Trinity or the Threefold Witness

Is. 9:6. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given (God manifested in the flesh): and the government shall (future tense) be upon his shoulder: and his name shall (future tense) be called Wonderful, Counsellor, *The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 20:28. "And Thomas answered and said unto him (Jesus), My Lord and my God."

Acts 7:59. "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit (correct me, but I think this is the only record of someone actually praying in the whole NT with the actual words written - and who did the godly Stephen pray to?)."

Acts 20:28. "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with His own blood."

Rom. 9:5. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Phil. 2:6. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (note: the modern perversions change the meaning completely around in this verse)".

Col. 1:15. "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

Titus 2:10. "Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things."

Titus 2:13. "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of *the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Titus 3:4. "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared"

1 Timothy 3:16 ... God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

1 Tim. 4:10 ... "because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men"

1 John 3:16. "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us".

1 John 5:20 ... "that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

Jude 25. "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

When a person in relationship was referring to the LORD, Lord the majority of times started with a capital signifying the higher authority in God, as already explained. When God's title was proclaimed, full capitals the majority of times were used in acknowledgement to the Authority above every other authority.

Mark 12:36. "For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD (in heaven) said to my Lord (Jesus being glorified), Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."

That's ... GOD in communion with our (personal) God! Or God ministering (or praying to) Himself! Here's more:

Is. 19:4. "And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord (the lower authority); and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord (rendering to the highest authority being personal to His people), the LORD of hosts (in heaven)."

Yes, the Lord is the highest authority and in the New Testament Jesus is proclaimed the Lord of lords ... the highest authority over every other authority. Revealing ... there is no other higher authority, anywhere, anytime, than Jesus! Yes, Jesus is Lord!

Jesus is the Creator/Maker!

Here are the verses (they should be self-qualifying and self-explanatory in themselves):

John 1:1-3. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

There is no doubt this is referring to Jesus because verse one says:

"He was in the world (because He became flesh - verse 14), and the world was made by him (Jesus was the Creator), and the world knew him not (did not realize that this was God in the flesh, their Creator, coming as Messiah)."

Eph. 2:10. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

There can't be any doubt, really!

Eph. 3:9. "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."

Irrefutable, wouldn't you say?

Col. 1:14-17. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins (that's Jesus): Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (that's Jesus): For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him (that's Jesus): And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

What more evidence do we need?

Jesus is the (great) Almighty!

Rev. 1:8. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, *the Almighty."

Who is Alpha and Omega? Unmistakably it is Jesus, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty! He is the mighty God, The everlasting Father!

Unmistakably really:

Is. 9:6. "For unto us a child is born (Jesus), unto us a son is given (Jesus): and the government shall be upon his shoulder (Jesus): and his name shall be called Wonderful (Jesus), Counsellor (Jesus), The mighty God (Jesus), The everlasting Father (Jesus), The Prince of Peace (Jesus)."

In the New Testament we see that Jesus is clearly called the Lord of lords. This name and title belongs to no one else. In the Old Testament it was already written of Him prophetically. This sums up entirely who He (Jesus) is:

Deut. 10:17. "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward"

Again, this speaks of the King of kings:

Ps. 95:3. "For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods."

Though He made everything as well as us, and came to redeem us, and overcame death by His resurrection power, this same Jesus who reigns in heaven is also coming back for us. As we look for one Lord and King to come back and take us home to heaven:

Titus 2:13. "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of *the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Yes, scriptural and irrefutable!

Jesus is the blessed and only Potentate (1 Tim. 6: 14-15)!

Potentate means the most sovereign monarch and ruler. Moreover, Jesus being the only Potentate takes it to max! What more confirmation do you need than this:

Rev. 17:14. "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

As the familiar verse goes ... "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth"!

This places Jesus at the top of the apex not on an equal level of a three equal sided Godhead.

Jesus is the threefold manifestation of the Godhead and is the Godhead!

Col. 2:9. "For in him (that's Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Yes, ONE God and ONE Head!

Let's look at two important verses in the NT ... 1 John 5: 7 & 8. Of course all verses in the Bible are important as each jot and tittle are. However, sometimes a key verse is either changed (added to or subtracted from) or removed entirely by revisionists because they are only a hindrance to them in making merchandise of scripture (peddling the word) and are not therefore ministering in truth (there's no monetary or prestigious gain found here). Meaning, at the end off the day, truth is not in the equation. Therefore, it is in their interests that certain key verses or words are tampered with in order to create a need for their ministry (justifying their position and livelihood) or hide that fact that their job is not necessary in any way under the New Covenant. Or that they could even be the Devil's emissaries in some cases, sneaking in to dilute the gospel and clutter the way, and to subtly undermine our faith in general. A key verse in scripture which revisionists have removed or undermine greatly is 1 John 5:7:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Why is this so? Especially when many of the revisionists and Bible correctors who do this or support this, claim to believe in the Holy Trinity doctrine. Isn't this verse actually reinforcing the Holy Trinity doctrine thereby making it a prudent measure to take, insuring this verse remains incorporated into the cannon of scripture?

When taking a first glance at this verse it appears good ammo to enforce or enhance the Holy Trinity concept. However, from taking a second glance at this verse, with a bit of musing over, one may begin to see that this verse is taking a slightly different slant on things and talking about three witnesses in heaven bearing record, and not three different people in heaven and earth. Thus cancelling out the Holy Trinity claim.

And thirdly, taken into account, this verse is not making reference to a second member or part of the Trinity called "God the Son" at all. However, all three manifestations are bearing record to the fact (verse one of this chapter) "that Jesus is the Christ is born of God". All three witnessing to the fact that the Word became flesh. Bearing testimony to the fact Jesus of Nazareth was both God and man in other words. In fact there is not one verse in the Bible that says "God the Son". Nor is there one verse in the Bible which says "God the Spirit" for that matter. There are however, 13 verses (all found in the NT) which say "God the Father".

Furthermore, we do know that the Son (Jesus) is God though, just as we know that the Spirit is God. However (as pointed out) we should all have a problem with this verse because it does not use the term 'the Son' but' the Word', if we happen to be endorsing the Holy Trinity. Realizing here, the Son is not from everlasting. He had to be begotten and born of a woman. The Word is eternal and from everlasting. Moreover, this eternal Word had to become flesh. You see a son is not a son until it is conceived and born, as I hinted at earlier.

Num. 23:19. "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent".

Understanding, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The Son of God had to be conceived and born a son of man, born from a woman, in the likeness of sinful flesh. This is a principle right through scripture. God would not break this scriptural principle and let Himself down like this. Therefore, 1 John 5:17 does not serve Matt. 28:19 in the Trinity sense nor support the Holy Trinity concept at all, but is actually an indictment against it:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

In Matt. 28:19-20 Jesus gives a command to His followers (His called out ones) to go and do certain ministerial things in the name of. In "the name of" can be easily misconstrued here and has been. This has been used to enforce a teaching that you find nowhere else in scripture. To those who would be called Trinitarians it would be going into all the world and doing these things in the name of "the Trinity" or "the Holy Trinity", not the name of Jesus, if there is substance in this teaching. However, because this verse gives no such specifics, these traditionalists play it safe and copy the phrased words just like they do with the so-called "Lord's Prayer". They duplicate it in parrot fashion without knowing the meaning and its scriptural objective. They actually interpret it in a subjective manner without one verse in the Bible to back their claims. This is where the principle of "rightly dividing the word of truth" kicks in. So let's break it down and tackle specifics, giving clarity to help find the right objective end result:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (in the name of who?)

