Satan's 2nd Biggest Lie 'Jesus is God

The Trinity is the central doctrine of today’s Christian church. It claims that God exists in three ‘persons’, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is a lie. Its advocators don’t know what they are talking about, they can’t teach it with any semblance of rationality, and their understanding of it is non-existent—in scripture and in logic. As an example of the statement I just made, let’s take a look at a few quotes from respected theologians; quotes that express beliefs common and essential to the Trinitarian faith. See if you can understand what they’re talking about! These excerpts are taken from the New Bible Dictionary, and would be accepted by nearly any seminary trained scholar or pastor: The doctrine (of the Trinity) is stated by saying that God is One in his essential being, but that in his being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. The Son is called the ‘only begotten’ perhaps to suggest uniqueness rather than derivation. Before there had been any created being, there was self-revelation within the Trinity, the Father revealing to the Son, the Father and the Son revealing to the Spirit, and the Spirit communicating that revelation within the Being of God. (Taken from “New Bible Dictionary – 2nd Edition” by Tyndale) In your own mind, decide whether or not the above doctrine qualifies as the ‘knowledge’ which Paul speaks of to Timothy in the next passage. 1 Timothy 6:20 (NKJV) 20 O Timothy! Avoid the idle babblings and contradictions of what some falsely call knowledge, Was the previous definition for some attributes of the Trinity an idle babbling? Were there contradictions? Let me re-write the captions taken from the New Bible Dictionary, giving the English dictionary (all definitions taken from definitions for a few of the words they use, in order to make their incoherent babble a little more understandable. You will find that what they have done is used a lot of words that most people do not understand the meanings of, and contradicted themselves time and time again, in order to explain an unexplainable truth.


The doctrine is stated by saying that God is One in his essential (fundamental or necessary) being (that which exists in any form), (Thus we conclude that God’s fundamental, or most basic, existence is guided by the fact that He is One. This is quite Biblically supported, as even Jesus Christ calls it the ‘greatest of all commandments’ in Mark 12:29) but that in his being (existence) there are three Persons (composites [or sets] of characteristics that make up an individual personality), yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. (Thus we conclude that God, while in His basic state of existence is One, within that One existence are three sets of characteristics that make up 3 individuals, however God’s existence does not actually form any distinct individuals--I’d like to mention at this point that God is not the author of confusion; 1 Corinthians 14:33) The Son is called the ‘only (unique) begotten (existence caused by a source)’ perhaps to suggest uniqueness (being the only one of its kind) rather than derivation (to obtain or receive from a source) (You see, in coming to the conclusion that ‘only begotten’ suggests uniqueness, not derivation, they only produce an answer for the ‘only’ part of ‘only begotten’. They forget the ‘begotten’ part, which in no way suggests uniqueness. However, the very word that they claim ‘begotten’ does not represent, derivation, has a nearly identical meaning to ‘begotten’. However, if they keep the meaning of ‘begotten’ as is, then Jesus can’t be God, because he wouldn’t be eternal. What the writers are inherently claiming, in order that their faith may not be wrong, is that God is extremely unskilled in His use of vocabulary--I’d say about a third grade level, as He uses words which contain meanings that He obviously does not want to get across.) Before there had been any created being, there was self (I’m not going to define ‘self’, because it’s so obvious)-revelation (to make known something concealed or secret) within the Trinity, the Father revealing to the Son, the Father and the Son revealing to the Spirit, and the Spirit communicating that revelation within the Being of God (What in the world does that even mean? The ‘Being of God’? If the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit have already received the revelation from each other, what part of God is left to receive more?). (Taken from “New Bible Dictionary – 2nd Edition” by Tyndale)


(Thus in recap, we understand that God exists fundamentally as One, but as three persons with individual characteristics, but not as three individuals, in a state where He does not understand the meaning of the words He created, and has found a way in which to reveal secret and unknown things to Himself between those three persons which are not individual from one another. And He knows everything. Oh, I get it let’s worship Him!) As if this were not enough confusion and non-Biblical babble, there is more! Take a look at a number of quotes, all from the beginning of titled sections, in the New Bible Dictionary explaining exactly how it is that we came to the ‘wonderful and beautiful’ revelation of the Trinity. Remember that the person who writes these things actually believes in themyou won’t think so as you read. The word ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. It is, however, the distinctive and all-comprehensive doctrine of the Christian faith. (I’m not sure I see his logic…) Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation (to express in systematic terms or concepts) of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit (implied or understood, though not directly expressed) in the Old Testament and explicit (fully and clearly expressed, leaving nothing implied) in the New Testament. (Let me get this straight; it is not expressed using concepts in any way in the Bible, but it IS fully and clearly expressed. I have a question; how can you fully and clearly express something without using concepts? Only God can! In case you didn’t get that, I’m being sarcastic. God created concepts for a reason; so he could express things!) Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine. (Just because alphabet soup has all the letters, this does not mean we should attempt to read our soup. The fact of the matter is that the Bible contains the ‘elements’ to preach mass genocide, but unless the ‘elements’ are taken in the ‘formula’ that God uses, they are void.) The necessity to formulate the doctrine was thrust upon the church by forces from without <the church>. (Pg. 1222, Formulation, “New Bible Dictionary”) I’d like to end my defense of the fact that the Trinity is selfcontradicting, senseless, and insulting to God by use of its own 3

