discourse on trinitarians being blinded to the truth

8/3/2019 Discourse on Trinitarians Being Blinded to the Truth

1/12

Discourse on Trinitarians Being Blinded to The Truth:

INTRODUCTION:

Trinitarians, since they believe in and defend a myth, see predicamentsin the correct beliefs of none Trinitarians, such as the 'nutty' noneexistent, "The predicament of monadic monotheism (non-Trinitarianism)".They are like poor Senior Don Quixote in the modern novel, Don Quixote,by Miguel de Cervantes. They see dangers and enemies in proverbial"windmills" and leave poor Pancho scratching his head at their nuttyantics.

One Trinitarian even said the following absurdity:

"Excellent question for which the only answer is that the Father, Son,and Spirit are separate in person, yet not separate in substance. As tohow that works, I have no idea.

Trinitarianism doesn't attempt to answer how. It's only a humbleattempt to describe the great who and what revealed in Scripture."

Of course they do not attempt to answer how; they only put forthabsurdities to bolster their God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine, theTrinity myth, an invention of pagan men adopted by apostateChristianity to incur the favor of a pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine.Who forced its adoption at the Council of Nicea of 325 AD, that he, apagan worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, called as he needed to unifyhis faltering empire religiously. In addition, he usurped God's(YHWH's) position and had this same council declare Sunday to be theSabbath Day; whereas, God (YHWH) had declared Saturday to be theSabbath Day as well attested to by the Spanish word for Saturday,'Sabado.'

HOW AND WHY OF THIS PAGAN DOCTRINE GOT INTO APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY:

Let's look briefly at its very pagan origin and its adoption intoapostate Christianity [not true Christianity].

Let's look briefly at its very pagan origin and its adoption intoapostate Christianity [not true Christianity].

[quote] SATAN'S TRICK - FALSE DOCTRINE EVOLUTION:

Now do most mainstream religions through the ages have anything incommon be they so called Christian or pagan? Absolutely, history showsthat one mainstream religion evolved into another one while maintaining

many of the beliefs of the one before it, but simply changing the nameof the God(s). No where is this more self evident than with respect tothe doctrine of the Trinity. In has been with us since at least thetime of ancient Sumeria as shown by The historian H. W. F. Saggsexplains that the Babylonian triad consisted of three gods of roughlyequal rank. Their "inter-relationship is of the essence of theirnatures." Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descendedfrom the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? (*1). No.However, Hislop furthers the comparison: "In the unity of that One,Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize


2/12

that doctrine of the trinity they employed...the equilateral triangle,just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day." (*2).

Yes, the concept of a trinity has been a prevailing belief for a very,very long time perhaps longer than most Christians would imagine. Whileworshipping innumerable minor deities, triads of gods appeared in allthe ancient cultures of Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt, India, Greece andfinally Rome. The "mysteries" of the first universal civilization,Babylonia, were transported down in time. The names of the godschanged. The details of ancient incomprehensible religions changed, butthe essential ideas were the same. The Sumerians worshipped Anu (theFather), Enlil (the god of earth) and Enki (the lord of wisdom). TheEgyptians worshipped Amun who was really three gods in one: Re was hisface; Ptah his body and Amun his hidden identity "combined as threeembodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4 - page201).

Now with respect the next evolution of mainstream religion, theEgyptian, Egypt's history is nearly as old as Sumeria's. In hisEgyptian Myths, George Hart shows how Egypt also believed in a

"transcendental, above creation, and preexisting" one, the god Amun.Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face; Ptah his body; andAmun his hidden identity (*3). The well-known historian Will Durantconcurs: "In later days Ra [sic], Amon [sic], and Ptah were combined asthree embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4). Ahymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC distinguishes the Egyptiantrinity: "All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah: they have no equal. Hisname is hidden as Amun, he is Re before [men], and his body is Ptah."(*5). Certainly is not this positive indicator that the Christiantrinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? However, Durantsubmits that "from Egypt came the idea of a divine trinity..." (*6).Laing agrees when he says that "it is probable that the worship of theEgyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus helped to familiarizethe ancients with the idea of a triune God and was not withoutinfluence in the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity as setforth in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds." (*7). And The Encyclopediaof Religions goes even farther when it states that as Christianity"came in contact with the triune gods of Egypt and the Near East, itdeveloped a trinity of its own." (* ....HISTORY OF POLITICAL INTRIGUE AND DECEIT THAT EVOLVED THE TRINITY INTOSO CALLED CHRISTIANITY:

To understand how the Trinity wormed its way into so calledChristianity we need to know the political and social climate of thefirst three centuries after the passing of Jesus (Yeshua) and hisapostles, and why true faith deteriorated into compromise; and then

total acceptance by the mainstream so called Christian groups, notwithstanding its violation of the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Nowlet's look at that period and try an insert ourselves mentally into it.