(in the name) of the Father, (whose the name of the Father? Look it up ... Isaiah 9:6!)

and

(in the name) of the Son, (and whose the name of the Son? Doesn't need explaining ... the Trinitarians agree here. You'll find out why later)

and

(in the name) of the Holy Ghost (and whose the name of the Holy Ghost? Look it up ... Rom. 8:9, 2 Cor. 3:17, Phi. 1:19, 1 Pet. 1:11!)"

More on this later!

But apparently there is another alibi here ... Again it is to do with either objective or subjective interpretation. The traditionalist takes the later as it serves his cause. Again he does not have to provide proof by weighing a scriptural passage, or verse, or word, by at least one other verse (two is good but three is even better and more concrete) because he has an 'all sown up' interpretation which says that "rightly dividing" actually means carving the Bible up into parts for different periods of time and different types of hearers. This interpretation is nothing to do with accurately weighing one verse with another verse for confirmation in the here and now, and for the purpose and benefit of the Bible believer. Therefore, the traditionalist has won his case from the onset and refuses to move, keeping his god/s in the box he has made or found for himself. He prefers to not use verses placed on the other end of God's balancing scale to see if it equally cuts the mustard with another verse, thus providing a right weight and just balance. To me this is fully scriptural whereas the other is so 'open ended' that a new movement, a new doctrine, or a new church can be founded willy nilly by pulling it out of the 'hat of opportunity', conveniently with the word "Bible" or "Christian" stamped on it. Even with "King James Bible" or "Bible believer" engraved into it. Not realizing or choosing to deliberately ignore the fact that God has already divided the Bible up for us, making it user friendly, foolproof and watertight safe.

Simple and for a start ... God has divided the Book up into two books ... the Old and New Testament! These are neatly and orderly divided up into other books, which in turn are divided up into chapters, then into verses. And woe to those who would add or subtract to this! Or those who would take Dispensationalism to extreme and can't or wont rightly divide the word of truth. Take note that whilst 1 John 1:7 is omitted from the Holy Book, 1 John 5:8 is left in by the revisionists which reads in the AB:

"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

If these three witnesses just mentioned above are not persons (being different people) which they aren't (apart from the Lord the Spirit) then how can it back up a system which is supposed to accommodate the three persons when we are not dealing with three persons here but three witnesses in the earth, both substance and spirit? Now lets take a very thorough look at these two verses again beside each other, in the right order of sequence, where each backs the other:

1 John 5:7. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (three witnesses - one person)."
1 John 5:8. "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (three witnesses - one person)."

This means the Holy Ghost is one with the Father and the Word as the same Person and for our record! As this also means the water and the blood (Jesus coming in the flesh) are in agreement with the Spirit while being nothing to do with endorsing separate people but for a witness unto us!

Our record and witness to what? That the Holy Trinity concept is true and scriptural? Or that they bear record and witness to the fact "that Jesus is the Christ is born of God"? Bearing record and witnessing to the fact that God became man and dwelt among us, showing us the way outta here, and outta religious bondage. Like renouncing placing tradition on a par with the word and away from keeping God restricted to the confines of a system manufactured by man for man, positioned behind a "Christian" facade. Whereby exploiting the Godhead to such a point by exchanging Him for a 'Triad God' to exalted in worship, prayed to, sing to and make signs to. Moreover, to be sold and promoted as an image and symbol, worshiped as an icon, beautified and decorated as an ornament, in full rebellion against verses like Acts 17:29:

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."

You will see by the visual depictions below, how man has reinvented the Godhead and renamed it "The Holy Trinity" to be valued, adored and worshiped as the Deity above all.

Jesus is the (everlasting) Father!

Hey, did you ever wonder why Jesus referred to a woman of faith in three of the gospels as Daughter, like in Matt. 9:22 f''instance?:

"But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole."

If you think about it, this does make good sense as in affect Jesus saw her as His daughter because He was her Father and Maker (not just brother). Now with this in mind please have a good look (I mean keep reading it until you will see what it is really saying) at 1 Thes. 3:11:

"Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you."

Or paraphrased ... "Now God himself (who also is) our Father, (who also is) our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you."

Now take a good look at this one also in 2 Thes. 2:6 switching interchangeably from "Now God himself" to "Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself":

"Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father".

Or paraphrased ... "Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, (who also is) God, even our Father".

Yes, God is Himself (He is who He is) and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ! Or, our Lord Jesus Christ is himself (He is who He is), and God, even our Father! Meaning, all these references are one and the same Person. Furthermore, God is the Maker at the beginning of the OT as He made man then (the first Adam). Whereas He is the Son at the beginning of the NT as He is born then as the Son of man (the second Adam). Moreover, He also becomes the Father at the beginning of the NT as He now has a Son. Therefore, looking at it with new eyes (hopefully through the eyes of the holy Spirit) verses like the following (which the NT is peppered with) takes on new meaning:

"Grace unto you, and peace, from God our (Father and the Lord Jesus Christ)." enclosure by me

Did you know that a way around admitting that Jesus is the everlasting Father and that God the Father (who is everlasting) according to traditionalists, is by assuming there are two everlasting fathers? Well there has to be when using this logic! There is no other way around it, if Jesus is not the first part of the triangular Godhead that is, but the second part. You see, you run into problems here right away, because this would mean there are two everlasting fathers. Whattabout two everlasting Spirits? Or dual Saviours and dual Redeemers, and on it goes! Is God really a god of confusion? Or a two headed creature from beyond? Is there really a shadow of turning in His nature? Is there really variableness to His character? Well scripture says there isn't and I'm going to believe scripture above man. Therefore, I am going to believe that Jesus is the everlasting Father as scriptural clearly shows and that He is the Mighty God, as we have read in Is. 9:6 previously. This means we have the prophecy of the everlasting Father in the OT we can access from Isaiah anytime, which is fulfilled in the New by making mention of the same Person:

2 John 1:9. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

Here is the full proof you have been looking for, found in John 1:18:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

If you have the Father and Son you have God. Confirmed by the next scriptural reference from 1 John 1:1-3 (following the next side heading):

Jesus is the (eternal) Word!

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (Jesus); (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

I have noticed that when many people write and mention 'the word' as relating to the scriptures, they change the first letter 'w' to capitals. I use to do the same until the Holy Ghost showed me from scripture that when the word was spelt with a capital 'W' it was referring to Jesus, as everlasting. Furthermore, when the word was spelt with a lower case 'w' it was usually referring to the scriptures, either the spoken or written word, which are both one and the same anyway.

The following verse confirms that Jesus is indeed the Word:

Rev. 19:13. "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

Jesus is the (only begotten) Son (not the eternal Son - but the firstborn of many brethren)!

What did Jesus mean when He said, " I and my Father are one"? The Jews knew what He meant because they took up stones to take Him out after Jesus made this comment. Therefore, so should those know who claim to be His today (know what He meant that is - not take up stones). Let's read Rom. 1: 3-4 for a start:

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power"!

Get that! It is so clear from scripture that Jesus was not "declared" to be the Son until He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"! Meaning, until He was conceived! Oh boy ... this should create a problem or two right away in regards to the eternal coexisting Sonship thing. Jesus had to be the firstborn among many brethren. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given"! This is the reason we can also call Jesus our Brother ... the firstborn of the church!