advocators on this note: If you believe in the Trinity, you don’t understand what you believe (understanding something means that you can express that thing using intelligible concepts; not simply claim you understand it, but can’t explain it. This is why we have tests in school—in order to prove understanding). Jesus told us to ‘know the truth’, and he also told us to ‘worship in truth’. If you can’t understand God, you cannot adequately worship Him. I do not presume to write an exhaustive proof of the falsities contained in this belief, but I will mention enough to inspire quite a bit of doubt in the average church attendee. I also suggest two books on the subject that will prove exceedingly enlightening to anyone wishing to learn more on this in particular: One God The Unfinished Reformation, Robert Carden Grace Christian Fellowship 1701 Quincy Ave - Suite 17 Naperville, IL 60540 (630) 983-5577 One God & One Lord Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith, 685 pages Mark H. Graeser, John A. Lynn, John W. Schoenheit Available through Christian Educational Services 2144 East 52 Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46205 1-888-255-6189 The first book, One God, is decently short and easy to read, and explains in immaculate terms the fact that Jesus Christ is not, and cannot, be God Almighty Himself. A couple of days are all it will take to gain an accurate understanding of God’s Word through this book, assuming you have been brought up in the lie. One God & One Lord, on the other hand, rivals the size of the largest college texts. It is far more detailed, gives scriptural accuracy in the Trinity struggle, defines a clear relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father, and could be used as ‘Logic 151’ in many universities. Extensive references and studies are plentiful, and will turn the eye of even the most accomplished Biblical Scholar. This book, though, is not for the feint of heart, and will take quite a commitment to finish. Even though you may be coming to this book with a previous belief in the Trinity, I am going to use the same tactic of discovering Satan’s lie for this one as for the previous lie. The mal-effects of the false doctrine will be outlined at the end of the section, for further understanding. As we have previously learned, step one in the lying process is to quote God, and skew the meaning. The Bible is very 4

large (one of the longest books known to man), and as such Satan has been able to use more than simply one misquote of it. I will go over two of those verses, the two that are probably used most commonly in ‘proving’ this false doctrine, and if questions of other verses linger, please feel free to explore either of the two books aforementioned. The two verses that we will take a look at are: John 8:58 (NKJV) 58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” John 10:30 (NKJV) 30 “I and my Father are one.” The current English Bible translations, along with nearly every doctrinal school and scholar, would claim that Christ was indeed making a ‘divine claim’ to the Pharisees who were seeking to kill him in both these verses. In many Bible translations, the phrase in 8:58 is rendered ‘I AM’ (all caps), making elusions to Exodus chapter 3, where God tells Moses that His name is ‘I AM’ (In the original Greek manuscripts, everything is in capital letters, hence any differential in capitalization is strictly a choice of the translators—they have translated this verse in all caps to imply the meaning they wish it to have). I have heard, on many occasions, people claiming that this statement is identical to the statement in Exodus as translated in the Septuagint (Sept-a-jent: the Greek translation of Hebrew Old Testament). Keep in mind, as we study these two verses, that the Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew, and the English translations are not the inspired word of God, they are a person’s interpretation of the inspired word of God, and thus these interpretations can be wrong. In the following paragraphs, the possibilities of what Christ was intending to say to his accusers will be made evident – even to the extent that Jesus making a divine claim in no way fits either scenario. Taking a situation in context is absolutely necessary when determining intent. Context is defined as the ‘situation in which the event occurs’. Why is it important to understand the situation as a whole? Because the same set of words in on instance could imply a totally different meaning in another. For example, if I were to say ‘I walked into a bar yesterday’, the words by themselves could imply two completely separate meanings. One would be a quite painful experience, whereas the other would simply be stating my entrance into a building. Only context can determine the actual intent of my words.


This is as true today as it was two thousand years ago, during the time around Christ’s birth. The phrase ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ is vague at best, and grammatically incorrect at worst. Thus, a further examination of the discussion at hand (the context) is completely necessary, along with examining the interpretation of the Greek words into English. All avenues simply must be exhausted when looking for a non-confusing answer. Not only this, but once all avenues are discovered, the scenario which best fits the context of the situation must be taken. Beyond that, the decided interpretation must also fit with the Bible as a whole. All too many times, Christians have put on blinders concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, and thus can only see in one direction. Any verse that has an inkling of resemblance to the ever popular doctrine is used as evidence to support it, many times completely ignoring the context of the verse itself. The most obvious case of this is John 10:30, where Christ claims, ‘I and my Father are one’. This verse can, if interpreted in one manner, support part of the Trinitarian doctrine, which is that the Father is God, and the son is God, and they are one God. This verse is used as proof by nearly all Trinitarian sympathizers, but the context of the situation, not to mention some later words from our Lord Jesus, contradict this personal interpretation of John 10:30 mightily. Let’s take a look at the context of this claim in order to establish a concrete meaning on Christ’s part. (The next passage is not a direct quote, it’s written to establish context. Represented here is John 10:24-38.) The Jews say to Jesus, ‘If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.’ Jesus replies, ‘I already told you, and you don’t believe me. These mighty works that you see me do in my Father’s name, they tell you who I am – but you still don’t believe because you aren’t of my sheep – but I already told you all this. My sheep hear my voice, and I know all of them, and they follow me. I give my sheep eternal life, and they won’t die; nor will anyone take them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and no one has the power to take them from my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’ After he said this, all the Jews decided to stone him. Jesus, knowing that he didn’t do anything wrong, asked the obvious question, ‘All I’ve shown you are good works which came from my Father. So for which of those things are you stoning me exactly?’ The Jews answered, ‘We don’t stone you because of your good works, but because of your blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God (or ‘a god’)’


