity doctrine has been learnt from many such theologians as Athanasius, Origen and Augustine and ecumenical councils (the beginnings of the Roman Catholic institution) and not from the apostles or from Jesus Christ.
The Occult and Witchcraft, and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
I trust that having read thus far in this article that you may not be too shocked at this next easily-justifiable statement: Freemasonry, spiritualism, witchcraft (black and white magic) and the occult use the Trinitarian formula of “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. See for example http://www.luckymojo.com/protectionspells.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra and http://www.esotericarchives.com/moses/egyptian.htm. God is, of course, Father, Son/Word and Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7) and the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” was used by Jesus (Matthew 28:19), but the Scripture says do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ -Col. 3:17. For those who do not think this should be taken literally, we find that in Acts 3:6 & 16:18 Paul actually says these words, in the name of Jesus Christ, before the lame man walks and a demon is cast out of a girl. For a more complete explanation of Matthew 28:19 and the baptismal formula see https://word.spiritbodysoul.com/baptism-in-whose-name/.
So we can conclude from this that the early post-apostolic concepts of God, describing his various roles in terms of characters played by an actor, or an actor’s masks, made sense. But as time went on, various false ideas were intermingled with this concept and so the doctrine of the Trinity evolved.
Babylonian Symbol
The symbol of the “Trinity” (the triangle -see Brumback p.96) according to trinitarians is “an algebraic symbol for an unknown mystic relation“. This mysterious idea does not compare with the God of the Bible who has revealed himself in Christ -see Col. 2:2: to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ. The “Trinity” is often referred to as a revelation (eg Brumback p.99). Since it has been revealed, it is no longer a mystery. So anyone who calls the “Trinity” both a mystery and a revelation has contradicted themselves. This mysterious symbol, according to Hislop p.9 & 16, originates in ancient Babylon and is used by modern Babylon, the Roman Catholic institution.
“Personalities”, “substantive” and “distinct”
I agree with trinitarians who claim that God cannot be three personalities (eg Brumback p.59). The idea that God is three personalities, according to Karl Barth, is the “worst and most pointed tri-theism” -p.261 Fortman. However, the trinitarian ideas of “conversation among the three Persons” (eg Brumback p.42) and that the “Three Persons” are “three mutually related and distinct centres of consciousness, knowledge and will” (Brumback p.64) will almost certainly make people think that there are three gods. These ideas also directly contradict the Father is in me and I in Him -Jn 10:38, 14:10,11,13,20, 15:8, 17:21. (Of course Jesus prays to his Father, but there is no record of any conversation with the Holy Spirit).
The words “substantive”, and “distinct” sometimes used by trinitarians in reference to the “three Persons” (eg Brumback p.124 & 50,64,69,89,124 respectively) respectively mean “existing independently” and “not alike, different, separate” (Oxford Pocket Dictionary). The teaching that there is three distinct or three substantive persons in God is therefore in direct contradiction to the following Scriptures:
He that seeth me seeth him that sent me – Jn 12:45 (also John 8:19, 14:7) and
Christ, who is the image of God – 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15, 2:9, Heb 1:3. (see below regarding the word “image”)
Eternal Generation
A common trinitarian phrase is “the eternal generation” of the Son (eg Brumback p.123). The word “generation” means “bringing into being, production or making” (Oxford Pocket Dictionary) and hence this idea is contradictory to Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, born under the law. and Jn 1:14 the Word was made flesh. The Son is simply begotten and in the Scripture is never referred to as the “eternal” Son as Trinitarians describe Him (eg Brumback p.123). However the phrases eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6) and eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14) do occur in Scripture.
The deity of Christ
Two Persons “with” each other?