I think anyone who names the name of Christ will have no problem with Jesus being the Son. However, the problem arises when Jesus is kept restricted by wrong doctrine and tradition as to just being "the Son of God", while kept largely at bay here. This box of confinement can be that religious sphere called Christendom, being mans alternative for the kingdom. It could also be the equilateral triangle called "the Trinity". This is because the institution of the so-called "Lord's Prayer", Christmas and Easter, "the Holy Communion", "the Holy Trinity", and many other things that were brought over from paganism at its beginning, were given a change of christianized clothes straight away. All for the purpose to make it look more appealing and credible to the world while hoodwinking the weak in the faith into the wrong thing at the same time. The reason its adherents will defend it to to end because its tradition is just as important as the word to them. Moreover, religious sentiment to them is just as important as revelation or at least confused with revelation!

It is so easy to call Jesus the Son of God. After all, all believers are the sons of God, are they not? Furthermore, if you promote Universal Salvation (a biggie within Christendom) everyone is a child or son of God! Right? And there is no such thing as a child of the Devil (contradicting John 8:44 & Acts 13:10). This means there can be no Devil either! Nor hell! And on and on goes the apostasy, taking root wherever it can!

Scripture says that Adam was the son of God also, where it was also making reference to the whole seed lineage right through to the NT. Here's da proof you should be looking for ... Luke 3:38! However, please note that the letter 's' in son here is spelt in the lower case in referring to 'the son of God'. Whereas, when referring to Jesus as 'the Son of God' in the word, the 'S' is spelt with a capital. A little variance like 'the word' and 'the Word' just covered, but a big difference! Therefore 'the Son of God' in comparison to 'the son of God' is taken further, as Jesus is taken further, not just being seen as man but being God also. Not just being the only begotten Son but the Word eternal. Not just being the Son of God but the everlasting Father. The great "He is, who He is"!! ... GOD!! Whereas, according to Heb. 1: 1-3:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person"!

This is the very reason only Jesus had the right and authority to claim He was the (only) way to the Father. By seeing and observing Jesus, you were actually seeing and observing the Father, according to Him. Because God is Spirit and only manifested Himself angelically in OT times (as the angel of the Lord - not flesh and blood man), no man could look on God or know His form. As Paul declares in 1 Tim. 6:16:

"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

This same God is now made manifest through the Son, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person"!

Jesus said: "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."

Want to a see God? Want to behold God? Then look to Jesus! He is the only one and the only way, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"!

Yes, the doctrine that Jesus eternally coexists as God the Son, the second part or person of the Trinity, with two other co-equal co-deities (okay, co-entities - if it makes you wheels smoke!), does not stack up. This also brings into question Christendom's concept of the Holy Trinity, a main stay of its very existence. Now let's look at Christendom's definition of the eternal God found in their creeds and catechisms (that's Catholic to Protestant to Byzantine/Orthodox theology):

"We believe in the eternal coexistence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, always equally eternal to one another" or something to this statement.

Bearing in mind this statement is claiming Jesus the Son to be without beginning, yet being the only begotten, the eternal Son of God at the same time (work that out - sounds like an oxymoron to me!). Because, it is simply impossible for this statement/notion/doctrine to be correct as it fully contradicts itself as well as other verses. That's only if you believe in using another verse or two to rightly divide (some of us do). The fact of the matter ... Jesus the eternal Word, had to be begotten; had to be made manifest in the flesh; had to be born as the Son of man; made of a woman; in the likeness of sinful flesh; to be the only begotten Son of the Father. Or to be the Son of God at all. There is no record in the OT of Jesus being the Son apart from in the prophetic sense, as Psalms 2:12:

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

Beautifully, tearfully and fearfully fulfilled in Luke 7: 36-38 at the broken alabaster scene where Jesus' feet were washed with the hair and tears of a repentant sinner as she "kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment", placing her trust in Him (the Son) from hereon ... "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

The other corresponding verse being Dan. 3:25.

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

This time this verse being fulfilled at the cross in Matthew 27:54 when "the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God"!

I must mention here how both of these renditions from the Holy Bible (OT & NT) have been changed in the modern perversions, to make the heavenly witnesses give the wrong message. It says, or undermines "the Son of God" to "sons of the god"!

Moving on, and lastly at this point in time, Psalms 2:7:

"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Fulfilled in Acts 13:33:

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

And:

2 Sam. 7:14. "I will be his father, and he shall be my son."

Fulfilled in Hebrews 1:5 (notice how son has a capital 'S' this time as the translators took liberty in translating under the inspiration of the Spirit of God):

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

It's time to pop the bubble and say the creeds and catechism statements in regards to "the eternal coexistence with other members of the Trinity of God, the Son" is not quite true folks! Our Lord Jesus, who is the eternal Godhead, has never been God the coexisting eternal Son. Neither has heaven been the eternal dwelling place for the eternal Son coexisting with the TWO other Persons of the Godhead, which Christendom has titled "The Trinity".

Jesus is the Spirit of God (the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, the Comforter, the promise of the Father)!

To commence with here, this verse clears it all up from the start as it is precise and straight to the point, as crystal and without puzzle (2 Cor. 3:17 ):

"Now the Lord is that Spirit"!

Who is the Lord? I thought it was Jesus! This verse says the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) is the Lord! Or do with serve TWO Lords?

Religionists, traditionalists, and even many professing "born again" Christians believe and stand by their "article of faith" which enforces the Holy Spirit (they shy away from using the name Holy Ghost) is the third Person of the Trinity or Godhead. Whereby this is His place, where He belongs, according to them. Unless you have come out of the Charismatic Movement where they go to the other extreme and the Holy Spirit is pushed as '"equally" above the others' (yes, another oxymoron, I know). As long as we don't really see who the Spirit is and who He functions as, nor personalize Him as the Holy Ghost (whose ghost is that?) at the end of the day, then we are left with unsound doctrine.

What does this mean, or should I say ... who is this referring to in Philippians 1:19?

"For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ"!

There is more:

1 Peter 1:11. "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them (the OT saints of old)".

On this statement we now know that not only does a believer have Jesus abiding in him, but His Spirit. Of course it is now obvious that the reason Jesus is in the believer is because His Sprit is there. There simply are not two parts or two persons of the Trinity dwelling in the believer at once (the second and third Person), but one Person, His name being Jesus. This should make sound sense, shouldn't it? Romans 8:9 gives the answer very clearly:

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God (the Holy Ghost) dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ (must be the same Holy Ghost), he is none of his."

As mentioned, 2 Cor. 3:17 sums it all up that this same Spirit is indeed the Lord! The Lord Jesus being the case:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

Here is sound evidence that the Holy Ghost is God just as Jesus is:

Acts 5: 3-4. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

Because these two reprobates lied to the Holy Ghost, it is clear here they were actually lying to God. Because "God is a Spirit (S spelt with a capital)". And, "the Lord is that Spirit"! Very clear really! Also, by putting two and two together (so to speak - no pun intended) and because we also have seen that Jesus is God (okay - two plus one equals three), He must also be in spirit, the Spirit of God! Therefore the two are essentially one and the same. Moreover, when the Holy Ghost speaks to us, it is Jesus who is speaking and not a dual or triad God. The fact of the matter is ... Jesus is man, completely! Plus Jesus is Spirit (or the Spirit) completely. Meaning the divinity of Christ is God and man at the same time! This is got to make sense! Look at the next verse:

John 3:13. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

How is the Son of man in heaven when Jesus was on earth doing His threefold ministry (there it goes again) of prophet, priest and king? Because there is not a problem in the world (the only way it can be adequately explained in fact) if Jesus is the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of God is Jesus. In the book of Revelation we sometimes have Jesus talking to the churches and other times the Spirit. They are always one and the same Person and are used interchangeably throughout the word. Oh, and here's one more before moving on, found in John 14 16-18:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you (Jesus), and shall be in you (the hope of glory!). I (meaning Jesus and not just the Spirit) will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

Wasn't Jesus already there? Yes, because He said, "he dwelleth with you". Soon He would be coming as the Spirit and be in them, as promised ... "the promise of the Father" (not quite what the Penties teach)! Therefore, it is quite correct to say as the heading ... Jesus is the Spirit of God!

Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, the anointed one from God)!

Matt. 16:16. "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

It should be self-explanatory really, if you believe de English Bible is completely right without error. Here's the same Messiah prophesied in the OT:

Dan. 9:26. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (Jesus' death on the cross cancels out the need for other messiahs), but not for himself (it was not suicide nor a self crusade - he died for the world): and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (history repeating itself again with Jerusalem's destruction in about AD 60); and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined (more to come before Jesus comes back to set up His kingdom).

Here's scripture confirming His arrival:

John 1:41. "He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias (the Aramaic derived from the Hebrew), which is, being interpreted, the Christ (the English derived from the Greek)."

Pretty straight forward really, if I happen to be rightly dividing! Jesus is the promised Messiah who came as the Christ, and is now Christ exalted!

We will not go into great depths here. However, for those who would like to do some more digging, here are de scriptures ... Matt. 16:20; 26:63, Mark 8:29; 14:61, Luke 3:15; 9:20; 22:67, John 1:20, 41; 3:28; 4:29, 42; 7:41; 10:24; 11:27; 20:31, and 1 John 2:22; 5:1!

Bottom line ... by proving Jesus is the anointed one, the Messiah, the Christ, the Saviour, the Deliver, the Redeemer, the Son of man, the Son of God, as the everlasting Father and mighty God, this does not distract from Him being the same person. Yes, multi functions and multi titles and names (as He revealed or manifested Himself for a specific reason), but the same Jesus nevertheless!

Jesus is the God of gods, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Prince of princes, the Prince of peace, the Prince of life, the prince of the kings of the earth!

I think we are well versed in the verses here which make clear Jesus being the Lord of lords, or at least should be. Which means ... ? Let's take another look and see what we can see this time?:

Old Testament:

Ps. 136:3. "O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever."
Deut. 10:17. "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible".
Josh. 22:22. "The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know".
Ps. 136:2. "O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever."
Dan. 2:47. "The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets".
Dan. 8:25 ... "and he (the son of perdition) shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes".
Dan. 11:36 ... (the son of perdition) shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished".
Is. 9:6 ... "and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

New Testament:

1 Tim. 6:15. "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords".
Rev. 17:14. "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings".
Rev. 19:16. "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (the Bible's emphasis not mine)

More than just 'interesting reading', 'food for thought' or 'ear tickling fodder' wouldn't ya say? There should be no doubt remaining that Jesus is "the fulness of him that filleth all in all"! Moving on ...

Jesus (Joshua OT) is Jehovah saves (God who saves)!

The cult called Jehovah Witnesses are big on the Trinity. Preaching against it that is! Unfortunately they too like many others, don't realize that there is a New Covenant. They are still living under the Old where God was Jehovah to His people. Like countless other religionists they don't understand that the New Testament says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Also, they miss this completely too, "the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints, To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory".

Good news for all religionists and people in general ... God wants to securely and thoroughly save you now (from all sin and both psychological and religious bondage) and for all eternity, through Jesus!

The same God who revealed Himself to His saints of old as Jehovah is now revealing Himself in all His fulness to His saints (both Jew and Gentile) living under the New Covenant, where God would come and set His abode up in the heart of every believer, and write His law there. His name would be JESUS, who would "save his people from their sins." Moreover, a new commandment would be given (1 John 2:8) ... "which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth."

Hey, did you know what the very first commandment to Israel was? Here it is (Deut. 6:4):

"Hear, O Israel"!

Is that all!? No, there is more! And this is just the beginning ... to hear this! Besdies, you must hear it first:

"The LORD our God is one LORD"!!

Do you get that? Who's hearing? ... God is one LORD!! ONE LORD!!

Yes, you must hear this first before you can hear more! Who is the Lord? Who is God? If it is God the Father, or His Son, or the Holy Ghost, it is still Jesus when you take into account the full counsel of God. Furthermore, Jesus did not dismiss this command in the New Testament, did He? Or overrule it, nullify it, nor add to it! He actually verified this biblical truth and supported it. Especially when He said that He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil. Therefore, here is the first commandment transposed from the Old to Mark 12:29 ... Jesus speaking, of the same commandment:

"The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord"!

Are you hearing this or is your traditional conditioning and indoctrination process over many years of being ingrained into you, balking or protesting at? Or scavenging for answers or alibis? Or looking for somewhere to duck for cover? After the scribe had heard these words from Jesus, he answered:

"Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he"!

A couple of verses later we see Jesus commending this man saying that he was not far from the kingdom of God. Yes, God is who He is! He does not say "WE ARE", but "I AM" ! Who is He? The God of gods, the Almighty one God, the blessed and only Potentate!

This is the true witness and the true record the New Testament reveals. As well as being the reason for Jesus commending the man who understood and confessed it, and telling him he was not far from salvation. Must be very important, vital and true of course!

Three witnesses is a biblical principle

Furthermore, God always chooses to manifest Himself by two or three witnesses which all bear witness of each other, according to Him, verifying and confirming Himself to man and the rest of creation to His deity, divinity, omnipotence and excellent greatness. Also revealing His love to man, despite mans shortcomings. In fact, the only place in the Bible where we find the living God revealing Himself unconditionally is when it comes down to the fact that He loved us first. This is the great wonder of His heart, plan, purpose and call for man. Thus giving man the grace and saving faith to respond to Him. From hereon, everything (as far as redemption, salvation and the faith are concerned) is based on mans response and willingness to obey Him.

Through three witnesses:

Ecc. 4:9-12. "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken."

Two is good. However, three is better! Even perfect! That's according to scripture anyway!

De. 17:6. "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses"

The principle of two or three witness ... always a principle in God when it comes to confirming and establishing the truth and rightly dividing the word of truth:

De. 19:15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."

Fulfilled in the NT here as John 8: 1-17 ... Jesus answering:

"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."

As already covered, there is a predominate teaching today where the verse "rightly dividing the word of truth" is misinterpreted as dividing up the Bible, even the New Testament. However, supporters of this teaching cannot produce one verse to support their claim as already mentioned. Whereas for those who rightly interpret "rightly dividing the word of truth (that's not wrongly dividing and carving up the Bible by the way)" they actually have an arsenal of verses at their disposal in the good Book to support "rightly dividing the word of truth". That is accurately and proportionally getting the right balance by using other verses to support a verse when presenting a truth, whereby slicing away error, misconceptions and preconceptions at the same time, working as a double edged sword. It comes back to a right balance and just weight every time and not just relying on one single stand-alone witness or record, or one isolated verse:

Pr. 16:11. "A just weight and balance are the LORD'S: all the weights of the bag are his work."

Yes, rightly dividing is placing a verse in its right place and is not licence from the Lord to carve up books of the Bible to suit a church doctrine and complicate things by saying, "this portion is for the unbelieving Jews while this portion is for the believing Jews; this portion is for the unbelieving Gentiles while this portion is for the believing Gentiles; and this portion is for yesterday while this portion is for today" etc.