In the early church the apostles needed to refute another rising beliefsystem gnosticism. It considered matter to be evil and sought salvationthrough knowledge. Gnosticism also focused on the "mysteries" meantonly for the intellectuals to understand. Christ, the gnostics said,entered Jesus at baptism and left just before he died on the cross. TheApostle John particularly addressed this budding heresy: "Many false


3/12

prophets, have gone forth into the world, You gain knowledge of theinspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression thatconfesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God,but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does notoriginate with God. Furthermore, this is the anti-christ's [inspiredexpression] which you have heard was coming, and now it is already inthe world." (*25). Jesus' humanity was repulsive to gnostics. After theApostles died, Christians responded to gnosticism by claiming not onlydid Jesus Christ come in the flesh as the Son of God.

By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Paganpersecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Paganemperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire.Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he sawChristianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. Tothis opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politicsand people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno andMinerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Junowas the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain ofJupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the

plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Junothe representative" (26). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporatedinto Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adoptedit" (*26).

Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if hewere to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unifiedempire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find away to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God?So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. tosettle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself thehead of the church, and thus the problems of the church became hisresponsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Romaninfluence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his newtheory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but inthe East the church adhered more closely to the older formula ofbaptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was thistrue with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death ofChrist" was that which alone was essential (*28) .

Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, TheRoman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differencesbetween pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity.Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but hewas a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religiousunity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogmaof a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon

(Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibilityfor unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of theChristians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that hehad to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, theRoman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300,but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fractionactually attended.

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behindthe scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was


4/12

not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declaredunder imperial degreethat this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of theChristian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with thisdeclaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed.(*29).

So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostatechurch that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell itwhich dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and thenhave it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another RomanEmporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. Thisin direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Yeadulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of theworld is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of theworld is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world,the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, butI have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."(John 15:19 AV).Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to

believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of aTrinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over athousand years, until the Reformation. (*29). [source - Discourse onMainstream Religion, by Iris the Preacher, 2001, -http://p213.ezboard.com/fthewayofyhvhfrm1....picID=142.topic ].Reference sources for those wishing to do further research, those usedin the above cited work:*1 - Saggs,H. W. F. "The Greatness that was Babylon: A Sketch of theAncient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley." New York: NewAmerican Library. 1968.*2 - Hislop, Alexander. "The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship."1853. 2nd American ed. Neptune: Loizeaux. 1959.*3 - Hart, George. "Egyptian Myths." Austin: U of Texas. 1990.*4 - Durant, Will. "Our Oriental Heritage". New York: Simon. 1935. Vol.1 of The Story of Civilization.11 vols. 1935-75. (page 201)*5 - Hornung, Erik. "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One andthe Many." Trans. John Baines. Ithaca: Cornell UP. 1982.*6 - Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75. (page 595)*7 - Laing, Gordon Jennings. "Survivals of Roman Religion.". New York:Cooper Square Publishers. 1963.*8 - The Encyclopedia of Religions.*9 - Carter, Jesse Benedict. "The Religious Life of Ancient Rome: AStudy in the Development of Religious Consciousness, from theFoundation of the City Until the Death of Gregory the Great." New York:Cooper Square Publishers. 1972. (page 16-19).*10 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition"

(100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The ChristianTradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.*11-A - heraldmag.org*11 - Morodenibig, Naba Lamoussa. "Light From the Trinities."*12 - Edersheim Bible History (page 59-62).*13 - New Catholic Encyclopedia, (Vol. XIV, 306).*14 - International Encyclopedia of the Bible," Vol. 5, (page 3012).*15 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible),(page 116 in NT, John 14:29)


5/12

*16 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY(page 10 in NT, Matthew 10:40).*17 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The ConfraternityEdition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 109 inNT, St. Luke 22:42).*18 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The ConfraternityEdition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 205 inNT, Romans 11:25).*19 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The ConfraternityEdition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 210 inNT, Romans 16:25)*20 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The ConfraternityEdition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 213 inNT, 1 Corinthians 2:7).*21 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The ConfraternityEdition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 227 inNT,1 Corinthians 15:51).*22 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible),(page 202 in NT, Ephesians 1:9).*23 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible),