Many Trinitarians and song writers state that Jesus was with the Father, or that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. These writers then often go on to reason that when someone is with someone else it means that the two are not identical. So they then claim that the Son is not the Father. But nowhere in Scripture can we find a phrase such as “the Son was with the Father” or “Jesus is at the right hand of the Father”[3]. These are inventions of those who wrote creeds. The trinitarians have misquoted the Scriptures. The Bible actually says the Word was with God (John 1.1) and that God was with Jesus (Acts 10.38). The Bible also says that Jesus is standing at, sat down at, or on the right hand of God (Acts 7.55, Hebrews 10.12, 1 Peter 3.22). Their reasoning that if someone is said to be with someone else then the two are not identical, would then mean that since the Word is said to be with God in John 1.1, then the Word would not be identical to God and would not be God. Trinitarian reasoning such as this will only end up in denying the deity of Christ.
Consider this, dear friend: Assume for now that the phrase at the right hand did indeed mean two persons sitting alongside each other as trinitarians claim. Then if the Bible said that the Son is at the right hand of the Father then this would mean the Son is a different person from the Father. But as can be seen from the verses referred to above, the Bible never ever says the Son is at the right hand of the Father, but that Jesus is at the right hand of God. Do you see the difference? If trinitarians were right in their understanding of the phrase at the right hand, then Jesus is a different person from God! Then what does the Bible mean when it states that God was with Jesus, and Jesus is sat at the right hand of God?
The Word can only be said to be God because a person and his word are part of the same person and cannot be separated; his word is “with” his person. It is that simple. It is not one person sitting beside another. It is a metaphor – Hebrew thinking is in metaphors, but Greek thinking, from which the doctrine of the Trinity came, is logical and rational and does not understand metaphors.
Isaiah 53:1 describes Christ as the arm of the LORD. In Lk 22:69, Christ says “Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God” (see also Mt 26:64, Mk 15:62). Ex 15:6 states Thy right hand, oh LORD, is become glorious in power. Surely this shows that Christ is the outworking of God’s power and does not prove that one person sits alongside another as logical Greek-thinking trinitarians would have us believe!
The word “Image”
Another typical trinitarian statement is, “An image cannot be the person or thing of which it is an image”. So with Greek thinking Trinitarian logic, it could be reasoned that Christ, being the image of the Father, is not the Father. But the Bible does not say that the Son is the image of the Father. No, it says Christ is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4.4 and Collosians 1.15). If the trinitarian statement were true then we would have to say that Christ, being the image of God cannot be God according to this logic. But we all know that an image is simply the reflection of the thing or person itself! So Jesus is of course God. Jesus’ own words sum this up: he that seeth me seeth him that sent me (Jn 12:45 similar in 8:19, 14:7).
Jesus prayed to God
In Luke 6.12, we find that Jesus continued all night in prayer to God. Now a trinitarian would take the Scriptures where Jesus addressed God as Father and would argue that one praying to another means that there are two persons involved. They would then conclude that Jesus and the Father are two separate persons. But since according to Luke 6.12, Jesus prayed to God, then that would mean God and Jesus were two separate persons and Jesus would not be God. So the fact that Jesus prayed to the Father (elsewhere Jesus addressed God as Father when he prayed) does not mean that Jesus and the Father are two persons.
Let us make another observation about Jesus praying. For with God all things are possible (Mark 10.27, Matt. 19.26, Luke 1.37). God can do anything except lie (Hebrews 6.18), so he has no need to pray to ask another person to do anything for him! Only humans need to pray. Therefore if Jesus was one person and the Father was another person, then that would mean that Jesus could not be God. It is ludicrous to say that God the Son prayed to God the Father as we would have to say if we believed Jesus was a second person of a Trinity! We can only explain the prayers of Jesus by understanding that he was human and so he had to pray. At the same time we must remember that the Word was God (John 1.1), Jesus Christ was our God and Saviour (Titus 2.13 and 2 Peter 1.1), God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3.16), and God was in Christ (2 Cor 5.19). He needed to pray as an example to us to do the same, but he was God at the same time.