So Jesus answered back, ‘Doesn’t it say in your law I said, “You are gods”? If God called them gods, to whom His word came (and the scripture can’t be wrong), why do you say that I’m blaspheming because I say that I’m the son of God? If I don’t do the work of my Father, then don’t believe me! But if I do, even though you still don’t believe me, at least believe the work, so that you’ll know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.’ Then they tried to grab him, but he got away. The first thing that jumps out when looking at these passages is, if Christ were claiming to be God almighty, and this is the reason that the Jews were going to stone him, Christ’s refute does not match the accusation! This would be like some one accusing me of stealing a cookie, and then me replying, “Oh yeah, well I didn’t even touch the ice cream!” My defense, which protects me from being found guilty of ice cream theft, does not help at all with my cookie dilemma. Since Jesus is not stupid, there is no chance that he would say something like this. In order for you to understand why it is that Christ’s defense doesn’t match the crime, I have to teach you a bit about Greek—it will get confusing if you don’t already know it, so read slow and understand as much as you can. How do we know that his defense doesn’t fit the crime? Well, during Christ’s time period, and truthfully throughout all time, mankind has always sought to make gods out of men. Take for instance the legacy of the Roman Caesar (who was considered to be a living god), or Acts 14, when Paul and Barnabas came to Lystra, healed a lame man, and were immediately proclaimed by the locals to be Zeus and Hermes come down as men. This story is part of our focus, as we learn a valuable truth from it. In the Biblical account of Paul and Barnabas being called ‘gods’, the Greek word for ‘gods’ used in is the same one that’s used for THE one true God earlier in John, that word being theos. That means that this Greek word may either mean the Ancient of Days (THE God) or a lesser god (not that there are any, but people believe there are, thus a word is needed). This is not a hard concept to understand, as there are many English words that have multiple meanings. We can also note that in general the method of distinguishing between the Ancient of Days and a lesser god is to omit or include a little Greek word called ‘the article’. This word usually doesn’t even need to be translated into English, but it is necessary in understanding sentence meanings in the Greek language. Noticing whether or not ‘the article’ is present is especially important when translating conversations where a clear distinction 7

needs to be made between ‘THE God’ and ‘a god’, because the same word is used for both—I will call this the ‘article theme’. When translating, one must recognize whether the ‘article theme’ is present in the context, or not. There are exceptions to this trend, but there are usually reasons for the exceptions. I bring this fact up, though, due to the Greek wording used by Christ and the Pharisees during their dispute. The article theme is blatantly present in their conversation. Now that you know about theos and the ‘article theme’, you can understand better how it is that Christ’s refute of the Jews’ accusation toward him does not apply if they are accusing him of claiming to be the Ancient of Days. Let’s take a look at the Old Testament scripture he quotes to combat their accusation: Psalm 82:1 (NKJV) 1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods (Hebrew ‘elohim’) Psalm 82:6 (NKJV) 6 I (God) said, “You are gods (Hebrew ‘elohim’), and all of you are children of the Most High.” Now, just as theos is the Greek word that can be translated as ‘God’ or ‘a god’, we see that elohim is the Hebrew word that serves the same two functions. That is, referring to the Ancient of Days, or referring to mini gods (In English, this would be equivalent to ‘mighty men’ or ‘false gods’, and not gods deserving of worship). It may even be translated as ‘mighty ones’, or ‘judges’. In this Psalm, the one that Jesus uses to refute the Jews’ claims against him, elohim is obviously not referring to the Ancient of Days (the one true God), since He calls the ‘children of the Most High’ by the name elohim. This is dually confirmed by Jesus Christ in verse 35, who refers to those who were called gods (in the Greek, theous, without the article) as people ‘to whom the word of God (tou [article] theou) came’. Thus we have it confirmed that the Hebrew word elohim serves the same functions as the Greek word theos. We also see that Jesus Christ didn’t use the article when speaking of the ‘mini Gods’, but he did use the article when speaking of the one true God1[1]. Essentially, Christ’s argument is that their own scriptures call men gods, thus it is not necessarily blasphemy to call a man a god in 1[1] Jesus didn’t actually speak Greek (at least most of the time—he may have known how), but we must take the Greek grammar as absolutely accurate in describing what he meant, because the Apostles were God inspired when they wrote these accounts. 8