The good news is, God who is a God of order and not the author of confusion, who makes it plain and simple for the humble hearer and base seeker, has already divided the Bible up for us. To refresh our memory ... this is the Old Testament from the New Testament. Divided up again into books. Furthermore, divided up again into chapters. Then divided up again into verses; where in the end, we are to rightly dissect and distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of error. Why take unnecessary risks just to please a teacher, or pastor, or church creed, or those you associate with, and take away from what God has already established (dangerous stuff really) where the NT makes it clear in the gospels:

John 16:25. "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs (the whosoever - starting with the Jews): but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs (the whosoever - starting with the Jews), but I shall shew you (the whosoever - starting with the Jews) plainly of the Father."

The time is here now, in other words, where the Lord speaks to us clearly and plainly, without riddles, without beating round the bush, nor to prove how smart He is with words or knowledge. Why complicate it? Religion loves to as by breaking up the Bible, passages, or God Himself (into two or threes), he can then present his own convenient, man-centred way.

More confirmation from the epistles that the time is ripe and right now, for plain speech and simplicity:

1 John 5:13. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God (the individual converted whosoever); that ye (the individual converted whosoever) may know that ye (the individual converted whosoever) have eternal life, and that ye (the individual converted whosoever) may believe on the name of the Son of God."

Just as plain!

Matt. 18:16. "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

Here's another witness:

2 Cor. 13:1. "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

An accusation, controversy, questioning, point, issue, subject, is not enough by itself:

1 Tim. 5:19. "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."

Before making drastic or important decisions one witness is not enough:

Heb. 10:28. "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses".

When rightly dividing the word of truth, another verse is good for confirming a verse to support a truth. Two other verses seal it, as the strength of a threefold cord are even better!

Matt. 18: 19-20. "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father (two plus one equals three) which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name (not the Trinity's name), there am I in the midst of them (heaven agrees - hey, this also contradicts "going to church")."

Above we see agreement on earth as well as agreement in heaven through the use of two or three scripturally in agreement, in both spheres:

1 John 5:7-8. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (having heaven on His side). And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (in agreement with heaven)."

Ministering in the name ("a name which is above every name")

The above verses in 1 John 5 does not confirm or reinforce the Trinity doctrine but is an indictment against it. Just as this next verse, which is the most used and common of all for promoting the Holy Trinity concept ... Matt. 28: 19-20:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

This is the last two verses of Matthew. Following the four books of the gospels we have the Book of Acts according to the NT order. This is God rightly dividing by the way! Must be, because God has placed it this way in the NT.

In the book of Acts we find the believers baptizing, ministering to others, going into all the world and teaching (as commanded to by Jesus), and doing all things in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "In the name of" that is! As in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost being ... wait for it ... the name of the Lord Jesus Christ! Proof? It is all there! Read the book of Acts for yourself with just the Holy Ghost as your teacher, and not an aid, a written side commentary, or an attached Bible study, or some other human intervention. Nowhere do you see the disciples baptizing or teaching, or doing anything in fact, replicating Jesus command as in a fashion like this ... " I do this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is always in the name of Jesus. Verified and confirmed also by Paul in Colossians 3:17:

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all (including dunking in water) in the name of the Lord Jesus".

Prove me wrong please? If you feel you have to baptize someone verbally using the replica line "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" then why do you (or your pastor or minster or spiritual mentor) not apply this when teaching, preaching, or ministering in "all things whatsoever (He) have commanded you" wherever and whenever you take the gospel and word of God? Why do you, or the system called Christendom you are bound to (the Institutional Church, the Mainstream Church, your Local Church, or whatever it's termed), just restrict your ministering in this name to water baptism? At lease the Catholic and Orthodox churches are a bit broader and extend this "Trinity" parrot line to other areas of ministry, I guess aiming for "all things". Again, why restrict your prayer or ministering in His name or the Trinity's name, or whatever is the correct line of duplication?

Let me repeat again Jesus' words, looking at it in a break down of content, in context (hopefully rightly dividing) ... "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them"! "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"! Are you replicating Jesus command of using the Trinity as your name here by taking in account all things? Please be consistent if you really believe in what you believe and teach? Moreover, please show me anywhere in the NT the record af using something which even resembles 'in the name of the Trinity' as back-up and confirmation to your interpretation of Matt. 28: 19-20?

Furthermore, if Matt. 28: 19-20 happens to be really and only directed at water baptism in using the name of the so-called Trinity (meaning exclusively to water baptism) then what scriptural explanation can you give may I ask? In other words, what is the biblical and spiritual purpose in using all THREE instead of Jesus? There must be a reason (biblically and spiritually that is) as there must be at least one or two other verses (making it a threefold witness/record) to back this claim. Is this not being reasonable and sound making this request?

Moving on, let's now look and expound on the three witnesses in heaven digging a little deeper, in regards to bearing witness to us, the believer:

Rom. 1:9. "For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son". Hebrews 2:4: "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?"

1. Here's the witness of the Spirit (the Holy Ghost) to us, found in Rom. 8:16-17:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ"!

2. Here's the witness of God (the Father) to us, found in 1 John 5:9:

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son."

3. Here's the witness of Jesus (as the Son) to us, found in Rev. 1:5:

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father".

All three witnesses point to Jesus as far as I can see. They never point back at themselves as separate entities or to a triad deity. This is how the scriptures should be bearing witness to our spirit and giving us this witness and surety in Him.

1 John 1:2-3. "(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."

Yes, the Spirit and the Father and the Son bear witness of Himself ... Jesus! Nowhere do they bear witness to the scriptural Godhead or an invented triad deity. As always, considering Colossians 2:9:

"For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Here's more to peruse:

John 5:32. "There is another (the Holy Spirit) that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true."

That's the promise of the Father, the promise of the Holy Ghost to come. Coming to make Jesus real to the individual believer.

John 8:18. "I am one that bear witness of myself (the Son), and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me (Jesus)."

All three bearing witness to Jesus. Because if Jesus is just limited to being the "only begotten Son" (which He happens to be) this would mean God had a beginning or Jesus is only being limited to a second Person of the Godhead. You can't have it both ways. "For God is not the author of confusion"! Basically, with the threefold witness being a scriptural principle, a trinity doctrine could be made of other things. Take 1 Cor. 13:13 f'instance:

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

However, even though these three are equal in agreement (they do not cancel out each other in other words), you also have the problem with 'charity' being the greatest virtue over the other two. This is likened to Jesus being exalted above all, and so on. Meaning, if Jesus was just a part of the Godhead then He could not qualify to be the Godhead.

You see, the reason I believe the Holy Trinity theology thing creates the most flack coming from those within Christendom to those who question its full scriptural validity, is because it is so close to the truth that it is the most deceptive. Being the closest to the truth I say, in the way 'the three as one' can be so interchangeable. The most deceptive is in the way it subtlety undermines the complete divinity in Christ, actually finding occasion in isolating Christ Jesus to just member status of the Godhead (the second Person) and not taking complete precedence above all and being the ultimate authority above all, as scripture shows. This is the reason I will have to state that the threefold witness of the Godhead is scriptural where the Holy Trinity doctrine is not. This is also the reason for this treatise. Take for interest a popular song of just one (common) examples to use on this occasion. A couple of the lines from the hymn "Holy! Holy! Holy! Lord God Almighty" go like this:

"Holy, Holy, Holy! Merciful and Mighty,
God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!"

Question: Who is the second line giving glory to?