The Son can do nothing of himself
In the previous section we quoted the Scriptures which showed that God can do anything, yet in John 5.19, Jesus said that the Son could do nothing of himself. This doesn’t sound like he was talking about “God the Son” does it? If the Son here is himself and he is just a second person of a Trinity and is just “God the Son” then Jesus contradicted himself, because God can do everything, not nothing! No, Jesus was saying that as a man he could do nothing, but as God he can do anything. Pretty simple really!
The Son does not know all things
God is omniscient, which means that he is all-knowing, or knows all things (1 John 3.20, Psalm 147.5). Therefore if the Son of God was a second person of a Trinity of God he would know all things. But in Mark 13.32 it is recorded that Jesus said But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. So there is something that the Son of God does not know, therefore he did not know all things. If he were a separate person from the Father, he could not be God, so again trinitarianism leads us to deny the deity of Christ. Again as with Jesus praying to God this can only be explained by saying that Jesus as a human did not know everything. But at the same time he was God and Lord, and knew all things (John 16.30, 21.17).
Jesus never claimed to be the Father or God
We all agree that Jesus never said “I am the Father”. But what few people realise is that Jesus also never said “I am God”. So just because he didn’t say “I am God” does that mean he was not God.
I and my Father are one
In John 10:30 Jesus says “I and my Father are one”. This verse does not say “I and my Father are two”! Again this shows that God is one, and there is no hint of “three persons” in the Godhead in this verse.
The God of our Lord Jesus Christ
In Ephesians 1:17 we find the phrase “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory”. If it were true that Jesus is a separate person from the God the Father as the Trinitarians claim this would mean God the Father is the God of Jesus and this would mean Jesus is not God. By thinking of the Son and that Father as two distinct persons we would end up denying the deity of Christ on the basis of this verse. No, as well as being fully God, Jesus is also fully man, and in this respect the Father is the God of Jesus the man, just as Jesus as a man prayed to God the Father. The Word was God (John 1.1), Jesus Christ was our God and Saviour (Titus 2.13 and 2 Peter 1.1), God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3.16), and God was in Christ (2 Cor 5.19).
Fullness of God in Christ
Trinitarians would also have us believe that Christ is “not the absolute fullness of God” (p.90 Brumback, God in Three Persons). The Greek word “fullness” (pleroma) means the contents [not just part of the contents] – Bullinger p.312. Eph 3:19 says, We are filled with the fullness (pleroma) of God. This must be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (see Jn 13:18,23, Rom 8:9, 2 Jn 9 etc) and so Christ must also be the complete fullness of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). What should we believe, man’s philosophy or the Word of God in Col 2:9, 1 Tim 3:16? Let God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4).
On page 71 of “God in Three Persons”, Brumback states that the Son was “the member of the Godhead selected to appear”. There is no Scripture to support this view, for in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9. See also 1 Tim 3:16).
Baptism
It is commonly assumed that the words found in Mt 28:19 in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit constitute a form of words repeated at the baptism of every person in the early church by the apostles, and that the following baptisms recorded in the book of Acts are just a summary of the confessing of Jesus as Lord and Christ in baptism:
(i) Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
(ii) Acts 8:16 only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(iii) Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord.
(iv) Acts 19:5 they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus
In the “Dictionary of Theological Terms” on page 13, Alan Cairns states that “While Matt. 28:19 is usually called the baptismal formula it is not commanded to be used as such… it does not stipulate a necessary form of words, as can be seen from the apostolic emphasis on baptism into the name of Jesus Christ.”
All the following highly esteemed sources back this up:
– J Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, p.83
– Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, p.58
– G W Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p.421,5
– Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.2 p.82
– The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, p.349,51
– J.C. Hardwic, kWhat to Believe, p.123
On page 421 of “The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia”, it is stated that “the words [of Mt 28:19] are not given in any description of Christian Baptism until the time of Justin Martyr and there they are not repeated but are given in a slightly extended and explanatory form.” On page 53 of The Encyclopedia of Religions, it is stated that “persons were baptised at first in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord Jesus. Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. (See also “Canney Encyclopedia” p.53).
So who was it that first stated boastfully that this was the only valid baptism? We can simply let their own writings speak for themselves: According to the Modern Catholic Dictionary by J.A. Hardon, “it was the Roman Catholic church that stated that the only valid baptism was using the Trinitarian formula.” The Catholic Encyclopedia on page 250 vol 2 states that “The form is: I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost… even a pagan [an unbeliever] or heretic [a Protestant] can baptise, provided he uses the form used by the Church and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin.” A “heretic” as we have seen already is anyone who disagrees with the RC church, and thus if this form of words is used by a Protestant it is encouraged by the RC church and is said to remove all sin and punishment for that sin. However, Christian baptism neither has a fixed form [see Cairns above] nor is it of any use if performed by an unbeliever nor does it remit sin. It is simply the answer of a good conscience towards God (1 Pet 3:21).
The simple explanation to this apparent contradiction is that in Mt 28:19 no name is mentioned. Father, Son and Holy Spirit simply express the most important attributes which God reveals of himself. Each term used to describe God has its place and is to be used in its proper context. For a more complete explanation of Matthew 28:19 and the baptismal formula, see https://word.spiritbodysoul.com/baptism-in-whose-name/.
Conclusion
We have shown that:
1 God is an absolute one
2 God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ refers to one and the same Person (from Greek grammar)
3 Some of the men who originated the idea of three persons in the Godhead believed in baptismal regeneration, relics, a three-essence God, and believed Jesus to be a lesser god.
4 The symbol of the “Trinity”, the triangle, is Babylonian
5 God has one personality and is not three substantive, distinct persons
6 The Son is never said to be eternal but is begotten
7 The Bible says that the Word is with God and that Jesus is at the right hand of God. The trinitarians change the word “God” here to “Father” to try to prove their theory that the Father is only one person of three in the Godhead.
The trinitarian idea that the right hand refers to a separate person leads to a denial of the deity of Christ.
8 The Bible says that Christ is the image of God. The trinitarians change the word “God” to Father here also to try to prove their theory. The trinitarian idea that an image of something is not the thing itself again leads to a denial of the deity of Christ.
9 Jesus Christ is the revelation of the Father’s name. So this name (not names) must be the Lord Jesus Christ.
Note also the following scripture found in Deut 19:15, Mt 18:16 & 2 Cor 13:1 Let every word be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. If the formula Jesus intended us to use were the exact words the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost there would be at least one mention of them in the Acts.
Let us consider all these points in humility and openness, remembering that the Scripture warns against adding to and taking away from the Word of God in Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, Rev 22:19, Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1-3, 3:16-17 eg adding the unscriptural ideas of God being three distinct, substantive persons being able to converse among themselves; the idea of an eternal son being eternally generated and a pagan, Babylonian symbol.
According to Jude 3, the faith has once for all been delivered to the saints and not ungodly men (v4) such as Origen and Augustine who crept in unawares. We are instructed to hold fast to the Lord Jesus Christ’s name in Rev 2:13. Finally let us remember the words of Paul the apostle in 2 Tim 1:13: Hold fast the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to God for the teachings of William Branham, which I have learnt a lot from since 1985 when I first heard recordings of his sermons on cassette tape. He teaches almost the same things about the Godhead as I do in this article. His sermons are all available on the internet now on a number of websites.
All Bible quotations taken from the KJV except where otherwise stated.
Most encyclopedias can be found in your town library.
April 1994, revised Dec 2013, Dec 2016, Spirit Body Soul
[1] New Bible Dictionary, Second Edition, IVP, Leicester
[2] Oxford Dictionary
[3] There is a phrase found in John 1.18 in the NIV and many other modern Bible versions, “God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side”. Some trinitarians use this verse to try to prove that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father as one person sits next to another, but the phrase is based on a few corrupt Greek manuscripts. The phrase used in over 5000 Greek manuscripts has been correctly translated in the King James Version as the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.