this sense. However, we are taught that the Jews did not think he was making himself a god in this sense; we are taught that the Jews wanted to stone him for making himself out to be the Ancient of Days; THE God. Why would Christ use an argument that didn’t even defend the case made against him? The obvious answer to this is that it DID defend the case against him. The Jews were not claiming that he was making himself out to be THE God; they were claiming that he was making himself out to be a god. Does their grammar in the Greek back this up? Absolutely! When the Jews claim that Christ makes himself out to be ‘God’, there is no article, whereas every time ‘THE God’ is mentioned during this conversation, the article is included, thus making it safe to assume that the article theme is active. A better translation of verse 33 would be, ‘You, being a man, make yourself a god’. Why is it not translated in this manner? Those darn doctrinal blinders! So if Christ wasn’t claiming that he was the Ancient of Days by saying ‘I and the Father are one’, what was he claiming? Well, the next obvious question to ask would be ‘Christ and the Father are one what?’ The most foolish thing a person could do is immediately interpret this ‘oneness’ as ‘one substance’ or ‘one God’. Why? Well, if we take a look at what Jesus says a little later on in John, we are enlightened as to why. John 17:20, 21, 22 (NKJV) 20 I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you (recognize that wording from Jesus’ little speech to the Pharisees earlier?); that they may be one in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them, THAT they may be one just as we are one… Not only does Christ use the same wording in saying ‘as you, Father, are in me, and I in you;’ as he does in chapter 10 verse 38 (that the Father is in me, and I in Him), but he also claims that he wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. It seems undeniable that Christ is speaking of the same subject here as he is back in chapter 10. Notice, if you will, that he claims that we should be one IN THEM. I certainly am not God, nor are any of my Christian brothers and sisters around the world. Thus being one with Christ and with God, in the same way that Christ and the Father are one, must not be referring to one God, or one in substance.


The most obvious clue we have as to what Christ means by this statement comes in verse 22, where he states, “And the glory which you gave me I have given them, THAT (hina, better translated here as ‘in order that’) they may be one just as we are one” Christ tells us exactly what he means when he says ‘one’, he means one in GLORY! His Father gave him glory so that they could be one in glory, and Christ gave us that glory, so that we could be one in glory with them. Thus we have a wonderful interpretation for Christ’s meaning in these instances, and not only that, but we have averted a potential problem in making ourselves equal with God. This is one of the stumbling blocks that Mormons have, and one of the main combinations of verses that they use to prove to Christians that we will all be gods of our own worlds once we get to heaven! If Jesus and God being ‘one’ means they are one God, and we as saints are supposed to be ‘one’ with them, just as Christ and the Father are ‘one’, then it is logical to conclude that we are to be God as well. Thank the Lord that this is not the case! Let’s take a final look at every piece of evidence for the interpretation of these verses: 1. Because of the lack of the article in front of theon in chapter 10 verse 33, Grammatically speaking, it makes more sense that the Jews were saying Christ claimed to be ‘a god’, not ‘THE God’. 2. Christ sites a verse from the Old Testament in his defense, and this verse obviously defends against the supposed blasphemy of men being called gods, not men being called THE God. This defense would have been irrelevant if the accusations were such that he was claiming to be THE God. It is not possible that Christ would have used an argument that didn’t even concern his situation. 3. Later in John, the same wording expresses what is necessarily the same idea, only we (God’s chosen ones) are included in this ‘oneness’. We, however, are not going to be God with Him. Thus, that interpretation must be incorrect. 4. In the same part of John, Christ tells us specifically that this ‘oneness’ is one in glory. You can’t ask for a much clearer explanation than that! The true intent of Christ in this tenth chapter of John now seems quite evident. The wrong intent has all surfaced because we as Christians wear blinders to the true interpretations of verses, by jumping to conclusions that are false in order to support beliefs that they may not support, and following the enemy down the exact path that he wishes. If we have proof for our core belief, let that proof not


be fabricated or accepted simply on the basis that the core belief itself is true. We will now delve into John 8:58, the ‘I AM’ statement. This one is a bit more involved, but the basics of Greek that we learned in the last explanation will help. Here is the context of what went on during the eighth chapter of John, verses 47-59 (Again, not an exact quote): Jesus has just finished telling that they Jews are not of God. They retort with, ‘Oh yeah? Well isn’t it true that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?’ He is obviously not a Samaritan, so he doesn’t even bother with that question, and replies, ‘I don’t have a demon, but at least I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. I don’t seek my own glory; there is One who seeks and judges. Truthfully, if you keep my word, you shall never see death.’ This seems very absurd to them, ‘Now we know you have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and you say that if we keep your word we won’t die? Are you greater than Abraham, who is dead, or the prophets who are dead? Just who do you make yourself out to be?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I honor myself, my honor is nothing. It is my Father who honors me, of whom you say that He’s your God. Yet, you haven’t known Him, but I know him. And if I say that I don’t know him, then I’ll be a liar like you! But I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.’ The Jews reply, ‘You aren’t even fifty yet, and you’ve seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’ Then they tried to stone him, but he got away again. Verse 58 says, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’ The theologians and scholars would have us think one of two things about Christ’s intent in this verse. 1. Christ was implying that before Abraham existed, he existed. This would, for the most part, prove that Jesus Christ is indeed a person of the Ancient of Days. The main problem with this interpretation is the grammar. You see, if one wished to claim that he existed before something or someone, he would have to use the past tense of the verb ‘to exist’. 11