Did you know that during my years caught up with or just being there, in the Charismatic Movement, the Holy Spirit (known here as the third Person of the Trinity or Godhead) was pushed and promoted to such a point, that He was getting far more exposure, notice and emphasis than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in this "Power Gift" department of Christendom (this does not let the Pentecostal churches of the hook either - they encouraged it)? This teaching or emphasis in the end, was taken to so much extreme, and commonly expected to, that it became the norm from its leaders to its pew warmers. Everywhere you went this was the type of hype and tittle tattle you heard:

"Hey, Jesus has had all the glory so far, so let's not forget that the Holy Spirit is just as much a person too. And just as much part of the Trinity that we need to get a relationship with the Holy Spirit as well, and practice worshipping, praying and singing to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman and by getting to know Him and being sensitive to His workings, we get to know the warmer and more loving and gentle part of God. Besides, how do you expect He feels when we keep leaving Him out of things and doing everything in Jesus name and only praying to the Father? He is just as equal as the other Two and can be grieved, quenched and stifled. How do we expect to have the Holy Spirit if we don't invite Him in by asking Him? After all, we are now living in the days where the Holy Spirit is moving in revival power and manifesting His gifts and power in a way He has never done before. So it is up to us to be even more sensitive to Him and open to Him, and to open up and allow the Holy Spirit to take over and have complete control, in order for us not to be left behind. God is restoring the place of the Holy Spirit back to His rightful place in the Church, above the word, as our Comforter and Teacher. So who are we to question or block Him out?"

This off-key paragraph may have come from me hitting the right keys, but everything just mentioned was in fact common as dust in this movement, that I am only reflecting the tripe of what I witnessed while passing through. To the point songs were openly written and sung to the Holy Spirit. Or a verse of a song was sung to the Father, while another to the Son, and then another sung to the Holy Spirit. As if you were singing to three separate Gods. Prayers and praise was openly said out loud at meetings to the Holy Spirit. Noise, clutter and commotion are the rights words to use here, as much of "the weird and wonderful" manifested itself. The majority of times these things could not be questioned, as it was put down to grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit, as "the Holy Spirit" was given free reign and doctrine was thrown out.

Even though admittedly, there was the odd token protest and sometimes challenge from others, the fact of the matter is this movement was always more into "pump up", emotional experience and hot air, than anything to do with the backing of scripture. Please show me where we are commanded to pray or sing to, or praise and worship the Holy Ghost (this is where the wonky teaching on "praise and worship" - leading to the term 'corporate worship' - originated in the first place)? If we did, we would be in fact quenching the precious holy Spirit of God, as this was not the purpose He was sent for in the first place.

Why was He, the Holy Spirit sent? Let's go once again to the Holy Book and start quoting chapter and verses again ... Jesus speaking, John 16:13:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me (Jesus): for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Why was He sent? Answer ... To reveal and glorify Jesus, as well as to give the believer the unction and gumption to make this a reality on earth, through being a witness for Jesus!

Furthermore, notice how another name was given for the Holy Spirit here, which was the Spirit of truth. As we also read here we see He was sent to guide us into ALL truth, as truth was out of the equation in the Charismatic Movement. Therefore no truth, then no Spirit of truth! And no Spirit of truth, then no Spirit of power! Furthermore, when there is no Spirit of power then there is no power of God. Just hot wind, emotional ecstasy, and satanic counterfeited manifestations!

Nowhere in scripture does the Holy Ghost speak of or for Himself, glorify Himself, point to Himself, or encourage the saints to worship Him or make a big thing out of Him. However, He was sent to point us to Jesus and glorify Him. Who in turn, would point us to the Father in heaven. Who would in turn glorify the Son above all. Nowhere in scripture is there record in anyway of getting a relationship with the Holy Ghost, speaking or singing or praising the Holy Ghost, or doing anything in the name of the Holy Ghost. This rules out praying to, or singing to, or using the name of the Trinity! Dum de dum dum!!! Yet people have written songs to the Spirit or to the Trinity, and they have been acclaimed and celebrated over and over as inspired. Here is just one hymn, which no doubt help paved the way for the "happy clappy" or "feel good" chorus' that would come later through the Charismatic Movement. Also, being adopted, embraced and sold all over Christendom and acting as a catalyst for the Ecumenical Movement and the New Age Movement to some degree. This hymn called "Holy God, We Praise Thy Name" makes you wonder what name is the objective name to use here ... the name of Jesus or the name of the Trinity?:

Holy Father, Holy Son,
Holy Spirit, Three we name Thee;
Though in essence only One,
Undivided God we claim Thee
And, adoring, bend the knee
While we own the mystery.
And, adoring, bend the knee
While we own the mystery.

This sacred hymn, out of its total three verses does not mention the name of Jesus or Christ once, although it does mention "Three we name Thee". Could you pray tell me or pray show me where we are to sing to, or minister to THREE as one in the Bible? Or where it says to name God ... Three (Trinity)? Notice, using a capital also! Is this not blatant error? This is not the spirit of truth but the spirit of error. It is not the doctrine of Christ but the doctrine of Christendom. Here's a Prayer of 'St Joannikios the Great' blatantly worshipping the Trinity as opposed to glorifying Christ: (emphasis mine)

The Father is my hope;
the Son is my refuge;

the Holy Spirit is my protection.
All Holy Trinity, glory to you!

I don't want to come across as hard, insensitive, and callous. However, scripture does talk about receiving a love for the truth and being handed over to delusion if you refuse to. As 2 Cor 13: 8 says:

"For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth."

This is why I feel compelled to write the truth in love, and not to deny the truth just for popularity sake, or deny the truth to others (that means YOU!). Jesus wept over His house and city before He was about to take the cords to those who had abused it. It was at this time of rebuke, chastisement and righteous anger, that some of the disciples realized that Psalms 69:9 was being fulfilled before their very eyes, revealed here in John 2:17:

"And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."

It's time we gave up guarding our doctrinal patch, our church's creed, or following our "church" or leaders without first being ruthlessly honest with God and His Holy word. As well as being brutal to error in own our lives (got the cords out?). If I am wrong but have righteously aroused you to place the word of God as your final authority by looking past or away from me (and others), and to let no man deceive you, then at least I have still achieved something.

As far as "holy holy holy" goes, this has got nothing to do with singing to and exalting the so-called Holy Trinity, but just being scriptural as far as the threefold witness of God's word goes. This again is a serious case of rightly dividing the word of truth which I kept reminding us of:

Isaiah 6:3. "And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory (not their glory)."

"Holy holy holy" is not supporting the Trinity teaching at all, but is only more confirmation (as the threefold witness keeps showing up in scripture) of our Saviour and God, which was, and is, and is to come. Let's examine Rev. 4:8 here:

"And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, (1) Holy, (2) holy, (3) holy, (1) Lord (2) God
(3) Almighty, which (1) was, and (2) is, and is to (3) come."

The principle of THREE as a threefold witness runs right through scripture (and I could be writing out all the biblical references and verses till the cows come home) but it is not a licence to celebrate, glorify or worship God as THREE. We always worship God as ONE God! ONE Lord! If the 'three' principle can be applied to justify a THREE PERSON God, then where would Isaiah 55:1 place its three ho's?:

"Ho, every one that thirsteth, (1) come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; (2) come ye, buy, and eat; yea, (3) come, buy wine and milk without money and without price."

This verse certainly in not prophesying Santa Claus to come (ho ho ho!!!) but God's free gift ... Jesus! Fulfilled here in John 4:10 (read to verse 26):

"Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."

Jesus' last words to this Samaritan woman ... "I that speak unto thee am he."

There's those three powerful words again ... "It is I" or "I am he" or "I, even I, am he", and so forth! 100% watertight proof of 'the three witnesses' in de scripture, always pointing to the one true God (His name being Jesus by the way) and not a Trinity. Oh, it gets so mundane!! Here's some of de scriptures to go beyond me and check 'em out for yourself. Go on ... just ten minutes of yourself (just you and the Lord) wont hurt :

Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 4:16; 2 Samuel 20:17; Isaiah 41:4; 43:10,13, 25 ; 46:4; 48:12; 51:12; 52:6; Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; Luke 24:39; John 8:24,28; 9:9; 13:19; 18:5; 18:6,8; Acts 10:21; Revelation 1:18; 2:23.

Mmmmmm, but there is a real problem when it comes to Genesis 1:26, some would say!:

"Let us make man in our image"!

Okay, let's be very honest here (manner of speech - must always be honest), and weigh everything else up with the rest of the word of God. Bearing in mind the first commandment for God's people is to hear, as "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

In regards to hearing, it is vital this seven worded line has to be heeded first before we can move onto the other commandments. Here it is ... "The Lord our God is one Lord!" Therefore, how can the Lord God (our God who is one Lord) say "us" in the plural? Answer, again this is prophetic of God's only begotten Son when our fellowship would be based on our fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ (who are one and the same God). Look at these two following verses:

1 John 2:22. "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah, God's anointed one)? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

Did you get that? By denying Jesus is the Christ you are denying "the Father and the Son". In addition, you are antichrist! Never being considered (anywhere) antitrinity. It does not say you are anti the Father and the Son either. Nor does it does not say anti anything else in fact, but "antichrist" ... anti Christ (interestingly, even spelt as one word)!

Also, to say that Jesus is the begotten Son from beginning to end, eternally, is nothing short of an oxymoron and is therefore a contradiction. Therefore denying the scriptural "the Father and the Son (the Lord, the one God)" witness. It does not say "father and son" but "the Father and the Son"! Think about this also please!

2 John 1:9. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

Hence, prophetically we find ... "Let us" ... the Father and the Son that is! Or "the LORD" and "the Lord"!

To confirm this even more, one must be aware that in the very first chapter of the Bible it speaks about God creating everything, not just the earth. Seven times when it refers to God creating another part of His Creation (before man, which is the key) the verse always starts with "And God said", as one (stand alone) God. Then it continues with God saying something like, "Let the earth ... " or "Let the light ... " etc. etc. However, in verse 26 there is a major change, and it is to do with when God makes man (the ultimate and pinnacle of His creation) where He now utters those very distinctive words ... instead of "Let the" it is now "Let us"! ... "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"! Who said? ... "And God said, Let us make man ... "!

In other words ... in whose "image" and "after (whose) likeness" was this?

The fact is, this is not God pre New Testament! It can't be! As God is Spirit and no man has seen God. However, God becomes man (fulfilling "in our image" and "after our likeness") becoming the blueprint set forth in the prophetic future image and likeness to make man. As 1 Cor. 11:7 says of man, "he is the image and glory of God"! Therefore, man is made in the image, likeness and glory of God. Likewise, the Son becomes "the image of the invisible God" according to Col. 1: 15-17, setting or fulfilling the prophetic in motion:

" ... the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Did you know that when man interprets Gen. 1:26 his way, without 'rightly dividing', avoiding seeing it as prophetic of the Father and the Son to come (the twofold witness), in order to establish what "after our likeness" and "was made in the likeness of men" means, the door is opened for all sorts of errors and interpretations? This, in the end, caricatures the holy God and distorts the biblical threefold witness.

Thus, now understanding that the Trinity teaching is flawed, we should also see the reason why "the Trinity" is an 'open ended' concept. Also, why it is interpreted the way the Masonic and Cabala societies give it their pagan spin, having never veered off their course. Moreover, what apostate Christian writers have adopted or embraced as Christian doctrine, where the "Let us" verse now becomes the "Father/Mother God" utterance. Therefore, making God into a bisexual or genderless God who suits all, from religionists (that's nominal Christianity to other faiths), occultists, secret societies, mystics, liberals, feminists, witches, gays, new agers, the "politically correct", the "socially sensitive", and whoever.

According to this Babylonian hatched mystery (transcending to Christendom as "Christian" and "biblical" - but in essence being only 'extra biblical commentary') Bible correctors and textual critics are quick to get on the apostate band wagon and undermine our English Bible by using their hair splitting techniques of going to the so-called originals, and proving from the phantom Aramaic how God can be understood to all, as our parent god. As if Almighty God could be experienced as both our Father and our Mother. This is the lie that Jesus is the masculine side of God whereas the Spirit is the feminine side of God. Oh, as I keep reiterating ... you can prove anything from the (so-called) originals; whether Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic; simply because they no longer exist.

If our Bible proves to be unreliable then another authority would be necessary in dealing with truth and doctrine, would this not be the case? This is where subversive teachings have found platform within Christendom by corrupted Greek hermeneutics or Hebraic/Cabbala mystics, finding loop holes through the flawed Holy Trinity theology and failure by so-called Bible believers to rightly divide and spiritually discern.

Following is an extract from the corrupt Greek tree from paganism (hence Satan's promotion of using the "original" Greek as the final say):

"Maia, the nymph of Greek mythology, who was the mother of Hermes by Zeus, the sky god." The month of May was named after Maia, who was known as "the Queen of May ... [and] the Jesuit effort to turn the Queen of May into the Virgin Mary was successful ..." The Catholic Sun, May 26, 1993.

From the above quote we can see there is a spiritual conceived effort to link 'the Mother of God' mythology with Mary (a former sinner like you and me) and to New Age' ideology. With the Evangelical wing of the Ecumenical Movement linking up with the teaching that "the Holy Spirit of God expressed as Mother (meaning God has two sides as Parent-God)" brings the Mother/Child Cult out in the open and also adds impetus to the Trinity cult of "God as our Father, God as our Mother, and God as the Christ Child", as well as a great boost for Mariology and the resurgence of the RCC.

Following is an extract from the corrupt Hebraic tree from occultism (hence Satan's promotion of using the Hebraic root method as the final say):

"The vast creative Universal Mind behind all manifestation is revered as "Deity" in B.O.T.A. (the Builders Of The Adytum ... mystical teachings of the Holy Cabbala and the sacred Tarot) as it is an appellation which is able to convey both the masculine and the feminine content of the creative intelligence. Without duality there is no manifestation and men and women have always been regarded with equality in the Wisdom Teachings as they reflect the ancient declaration, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Any scholar able to consider even elementary Hebrew knows that the words translated as "us" contain this fundamental concept and that the Cosmic Father-Mother said, "Let us make ..." The Great Adventure, B.O.T.A., 1982.

This way the Trinity can be adjusted or interpreted as God the Father, God the Mother (the Holy Spirit), and God the child. Portraying and justifying the Godhead as the one mystical happy occultist family, perverting God and accommodating Him with the New Age Movement and occult, as well as the pagan religions. Do you see how this works and how subtle it is? And how it is a very clever and cunning attack against His Deity? (The imagery artwork below should confirm this also) Actually, it is very blatant and would not be seen as so subtle and cunning if the Trinity doctrine was never embraced in the first place, as this is where the mitigating effect commences. In other words, by nipping the Trinity in the bud from the onset, this would not allow this type of stuff to take root. Simple!

By not discerning or bud nipping the pagan Trinity concept from the start, this allows for this subtle dual or trinity teaching to sneak into Christian circles undetected. Furthermore, because the Hebrew root word of 'God Almighty' can be translated El-Shaddai in the Old Testament, a whole truth is stretched waaaay beyond commonsense and credibility. To get down to tin tacks, what the correctionists don't tell you is that the word Shaddai has many meanings for God, and out of the many meanings the word 'breasts' can be found by digging deep and stretching wide. The plural word 'breasts' is then taken and established as meaning the singular word "nourisher", therefore being put down to being interpreted as "God is our nourisher!" Very plausible and extendable indeed! However, because out of the many meanings of "Shaddai" and the choice of the word "breasts" being taken out of 'the hat of opportunity' of the many meanings that can be mustered, it is presumed and justified as meaning 'God being expressed as our Mother'. Or the Mother side of God being expressed. Thus ... God our Creator as "us", meaning God the Father/Mother bearing the Child!

Wow!! Yes, we are reeeeeally streeeeetching it now, aren't we? Now it does not need much explaining to show where all this leads. Yip, you got it ... because there is apparently now a mother/feminine side to God's person and nature, that it would be fitting in suggesting that God being 'three' could accommodate one of 'the three' being the feminine part of God. And yes, because the Holy Spirit has been taught to be a neuter of late (despite Him being called 'Him' in the Holy Bible) it would also be nice and fitting (and convenient) to say that the Holy Ghost is God our Mother or at least the feminine part of the Trinity, and on it goes. Therefore, we don't really have a case against the mystics and new agers and pagans after all, as we all, in a way, are serving the same person. Oh, and why not call this second person of the Sacred Trinity ... our goddess or our Lady? Or the Mother of Heaven or the Queen of Heaven, if you like? Or give Her a name. Howabout ... Semiramis, Isis, Ishtar, Diana, Venus, Mary, or Gaia? The list could go on. Get the gist?

It all starts of with Babel (confusion) and gets entrenched in Babylon while spreading abroad through the many languages that came about at Babel, where Nimrod and his wife Semiramis and their son/god Tammuz is exported everywhere (making the - unholy - Trinity a supposed reality), with various names, depending on the language, land and ethnic types of people who take it with them. Until it finally passes over into the realm of Christendom when it is christianized and ratified by the first pope and sealed and officially validated by a series of councils and creeds that are formed over the centuries, kicking-off with Constantine's 'Council of Nicea'. Thus, later making its way into evangelical Christianity, as the various nonconformist groups breakaway and modify. At the same time producing a more, conservative, moderate generic form ... no longer termed "The Most Holy Trinity" but condensed down to just "The Trinity".

But do not ever drop the "Title" "The Trinity"! It could lead to someone finding the man who said ... "I am the truth"! Furthermore, it could lead to knowing the truth. And does not knowing the truth set us free? A huge blow for religion and Christendom must we say! A gigantic set back for the Devil. But a great salvation for YOU or ME, the recipient!

However, many would rather place tradition on a par with God's word following the "eternal equally coexisting Son of God" instead of the Word eternal ... the Lord Jesus Christ!

Creeds and Concepts

Let's look at the not so popular now Catholic Athanasian Creed which says you must believe in the Trinity to be saved (the source of the "Christian" Trinity teaching) whereby scripture says you must call on the name of the Lord to be saved.

Although it has been dropped from the Catholic liturgy of late to accommodate Vatican II, it is still retained in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and to my knowledge never officially renounced. Also, according to "the Most Holy Trinity" teaching, the last article 44 says, "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved." It commences with, as article 1:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith". (emphasis mine)

Furthermore, smack in the middle of this creed, and the reason to look past this doctrine, it says in article 20:

"So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords." (added - although okay to say "three Divine Persons" as you will see in my other treatises on the subject)

Although recognized as a Western church creed, this is contradicted by the church's celebrated art work, written traditions, icons and sacraments by the way, as you will see later. At the end of the creed it finishes on this note as article 44, and previously mentioned:

"This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved."

In other words, if you don't believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity you are going to hell my friend. If you don't believe in the Catholic Church the same fate awaits you also. To you Protestants and Evangelicals who believe the RCC is Christian and sound, can you please show me where this creed has been changed or renounced? Even if you do happen to go along with the Holy Trinity thing and do not believe in the Mother Church, you are still going to hell according to them. Therefore, your fraternizing with apostates and false religion is not really going to produce fruit after all, is it? Especially when it is known full well that the last pope just recently made it clear that salvation is still not found anywhere outside of the Church of Rome. All this was happening while he was trotting the globe and promoting the Virgin everywhere and calling for the unity of all faiths and religions. Where no one asked ... "on who's terms?" And you bought it and have borrowed or allowed your church to have embraced so much of its traditions and counted them dear, and will not let go. No wonder the daughter churches are just as guilty as their Mother. They came from her and through hanging onto her dearest treasured traditions (although modified to suit the times, a 'multi-cultural' 'politically correct' and 'socially responsible' climate), are returning to her in droves.

The early Christians, who were scattered by persecution, spread the gospel of the kingdom far abroad from Antioch. When it reached Alexandria in Egypt (the world's great home of philosophy and higher learning), the believers found a ready acceptance of the "new religion" in a water down form, as the growing numbers of converts began to gravitate toward certain charismatic leaders. Two of the most famous of these men were Arius and Athanasius, who were not out to persecute compliant believers, but assimilate them by diluting the gospel with their own version of the truth.

Arius (250-336AD) held that Christ is the Son of God, and because He is the Son He therefore had to have had a beginning. Not realizing that Jesus as the Word was and is eternal.

"It is a necessary condition of the filial relation," He wrote, "that the Father must be older than his Son. The Father and the Son are of "like substance" (or nature) and therefore Christ is divine and worthy of worship."

Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, headed the opposing party which held that the Father and the Son are of "one substance," coequal, and co eternal. They asserted that the doctrine of Arius lowered the Son to making Him of less divinity than the Father. It is also worth noting here that the Egyptians had worshiped a triune God ... Osiris the father, Horus the son, and Isis the virgin, otherwise known as Amum - Maut - Khonso. Also widely known in other lands by other names, interpreted by their own house-hold type language to suit their culture.

This now created a need for a council where a third party could step in and negotiate a compromise. Enter now Emperor Constantine, the first pope! Hence, the Council of Nicea! Thus the path was now set for the pagan Trinity to have a face lift and become christianized. Hence, the doctrine of "the Most Holy Trinity"! Which grew in impetus as different church councils were held over the centuries (as already mentioned) by the Official Church incorporating the Trinity or reinforcing the Trinity as standard doctrine throughout Christendom. When the Roman Church split in two, creating the western Roman Catholic Church and the eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Church, both denominations took this doctrine with them as they hung onto their Babylonian traditions. This had been adopted previously by Rome during its pagan empire days and christianized later, after the conversion of Constantine to nominal Christianity in the Third Century AD, when he nationalized the Church.

During the time of the Reformation, centuries later, the breakaway Protestant denominations took this Trinity doctrine with them, and when the evangelical churches broke away from the more stringent and traditional mainline Protestant denominations, they also took the Trinity doctrine with them. This is now well entrenched in all these denominations to this day. Also, because the Trinity teaching acted as a key denominator in the latter so-called healing process (officially called Church Union or Church Renewal) of all the past breaches that were caused by 'the split away denominations' at the time. The Trinity laying the ground work in order for all the "separated brethren" (no longer called heretics since Vatican II) to return home to Rome and recognize her once again as the Mother of all her (restored) daughters ... the Protestant churches.