(page 206 in NT, Ephesians 6:19).*24 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible),(page 210 in NT, Colossians 1:27).*25 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 revision,(pages 1517 and 1519, 1 John 7; also 1 John 4:1-3).*26 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, andEcclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6*27 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited fromCharles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).*28 - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366).*29 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuriesof the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F."An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen;5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera uniusDei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False andTrue Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit),1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength throughPeace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropdia, Vol.X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism andChristianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York:Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.*30 - Durant, Will, "Age of Faith,"*31 - Jonas, Hans, "The Gnostic religion: the message of the alien Godand the beginnings of Christianity," 2nd ed., 1963.*32 - Hagensick, Cher-El L, "The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganismto Constantine."

*33 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY(page 185, 2 Corinthians 4:4).

WILD ABSURD STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY TRINITARIANS:

Example 1:

"I have the Bible and it already has told me that Jesus Christ is YHWH,I AM.


6/12

John the Apostle said that Jesus Christ was YHWH on the throne, whomangels worshipped, and that Isaiah saw, sitting on the throneworshipped by angels, in Isaiah 6,"Holy! Holy! Holy! is the YHWH of hosts! The whole earth is full of Hisglory!"That was Jesus, YHWH on the throne, Harold and Iris. John said so!-He is the YHWH of hosts!

It is so clear that a baby can grasp it, and for all your convolutingof the word, you cannot make the Word say otherwise; He is YHWH who isthe One true God, whom I worship and whom angels worship." {by aTrinitarian)

Now it is clear that this individual clearly does NOT comprehend whathe has read as no one who did could possible reach the conclusions youdid. First, YHWH is the name of Almighty God and NOT of his Son, Jesus(Yeshua) who came to earth.

Is still true. Yes, you do have the Bible, but your replies clearlyshow that you do NOT comprehend what you are reading in it. This was

the case with the eunuch of great authority under Candace recorded inActs 8:26-40:

"But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and gotoward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza:the same is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and behold, a man ofEthiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of theEthiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem toworship; 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and wasreading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said unto Philip, Gonear, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran to him, andheard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou whatthou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some one shall guideme? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now thepassage of the Scripture which he was reading was this, He was led as asheep to the slaughter; And as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, So heopeneth not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was takenaway: His generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from theearth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, ofwhom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other? 35 AndPhilip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preachedunto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on the way, they came unto acertain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, [here is] water; what dothhinder me to be baptized? 37 [And Philip said, If thou believest withall thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe thatJesus Christ is the Son of God.] 38 And he commanded the chariot tostand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and

the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of thewater, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch sawhim no more, for he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was foundat Azotus: and passing through he preached the gospel to all thecities, till he came to Caesarea"[American Standard Version; ASV].

Now this individual is in the position of the eunuch, but does do nothave the disposition to want to learn the truth as did the eunuch

Example 2:


7/12

"I have the Bible and it already has told me that Jesus Christ is YHWH,I AM.John the Apostle said that Jesus Christ was YHWH on the throne, whomangels worshipped, and that Isaiah saw, sitting on the throneworshipped by angels, in Isaiah 6," {by a Trinitarian)

Why is this statement by a Trinitarian absurd? Well, with respect, 'IAm' let's look at a quote in another writing as follows:

"Many have a misconception with respect the use of 'I am' in the NewTestament [Greek Testament] due to the false teachings of falseprophets of the pagan so called Christianized doctrine of the Trinityand Duality in accordance with Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets,who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves."(American Standard Version; ASV); And are as the Bible says at 1 John2:1, "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as amongyou also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring indestructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them,bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow

their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shallbe evil spoken of." (ASV). Their true nature is exposed at 2Corinthians 4:4, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the mindsof the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory ofChrist, who is the image of God, should not dawn `upon them'." (ASV).

These false prophets latch on to Exodus 3:14, "And God said unto Moses,I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children ofIsrael, I AM hath sent me unto you." (ASV), and try to wrongly link itto John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,Before Abraham was born, I am." (ASV) in a vain, straw grabbingattempt, to justify their false doctrines, either the Trinity or theDuality depending on which 'flavor' their particular group of falseprophets have lead them to believe in without regard to reality. Theywillingly fail to recognize the fact that God (YHWH) the Father, andthe Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) are two distinct individuals when eventhe terms father and son should tell them that, and the Bible makesthis distinction quite clear at John 14:28, "Ye heard how I said toyou, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would haverejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater thanI." (ASV), wherein Jesus (Yeshua) testifies to the fact, "for theFather is greater than I." Also, this fact is clearly borne out at 1Corinthians 15:27, "For, He put all things in subjection under hisfeet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it isevident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him."(ASV), where we see that Almighty God (YHWH) has put everything EXCEPThimself under his Son, Jesus (Yeshua), how much clearer can the fact

get that they are two distinct individuals since if they were not, thisscripture would be a lie and we know that is not true.

Interestingly, the scripture they wrongly try to link to in the Old orHebrew Testament in Hebrew reads: "I am that I am" or as it issometimes rendered: "I will be what I will be." [source, "Gems from theNew Testament" by Vivian Capel, page 56]. If this does not show theirperception of reality is completely wrong, this book, "Gems from theNew Testament," goes on to say, ""In the Greek Septuagint version of


8/12

Exodus the statement is: "I am the Being." Here the `I am' is not partof the title as it mayappear from the way the Hebrew is translated and capitalized in manytranslations. It is just part of a statement describing the title `theBeing.' There is thus no connection between this and the words of Jesus.

'Just a few verses farther on in John the _expression `I am' occursagain. This time it was said by the blind beggar who was healed byJesus, but whose identity was doubted (John 9:9). As with the words ofJesus in the previous chapter it was just an affirmation of hisexistence and identity, and no connection with any other text can beimplied.'" [source, "Gems from the New Testament" by Vivian Capel, page56].

This is collaborated by many other sources such as, The Interpreter'sOne-Volume Commentary on the Bible: "The meaning is obscured by theconventional translation I am who I am, which implies that God is theground of his own existence. The Hebrew verb denotes, not abstractbeing, but manifestation in a definite character, or name;and its form indicates habitual manifestation in past, present, or

future. Since English requires a tense, the best rendering is 'I willbe as I will be.'" [source, "The Interpreter's Onv-Volume Commentary onthe Bible]. And by, Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen: "Moses perceived that thepeople would want to know which attribute of God they can expect toencounter; that is, what their experience of God will be, and what isgoing to happen to them. God's answer, then, leaves things open-ended.Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh is based on the future tense conjugation of theHebrew verb meaning "to be." Often translated as "I Am Who I Am," thephrase is more accurately translated as "I Will Be That Which I WillBe." The people will come to know God through their unfoldingexperiences together." And Rabbi Stephen Pearce, Senior Rabbi atCongregation Emanu-El in San Francisco. "God's answer in Exodus 3:14,"'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' -- 'I willbe what I will be' -- sent me to you" is so illusive and ambiguous thatthis description could not have been very believable."' [source -DISCOURSE ON THE MISCONCEPTION WITH RESPECT 'I AM', by Iris hePreacher, 2001]

Now with respect Isaiah 6 chapter, you fail to realize that here it isspeaking of Jesus' (Yeshua's) father, Almighty God (YHWH) and NOT Jesus(Yeshua) clearly once more showing your lack of comprehension. Let'slook at that scripture, Isaiah 6:1-8:

'In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon athrone, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. 2 Abovehim stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he coveredhis face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did

fly. 3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, isJehovah of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 And thefoundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him that cried, andthe house was filled with smoke. 5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I amundone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst ofa people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah ofhosts. 6 Then flew one of the seraphim unto me, having a live coal inhis hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7 andhe touched my mouth with it, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips;and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin forgiven. 8 And I heard


9/12

the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go forus? Then I said, Here am I; send me.(ASV)"

Here the title Lord is clearly being applied to Jehovah (YHWH) and notto his Son. he International Encyclopedia of the Bible says this:

"LORD OF HOSTSA name or title of God frequently used in the Old Testament, alwaystranslated "Yahweh of Hosts" (Yahweh tsebha'oth) in the AmericanStandard Revised Version, since Yahweh, never 'Adhonay, is used in thisphrase. Evidently the meaning of the title is that all created agenciesand forces are under the leadership or dominion of Yahweh, who made andmaintains them (Genesis 2:1; Isaiah 45:12). It is used to expressYahweh's great power." [Source - The International Encyclopedia of theBible]

So clearly this individuals statement was in error on this point also.

Example 3:

And then he went on to make another WRONG statement as follows:

[quote] Both of you are stumbled at the stumbling stone, "God becomeflesh", and you try to make as if we Trinitarians believe His humanbody is the body of the Father, or that; "we claim" that "He claimed"that He was "the Father" "in flesh", for we don't -and you really doknow that, but you just keep trying to muddy the Trinity doctrine byclaiming we say things that you put in our mouths, but which we don'tsay. (statement by a Trinitarian)

Whereas the Bible says at Matthew 1:18-25:

" Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Maryhad been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was foundwith child of the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being arighteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was mindedto put her away privily. 20 But when he thought on these things,behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying,Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And sheshall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it ishe that shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this is cometo pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lordthrough the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child,and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel;which is, being interpreted, God with us. 24 And Joseph arose from hissleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto

him his wife; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: andhe called his name JESUS.(ASV)"

Clearly showing that Jesus' (Yeshua's) life force was already in thewomb of Mary, put there by God's (YHWH's) active force or power sothere is NO way Jesus (Yeshua) could be God (YHWH) who is his Father.It is an absolute absurdity to make an assumption that a father and ason are the same being as all know better than that. And remember theterms father and son are God (YHWH) given terms that are NOT to becorrupted with respect meaning.


10/12

THIS fact that the son is not the father is further highlighted at John6:62 as follows:

"[What] then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he wasbefore?(ASV)"

And who raised Jesus (Yeshua) from the dead so he could ascend toheaven? The answer is given in Ephesians 1:17-23 as follows:

"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may giveunto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; 18having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is thehope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance inthe saints, 19 and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us-wardwho believe, according to that working of the strength of his might 20which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and madehim to sit at his right hand in the heavenly [places], 21 far above allrule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that isnamed, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22

and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to behead over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fulnessof him that filleth all in all.(ASV)"

And this is affirmed at Philippians 2:5-11 as follows:

'Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existingin the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God athing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of aservant, being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found infashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [even] untodeath, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exaltedhim, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that inthe name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven and[things] on earth and [things] under the earth, 11 and that everytongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of Godthe Father.(ASV)"

This scripture clearly shows that it was God (YHWH) as distinct fromJesus (Yeshua) since he was clearly dead or there would have been noneed for his Father, God (YHWH) to have resurrected him. And, note, thescripture clearly says, "God highly exalted him, and gave unto him thename which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every kneeshould bow, of [things] in heaven and [things] on earth and [things]under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that JesusChrist is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." So no one shouldsubvert the fact that God (YHWH) is over everything including his Son,

Jesus (Yeshua), since everything he has was clearly given to him by hisFather, God (YHWH).

Also, Matthew 4:10 shows Jesus (Yeshua) himself saying:

"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

Here it is clear that Jesus (Yeshua) said you shall worship the Lordthy God, his Father (YHWH), and did NOT say, you shall worship me. In


11/12

fact, if he had been God (YHWH), this statement would be an absurdity;whereas, it is not, so clearly he is not his Father (YHWH).

Example 4:

Some misguided believers in the God (YHWH) dishonoring Trinity myth, amyth that originated with pagans, make absurd statements such as:

"Jesus, He was "the Father" "in flesh" (statement by a Trinitarian)

But naturally fail always to back them up with any real evidence. Ifthey provide any so called evidence at all, it always turns out to theopinions and writings of men and absurd twisting of scripture. This hasalready been shown above.

CONCLUSION:

An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple factthat the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New TestamentChristians. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "borrowed doctrine"

and foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities. Underthe article Trinity we read, "The term 'Trinity' is not a biblicalterm...In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purelyrevealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable byreason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" [source -International Encyclopedia of the Bible," Vol. 5, (page 3012)].

As can readily be seen from the foregoing, even the concept of theTrinity came from the pagan world, and the Bible shows " In whom thegod of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image ofGod, should shine unto them." [source - The Holy Bible (King JamesBible), American Bible Society, NY (page 185, 2 Corinthians 4:4)] istrying to keep out the glorious gospel of Christ. Satan the Devil isslipping false dogma in its place. Do not be trapped by him, rejectfalse dogma of the Trinity.

Now to know the truth, go to:

1) http://religioustruths.yuku.com/

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

If you wish more information and/or wish to ask a question or whatever, contact me by leaving a PM (personal message) at

http://religioustruths.yuku.com/

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor theimage of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579,written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What DoesThe Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!


12/12

discourse on trinitarians being blinded to the truth

Documents