Jesus Christ, in the Greek, said ‘ego eimi’. This is not the past tense of the verb ‘to exist’. In fact, it’s not even the past tense of any verb. This phrase contains the present tense of the verb ‘to be’. If Christ was attempting to claim that he existed before Abraham by using a verb in the present tense, he would be very bad at grammar. It would be much like me stating, “Before I was in a car accident, I drive my car.” You see, I sound like a two year old. He couldn’t have been bad at grammar, as many people called him ‘Rabbi’, or ‘teacher’, thus this is not the meaning he intended by using the present tense of the verb ‘to be’, or eimi in Greek. The biblical scholars who believe that Christ was claiming ‘he existed before Abraham did’ often ignore the fact that the word translated as ‘Abraham was’ is not a form of ‘eimi’ at all. This means that the two words (Abraham was, and I am), because they are different words, obviously serve a different function and meaning in the sentence. If Christ was attempting to claim that he existed before Abraham, he would have needed to use the same word supplied for ‘Abraham was’. He didn’t say it that way, so he didn’t mean it that way. Thus, there is no way that Christ is trying to say ‘he existed before Abraham’. 2. Others would have you think that Christ is making a direct reference to the name of God given in Exodus, ‘I AM’, and claiming this name for himself. In essence, Christ would be saying, ‘Before Abraham even existed, I am God, the One who IS.’ They claim that the wording is the same, thus we can make a strong connection. Well, there are a few problems with that theory. First of all, the exact wording of the Hebrew story translated into Greek, or vice versa, cannot truly be determined. Assuming that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) is wholly accurate in the way God intended it, which most certainly may be, the wording that God gives as His name in Exodus IS NOT the same wording Christ uses in John. Grammatically speaking, the verb ‘eimi’ always requires a predicate. The predicate is the ‘what?’ of to be. To find it, when you come across a form of ‘to be’, simply ask yourself ‘to be what?’ If the ‘what?’ is not explicitly stated, it may be implied by the context of the sentence. A good example of this is in John 9:9, when a man Christ healed is talking to the Pharisees. John 9:8-9 (NKJV) 8 Therefore (because Jesus healed him) the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, “Is not this he who sat and begged?” 12

9 Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I am <he> (ego eimi).” The <he> is not in the Greek, so the man basically said ‘I am’. He quite obviously wasn’t saying, ‘I exist.’, because that would make no sense at all. The predicate he, in this case referring to ‘the blind man who was healed’, was inserted by translators. This is perfectly legal, and sometimes quite necessary for comprehension. This same phrase, ego eimi, is used in Exodus chapter three, but not in the way most would have you think. Let’s take a look at that verse so that we can understand the grammar applied. Exodus 3:14 (Septuagint) Oops, that’s Greek. Here is the English version. Exodus 3:14 (NKJV) 14 And God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ And He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ God does call himself by the name ‘I AM’, but what is the Greek source of that English translation? In the following verse, I have put these things […] around ego eimi, so you can see it (remember that this is the verb Christ used in John). I have also put these things <…> around the Greek words ho on. The phrase ho on is used in Revelation to describe God (He who is, and He who was etc.). It can be rendered as ‘I am’, but is probably more accurately rendered as ‘the one who exists’. The English translations for those words appear under the Greek.      [        and said God to Moses I am I AM and said         Him say to the sons Israel I AM has sent me Notice that ho on (the words in bold) is what God uses as His name. It now becomes evident that God DID NOT say ‘ego eimi’ in reference to His name, He said ‘ho on’. The ‘eimi’ present is simply acting as a verb which connects the predicate to the subject it’s describing. In this case ho on (He who exists) is describing God (or ego, I). Thus, the eimi links the two; to say that ‘eimi’ somehow connects 13

Exodus with John is foolhardy. Christ in no way makes any allusion or hint at his name somehow being ho on, ‘the one who is’. Beyond that, if Jesus was simply trying to describe himself in any old manner, ‘ego eimi’ would most certainly be the way to do it, as that’s the verb that means ‘I am’. The fact that Jesus leaves out the predicate after saying ‘ego eimi’ means less than nothing, because not only did God supply the predicate for Himself in Exodus, it was also common practice to simply leave it out; this is proven by the fact that others are quoted in the Bible as using the exact same phraseology (Take for instance John 9:9, where the blind man Jesus healed uses it). Theologians, by stating that Christ is making a divine claim here, misrepresent what God truly said in Exodus. The only way that Christ could have possibly been making a divine claim would be if he said, ‘ego eimi ho on’, or ‘I am the One Who Exists’. This is not the case, and as such this interpretation should be thrown out. Christ says ‘ego eimi’ on many other occasions, and most of those are generally not taken as divine claims. Why not? Because they always have an implied predicate that is painfully obvious. Take, for example, John 8:28. John 8:28 (NKJV) 28 Then Jesus said to them, ‘When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am (ego eimi) <he>, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things.’ Many translators put the word he in this verse after ‘ego eimi’, because the implied predicate is ‘Son of Man’. Christ was saying that when they kill him, they’ll know that he’s the Messiah, because the name ‘Son of Man’ is a Messianic title in the Old Testament. They know this, and translate the verse accordingly. However, belief in Christ’s divinity has caused countless Christians to jump to a false interpretation in the very same chapter, with the very same verb. Why would Christ change the meaning of the words he speaks later on in the same conversation? So what is Jesus actually saying in John 8:58? Well, we know that he said ego eimi, and that he left out the predicate, therefore it must be implied. The only problem is, with the current translation of the Greek words, it’s not implied. Can we find the implied ‘I am what’ within the context of the conversation? Before we do, some other points need to be made. The Jewish people DID NOT BELIEVE that their Yahweh (another name for God, the Ancient of Days) was a man. The thought would never have crossed their minds, even for a second. Why not? The Jewish Torah is actually the first five books of the Christian Old 14

Testament. They did not have the New Testament to go on, and thus they would have followed only the Torah and the books of the Prophets. Here is a verse from the Old Testament which proves quite solidly that Yahweh is not a man: Numbers 23:19 (NKJV) 19 God is not a man, that He should tell a lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. For a man to claim such a thing would be utterly ridiculous to them, and we see, by the reactions of the Jews in the present time to ‘the Trinity doctrine’, it still is utterly ridiculous to them. We also know that nobody claimed that Jesus was God before his death and resurrection, because in Matthew 16:13 Christ asks his disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Certainly, if word was going around that he was God Almighty in the flesh, it would have been mentioned here. It is also good to note that the Jews DID NOT BELIEVE their Messiah would be God Himself. They believed, and still do believe, he would be a man, of the seed of David, of the seed of Abraham. According to the Jews, Abraham is the father of all – and the father is always greater than the son. (According to Hebrew tradition, the father would always bless the son before his death, thus making the son the new head of house.) This meant that no man was greater than Abraham, because he was the father of all! That is, except for the Messiah. He would be greater than Abraham, because God will have exalted him as a High Priest above all—according to the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4). Since we know that the Jews didn’t think Jesus was God, what does their question to him (‘Are you greater than our father Abraham? Who do you make yourself out to be?’) truly ask? They must be asking him whether or not he is claiming to be the Christ! Other Scripture supports this tendency, as determining whether or not Jesus was the Messiah held their top priority. Remember John 10:24 (If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.), and at his trial in Mark 14:61 (Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed?). This was their main concern—in fact, they never even ask him once if he was God in the flesh. Well, the Jews asked Jesus, ‘who do you make yourself out to be’, and he said, ‘I’m not making myself to be anything, my Father in heaven is.’ The Pharisees asked him a loaded question, but a hard one to catch. A loaded question would be one like, ‘hey Steve, have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ No matter how Steve answers, 15

he’s in trouble. The Jews asked him another loaded question just before this, but that one was more obvious. (Do we say rightly you are a Samaritan with a demon?) Why is ‘who do you make yourself out to be?’ a loaded question? According to Hebrew law, a High Priest could not exalt himself to that position – God had to do it. The Messiah was to be the High Priest of the Everlasting Kingdom. Therefore, if a man claiming to be the Messiah was exalting himself, this man could not have been the Messiah. They were trying to catch him off guard. Christ notices the loaded question, though, and first refutes it. (He does this by saying he’s not honoring himself, but God is. This is in harmony with Hebrews 5:5 which states, “So also Christ did not exalt himself, but it was Him who said, ‘this day I have begotten you’.”) He then moves on to make an indirect claim that he is indeed greater than Abraham. He does this in verse 56, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad’. Why would Christ say it this way? What was the day that Abraham saw, and rejoiced for? Hebrews 11:13 (NKJV) 13 These all (speaking of Abraham, Sarah, and some other men of God) died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. The promise of God that all Hebrews looked forward to was that of the Messiah, and what he would accomplish. Abraham was assured by God that the Messiah would come from his seed, and he believed God and was glad. Thus the point that Christ makes to the Pharisees in saying ‘Abraham saw my day, and was glad,’ is that he is the Messiah, and thus he is preferred above Abraham. He was answering their question back from verse 53, except first he made sure that they knew he wasn’t exalting HIMSELF as they accused him, because if he did that, he couldn’t possibly be the High Priest, as the Messiah had to be. Hebrews 5:4, 5 (NKJV) 4 And no man takes this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as [was] Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made high priest; but He who said unto him, “you are my Son, today have I begotten you”. The Pharisees, however, wanted to get a more absolute admission out of him. They basically said, ‘what are you talking about?’ by saying, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and you’ve seen Abraham?’ They must have known that the only person who Abraham ‘saw the day of’ in the future was the Messiah, so they


played dumb in order to get a confession out of him. Christ simply obliged. The Greek word for ‘Abraham was’ is the one that implies our missing predicate for ego eimi. How is this so? It is the word genesthai, from the word ginomai. It can be translated as ‘to exist’, but as we have already established that this would not fit because the grammar (Christ is in present tense, Abraham is in past tense – If Jesus wanted to say he existed before Abraham, he was using very bad grammar) and the context (Jesus is not talking about his existence, he’s talking about whether or not he’s greater than Abraham), we should look for another translation. There are a few cases in the New Testament when this word is translated as ‘to be preferred’ (even in English, if you are ‘before’ something, it can mean you are greater than, preferred, or in a higher rank than that thing). Seeing as that is the exact context in which Christ is speaking (he is answering the question ‘are you greater than Abraham?’ after all), let’s see how that translation fits. John 8:58 (NKJV + Grammar/Context translation) 58 Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was preferred, I am <preferred>.’ And here we have a perfectly in-context and grammatically legal translation that makes far more sense than any we have been presented with. The ‘preferred’ serves as the predicate required by ‘ego eimi’, and Christ comes straight out and says, ‘Yeah, I’m preferred before Abraham was.’ Then they try to stone him. Does it make sense that they would attempt to kill him for claiming to be the Messiah? Absolutely! In fact, they DID kill him for this. John 19:7 says, “The Jews answered him, ‘we have a law, and according to our law he ought to die, because he made himself the son of God.’”. Thus, they killed him for claiming to be the Christ, the only begotten son of God. (Luke 1:35 lends us proof that in no way is ‘being God’ a requirement for ‘being the son of God’. Trinitarians would have you believe that this is so, but it simply is not.) As has become evident, steps one and two in the lying process are now complete; Satan has taken the infallible Word of God, and confused its meaning—thus exposing our weakness in truth and knowledge. Does the belief that surfaces from this twisting of verses, the doctrine of Christ’s divinity (upon which doctrine the Trinity itself is absolutely dependant), contradict any of God’s other statutes? Assuming that the doctrine of Christ’s divinity is in fact true, let us examine the contradictions in God’s word that this creates (remember, any contradictions in God’s word are completely unacceptable!): Numbers 23:19 (NKJV) 17

19 God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent VS. Acts 2:22 (NKJV) 22 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Matthew 16:13 (NKJV) 13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” The doctrine of Christ’s divinity gives rise to extreme discrepancies in God’s Word, even to the extent of attempting to claim one thing is true, and then claim that the opposite is true as well. This is a logical fallacy: ‘A’ and ‘not A’ cannot possibly be true at the same time. Let’s look at what these three verses say under a logical light bulb. The way logic works is actually pretty simple. You take two or more premises (facts), and draw a conclusion from those facts. As you will see, Trinitarian Doctrine defies logic completely, thus rendering the Word of God logically fallible. The variable ‘A’ will represent the relation between the two parties (Jesus and God), and ‘man’. This is simply to make the logical comparison easier. Trinitarian Logic Error: Premise 1: God is NOT a man (Numbers 23:19) Premise 2: Jesus Christ IS a man (Acts 2:22) Conclusion: Jesus Christ IS God = not A = A = A is not A

This conclusion would be rendered as ‘false’ according to logical thinking. As it is God who gave us logic, and thinking all together (Hebrews 5:14 “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” The author is speaking of discerning scripture in this context), I suggest a re-evaluation needs to be done by anyone believing Jesus Christ IS God. Here are some more contradictions that the Trinity Doctrine gives rise to in God’s Word: 1 Timothy 2:5 (NKJV) 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, If we believe Jesus Christ is the one God, then that means there would be only two subjects spoken of in the above verse: God and men. This fact is shown by numbering the subjects (1) and (2) in the below verse. 18

1 Timothy 2:5 (NKJV) 5 For there is one God (1), and one mediator (1) between God (1) and men (2), the man Christ Jesus (1), The word ‘between’, though, requires that there must be at least three subjects. How could Jesus Christ BE the one God, and also BE the one mediator BETWEEN the one God and men? Paul mimics my concern in the book of Galatians, chapter 3 verse 20, “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” A mediator is of two parties—if Jesus Christ were God, and God is one, then there is only one party to be mediated; men. Thus we understand by the verse in Timothy that Jesus Christ cannot be God, as Paul would not have contradicted two of his own writings. The mediator between God and men used to be the Law, and now it’s Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 8:6 (NKJV) 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. This verse says that the ‘one God’ is the ‘Father’, it also mentions Jesus’ name in reference to a different personage; hence Jesus Christ cannot be the ‘one God’. John 14:28 (NKJV) 28 (Jesus talking) You have heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for my Father is greater than I. Trinitarian doctrine contradicts this verse entirely. One of their premises is ‘The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-equal.’ (From the Athanasian Creed) Yet in this verse, Jesus Christ claims that his Father (the one God) is greater than he is. Thus, not only does Christ’s supposed Godliness contradict logic; it contradicts mathematics as well. (Something cannot be both equal to and greater than something else) Did you know that using mathematical equations, we can plot the positions of stars, constellations, and planets? Using math, we can actually move the stars (on a computer program) back or forward in time, so that we know the exact positions of them for any time period! Did you know that God made those mathematical wonders? Indeed, mathematics is a Godly science, if you will. I find it hard to believe that the existence of God Himself defies the very things He created2[2]! 2[2] On a side note, belief in the Trinity, and that God is incomprehensible, requires belief in something else. If we partake in these doctrines, we must also believe that God 19

John 4:24 (NKJV) 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. VS. Luke 24:39 (NKJV) 39 (Jesus talking) Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see for spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have. Trinitarian Logic Error: Premise 1: God IS spirit. Premise 2: Jesus IS NOT spirit. Conclusion: Jesus IS God. =A = not A = not A IS A

Luke 18:18, 19 (NKJV) 18 Now a certain ruler asked him, saying, “Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God.” Jesus Christ asks a question and gives an answer in the form of a rebuke to this man for calling him good; telling him that only God is good. If this man can’t call Jesus ‘good’ because only God is ‘good’, then Jesus cannot be God. I have heard the contradiction that this verse brings up explained away as, ‘Jesus was using a question to lead them to the truth, that he is the one God’. However, they didn’t bother to look at Christ’s tactics in asking questions (not to mention that the way this rebuke is worded makes that explanation sound ridiculous). Whenever Jesus asks a question in order to teach some one something, he always lets them answer it first. If they are wrong, he corrects them—if they are right, he congratulates them (John 8:10— John 9:35—John 6:5). However, whenever a question is asked, and Jesus answers immediately, the question and answer serve as a rebuke (John 8:43— John 5:44—John 3:10)

created us without the ability to understand who He is, and how He exists. This is insane! God wants a relationship with us, and yet creates us so that we cannot even understand Him? It also contradicts the Bible, which says that the things that are made understand Him, even his eternal Godhead! Interesting that Trinitarians use the word ‘Godhead’ to describe the combination of the three persons of the Trinity, yet the Word claims we are to understand it, is it not? (Romans 1:20, “being understood by the things that are made, even His Godhead”) 20

Here it seems quite obvious that Jesus Christ is giving the ‘ruler’ a mild rebuke for calling him good. He makes it quite clear that there is ‘only one’ who is good, and that is God. James 1:13 (NKJV) 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. VS. Hebrews 4:14, 15 (NKJV) 14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. This contradiction in particular is quite the topic for discussion amongst Trinitarians. They simply cannot seem to understand how it was that the Evil One, Satan, managed to actually tempt their god in the desert. The Bible, though, has no problem at all with Jesus being tempted, because as Hebrews 5:2 says, he is ‘subject to weakness’ (NKJV), and that he had to suffer in order to be perfected, so that he could aid us in our times of need. Some will explain away all these contradictions by claiming that they ‘accept them in faith’. Interestingly enough, they don’t know what ‘faith’ is. Paul describes faith in Hebrews 11:1 as ‘the evidence of things not seen’. Faith, essentially, believes in something without seeing it. Accepting a stark Biblical contradiction is not believing without seeing—it is seeing, then choosing not to believe what you saw. This is the exact opposite of faith. The previously explained truth can be understood using the wonder of modern checking. Suppose I call my bank, and ask the teller if there is enough money in my account to write a certain check. Suppose she tells me that there is, and I write the check. I have not physically seen the number representing the amount of money I have in my checking account; all I have is someone’s word for it—therefore by writing the check, I am exercising faith in the teller’s word. However, suppose I use the internet to do my check balancing. I happen to see that the number the internet shows me for my checking account balance is actually less than the amount of money I wish to write out the check for. I can ignore the fact that my checking balance contradicts the check amount all I want; I can even write


out the check and give it to someone! But eventually, doing so is going to hurt me far more than simply not writing the check. In the last instance, I did not believe by faith that my check would go through; I ignored a direct contradiction that told me that my check wouldn’t go through, and wrote it anyway. Do you now see that we cannot ignore Biblical ‘bounced checks’ so to speak, and must simply not write the check? We should instead write one that our Biblical accounts do support. It is quite solid, at this point, that the doctrine of Christ’s divinity does indeed contradict many other clear portions of scripture, and that they cannot be explained away. The third step of the lie, contradicting a direct word from God, is complete. All that remains is step four. What wounds does this attack of the enemy inflict upon the church of today? 1. The issue of ‘being like Christ’. If he is God, that goal is absolutely impossible; even though we are commissioned to do just this. 2. We are ‘joint-heirs’ with Christ, yet we are most certainly not God. This can breed confusion as to our part in eternity. (Romans 8:17 “and if children then heirs—heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together.”) 3. We are to worship God alone, and any other worship is idolatry. If Christ is not God, the entire Christian church is essentially living in idolatry, because it worships him on a regular basis. Take, for instance, the hit song The Heart of Worship by Matt Redman, where the lyrics include, “I’m coming back to the heart of worship; it’s all about you Jesus.” 4. Many people who believe Christ is God pray to him, even though the only command we have is to pray to God the Father, and the only person that the Apostles themselves prayed to was God the Father as well. We may ask things of Jesus (John 14:4), but prayer should be directed toward God. 5. Accepting the doctrine as truth will beyond a shadow of a doubt lead to questioning the validity of the scriptures, due to all the contradictions which arise. How are we to believe in God and do His will if we can’t even be sure that His word is true?


6. The Trinity is veiled with the ‘necessity of mystery’, claiming that we cannot truly understand God. This is simply not true, as we are supposed to understand God. (Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”) 7. The reality of who Christ is, and how much he really had to endure, is completely lost. God would have had no problem resisting temptation, as He cannot be tempted at all. The honor we should give Jesus for living a completely obedient life, even to death, no longer exists; Jesus being God and living a perfect life is much like the episode of Seinfeld, where a 30-something year old Cosmo Kramer beat up a bunch of little kids in his Karate class, claiming it was ‘fair’ because they were at the ‘same skill level’. God turning into a man (coming down to our level) and living perfect is no challenge; God CAN’T sin, and thus the truth of what Christ had to endure is completely lost. 8. The temptation of Jesus Christ in the desert becomes completely for show: Satan knew God wasn’t going to sin, God knew God wasn’t going to sin, and since they were all alone with each other, the entire thing was pointless. In all truth, the list could go on, but these should by far be reason enough to cast off the chains in which Satan has us shackled, and continue on seeking God’s truth. I trust that it is now evident how the first lie, that of ‘impossible perfection’, feeds in a big way off of this lie. So also do these two lies feed off of the third lie. The third lie is, in actuality, directly related to the purpose of this book. Back to Articles


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful