The Trinity. Is It Real And Is It Biblical? 

Contents—Click on Number to Open

1. What Jesus Taught about God- 2. Where did the godhead/trinity ancient idea come from? 

3.  What the "Church Fathers" taught 4."Proof" texts ( including the John 1:1 controversy ) 

5. Emperor Constantine  6.Secular Power and the early church's losing its way-

6-7-8. Developement of un-Christian traditions 7. Conclusion.- summary  8. References


1. What Jesus Taught about God-open- 


- scriptures required showing separate persons

- is the holy spirit a person?

- showing the lack of scriptural evidence for trinity.



2. Where did the godhead/trinity ancient idea come from?


- triads of gods

- pagan dieties

- godhead is a pagan term

- laying foundation for later thought from church fathers.



3. What the "Church Fathers" taught


- influenced by pagan thought

- Neoplatonisms influence ( but not actual model of trinity but an influence )

- Influence of humanist greek philosophy ( its function as a humanist religion aka buddhism )

- going beyond what is written.



4. "Proof" texts ( including the John 1:1 controversy )


- Coptic texts

- how Greek is handled and misunderstood

- proof texts quoted by trinitarians                                                                                                                                         

- Use of logic to show trinity doesn’t exist



5. Emperor Constantine


- Who was he?

- His role in trinity

- Was he truly christian?

- Did Christainity become Christendom and thus the new Imperial Cult?



6-7-8.  Secular Power and the early church's losing its way


- Developement of un-Christian traditions



7. Conclusion.


- summary



8. References



A quick word from the author:


Years ago I was exposed to christianity for the first time. And the more I tried to understand about

God, the muddier the waters seem to get, with doctrines and ideas about God that seemed to get more

confusing all the time. So I asked Yahweh, God of the Bible, revealer of secrets, to guide my

research to help me understand Him. After all with Yahweh God being a God of order, it seemed

logical all things should be easily and well understood about Him.

After hours of prayerful and solid research, this document is the result of Gods guidance.

I was constantly amazed to see things appearing, to help me understand His Word.

The trinity doctrine is everywhere, so its essential to determine if it is indeed from God and

in harmony with Gods word. Because if its not in harmony with Gods word, then it isn’t from God.

Logically, a God of order would not have messy bits and pieces hanging off His holy Word.

And we are instructed to always test and see that things are from God, as Satan will use

any opportunity to sneakily direct proper worship due to God, to Satan’s false time-waster religions,

which would then stop people really getting to know God and His ways and what He approves of.


This is a LONG document, but it requires detail to get our understanding correct.


Thank you for reading - this is a very important topic to understand.



0. Background


The majority of "christian" churches teach the doctrine of the trinity.

The critical question is this - is the trinity actually Biblical?

And if the the trinity is Biblical, can it be easily proven from the ultimate decision maker - Gods Holy Word, the Bible?

Belief in the Trinity is said to be essential to being christian. See examples below:


Within the doctrine of the trinity, God is taught as "God in three persons/forms/substances" i.e. ( homousian ).

These are :


1 - God is God Himself

2 - God is God the Son ( God in the form of Jesus, as God on earth )

3 - God is the Holy Spirit ( God in the form of the Holy Spirit, i.e. a spiritual force with a "personality" )


God is taught as having the 3 persons in the Godhead. But what is the Godhead?

Interestingly, the "mystery religions" of Egypt and Babylon and gnosticism also teach mystery and "not being able to know God" and also teach

the concept of a pagan godhead.


Surely with such a supposedly critical doctrine central to being christian, then this doctrine would be

heavily supported and underlined in the Bible, with what the perfector of our faith, Jesus Christ, taught

us about God while he was on earth. That would be the most logical time to do it so it was preserved forever

in the Holy Scriptures ( the Bible ) for all time, for all men to know.


After all, the Son , who was first born of all creation and through whom all things came to be, would

understand his Father better than anyone else, correct?

Holding that thought in our heads, let us move on.



1. What Jesus Taught about God


- scriptures required showing separate persons

- is the holy spirit a person?

- showing the lack of scriptural evidence for trinity.

- God is God alone


(a) Jesus is separate to God



But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. ( Acts 7:55-56 )


No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. ( Jhn 1:18 )


For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ( Jhn 3:16 )


"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." ( 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 )


"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" ( Matt 8:28-29 )


"Now 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." ( Matt 27:54 )


"For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." ( 1 Corinthians 8:6 )


He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. ( Matt 16:15-17)



(b) Is the Holy Spirit a person?


An important question - what is the thing people call the Holy SSpirit? Is it another part of God as part of the godhead?

Lets look at Biblical words and translations of the words used when people refer to the "holy spirit".


The Greek word pneuma (as in pneumonia, a breathing disease) means breath or wind – the movement of air. In other Bible translations, this word is often translated as spirit or ghost – as in Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. However, spirit is just a shortened form of the Latin word espiritu, which just means breath in Latin. And ghost conveys another meaning altogether.


The most common use of the word pneuma in the Bible is to imply an unseen force (such as breath or wind). And the problem with translating it as “spirit” or “ghost” is that many people have started believing that the unseen force that is called [God’s] Holy Breath herein, is another God-like person and part of a Divine Trinity. This can’t be true, because the only scripture that can be used to support this theory (that is, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Breath are supposed to be ‘one’) is found at Matthew 28:19, which simply says that baptism should be done ‘in the name of’ (or, in recognition of) these three, and there is good reason to believe that even these are spurious and added in the Third Century C.E. And all other scriptures that are used to prove the Trinity theory fail to mention the Holy Breath as part of that group.


Notice that the King James wording of 1 John 5:7 (which was used for years to attempt to prove the Trinity) is definitely spurious (something that was added to the Bible).


So to prevent confusion, the Greek word pneuma is usually translated as breath here. The only exceptions would be in instances where the Bible refers to demons as ‘spirits,’ for translating pneuma as breath in these cases, although correct, might just be confusing. And there are also instances where we have used the word spirit to indicate a person’s inward inclinations or feelings.


Another important use of the word pneuma is in the phrase, ‘Breath of Life.’ This phrase means more than just breathing, it refers to the entire mechanics of life itself. It’s the unseen force of life for all creatures… it’s what makes each cell alive. However, nowhere does the Bible describe the ‘pneuma’ as immortal, nor is it the same as the soul (a breathing thing), so it can (figuratively) ‘return to God’ at death,’ because all hope of future life depends on God and His promise of a resurrection. For more information, see the attached link, The Powers of God’s Holy Spirit.


We see below the hebrew lexicon for the Hebrew word "Ruwach" ( in English "breath" ) - Strongs number H7307.

For completeness, we have included the root word of "Ruwach" ( H7306 ) lexicon , which also means "breath".


You will also see in section (g) below the usage of H7307 with the Trinity. As the trinity is based on a man-made church dogma, and not on actual Biblical translation, it is unsound reasoning to say within a Lexicon that H3707 is part of the trinity. This is irresponsible reverse-engineering trying to make an unproven man-made dogma / concept back into the Bible where the evidence does not support it. It should also be noted that many people who wrote lexicons have allowed their personal theology into these lexicons.


Lexicon Results for ruwach (Strong's H7307)

Hebrew for H7307





'·akh (Key)

Part of Speech

feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

from H7306

TWOT Reference


Outline of Biblical Usage

1) wind, breath, mind, spirit

a) breath

b) wind

1) of heaven

2) quarter (of wind), side

3) breath of air

4) air, gas

5) vain, empty thing

c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)

1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour

2) courage

3) temper, anger

4) impatience, patience

5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)

6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse

7) prophetic spirit

d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)

1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being

e) spirit (as seat of emotion)

1) desire

2) sorrow, trouble

f) spirit

1) as seat or organ of mental acts

2) rarely of the will

3) as seat especially of moral character

g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son

1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy

2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning

3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power

4) as endowing men with various gifts

5) as energy of life

6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory

7) never referred to as a depersonalised force

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 378

AV — Spirit or spirit 232, wind 92, breath 27, side 6, mind 5, blast 4, vain 2, air 1, anger 1, cool 1, courage 1, misc 6

Gesenius's Lexicon (Help)

Lexicon Results for ruwach (Strong's H7306)

Hebrew for H7306





'·akh (Key)

Part of Speech


Root Word (Etymology)

a primitive root

TWOT Reference


Outline of Biblical Usage

1) (Hiphil) to smell, scent, perceive odour, accept

a) of horse

b) of delight (metaph)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 11

AV — smell 8, touch 1, quick understanding 1, accept 1

Gesenius's Lexicon (Help)


So we can see that the general usage is "breath", such that the "holy spirit" is the holy breath of God.

Interstingly is we look at Genesis and the account of the creation of Adam and Eve we find the following :

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


So in this case, Gods' breath animates / makes alive Adam after he was formed from dust.

Could we also logically then reason that God has provided his breath to create life?

Yes it would be safe to say that.


Logically then we could say that - if Gods breath can bring things to life,, then it can achieve other things.

But do we see Gods breath being given a "personality" here? no we dont. Gods beath is imperosnal.

It is an active force, which animated / made alive a living soul through Gods application of His breath to a pile of dust.


To put things in perspective, do you give your own breath a name? I have never heard of such a thing. Silly idea isnt it?


God is a God of order. If He wanted his breath to have a name, we would have been told in the Bible.

We also see at 2 Timothy 3:16, 17,


‘All the Scriptures are inspired by God and are good for teaching, for correcting, for setting things straight, and for providing righteous discipline. They qualify a man of God and provide him with whatever he needs to do all sorts of good work.’


Notice that, although the Greek word pneuma (Spirit or Breath) wasn’t used in the above scripture, it is found in the related word TheoPneustos, or God Breathed, which we have translated as inspired by God. Translating pneustos as inspired is particularly appropriate, since the word in/spired means breathed in. So, any time we refer to a particular work, person, or act as inspired, we are really implying that it came from the Breath of God.

The English word "inspired" literally means "produced by blowing or breathing [into]," with the connotation that a deity is doing the breathing!


Given by inspiration of God" literally means "given by the breath of God". "In" obviously means "in" or "into"; "spire" comes from the Latin word for breath and is the source of our word "spirit" (see John 3:8 and 20:22). When your breath exits your body, you "expire." When it comes back (returns) into you, you "respire" (usually on a respirator). When you breathe through your skin, you "perspire." When you get close enough to someone else that you share his breath, you "conspire." When your breath travels, something has "transpired." Notice that all of this can be discovered simply by looking into a dictionary; a lexicon was not necessary.


From the Dictionary:


in·spire Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-spahyuhr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -spired, -spir·ing.

–verb (used with object)

1. to fill with an animating, quickening, or exalting influence: His courage inspired his followers.

2. to produce or arouse (a feeling, thought, etc.): to inspire confidence in others.

3. to fill or affect with a specified feeling, thought, etc.: to inspire a person with distrust.

4. to influence or impel: Competition inspired her to greater efforts.

5. to animate, as an influence, feeling, thought, or the like, does: They were inspired by a belief in a better future.

6. to communicate or suggest by a divine or supernatural influence: writings inspired by God.

7. to guide or control by divine influence.

8. to prompt or instigate (utterances, acts, etc.) by influence, without avowal of responsibility.

9. to give rise to, bring about, cause, etc.: a philosophy that inspired a revolution.

10. to take (air, gases, etc.) into the lungs in breathing; inhale.

11. Archaic.

a. to infuse (breath, life, etc.) by breathing (usually fol. by into).

b. to breathe into or upon.

–verb (used without object)

12. to give inspiration.

13. to inhale.

Origin: 1300–50; ME inspiren < L inspīrāre to breathe upon or into, equiv. to in- in-2 + spīrāre to breathe]

Also the root of "inspire" as a word : inspiration

c.1303, "immediate influence of God or a god," especially that under which the holy books were written, from O.Fr. inspiration, from L.L. inspirationem (nom. inspiratio), from L. inspiratus, pp. of inspirare "inspire, inflame, blow into," from in-"in" + spirare "to breathe" (see spirit). Inspire in this sense is c.1340, from O.Fr. enspirer, from L. inspirare, a loan-transl. of Gk. pnein in the Bible. General sense of "influence or animate with an idea or purpose" is from 1390. Inspirational is 1839 as "influenced by inspiration;" 1884 as "tending to inspire."


A final word-


The words that many Bibles translate as ‘Spirit’ or ‘Ghost’ are Ruach (in Hebrew) and Pneuma (in Greek), and both words mean (and should be translated as) Breath or Wind.

However, the Bible also occasionally uses these words to mean a person’s attitude or leaning, where the words breath and wind would make no sense in English, so in such places we have left it translated into the Latin word for Breath, Spirit (espiritu).


From an online Latin dictionary :

spiritus -us, m. breathing, breath, exhalation; a sigh; the breath of life, life; inspiration; spirit, disposition; a high spirit, pride.


In Luke 1:35 where an angel informs Mary she will become pregnant with Gods son, most people think the holy spirit will make Mary pregant.


However, if we look at the original Greek workds, we see the phrase usually translated "holy ghost" is in fact "breath" as in Gods breath.


English Strong's Greek (Root form) Tense

(Click on any item below for Concordance)

And [2532]


the angel [32]   


answered [611]


and said [2036]


unto her, [846]  


The Holy [40]


Ghost [4151]


shall come [1904]


upon [1909]      


thee, [4571]


and [2532]


the power [1411]


of the Highest [5310]


shall overshadow [1982]


thee: [4671]


therefore [1352]


also [2532]


that holy thing [40]


which shall be born [1080]


of [1537]           


thee [4675]       


shall be called [2564]


the Son [5207]  


of God. [2316]   




(c) Lack of scriptural evidence for the the trinity.


Let us ask a simple, logical and powerful question about the trinity :


(a) God is a God of order, as revealed in His laws, methods, and the methodical way He created the earth , and;

(b) He is wise, fair and loving, and;

(c) He sent His son, Jesus Christ to persoanlly walk the earth to explain Him and His kingdom to all men, and;

(d) He left His word preserved in the Bible as declared directly from Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and;

(e) There is NO mention of a trinity by word or direct teaching , and;

(f ) He is Truth and cannot lie, and;

(g) He warned us through Jesus Christ that we should avoid the doctrines of men and test all we hear to make sure it is scripturally sound


- then how, in any logical way, with our reasoning based on the Scriptures, expect the dogma of the trinity to be any part of the Christian faith?

- No where in the Bible is the word "Trinity" ever mentioned. Not once.



(d) God is God ALONE


"I am Yahweh your God . . . You shall have no gods except me." ( Exodus 20:2, 3 )

"I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images." ( Isaiah 42:8 )

"God is only one." ( Gallatians 3:20 )

"…the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him…" (Deut. 4:35)

"…I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God…" (Is. 44:6)

"I am Yahweh, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God." (Isaiah 45:5)

"…Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any…" (Is. 44:8)

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. ( Deuteronomy 6:4)"

Jesus called God "the only true God." (John 17:3)

Jesus saying: ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." ( Mark 10:18)"

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'

The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. ( Mark 12:28-32 )

[Jesus says,] How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God? ( john 5:44)

"No one has ever seen God." ( John 1:18 ) - but........ if Jesus were God, then we have seen God.......but scripture tells us no man has seen God.....

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. ( James 2:19 )

O the depths of God’s riches, wisdom, and knowledge! His decisions are mysterious and His ways can’t be figured out! ‘Who has come to know Jehovah’s mind and who can give Him advice?’ And, ‘Who has given Him something that has to be repaid?’

Why, everything is from Him, by Him, and for Him. May He be glorified through the ages. May it be. ( Rom 11:33-36 )

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. ( 1 Cor 10:31 )

"To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen" (2 Tim. 4:18b). - no mention of Jesus Christ......

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? ( John 5:44 )

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." ( Eph 2:8-9 )

".....God who is the only truly wise One, be the glory through Jesus the Anointed One through the ages. May it be." ( Rom 16:27 )


2. Where did the godhead/trinity ancient idea come from?


- triads of gods

- pagan dieties

- godhead is a pagan term

- laying foundation for later thought from church fathers.


(a) Triads of gods


In many ancient and not so ancient religions, we have triads of gods. While these are not an actualy trinity, we can see the influence that would exist.

Some ancient triads of gods:


The "Hecate" goddess of Greek Mythology - An ancient Fertility goddess, also identified with Persephone, as Queen of Hades (underworld), and protector of witches.

The "Hecate" or "Hekate" is characterized as a Trinity, that existed within pagan mythology as a three faced goddess. The three faces represented the "Maiden", the "Matron" (or Mother), and "the Crone".


Irish Catholic St. Brigit - the goddess of the flame to the ancient Celts, she has survived into our time as "St. Bridget" in the Irish catholic church. To this day her 'eternal flame' burns in Kildare, Ireland and her ancient sacred wells are still revered and visited. It is believed by pagan catholics that Brigit, Lady of the Fairies - watches over their sacred green places and, if you look into her Magickal Mirror, you can see the Faerie Realm. Here she is presented as a cloverleaf Trinity.

see for more detailed information.


Brigit is a Christopagan Era Irish goddess

born 451 AD - died 525 AD

Brigit wasn't turned into a devil like so many other goddesses. The Irish Celtic people loved this deity, so that they retained all her characteristics as a pagan-catholic saint! They would not have had anything to do with catholicism (pagan christianity) if they couldn't keep Brigit.

She is a triple goddess.


It is possible his triple aspect of the goddess is where the idea of exploiting the Trinity concept may have also emerged. The three-leaf shamrock was originally of "The Three Mothers", as well as the three phases of the moon being her symbols. She shares some attributes with the ancient Greek triple goddess Hecate.

There is a Swedish St Bridget also. Brigit's fame has been far and wide. Even as far as Africa, having come to Haiti in the hearts of deported Irish and Scottish indentured servants. However she went through a radical transformation, and her distant relative Maman Brigitte bears little resemblance, being rather a goddess of vengence. She, did, however, retain the healing aspects, being called on to cure those at death's door.

Imbolc (Candlemas and Groundhog Day), the Celtic spring festival, honors Brigit. The Druids called this sacred holiday Oimelc, meaning "ewe's milk". Held on February 1st or 2nd, it celebrated the birthing and freshening of sheep and goats. The catholic version of Imbolc (Candlemas), also, involves much elaborate rituals and feasting, and to this very day, many Irish homes have a St Brigit's cross for protection, still made from rushes as in days of old.





Idol worship and rituals are at the heart of Hinduism and have tremendous religious significance. All Hindu deities are themselves symbols of the abstract Absolute, and point to a particular aspect of the Brahman.

The Hindu Trinity (Trimurti) is represented by three members of a godhead :

Brahma - the creator,

Vishnu - the protector

Shiva - the destroyer.

Ancient Babylon


In The Creation Story (1902), the author was spoke merely of two triads,


(a) Anu, Ea, Bel - a triad consisting of Anu, Bel and Ea, Anu came to be regarded as the father and at first, king of the gods.




(b) Sin, Ramman, Shamash



While strictly speaking this is not a true trinity, we see the grouping of dieties into 3's or a loose trinity. Again we are seeing the building blocks of a trinity basically in place. It was not until christendom came along , that a formal christendom trinity was spelled out.

Note we use the word "Christendom" - Chitendom is the kingdom or "mainstream" or "popular christianity". Chritendom represents what most people think of as christianity, but in reality is NOT the christainity that Jesus and the Apostles taught on how to follow God.


Why 3 gods / triple-gods / trinity?


As we observe the impact of a trinity or triple gods or the number "3" flowing from ancient pagan religions, how many times have we also heard from friends or people in the office "bad things happen in threes"? Its important to remember that 3 is a number sacred to pagan folk religions, witchcraft and ancient pagan cultures, and many of these cultures and religions still influence Christendom down to this day. While this is a broad statement, it can be demonstrated through wider reading and is beyond what we are doing here.



(c) What is the Godhead?


The Godhead is a concept central to the trinity. The trinity teaches that God has 3 features - Father, Son and Holy Spirit , and all these combine in the godhead.

See :


Godhead refers to the view of the abstract and essential divine nature of God.


Binitarianism - the belief that the Godhead is composed of two separate beings, Father and the Son, while the Holy Spirit is the power of God and not a separate being.

Godhead (Christianity) - In Christendom, the divinity of Trinity is sometimes referred to as the "Godhead". In some nontrinitarian sects, several divine beings are referred to collectively as "the Godhead."

Godhead (Hinduism) - Brahman.

Godhead (Vaishnavism) - The conception of Godhead according to the Gaudiya Vaishnava school of Hinduism refers to the original spiritual abode or home of Krishna or Vishnu. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada often referred to Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead and of returning back home, back to Godhead, to live eternally with Krishna. In the initial stages of Gaudiya Vaishnavism a practitioner desires to perfect himself in order to attain the qualification to enter into Krishna’s abode. However, a higher and more esoteric concept is to realize ones position as an eternal servitor of Godhead and to serve wherever one may be, without consideration of returning to Godhead. In other words, to surrender fully to the will and whim of God."

Edward B. Robinson's "The Godhead" based on Cao Dai teachings

Godhead (Judaism) – In Judaism, the term "Godhead" is sometimes used to refer to the unknowable aspect of God which lies beyond His actions or emanations (as it were).



"To the Gnostics, the pentacle symbolizes the magic and mystery of the nighttime sky. For the Druids, it is the godhead."


From a pagan website, we see that those practising witchcraft believe in a pagan godhead :

"Godhead is one unique and transcendent wholeness, beyond any limitations or expressions; thus, it is beyond our human capacity to understand and identify with this principle of Cosmic Oneness, except as It is revealed to us in terms of It's attributes and operation."


But where is the godhead actually found in the Bible?


It is not found anywhere in the Bible - the Godhead is clearly a man-made pagan idea.

Jesus warned us against accepting the ideas or doctrines or dogmas or philosophy of men in place of sound scriptural truths from the Bible. Jesus also said to test everything we hear and compare it to Gods word in the Bible.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mark 7:7)

"And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. (Col 2:4)

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." ( Col 2:8 )

"Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (Col. 2:22)



(d) Laying the foundation for false teaching by the church "Fathers"


Now many people will be upset that we should label the church "fathers" doing false teaching. By false we mean teaching wrong things, even if it meant they did it in the best of intentions. But how could the church "fathers" teach such an appalling wrong doctrine? Well we for instance take the internet for granted, but back in the early church, information was limited and not easy to get at. However, people would still have had access to copies of original scriptures, and quite clearly if they had read them, it was obvious there was NO TRINITY in the Bible.

From research, it shows quite clearly that there has been influence by pagan triads of gods or triple gods or pagan "saints" on the early church. Many christains would have been previously pagan so in some ways, to ease the blow of moving into christainity, some early church bishops etc would have allowed some pagan beliefs to be brought into the church and re-labelled as christain feats or saints or beliefs. Obviously this is wrong, but it happened.


Many early church fathers were involved in or practised Platonism or Philosophy ( like Augustine of Hippo ) and this influence would have influenced their views of the world.

But central to all this was the Nicene Creed - formulated by the political genius Emperor Constantine. The creed, whether people like the idea or not, was formulated by the Bishops to unify squabbling bishops, as commanded by Constantine. Based on historical documents, we can safely say while people think Constantine was christian, he was not. He alligned himself with God superficially, in order to grow his empire and to harness the structure of the church for ease of administration of his empire. Based on speeches by Eusbius, we can also see that Eusbius never actually called Coonstantine Christian, but instead hinted at it. Obviously, had Constantine been Christain, he would have announced it loudly in his court, but it never happened publically as far as we know. The 30th anniversary of Constantines rule was celebrated by a long speech by Bishop Eusbius, and Constantine was labelled publically ( and by Constantines consent ) as a replacement figure for Jesus Christ.

See Page 35-Page 42 "Constantine versus Christ" by Alistair Kee, 1982, ISBN 0334002680


This is not heresy, rather this is what is recorded in history. Obviously as Constantine in effect replaced Christ as Gods representative on earth as outlined in Eusbius's speech in front of the court and Constantine, then no christian would EVER claim to be Jesus Christ. This marks Constantine as a non-Christian, as someone who linked himself publically to the God of the Christains. As Constantine never declared himself as Christian, we could conclude that the politician in Constantine decided for his own personal benefit he would look christian, without actually being Christian.


This then makes sense of how Constantine could allow a pagan Trintiy to become a solution for a divided ( Trinity vs Arian ), because as we have seen, the trinity is non-biblical. But the pagan sun-worshipping Constantine just wanted a harmonious religious creed, so he could harness the christian church for his own adminsitrative purposes, in effect becoming the new Roman Imperial Cult.

See  for more information.

So we now have a creed come out of Nicea that was pushed by Emporer Constantine , the same pagan sun worshipping emporer who unified his religious world so he could use it for his own purposes. To the Bishops he gave land and power and prestige - how many could resist? Now also Christiaanity was the official religion of the land. And constantine, the sly and ever briallian tactician and politician, had conveniently hooked his empire to the rising Christain world, and to its God, Yahweh.


Constantine built many churches etc, because he needed the christians on side. He did, like any shrewd politician would, camoflaged himself to suit his own needs, and adopted only an appearance of Christainity. But it was a two way street - for Rome to give protection to Christendom as the offical religion and give the Bishops land and power over people and law, Christendom had to return the favour, so moving away from true Christainity as taught in the Bible, and so a large part of the early church corrupted itself.

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3).


But while the Bishops got power, land and prestige, they had to trade some of their integrity before God for this.

We should also acknowledge that many bishops had been persecuted prior to this under the previous emporer, so we are not dealing with people who will sacrifice themselves for their beliefs.

Sadly, early church fathers like Augustine then built upon this corrupted foundation - the early church traded its integrity before God for political power and a "quiet life".

We will see in later sections how Augustine wrote essays on the basis for "a Just War", so giving his master ( the Emporer ), the "moral" basis for violating one of the 10 Commandments, and also providing the Emporer the basis for commanding people into wars , with the churches "moral" blessing, to suit the Emporers political needs.

And this was the state the early "christian" church at approx 400AD.



3. What the "Church Fathers" taught

- influenced by pagan thought

- Neoplatonisms influence ( but not actual model of trinity but a triple/triad -like influence )

- Influence of humanist greek philosophy ( its function as a humanist religion aka buddhism )

- going beyond what is written.



(a) Influenced by pagan thought


What is a pagan ?

From the dictionary:



1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.

2. One who has no religion.

3. A non-Christian.

4. A hedonist.

5. A Neo-Pagan.


1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.

2. Professing no religion; heathen.

3. Neo-Pagan.

From Middle English, from Late Latin pgnus, from Latin, country-dweller, civilian, from pgus, country, rural district; see pag- in Indo-European roots.


When Jesus lived, there was a strong pagan influence, with many temples dedicated to pagan worship, in particular worship of many gods of the Greeks and Romans, as well as many local deities. In addition to this, we have seen in previous sections of this document that many pagan religions and beliefs existed before Jesus Christ walked the earth.


We should not be surprised then that paganism would have a large influence on people, especially philosophers and educated people. We know that many early church "fathers" were influenced by Neoplatonism, in particular Augustine, and even while Augustine rejected Neoplatnism, its influence on him can still be seen.

In addition, as we have shown, many triads of gods from many religions that existed before Christianity, also influenced the thinkers of the early church. While we list Augustine mostly, other church "fathers" have also been influenced by paganism, however since Augistine is well known and had a big impact on the early church and its theology, we concentrate on him.


So we find that without the strong influence of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, we find the early church sliding quickly into man made traditions and influences, especially the Trinity, and these have their beginnings in pagan thought.


An example of how wide spread pagan influence was - Apostle Paul had to leave Ephesus because the pagan idol makers hated his Gospel, because it threatened the idol makers money making :

Act 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

Act 19:21After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.

Act 19:22 So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.

Act 19:23 And the same time there arose no small stir about that way.

Act 19:24 For a certain [man] named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;

Act 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.

Act 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:

Act 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

Act 19:28 And when they heard [these sayings], they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.

Act 19:29 And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.

Act 19:30 And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.

Act 19:31 And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring [him] that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.

Act 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.

Act 19:33 And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.

Act 19:34 But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.

Act 19:35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, [Ye] men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the [image] which fell down from Jupiter?

Act 19:36 Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.

Act 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

Act 19:38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.

Act 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.

Act 19:40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.

Act 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

Act 20:1 And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto [him] the disciples, and embraced [them], and departed for to go into Macedonia.


So we can see that the whole of Ephesus was consumed with pagan idol worship, and was so strong, Pauls life was in danger. From this we can see how entrenched pagan idol worship was around Jesus Christs time, and how we can see the whole population would have had years of this type of influence on them. Consequently it would have been impossible for any man not to have felt a large influence from paganism. Thankfully Jesus Christ and the apostles would have been helped by God to avoid pagan influence. But you can also see how agressive the pagan idol makers were toward the truth of Gods word, and hated Gods word.


(b) Neoplatonisms infuence.


Neoplatonism is the teachings of Plato in later days. Neoplatonism is philosophy , and philosophy in its purest form is a mystic belief structure whereby philosophers belive they can rationalise themselves into a state of high conciousness or spiritual perfection. This is very similar to buddhism, which teaches that self enlightenment is possible ( i.e God has no place in your life ) and that you can thinkkyour way to enlightenment/nirvana. Philosophy was taught amongst the wealthy well educated ancient greeks, and in many respects repeats Nimrods ancient claim to make men smarter than God - this is Satans claim.

What is worth noticing is the following structure of what Neoplatonism is:

In Neoplatonism, a Greek philosophy religion, you hope to become one with the perfect One. The infinite, unknowable, perfect one. This sounds like The Most High God.


From this perfect One emanates the nous or pure intelligence. This sounds like Gods active force ( some call this the holy spirit.)


From the nous comes the world soul. This sounds like Christ. And the world soul is an intermediate between the nous and the material world. This sounds like Christ as our intermediary.

There are other aspects like belief in humans having an everlasting/immortal soul, whereas we are told that the soul can and does die.


But it is this amazing closeness to the trinity from Neoplatonism that should make us stop right here and look at it. While we can see that Neoplatonism is not exactly the model of the trinity, we can see that with previous groups of three gods from pagan religions, Neoplatonisms influence and many early church "fathers" having been either past philosophy students or influenced by philosophy, we can see how it would not have been a difficult jump from pure christianity to trinity thinking in the space of 3 centuries. Again we also understand from research that Constantine while appearing christian, in reality was not christian and so would not have been concerned which way the arian-trinity argument went.


Tertullian, an Ecclesiastical writer of the 2nd and 3rd century coined the expression 'trinitas' for Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the concepts later expressed as the 'three persons in one substance'.


In the statement of the Trinity, Tertullian was a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine, approaching the subject from the standpoint of the Logos doctrine, though he did not fully state the immanent Trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught patripassianism in Rome, he used the words, " Trinity and economy, persons and substance." The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv).


"These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance." The very names "Father" and "Son" indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one (Adv. Praxeam, ix). The question whether the Son was coeternal with the Father Tertullian does not set forth in full clarity; and though he did not fully state the doctrine of the immanence of the Trinity, he went a long distance in the way of approach to it.[3]

Source -


So we can see that Tertullian who lived 155-230 AD, he started using the concepts of "substance" and "trinitas". As we know with something like chinese whispers, where something is said on one side of the room, by the time its whispered to the last person, themeaning has changed completely. Now add 300 years of this and men attmepting to understand God by going beyond the Bible and influenced by Platonism and pagan religions - and you have the basis of the trinity firming up strongly.


Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ   ( Collossians 2:8 )



(c) Going beyond what is written.


God warns us not to exceed what is written :


"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." ( 1 Corinthians 4:6 )


When God warns us about this, He mentions this so we understand that exceeding the word of God by starting man-made traditions, undermines Gods word because what it really says is that we don’t think Gods word is enough.


All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness  ( 2 Tim 3:16 )


Notice it doesn’t say "some scripture" or "which ever bits of scripture you like" - no - it says ALL SCRIPTURE.

So we have the complete tool kit for all things in life and all situations.

When we exceed Gods word, we stray from Gods wisdom.


The wisdom of this world is nonsense in God's sight. That's why Scripture says, "God catches the wise in their cleverness." ( 1 Cor 3:19 )


Consequently, if we truly want to be humble and follow Gods laws, we need to obey Gods laws. This means not exceeding what is written.


For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live by faith." ( Romans 1:16 )





4. "Proof" texts ( including the John 1:1 controversy )


- Proof texts quoted by trinitarians

- Coptic texts

- How Greek is handled and misunderstood

- Use of logic to show trinity doesn’t exist



(a) Proof texts quoted by trinitarians.


Let us look at John 10:30 "I and [my] Father are one."


Does this mean they are the same person? For starters let us look at the previous verse:


“My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.” ( John 10:29 )


OK, so here we have Jesus saying his father is separate to himself. This alone is strong evidence against the trinity.


“Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.” ( John 10:31-38 )


So in John 10:36 we have Jesus saying "I am the Son of God". That is very clear.

But many people say "Ah, but in John 10:38 Jesus says " the Father [is] in me, and I in him".....isn’t this clear that Jesus and God are one in the same? No. No its not, and context of the scripture shows us why:


Well scripture must hamonise - so lets look at other scriptures and see what other evidence we can find.


“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. “ ( John 17:1-6 )


Ok - so here Jesus is talking about "they" ( the Apostles ) as referred to in the passage here - they are given to Jesus by God.

Keep this in mind as we read the rest of the passage :


“Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.” ( John 17:7-25 ) here we have "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us"


So this logically means that as God is in Jesus then the apostles must be in God and Jesus.........boy its getting crowded in that trinity.......


This is similar to other scriptures like eating Jesus body regards his Last Supper where Jesus was talking in metaphor/meaning, not literally.


Here in this case we see God is "in" Jesus IN PURPOSE - a common purpose in preaching Gods word.

This logically is all it can mean. It also means that to use this as a "proof text" is grasping at straws since the context of the passage is totally ignored by trinitarians.


Additionally, we see this scripture:


“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Cor 1:10 )


Now for 1 John 5:7.


1 John 5:7 is a significant scripture, namely because of its so-called support of the trinity. But does it?

In the KJV we see this text:


“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” ( 1 John 5:7  -   KJV )


Well on the surface you would think case closed / its a done deal / all over red rover   - correct?


Well no.


Bear in mind the KJV is but one translation and as we have seen context of scriptures can influence meaning. Some Bible texts have also been wrongly translated. This comment of "all these three are one" is generally recognised by Bible scholars as a deliberate addition by trinitarians in the middle ages. Most Bibles have removed this , as rightfully they should.


In context lets also look at 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.” ( 1 John 5:8 )


So is spirit, water and blood a trinity too? No.


But lets look at what scholars have to say about what the KJV translation is based upon:


"5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement." --NET Bible


Now lets look at this article ( some of it shown below ) 



“Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1


The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.


The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.”




“Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.”



End of quote.



So we can see historically, the 1 John 5:7 has no leg to stand on.


The score so far - Common sense 2, trinity 0.



Now lets look at other translations - of these , 4 of 14 are similar to the KJV translation, which means 10 aren't:


1 John 5:7


New American Standard Bible (©1995)

For there are three that testify:


GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

There are three witnesses:


King James Bible

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


American Standard Version

And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.


Bible in Basic English

And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.


Douay-Rheims Bible

And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.


Darby Bible Translation

For they that bear witness are three:


English Revised Version

And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.


Tyndale New Testament

(For there are three which bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the wholy ghost. And these three are one.)


Weymouth New Testament

For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood;


Webster's Bible Translation

For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.


World English Bible

For there are three who testify :


Young's Literal Translation

because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;


2001 Translation

So, there are three [things] that testify [about him], 8 the Breath [of God], the water, and the blood, and all three agree.



"The passage (1 John 5:7) is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic) except the Latin; and it is not found in the Old Latin in its early form, or in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome...The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise."


-- A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, by Bruce M. Metzger, United Bible Societies, 1994, page 648.


As we note above, this verse is not in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, nor in any other really ancient version. It is an unauthorized addition to the Scriptures. It is found in no Greek text earlier than the 10th century CE, where it is found as a variant reading.


"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies."

-- (Metzger, page 648)


"That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain."

-- (Metzger, p. 647)


So........... if 3 people all agree on one thing, does this mean all 3 are the same person? No. Of course not.

Certainly they are of the same idea or similar persuasion or think similarly, but the same person? No.

As we have seen so far, history and common sense are slowly discrediting the trinity as a logically supportable idea.


Given the Bible never ONCE mentions the trinity, why would a loving God of order create a hard to understand mystery this churches proclaim as "essential to salvation"?

Heres one scripture that Trinitarians say "proves" God and Jesus are one and the same.


This being John 8:56-59


"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.


Well its obvious that Jesus was around prior to Abraham as we see at Collossians 1:15 :


“Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love [which ye have] to all the saints,

For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

Which is come unto you, as [it is] in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as [it doth] also in you, since the day ye heard [of it], and knew the grace of God in truth:

As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;

Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.

For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, 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.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the pre-eminence. ( Collossians 1:4-18 )


So, logically then, being firstborn of every creature means that "before Abraham, I was/I am " makes logical sense.

Jesus helped God make the world, and the making of the world was before Abraham existed, so Jesus was there before Abraham.

Also, if Jesus was the firstborn of all creatures, then if he had a beginning, he cannot be part of God because God is eternal.

OK, so we see Jesus had a beginning.

So now how do we understand that Abraham saw Jesus day ( the day of his birth )? Obviously Jesus was born some years after Abraham died.


Let us look at translations of John 8:56 :


(1) From The Complete Biblical Library (John), Springfield, Missouri (USA), 1988, page 255:

"Jesus' words indicated that Abraham rejoiced even at the prospect of seeing Jesus' day. 'My day' places the emphasis on 'my.' 'My day' is the grand and glorious day of Messiah. This was the very time the Jews were witnessing but rebelling against. The phrase '(Abraham) saw it' refers to the atoning work Jesus was to accomplish at Calvary. Abraham saw Him by faith in God's word, and in a shadowy type. The Jews saw Him in the flesh. They mocked, but Abraham rejoiced."

(2) From scholar Raymond E. Brown in his commentary on the Gospel of John (Anchor Bible series, volume 29):

"When he saw it". If an incident in Abraham's life is meant, it may be the birth of Isaac which was the initial fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, the first in a chain of actions that would ultimately lead to the coming of Jesus. This fits the theme of joy." (page 360)

( Please see the scripture at Matthew 1:1-16 for the complete linage of Jesus directly back to Abraham. )

( Please see the scripture at Gen 12:1-3 where God says all families of the earth will be blessed ( by Jesus ) through Abraham )

(3) From The New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams, Sprawls Educational Publishing, Montreat, North Carolina, 1995 reprint. Originally published in 1937 by Moody Press.

John 8:56 "Exulted in the hope of seeing" (C. B. Williams)"

(4) The Berkeley Version. Revised as The New Berkeley Version: The Modern Language Bible, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1990 reprint. Originally published in 1969 by Zondervan Publishing House.

John 8:56 "Was extremely happy in the prospect of seeing" (Berkeley Version)

(5) The New Testament in the Language of Today, by William F. Beck, Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, Missouri, 1964 edition.

John 8:56 "Was delighted to know of My day" (Beck)

So we can see that some translations are either not accurate or plain wrong. The translations above make logical sense.

(6) Other translations:

NASB: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw [it] and was glad."

GWT: Your father Abraham was pleased to see that my day was coming. He saw it and was happy."

KJV: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

ASV: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.

BBE: Your father Abraham was full of joy at the hope of seeing my day: he saw it and was glad.

DBY: Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced.

WEY: Abraham your forefather exulted in the hope of seeing my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

WBS: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

WEB: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it, and was glad."

YLT: Abraham, your father, was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.'

We should also consider the greek word often translated as "see" ( "see" is one of many translations for the Greek word )


From Strongs Greek Dictionary -

eido (i'-do) ( Strongs number 1492. )

A primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equivalent optanomai and horao;

properly, to see (literally or figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to know, be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell),

consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot.


So what is translated as "see" may suit a theology, but in context of what the birth of Isaac provided was proof of God bringing Jesus Christ as Messiah to the earth. Consequently, Abraham would have seen/percieved Jesus' day because Issac was the first step to the coming of Jesus Christ, as God said all nations would be blessed ( because of Jesus Christ ) from Abrahams seed ( Isaac ).



Now lets look at John 1:1


John 1: 1is the heavy duty so-called proof of the trinity. This is THE text usually trotted out to "prove" the trinity is rock solid.


But is it?


Lets look at some translations


New American Standard Bible - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


GOD'S WORD® Translation- In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.


King James Bible - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


American Standard Version - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Bible in Basic English - From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.


Douay-Rheims Bible - IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Darby Bible Translation - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


English Revised Version - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Tyndale New Testament - In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word.


Weymouth New Testament - In the beginning was the Word, and the WWord was with God, and the Word was God.


Webster's Bible Translation - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


World English Bible - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Young's Literal Translation - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;



Now on the surface of it you *could* say "case closed, Jesus is God".

But hang on - why would Jesus be God, and so be with himself ( "the Word was with God").

Doesn’t that sound just a bit illogical?


Lets look at this in the cold hard light of logic.


We have so far demonstrated in scripture that :


(a) Jesus was created as the firstborn of all creation, so Jesus is an independent and separate to God.

(b) Jesus did his Fathers will.

(c) God has declared Jesus to be His son, of whom God ( his Father ) approves.

(d) Jesus has said his Apostles were given to him by God.


We have seen that many translations of the bible are based along theological lines, not necessarily being accurate.


This means if people wanted to prove the trinity existed, they would translate a bible to support that idea.

Outrageous? No. Many bible translators have done this ( legal reasons means I cannot mention which ones )


Consider the following translations of John 1:1 from other translators:


(1) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. Diaglot 1865 Diaglot NT

(2) Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

(3) Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

(4) Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god

(5) Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine

(6) Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god

(7) New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

(8) Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine

(9) Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

(10) Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"

(11) Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

(12) Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"

(13) Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

(14) Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

(15) Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

(16) J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"

(17) George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

(18) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

(19) ames L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

(20) Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

(21) Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

(22) Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

(23) Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature

(24) Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

(25) Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

(26) Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine

(27) Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was

(28) Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One

(29) Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

(30) Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being"

(31) Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]

(32) Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].

(33) Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]

(34) Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]

(35) Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]

(36) Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

(37) Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]

(38) Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]

(39) Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]

(40) Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]

(41) Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]

(42) Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word)

(43) Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]

(44) Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God]

(45) Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

(46) Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].

(47) William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."

(48) John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

(49) Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

(50) Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

(51) Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)----

(52) 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures [NCMM] "In [the] beginning the Word existed, and the Word faced toward The God, and the Word was divine."

(53) New Simplified Bible "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like)."

(54) 2001 Translation "In an ancient time there was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was powerful."


So we have :


12 translations saying Jesus = God

54 translations saying Jesus = Word/Jesus/divine.



Well, you might say, so what? Anyone can translate a Bible.


Ok, lets look at this : in 200 -300AD ancient Egyptians spoke the Coptic language, and translated the Bible into their own language. But the Nicene Creed did not appear until 325 AD, some 25-125 years AFTER the Coptic translations of the Bible appeared. The most well known Coptic text is the Bodmer II P66.


Now - here is a critical point to understand - the Coptics translated from Koine ( common ) Greek into Coptic.

In 200-300 AD, Egypt was a Greek colony, so the offical adminsitration language was Greek ( Koine Greek ) , and so the coptics would have understood the finer points of the Greek language since they were using Greek all day, every day.


The Coptics would have understood and translated the MEANING of the scriptures correctly.

In the Sahidic dialect of Coptic we see John 1:1 as folows: ( all references here refer to Sahidic Coptic ) :



1:1a         Hn tehoueite nefshoop nci pshaje

1:1b         Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute

1:1c         Auw neunoute pe pshaje


Now Coptic has an indefinate article "p" ( in English, this is "a" ) so the Coptics could accurately express complex things.


Translating John 1:1c from Coptic to English we have :

1:1c         "and was a god the Word".


auw ne-u-noute pe pshaje


auw          =             "and"

ne            =             verbal prefix denoting past tense, i.e., "was (being)"

u              =             Coptic indefinite article, "a"

noute       =             "god" ( Note that "penoute" = "God", but we see "neunoute" here )

pe            =             Coptic particle meaning "is" or "this one is"

p              =             Coptic definite article, "the"

shaje        =             "word"


In the book, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1987), Kurt and Barbara Aland, editors of critical Greek New Testament texts, state:


"The Coptic New Testament is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater importance to know precisely how the text developed in Egypt." (Page 200, emphasis added)


The Coptic expression for "was a god," ne-u-noute pe, is the same Coptic construction as found above in John 18:40, where it says of Barabbas that he ne-u-soone pe, "was a robber," accurately rendering the Greek original, en de ho barabbas lestes, where the word for "robber" lestes, is anarthrous: "a robber."


Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. ( John 18:40 - KJV )


So if the same grammatical structure of Coptic is accepted by trinitarians for John 18:40, and the same structure is used at John 1:1, then logic would say we have a theological issue if people translate John 1:1 one way and John 18:40 another way.



How Greek is mishandled and misunderstood



We see below how Greek can be mis-translated. When we look at the kindly donated article below on the translation of "was a god" from Greek, we can see the possible pitfalls, but also how if we carefully and consistently translate with the same rules all the time, we get an accurate rendering.

Interestingly, as with comparing John 1:1 and John 18:40 in their indentical grammar, we also compare John 1:1 and Acts 28:6 ( 1881 Westcott Hort text )


John 1:1c


Greek                                                                                   English

Και          θεος         ην            ο              λογος                      "and" "deity" "was" "the/this etc." "Word / Divine Expression"

kai           theos       nv            ho            logos

2532        2316        1510        3588        3056



Acts 28:6


Greek                                                                                   English

αυτον       ειναι         θεον                                                       "himself"   "am/was" "a deity"

autos       einai         theos

846          1511        2316


We see similar grammar structures in John 1:1 & Acts 28:6. If Acts 28:6 is accepted as correct, then logically John 1:1 should be as well.


Now lets think about this for a second -

και           θεος         ην            ο              λογος                      "and"        "deity"      "was"       "the/this/that etc."    "Word"

kai           theos       nv            ho            logos


For "theos" if we put in "a god/ goddess" we get the rendering above. This sounds logical ( although we know Jesus was male,therefore not a goddess ). But as Jesus was Gods son and was created by God ( and we know that Jesus is not God Himself ) then yes, technically speaking, Jesus is "a god", but he is not God Himself.

Interestingly the Greek scriptures were often written in CAPITAL LETTERS.


So we would read:




Now if we insert each member of the "trinity" into this scripture we get :


For "theos" if we put in - " "God the father as part of the trinity" was the Word" - this sounds odd.

For "theos" if we put in - " "Christ as part of the trinity" was the Word" - this also sounds odd

For "theos" if we put in - " "Holy Spirit as part of the trinity" was the Word " - this also sounds odd.


The logic in this case is this - trintarians will say in this case - "Ah but "a god" means God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as all persons of the trinity Godhead are co-equal and co-eternal." Its kind of like saying "my car is so small, it can be folded up and stored in its own boot/trunk". What nonsense.


No wonder people are confused and people are told that "God is unknowable".


Lets look at the whole scripture in context, and also decide if it harmonises with the Bible. As All scripture is inspired of God and useful for teaching....then all scripture must harmonise. And if God can build a planet and universe, getting His Word, which is important to Him such that "it will never pass away " to read in a harmonious manner should be straight forward for Him to do.


John 1:1c


Typical Common English Translation

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God


Transliterated from Greek

en arche en logos kai logos en pros ho theos kai logos en theos


Written Greek

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον(1) και θεος(2) ην ο λογος


Our translation into clear English



Yet here we see the primary usage of the second "theos" in this passage as "god". But the first usage (1) is "ho theos" which means "the god" ( or God Himself). The second usage above (2) is "diety" or "a god". But hang on - why dont most Bibles say "THE GOD" for "ho theos"? This would be correct.Which then means that "theos", which means "DEITY"/"GOD" is very different to "ho theos" which means "THE GOD" i.e. "THE GOD" = Yahweh, the one and only God of all creation.


OK, now since many greek manuscripts WERE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS ( called Unical ), if we connect it all together and use capital letters, we get :




( where I have added "A" in [] brackets to show what would be added by a Greek-English translator to allow it to make sense to an English speaker)


The sentence in capital letters above now takes on a whole different meaning. Remember that in the Greek , not having an "a" in front of a noun does NOT mean it implies a definite article. A definite article is "the". So in this case, "GOD" doesn’t mean "THE GOD" it means "A GOD".


"THE GOD" which refers to Yahweh ( God ) Himself.

"GOD"/"DEITY" is Jesus ( the Word ).


But hang on - what right do I have to say - "[A] GOD" or "[A] DEITY"?

This is a fair question.


About one page further down you will see references on which my case is based. Please be patient and keep reading. :-)


Now it is clear from Johns writing that "THE GOD" is not "GOD"/"DEITY" in this case. This difference is obviously deliberate. John was making sure that he separated God and the word / deity / god / Jesus, while making sure people knew Jesus was divine/a god, but was *not* The God ( Yahweh / Jehovah / YHWH ).


Now because English capitalises important peoples names or titles, we would write: for THE GOD = "The God" and "GOD" = "god/deity" - because we would not give a lower deity ( Jesus ) a capital "G" , because "God" that is Gods title alone, keeping things correct within the context of the whole of the scriptures here.


We can also see how Bible translators might become confused or alter the meaning , through a lack of understanding of ancient greek etc. And because many Bibles written in English, if you saw the word "GOD" you would assume YAHWEH / JEHOVAH / YHWH.


So lets now look at what would happen if we included the Divine Name in place of "THE GOD" in the translation.




We know that Jesus is The Word, so our translation would look like this :




This would make sense too - Jesus was with Yahweh and the beginning of earth. There is nothing to say specifically when Jesus was created, but we can tell it was prior to the creation of the earth at least. Jesus would have existed, as Jesus was the first born of all creation, and Yahweh's only begotten son:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]."( John 1:18 )

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." ( John 3:16 )


And we know Jesus was WITH YAHWEH during creation of the earth, and is Yahwehs firstborn of all creation, and is Yahweh's son, Jesus:

‘In an ancient time, there was the Expression of a thought. This Expression was with God and the Expression was Powerful. He was with God long ago. Everything came into existence through him. Life came into existence through him and the life was the light of men.’ (John 1:1-3 )


‘The only-created god (gr. monogenes theos), who is the Father’s favorite [son], has explained him.’ (John 1:18 )


 ‘I tell you the truth, I existed before Abraham was born.’ (John 8:58 )


 ‘And knowing that the Father had put everything in his hands, and that he came from God and was returning to God, he got up from the meal and laid his outer clothing aside.’ (John 13:3, 4 )


 ‘The Father cares for you, because you cared for me and you believed that I came as the Father’s representative. I am from the Father and I came into the world. I am also leaving the world and returning to the Father.’ (John 16:27, 28 )


So, now Father, glorify me beside You with the glory that I had beside You before there was a world.’ (John 17:5 )


 ‘He’s the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (gr. protokos pases ktiseos – first/taken all creation). Through him, everything in heaven and on the earth was created, both the things that are visible and those that are invisible. Everything has been created through him and for him, regardless of whether they are thrones, or rulerships, or governments, or powers. He was before everything and everything came into existence through him.’ (Colossians 1:15-17 )


 ‘And write this to the messenger of the congregation in Laodicea, ‘This is what the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the earliest creation of God.’ (Revelation 3:14 )


IMPORTANT POINT - The early Christians didn’t view Jesus as the God - this is supported by the fact that Christians still worshiped at the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem until shortly before it was destroyed in 70-C.E. (see Acts 3:1-3). This is because Christian Jews didn’t consider Christianity to be a new religion with a new god, but rather, that it was the natural outgrowth of the old, and Jesus was the promised ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One of God’ who was to assume ‘the throne of David his father.'


Comment on Greek manuscripts - many Greek manuscripts from approx 350-1000 AD were originally written in CAPITAL LETTERS ( called Unical ). When we use this method, we avoid issues with capitalisation of letters we find in the English language , which may accidentally convey the wrong meaning.


"The logos ( word/divine expression ) was with the god ( God Himself ) and a diety ( a god / a divine being / but not God Himself ) was the logos."


Its worth remembering that angels are divine beings, Jesus is a divine being, and God Himself is a divine being.

But Jesus is not actually said to be God Himself.


This harmonises with the Bible, as Jesus Christ always says he is inferior to his Father, Yawheh ( God ), and went to be in heaven with his father once he was resurrected. Since we know "16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work., ( 2 Tim 3:16-17 ).


From Spiros Zodhiates's book "Complete Word Study New Testament", we find under "grammatical notations" :

5. Anarthrous (an) refers to a word or group of words which appear without a definite article ( ho,he,to'[3588],the). Greek has no indefinite article, "a" or "an" in English. Sometimes it is best to translate an anarthrous word by supplying "a" or "an" before it. In fact, due to reasons of English style or Greek idiom, the word "the" is even an appropriate translations in some cases. However, there are many times when supplying an article would be incorrect. Anarthrous constructions are most often intended to point out the quality of something: Toigaroun kai hemeis tosouton echontes perikeimenon hemin "nephos" marturon, " Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so great "cloud" of witnesses" (Heb 12:1). See also Notation 24.

The "Definite Article" in Greek is sometimes translated with the English definite article "the." However, the function of the two is quite different. In English, the definite article serves merely to particularize, to refer to a particular object. In Greek, however, it serves to emphasize, in some way, the person or thing it modifies. Hence, in most cases, the definite article in Greek serves to identify: di hupomones trechomen ton prokeimeonon hemin agona, " and let us run with patience "the" race that is set before us" (Heb 12:1). The term "articular" refers to a word or group of words which appear with a definite article (ho,he,to [3588], the). There is perhaps no other part of Greek grammar where the Greek idiom differs so greatly from the English. For instance, an English grammarian would never place the definitie article before a proper noun (e.g., the "Thomas"), though in Greek it is very common. Rcognizing the significance of the presence or absence of the definite article requires the most intimate knowledge of the Greek language. Contrast the use of articular constructions with anarthrous constuctions which refers to quality. See also notation 5




Another article supporting our argument is shown below . TO confirm the content was accurate, I personally contacted Dr BeDuhn at the University of Northern Arizona via email on 06/12/2007, and he confirmed that the copy of the email correspondance below was in essence what is outlined in greater detail in one of his books.




The following URL (Web page) has a lengthy statement by Jason Beduhn re: John 1:1. There are some typos (likely by the person who typed the Web

page), but Beduhn's name at the end suggests that this entire extract, and not just what was put in quotes at the beginning, is his comment on

John 1:1. This should give some idea of his knowledge of or expertise in Greek and his qualifications to make scholarly statements about

translations and the Greek text - which is what your query seemed to be about.


What about John 1:1 in the NWT?


Well, I will let Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona

University answer this one:


"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word."


Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we

translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."


Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule:  Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of

God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.)


So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek.

The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In

English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism.


No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is

with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How

does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.


I hope this helps.


Best wishes


Jason Beduhn

Northern Arizona University

Department of Humanities Arts and Religion


My comment -


Again, this means Jesus ( the Word ) IS NOT God, he is SEPARATE to God.

This destroys the trinity by understanding of Greek grammar rules alone.

Many many times God has said he will never share His Glory with anyone else. This is in the Bible.

So here we find that a scholar confirming that according to Greek grammar , "the Word was God" is not a possible translation of John 1:1c.


Rather, the more likely translation, based on greek grammar, was "the word was a god" or "the Word was divine". Its worth remembering that much scholarly debate has occurred over John 1:1 , which is fine. However the basic situation does not change, which is that "THE GOD" and "GOD" are different, and the fact that John wrote it like that is in-your-face significant.


Its like the rules of arithmetic, that is 1+1=2 .  ( please excuse the unintended pun )


However, some scholars argue from a theological point of view that 1+1= 3.


We reason from a fact based this-is-how-Greek-grammar-works stand, and as such the translation of John 1:1c its not an argument, it is a plain statement of the facts.



Another thorough explanation of the translation of John 1:1 based on the logic is below.

( This has been reproduced by kind written permission by the owner of )


Does John 1:1 Indicate that God and
Christ (the Logos) are One-And-The-Same?

(   Austin TX June 2000)

Satisfactorily resolving this question requires that one have a clear understanding of THREE basic, simple, yet rarely-understood, concepts relating to the exercise of language translation in general; and Greek-to-English translation in specific. These are:

Concept A:
The comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in translation from Greek to English.

Concept B:
The necessity of varying degrees of "LITERALNESS" in language translation in general, such that aesthetics may be maintained without compromising accuracy.

Concept C:
The subtle treatment which language accords to common titles of intimacy, and how this must be handled in translation from Greek to English.

These three concepts and how they relate to one another (and to a proper understanding of John 1:1) will be explained fully in this narrative.

To this end, and...
to keep issues clear and manageable for the reader...

this narrative is presented in 5 progressively-developed
segments below, with each segment providing a clear and solid foundation for its successor segment - with the end result being a coherent and easily-understood presentation of the question at hand.

Although the language translation concepts presented here are applicable in many language translation contexts, they are discussed here specifically in the context of translation from Greek to English.

There will be short illustrative passages of Greek presented here. However, this need NOT cause any concern, because these passages are fully translated and clarified such that, even those who know no Greek will have no problems following the concepts presented...

Thus, one need NOT be a scholar, a linguist, a Greek grammarian, etc., to follow along. It is absolutely unreasonable to think that God would impose such requirements on anyone who is seeking to get to the truth of the matter under consideration here. (Matthew 18:1-6) Furthermore, inasmuch as God undertook very personal and painful measures to open the way to accurate knowledge concerning himself and his son Jesus Christ, (John 17:3) one may safely presume that such knowledge is fully intended to be attainable and clearly understandable.

The 5 progressively developed segments comprising this commentary are summarized as follows:

Segment 1:
A clarification of the question introducing this commentary, and WHY the question is even asked: Does John 1:1 indicate that God and Christ (the Logos) are one-and-the-same?

Segment 2:
A discussion of
Concept A:
The comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in translation from Greek to English.

Segment 3:
A discussion of
Concept B:
The necessity of varying degrees of "LITERALNESS" in language translation in general, such that aesthetics may be maintained without compromising accuracy.

Segment 4:
A discussion of
Concept C:
The subtle treatment which language accords to common titles of intimacy, and how this must be handled in translation from Greek to English.

Segment 5:
Review and obvious conclusion.


A clarification of the question introducing this commentary, and WHY the question is even asked:   Does John 1:1 indicate that God and Christ (the Logos) are one-and-the-same?

John 1:1 in the original Greek follows:
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon
kai qeoV hn o logoV

An acceptable variation of the most common English translation of this verse is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
and the Word was God

An acceptable variation of the opposing English translation of this verse is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
and the Word was
a god

The not-so-subtle difference between the above opposing translations is:

- The
former suggests that Christ (the Logos) is God himself.
- The
latter suggests that Christ (the Logos) is a god (i.e., NOT God himself, but one like God)

Obviously(!) the implications raised by these opposing translations of John 1:1 are enormous. One is, therefore, absolutely justified in asking: "Which one is correct?"

And, in actuality, the
REAL point of contention here is the little red "a" in the latter translation...DOES IT BELONG THERE? - OR NOT?

The issue raised, of course, has to do with getting to know the very nature of God and his son Jesus Christ. (They are either one-and-the-same...or they are not!) The warning raised by the apostle Paul at 2nd Thessalonians 1:6-8 attaches a mortal tempo to this issue.

The remaining 4 segments of this narrative deal with the little red "
a" and the propriety or impropriety of its presence in the English translation of John 1:1. (Once this minor logistics problem is solved, everything else falls into place.)


A discussion of
Concept A:
The comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in translation from Greek to English.

[The little red "
a" mentioned in the previous segment is known grammatically as an "article." More specifically, it is an "indefinite article." Because the controversy being discussed here cannot be apprehended intelligently without having a clear understanding of articles and their role in English and Greek expression, the following is provided...]

Webster's dictionary defines an "article" as "...the words "the" and "a," (or "an") in English, that are linked to nouns and that typically function in identifying nouns as nouns and in indicating definiteness or indefiniteness of reference."

As mentioned here, English has two articles: The DEFINITE article "
the," and the INDEFINITE article "a." (or "an") These articles are invariable in form, i.e., they always occur as "the," and "a." (or "an") They do not change.

Greek, on the other hand, has only
ONE article, the DEFINITE article. This article is quite variable in form, i.e., it changes (or morphs itself) regularly into as many as 30 different variations of itself. REGARDLESS, it is STILL Greek's single DEFINITE article, and in all of its forms, it is translated simply as "the."

Thus, in both English and Greek, the article, as Webster's definition above suggests, simply assigns the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to associated nouns.

In the material immediately following, we will examine the difference between HOW English and Greek use their respective articles to assign the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to associated nouns.

English first...

Notice the subtle shades of meaning generated by use of these articles in the sentences below as they express grammatical "definiteness" and "indefiniteness" with regard to the
man and the woman being discussed...

AND, to provide a beneficially meaningful dimension to these sentences, imagine that you are in a park in an unfamiliar locale, and you encounter two tourists whom you do not know. One of the tourists is telling the other about an event he witnessed at a picturesque gazebo in the park. With this in mind, imagine that the tourist who witnessed this event tells 4 different one-sentence versions of what he follows:

"A man married a woman."
Notice what is implied by the indefinite article preceding both
man and woman in this sentence: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.

"The man married a woman."
Now notice what is implied by the definite article preceding
man and the indefinite article preceding woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.

"A man married the woman."
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example:
Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

"The man married the woman."
And finally, notice what is implied by the definite article preceding both
man and woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

Regarding the 4 examples above, there is absolutely nothing foreign or mystical about their meaning. They simply illustrate HOW the English language uses its definite and indefinite articles to express notions of "definiteness" and "indefiniteness."

Now, Greek...

In the Greek language, however, there is a different variation on this theme: As stated above, Greek has only the definite article. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE! Therefore, although Greek can use the same grammatical mechanism as English to express definiteness, it MUST obviously (!) use a DIFFERENT grammatical mechanism to express indefiniteness.

This will be clearly illustrated in the following examples. These examples will take advantage of the park wedding scenario given above. However, we will experience it from the Greek perspective, via the accompanying word-for-word LITERAL English translations. Note that, because we are thinking in Greek,
ALL of the articles here are DEFINITE articles - and they will be high-lighted in blue so that their comparative use may be immediately evident.

AGAIN, remember that, because Greek DOES NOT HAVE AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE, its grammatical mechanism for expressing the notion of "indefiniteness" will be seen here to be DIFFERENT from English.

BEAR IN MIND THAT THE GREEK SENTENCES WHICH FOLLOW ARE PROPER GREEK. DO NOT be put off by their seeming "incompleteness." If you are not used to thinking in Greek, then that is the way they will sound...incomplete! This is perfectly normal. Simply keep in mind that you are experiencing proper Greek thought via word-for-word literal English translation.

MIND... We will repeat the park wedding scenario above - thinking in Greek this time! It will be seen that we come to exactly the same conclusions about the man and the woman as we did in the previous English scenario. The conceptual pattern is the same - only the grammatical mechanism is different. It is Greek.

anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
man married woman
Notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the LACK OF Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.

o anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
the man married woman
Now, notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the Greek definite article preceding
anqrwpoV and the LACK OF the Greek definite article preceding gunaika: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.

anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
man married the woman
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example:
Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

o anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
the man married the woman
And finally, notice what is implied by the Greek definite articles preceding
anqrwpoV and gunaika in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

At this point the reader should see clearly that, inasmuch as Greek does NOT have an INDEFINITE article, it nevertheless perfectly expresses the notion of "indefiniteness" by simply NOT using its DEFINITE article! This mechanism is very typical of Greek in its elegant efficiency of expression.

However, as seen in our examples above, this peculiarity of Greek, if conveyed
literally in English translation, presents aesthetic problems to English speakers. This is simply because English utilizes a different grammatical mechanism for expressing "indefiniteness," and the failure to employ that mechanism in translation to English (i.e., by NOT using the English indefinite article where necessary) is quickly "sensed" by the English speaker, such that he feels something is "incomplete." There is an aesthetic glitch which must necessarily be fixed by the translator before his job is done.

This necessary fix is discussed in the next segment, SEGMENT 3.


A discussion of
Concept B:
The necessity of varying degrees of "LITERALNESS" in language translation in general, such that aesthetics may be maintained without compromising accuracy.

Given the park wedding scenario illustrated in the previous segment, we saw that, as it pertains to "indefinite" expressions, conveying LITERAL Greek thought in English leaves a bit to be desired.

With this in mind, it is important to understand that, in general, NO word-for-word literal translation of thought from one language to another will do aesthetic justice to the source language (e.g., Greek) when conveyed thus in the target language. (e.g., English) Therefore, the concept of "literalness" with regard to language translation must be understood as a relative concept.

In view of this, it should be clear that, even the best "literal" English translation of the Bible is only
relatively literal. If it were word-for-word literal, then its English would sound strange and "incomplete" to the English reader, as was the case in our Greek park wedding scenario above.

To avoid this, translators must ROUTINELY exercise their considerable expertise to balance literalness with aesthetics by the application of a connective linguistic "glue"...

This linguistic "glue" is quite simply the addition of "connective" language to (or the omission of "disconnective" language from) a base literal translation such that, the result is a
relatively literal translation which conveys full aesthetic soundness to the target language speaker, WITHOUT compromising accuracy.

This application of linguistic "glue" is a very serious matter in the realm of language translation. And it occurs in many varied and complex circumstances. In this commentary, however, we are discussing ONLY its application to the problem of transferring correct notions of
definiteness and indefiniteness from Greek thought to English thought - via the proper use of articles.

To see examples of this, we will recall the park wedding scenario above with its Greek expressions and their literal English translations. All articles, as previously, will still be high-lighted in
blue . In addition, however, we will now include a 2nd English translation for each Greek expression. This 2nd translation will illustrate the use of the linguistic "glue" necessary to make the 1st translation (the word-for-word literal translation) sound correct to the English speaker. You will notice that the "glue" in this case is simply the application of the indefinite article (the little red " a ") where appropriate...

anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
man married woman
a man married a woman

o anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
the man married woman
the man married a woman

anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
man married the woman
a man married the woman

o anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
the man married the woman
the man married the woman (no change necessary)

Notice that in the 2nd translation for each Greek expression above, (except the last) English indefinite articles (i.e., little red "a"s) were added to provide the linguistic "glue" which gives proper sound and feeling to the English translation. NOTE that these English indefinite articles were added by the translator, EVEN THOUGH NO SUCH ARTICLES EXIST IN THE GREEK EQUIVALENT. Remember! Greek has no such (indefinite) articles.

This translational practice is perfectly acceptable, ROUTINE, and indeed necessary, if the translation is to convey correct thought in correct English.

As a matter of fact, bearing the above concept in mind, it should be clear to the reader that EVERY TIME HE SEES THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, he is seeing an application of the above-mentioned linguistic "glue!" (i.e., the little red " a ") added by the translator!

Now, as a formative conceptual exercise, please open your English Bible and browse randomly through the New Testament and contemplate the number of times you encounter the indefinite article. (i.e., the little red " a
") And REMEMBER! That little "a " has NO literal equivalent in the Greek language! It is necessary linguistic "glue" added by the translator to help convey Greek thought in palatable English without compromising translational accuracy. Thus, the little red "a" has an honored, necessary, and abundant place in the process.

The translator's job is still not complete! We must now consider a sterling rule of conduct in language translation which has critical applicability to our discussion:

This sterling rule of conduct states, in essence, that
aesthetics MUST take a back seat to accuracy of meaning IF accuracy of meaning is critical...ESPECIALLY if it affects doctrinal understanding!

With this rule of conduct in mind, and applying what we have learned thus far, we will again recall JOHN 1:1 in Greek and this time provide the word-for-word literal translation in English.

We will also apply the color scheme introduced earlier to modify our optic of the language of JOHN 1:1. (At the moment, we will be looking at this verse from the Greek perspective. So REMEMBER: Greek has only the DEFINITE article! There is no indefinite article. Therefore, our color scheme (as above) will high-light the definite article in
blue .)

John 1:1 in the original Greek:
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon
kai qeoV hn
o logoV

John 1:1 literally translated from the above:
in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and god was
the word

Note that, because we are dealing with actual Greek along with a word-for-word literal English translation to express the equivalent Greek thought, the only articles we see high-lighted are DEFINITE articles.

AND, we notice immediately that, because we are experiencing literal Greek thought here, we see (from an English perspective) at least two aesthetic irregularities which will require fixing with our linguistic "glue:"

The 1st irregularity:
in beginning" sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The 2nd irregularity:
with the god" also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The translator must, therefore, apply his linguistic "glue" to these two irregularities such that they may sound aesthetically proper to the English speaker.
AND he must bear in mind his sterling rule of conduct as well: Accuracy of critical meaning must NOT be compromised...

So what did the Apostle John mean when he said "
en arch?" (that is, "in beginning")

He was thinking in Greek, therefore he was thinking of an indefinite
"beginning" because he did NOT use the Greek definite article here. Based on what we learned earlier, the translator must, therefore, put the little red "a" before "beginning." to convey accurately what John (thinking in Greek!) meant, e.g., "in a beginning."

But that STILL sounds strange to an English speaker! However, if the translator puts the DEFINITE article
"the" before "beginning," then it sounds correct. (e.g., "in the beginning")

But this is NOT what John said or meant!

So... If the translator leaves the
"the" there for aesthetic purposes, will it compromise critical meaning?

Surprisingly enough, NOT REALLY! This is because the difference in meaning can be shifted semantically in English to mean what John said anyway.

Thus, even though a very subtle difference in meaning is conveyed now to an English speaker, (a meaning which John did not really intend) it is, nevertheless, aesthetically sound,
AND the difference in meaning is not really critical - it can be compensated for semantically. Therefore, the translator may apply his "glue" here (depicted in red) and we end up with a satisfactory phrase in English: "in the beginning."

NOW, what about the 2nd irregularity?:
"with the god" which also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

What did John (thinking in Greek) mean by
"with the god?" He used the Greek Definite article. Therefore, he meant his God, the one and only God Almighty. (In the NEW TESTAMENT, this Greek construction ("god" preceded by the Greek definite article) ALWAYS means the one and only God Almighty.) However, it sounds strange to the English speaker! English speakers with a Christian background ROUTINELY refer to the one and only God almighty as simply "God!" There is no need for the definite article here to convey to the English speaker what John (thinking in Greek) meant...

Therefore, the translator may again apply his "glue:"
"with * god." (The red asterisk here simply reminds us, for the sake of this discussion, that "glue" was applied, by virtue of the omission of a definite article.)

At this point, we have satisfactorily dealt with the two irregularities mentioned above, and the resulting English translation, with linguistic glue in place, now appears as follows:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with * god
and god was
the word

However, having thus dealt with these two irregularities, we have touched upon yet a
3rd irregularity, far more subtle, which is the subject of our next SEGMENT...


A discussion of
Concept C:
The subtle treatment which language accords to common titles of intimacy, and how this must be handled in language translation from Greek to English.

It was demonstrated in the previous SEGMENT that English speakers ROUTINELY refer to God Almighty as simply "God" (without a definite article) and, in so doing, leave no ambiguity as to WHO is meant.

This peculiar mode of address in English is at the crux of the controversy swirling around John 1:1. (And English is certainly not the only language which evokes this controversy!) To appreciate the subtle translational disaster which this causes with regard to understanding John 1:1 properly, we must carefully contrast the way that English treats the following
three forms of nouns when assigning notions of "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to them via articles...(or the LACK of articles):

These three forms of nouns are:




Let's be clear on what these are:

TITLES are special nouns which convey a categorical or functional notion to the subjects which they "tag." For example, the following are TITLES. Notice how these titles clearly convey category or function to those who might be "tagged" by them...e.g., Mayor Smith. (Mr. Smith is "tagged" with the title of mayor. (We know his category (of office) or function by virtue of his TITLE. The same applies to the other TITLES in this list.)


COMMON NOUNS are nouns which are slightly more generic than TITLES. We need only understand here that there is considerable conceptual overlap between these two types of nouns, (e.g., all of the above are common nouns as well as titles...) Some examples of other common nouns are:


PROPER NAMES are nouns which uniquely "tag" their subjects as identifiable in a crowd of like nouns of the same category or function. For example,


Now notice carefully in the following sentences how differently English treats some of the nouns taken from the above lists - particularly, with regard to assigning notions of "definiteness" and "indefiniteness" to them via articles...(or the LACK of articles)

The dog bit mayor.
The dog bit policeman.
The dog bit cat.

The dog bit mother.
The dog bit father.
The dog bit TOM.
The dog bit God.

Notice that, in English, the 1st three victims of the dog require either an indefinite or a definite article before them in order to meet English aesthetic standards, e.g.,

The dog bit (a/the) mayor.
The dog bit (a/the) policeman.
The dog bit (a/the) cat.

Contrastingly, however, the last four victims of the dog require no such "articular" intervention to meet English aesthetic standards! (Note particularly, that one of these victims is God.) WHY do these nouns not need an article?!

Theories and variations of theories abound on matters such as this. The bottom line, however, is that such nouns or titles
DON'T NEED ARTICLES IN ENGLISH - or in many other languages. This undoubtedly has to do with the implied intimate linguistic contexts in which such titles have been developed over thousands of years of language evolution...such that, they have acquired the near status of PROPER NAMES, (WHICH ALSO DON'T NEED ARTICLES IN ENGLISH) e.g., TOM, MARY, PARIS. For the sake of discussion, we may simply refer to such titles as titles of intimacy.

Now note another subtle peculiarity regarding such titles of intimacy:
As stated, they
DON'T need articles to be aesthetically correct in the contexts which we have discussed above. HOWEVER, THEY MAY FREELY TAKE ON ARTICLES AT ANY TIME AND NOT SUFFER ANY LOSS OF AESTHETIC CORRECTNESS IN SUCH CONTEXTS! In so doing, however, they lose a degree of intimacy. AND, their MEANING in context is definitely altered. For example...

The dog bit Mother.
(The speaker's mother is implied here: quite intimate! Notice that no article is used.)

The dog bit a mother.
( opposed to a policeman. (How rude and unfeeling!) The speaker's mother is NOT implied here: less intimate. Notice that an indefinite article ("
a") is used.)

The dog bit the mother.
( opposed to her child. The speaker's mother is NOT implied here either, however, there is slightly more specificity of meaning. This example too, is less intimate than the 1st example. Notice that a definite article ("
the") is used.)

The sole purpose of this little exercise is to show the special status which such titles of intimacy enjoy in the English language context. AND that, with regard to the use of articles and concomitant meaning, they are quite flexible. Therefore, in translation from Greek to English, they must be treated very carefully if correct meaning concerning them is to be conveyed across these languages...

To illustrate this clearly using the pattern of examples immediately preceding, and applying it to the
title of intimacy "god," in JOHN 1:1, notice what happens:

[Following are Greek variations on the JOHN 1:1 theme, with literal translations into English:
(Note that the 1st of the following examples is the actual ending of John 1:1 in Greek, which incorporates the title of intimacy, "
god" (qeoV). The other three examples are clones of the 1st example. These clones use nouns which are NOT titles of intimacy.)]

kai qeoV hn o logoV
and god was the logos

kai telwnhV hn o logoV
and tax collector was the logos

kai maqhthV hn o logoV
and disciple was the logos

kai paiV hn o logoV
and child was the logos

Regarding the preceding examples, as well as those which follow, continue to bear in mind TWO things:

1. Based upon our discussion in
Segment 2 above, the literal English translations given here represent PROPER Greek thought, strange as it may sound.

2. Based upon our discussion in
Segment 3 above, because the Greek definite article was NOT used with the 1st noun in each of the preceding phrases, (i.e., qeoV, telwnhV, maqhthV, paiV (god, tax collector, disciple, child; respectively)) we understand that the Greek thought assigned to these nouns is therefore indefinite. Thus, the translator MUST convey this indefiniteness correctly in translation to English by applying his linguistic "glue," i.e., the little red "a." This must ESPECIALLY be done in the 1st example using qeoV even though it does not appear necessary. e.g.,

kai qeoV hn o logoV
and god was the logos
and a god was the logos

kai telwnhV hn o logoV
and tax collector was the logos
and a tax collector was the logos

kai maqhthV hn o logoV
and disciple was the logos
and a disciple was the logos

kai paiV hn o logoV
and child was the logos
and a child was the logos

DO WE APPRECIATE THE FULL IMPACT OF WHAT HAS JUST BEEN DEMONSTRATED HERE?...particularly with regard to the 1st example using "god" (i.e., a title of intimacy) as the noun in question?

As observed earlier regarding such titles and the effect of applied "articular" intervention on them, the title "
god" has now lost a degree of intimacy - AND its meaning has very definitely been altered(!) in a fashion which is not at all amenable to commonly accepted Christian theology: Our complete corrected translation of John 1:1, with linguistic glue in place, now stands as follows:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with * god
a god was the word

This brings us to our final segment in this commentary...


Review and obvious conclusion.

Distilling the essence of the previous 4 segments, we recall the following:

The original Greek of John 1:1 has commonly been translated to suggest that God and Jesus Christ (the Word) are one-and-the-same, e.g.,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

Contrastingly, this verse has far less commonly been translated to suggest that God and Jesus Christ (the Word) are distinct and separate beings - that the Word is "a god," or a god-like (or divine) one, e.g.,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

The very valid question is then posed:
Which of these translations is correct?

Or, more succinctly:
Does the little red "a" belong there or not?

Because the critter in question (the little red "
a") is an indefinite article, a discussion of the concept of the comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in Greek and English was presented.

We learned that, although English has BOTH a definite and an indefinite article, Greek has ONLY a definite article. Therefore, the mechanisms which both languages use to convey the notion of indefiniteness MUST, of necessity, be functionally different. This difference was clearly demonstrated via the use of literal Greek to English phrase translations in which it was illustrated that
when Greek omits its single definite article with respect to a related noun, it (Greek) is indicating that noun's INDEFINITENESS.

We learned that these nouns in literal translation necessarily cause aesthetic irregularities which must be fixed by the translator via the judicious and honest application of "linguistic glue" in English...
AND that this must be done WITHOUT compromising meaning.

And finally, we learned that this is true
particularly with regard to titles of intimacy (such as god) which, if NOT tagged properly with the English INDEFINITE article, can freely bounce back and forth between Greek and English, switching their noun status from indefinite to definite, WITHOUT even being noticed, while at the same time significantly altering intended meaning.

However, if the translator does his duty and "catches" this quick "in-transit costume-change" by applying the little red "a" like he's supposed to, then the apostle John's intended meaning at John 1:1 is accurately conveyed to the English reader, i.e., THAT JESUS CHRIST IS A GOD-LIKE ENTITY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM GOD HIMSELF: HE IS A GOD. As such, his role as God's son takes on a completely different and far more sensible meaning than that commonly presented in "acceptable" Christian theology: He becomes, quite simply, God's son, WITHOUT all the usual mystic doctrinal accoutrements...

Some applicable material which applies to the arguments presented in this commentary:

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text
1808, LONDON
Rendering: "...and the word was a god"

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists
1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)
Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"

The Emphatic Diaglott
NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)
Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The Bible - An American Translation
1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)
Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures
1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)
Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)
"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)
"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)
"...und ein Gott war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The preceding list is by no means exhaustive, but it is sufficient to indicate clearly that debate concerning the matter is alive and well.

The following incident recorded in the Book of Acts, Chapter 28, lends interesting insight into the fact that translators are CLEARLY aware of the issues discussed in this commentary, but in the case of John 1:1, most choose to ignore them:

VSS 1-6 of Acts 28 relate the apostle Paul's encounter with a venomous snake on the island of Malta. He is bitten by the snake, and the Maltese residents present at the time expect that Paul will surely die. When he does not die, then according to most translations, the residents "began saying that he was
a god."

The original Greek for this phrase follows:
elegon auton einai qeon

Notice that there is no definite article before qeon. ("god") Therefore, the Greek writer (as in John 1:1) intended indefiniteness, which indefiniteness MUST be conveyed in English via an indefinite article. (the little red "a") Translators have ROUTINELY demonstrated that they CLEARLY understand this by correctly translating this phrase as follows:

they were saying he was a god

Yet, if they applied the same faulty mentality to this verse as they ROUTINELY do to John 1:1, then they would INCORRECTLY translate this verse (as they have at John 1:1) as follows:

they were saying he was god

Remember! Because the word "god" has special status as a title of intimacy, the translator could easily get away with this and nobody would notice...It sounds and looks natural, despite the obvious alteration in meaning! (Ironically, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference here because we're talking about Paul and NOT Jesus Christ. (i.e., If the Maltese islanders want to think that Paul is "God;" or if they want to think that he's "a god," it's not a doctrinal issue of the immense proportions of John 1:1.) )

- FINIS JOHN 1:1 -


So we can see from the article above, that based on the logical application of Greek grammar and rules of the Greek language, we can see john 1:1 *does* support the translation of "was a god" or "was divine", rather than "was God".



(d) Lack of scriptural evidence for the trinity.


Let us ask a simple, logical and powerful question about the trinity :


(i ) God is a God of order, as revealed in His laws, methods, and the methodical way He created the earth , and;

(ii ) He is wise, fair and loving, and;

(iii ) He sent His son, Jesus Christ to personally walk the earth to explain Him and His kingdom to all men, and;

(iv) He left His word preserved in the Bible as declared directly from Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and;

(v ) There is NO mention of a trinity by word or direct teaching anywhere in the Bible , and;

(vi ) God is Truth and cannot lie, and;

(vii) He warned us through Jesus Christ that we should avoid the doctrines of men and test all we hear to make sure it is scripturally sound.

......then how, in any logical way, with our reasoning based on the Scriptures, can we expect the dogma of the trinity to be any part of the Christian faith?

- No where in the Bible is the word "Trinity" ever mentioned. Not once.


Once we understand that :


(i) Gods breath ( or commonly wrongly translated as "spirit" from the latin word "espiritu" ) - is an active force. The word "pnuema" in greek means breath or wind.

Consequently, Gods breath is an enabler.


Notice in Genesis how God breathes into Adams nostrils to make him a living soul:


"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7 ( KJV )


The Breath of God achieves Gods purposes, and that Jesus Christ is the first born of all creation and the Son of God ( not God Himself ). It is not up to us to invent ideas as to how God works, rather it makes sense to read the Bible that God has given us , and learn. If you have an instruction manual for something, wouldnt it be smart to read it rather than just making things up?


(ii) Jesus is the first born of all creation , the first begotten Son, God's son. He has a distinct identity, separate from God Himself.


"He’s the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Through him everything in heaven and on the earth was created, both the things that are visible and those that are invisible. Everything has been created through him and for him, regardless of whether they are thrones, or rulerships, or governments, or powers.He was before everything and everything came into existence through him. He’s the head of the body of the congregation." ( Coll 1:15-17 ) ( 2001 Translation )


"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." ( Matt 3:17- KJV )


Note that just because Jesus existed before everything like angels and the earth, this doesn’t mean he is the same age as God.


Logically, If God is infinitely old ( has no beginning or end ) , and Jesus was, lets say, created even 1 year before the earth or universe was created, then Jesus was created before all things, but is still younger than God. So Jesus is very old, but not as old as God. But Jesus still had a beginning. To "beget" something means to make/produce it.


"Jesus said to him, "Go away, Satan! Scripture says, 'Worship the Lord your God and serve only him.'" ( Matthew 4:10 ) if Jesus WAS God as the Trinity doctrine says, Jesus would have said to Satan to worship him ( Jesus ). But he didn’t. No-where in the Bible does Jesus or the Apsotles ever say that worshipping anyone but God is acceptable in Gods eyes. The first Commandment makes this VERY clear.


And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. ( Rev 22:8-9)


Obviously God alone is to be worshipped , as the Angel says. Note - no mention of Jesus.


And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [him]. "But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." ( Acts 10:25-26 )


Thus the Apostles rejected any form of worship.


"Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy" (Psalms 99:5).


Again, no mention of Jesus.



(iii) God alone is worthy of Worship.



"Then Jehovah said all of this: ‘I am Jehovah your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of slavery.


So, you must have no gods other than Me.

‘You must not make images for yourselves of anything in the skies above, on the earth below, or things that live in the water under the earth. You must not bow before them or serve them, for I Jehovah your God am a jealous God, and I bring the sins of the ancestors upon the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who hate Me.

But I am merciful to the thousands who love Me and keep My Commandments." ( Exodus 20:1-6 )


Its very clear.


God alone is God, and its is He alone who is to be worshipped. This would have been a perfect time to mention His son as being worthy of worship, but He didn’t.


The twenty-four older ones fell down in front of the One who is sitting on the throne and worshiped the One who lives for ages of ages. Then they threw their crowns before the throne saying, 11 ‘Jehovah our God, You deserve all glory, honor, and power, because You created everything… they were created and exist because of Your Will.’ ( Rev 4:10-11)


"Jesus said to him, "Go away, Satan! Scripture says, 'Worship the Lord your God and serve only him.'" ( Matthew 4:10 )


Very clear inst it? Jesus saying DIRECTLY that we worship God ONLY.

And we see an angel saying to give praise to God alone:


And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. ( Rev 18:1 )....................And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed [are] they which are called

unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. ( Rev 19:9-10 )


Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. ( Rev 15:4 )


"There is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5).


Note we see that God alone is to be worshipped. Jesus while being divine, is an advocate with God, not God Himself.


"If any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," ( 1 John 2:1).

Again, same thing. God alone is to be worshipped.


"My glory I give to no other: (Isa. 42:8),


So, you must have no gods other than Me. ( Exodus 20:2 )



By now it should be very clear - God alone is to be worshipped - no one else.

And as this is the situation, scripture and logic do not support the trinity - otherwise we would see God saying to direct worship to Him and Jesus and His breath - but obviously this is not the case. Even if people said "Well, God is Jesus and God is His breath, then it makes no difference". Well, we have seen that Jesus and Gods breath are two other distinct things. Jesus is a separate being. Gods breath comes from God, but is not a person - its an enabler. And God says nothing about His breath having a personality in His word.


The trinity is purely a man-made doctrine/dogma without any credible logical or scriptural evidence. Gods word does not support such an idea. When we look at poor Bible translations, we find incorrect word usage and poor translation, which can be twisted to support an man made doctrine. The next section deals with Constantine and his supposed Christian behaviour.



5. Emperor Constantine



- Who was he?

- Was he truly christian?

- His role in trinity

- Did Christianity become Christendom and thus the new Imperial Cult?



(a) Emporer Constantine I lived between 280 - 337 AD and ruled a significant empire covering a large area of europe and asia.

See for more detailed information.


He is credited with making christianity the state religion of Europe and enshrining the trinity as the core belief of christianity. He was supposedly "converterd" to christianity during the battle of Milvian Bridge where he supposedly saw the "XP" sign in the heavens and so he ordered all his soldiers to put this symbol on their shields and was consequently successful in defeating Maxentius to become the sole emporer over Europe and asia, and thus credited the god of the christains for his victory.


An interesting point is the "XP" symbol on the soldiers shields that constantine commanded the soldiers put on their shields after his famous "vision" at Milvian Bridge. This symbol is accurately called a Laburnum. Some people think this meant the first two letters of Christs name, but rather it was just a symbol ( again, another example of Constantine making himself look close-ish like a christian ) to rally his troops behind. The ‘XP’ symbol can be considered the symbol of a pagan sun-cross.


From :

"The Greek word for Christ is Christos and the Greek lettering is Χριστος. The first letter 'Χ' (chi, shaped like the St. Andrew's Cross) and the second letter 'ρ' (rho), form the monogram of Christ (Chrismon). It also became the monogram of Constantine. Coincidentally, the labarum was similar to an existing pagan emblem used as a standard by the Roman cavalry. Constantine was the Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the classical Roman Pagan religion. So it's easy to see why he warmed to the symbol."


It is also said that Constantine saw a "flaming cross" - see


What you notice immediately is that not only did God command us never to make idols ( like crosses ), but also that the flaming cross looks remarkably like a sun-cross. See


So we ask it conincidence that a pagan emporer, a master politician just happened to have a vision of a flaming cross, a cross in front of the sun, which would then really make it very similar to a sun-cross, and then command something different like a Chi-rho ( XP ) laburnum be painted on the soldiers shields? And since Constantine was Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the roman pagan religion, and a known sun god worshipper the evidence is starting to show Constantine may not have been christian. It is also important to point out that even these days, many politicians have been known to create an appearance of faith, only for this camoflage to be removed later, and they are shown for who they really are.



The core question is - was Constantine a Christian?


(b) Many people point to Constantines church building work and the making of christainity the state religion as proof that Constantine was in fact christian. We find that when we look deeper at what constantine behaved and how he treated people gives us clues. Constantine did build churches, a notable one being the however the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre under an appeal from his mother. But because Constantine gave money to build a church, does this mean he is christian? In fact, Constantines mother Helena was christian, and according to many historical sources, it is said Helena converted Constantine to christianity.


However we know that Constantine was only baptised on his deathbed. In fact coins have been found dated close to Constantines death carrying the sun insignia on them - a strong hint Constantine was still a sun worshipper. In addition to this, Constantine ordered the execution of his wife and son - which is not an act of a christian as it would violate the Commandment of "Thou shalt not kill".


Based on historical documents, we can safely say that while people think Constantine was christian, he was not.


He aligned himself with Yahweh the God of the Bible superficially, in order to grow his empire and to harness the structure of the newly formed christain church for ease of administration of his empire.


Based on speeches by Eusbius, we can also see that Eusbius never actually called Constantine a Christian, but instead hinted at it and around it, which indicates Constantine wanted the appearance of Christain, but as he wasnt, could not be labelled as Christian. Eusibus too would have had moral issues labelling someone as Christain when all indicators were the person was not. Obviously, had Constantine been Christain, he would have announced it loudly in his court, but it never happened publically as far as we know. Again, this is another strong pointer to Constantine not being Christian.


The 30th anniversary of Constantines rule was celebrated by a long speech by Bishop Eusbius in constantines presence, and Constantine was labelled publically ( and by Constantines consent ) as in effect an actualy replacement for Jesus Christ, with Constantine referred to as "saviour".

See Page 35-Page 42 "Constantine versus Christ" by Alistair Kee, 1982, ISBN 0334002680


This is not heresy - this is just what is recorded in history.

Obviously, as Constantine in effect replaced Christ as Gods representative on earth, as outlined in Eusbius's speech in front of the court and Constantine, and since no christian would EVER claim to be Jesus Christ, this is another strong pointer to Constantine not being a non-Christian.


Rather this is someone who linked himself publically to the God of the Christains for his own political purposes and to allow him to harness the existing structure of the Christain church for ease of administration of the empire. The giving of money to build churches would have given people the appearance of Constantine being christain, but giving money to build a church does not make someone christian. It would have further enhanced his camoflage of appearing christian, and this would have made his adminsitration of the empire easier if people thought Constantine was "a christian, someone like themselves". This is shrewd politics and clever management.


Additionally we also see that since the church became protected under constantine, the church also had to "come to the party". IN effect this means some trade-off of integrity before God to suit the demands of the pagan emporer. Bishops were given land and power and made secular administrators of areas, in effect becoming part of Constantines secular administration apparatus.

The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions and is supported by Augustine. See


Obviously we can see that Augustine who made significant efforts into codifying the concept of a just war, directly breaks the Commandment of not killing.

We can see how the concept of a just war would allow the clergy to justify the emporer doing whatever he wanted, and this is another example of how the church traded its integrity before God to do the Emporers bidding. At this point, the emporer has become more important than God, so in effect elevating the emporer to be an idol.



(c) So what role did Constantine take in actually creating the trinity as we know it?


Now that we have established fairly clearly that Constantine was not a christian, but rather right up until his death a sun worshipping pagan, we can understand how he could have allowed the Trinity to be created in 325 AD. Around this time the Arians lead by Arius a bishop ( who had anti-trinitarian beliefs ) and Athanasius also a bishop ( who had trinitarian beliefs ) started a public dispute about which belief was correct. Neither side conceded ground so Constantine who wanted a united empire convened a council in Nicea of all the Bishops to settle the matter.



The key here is unified - Constantine was a pagan and a politician.What he needed was unity and since it didnt concern him about accuracy of Gods word, he obviously didnt care what form unity took. In other words, constantine likely would have signed anything that all bishops agreed on, in order to stop their fighting amongst themselves.


Since Constantine was pagan ( as we demonstrated earlier ) and a politician, he would have wanted unity. And since he was also using the church as his main method of administration, he needed unity to gather taxes etc. Logically it then makes sense that when the Nicene Creed was presented to Constantine to "sign off" as official church doctrine, its likely he would have breathed a sigh of relief and signed it.


Accuracy of Christain belief would have mattered little to Constantine - he craved unity and needed it badly, and as he wasnt a christian so he didnt need accuracy of understanding of Gods word.

And so the Nicene Creed was born.



(d) Did Christianity become the new Imperial cult?



The Imperial Cult was worship of the Emporer as a diety. see

As we have seen in previous sections, Christianity traded its integrity to become the protected religion of the empire under Constantine. When it moved into this new role, it became Christendom, not Christianity.


See  :


"The term Christendom has been used to refer to the medieval and renaissance notion of the Christian world as a sort of social and political polity. In essence, the vision of Christendom is a vision of a Christian theocracy, a government devoted to the enforcement of Christian values, and whose institutions suffused with Christian doctrine. In this vision, members of the Christian clergy wield plenty of political clout. The specific relationship between the political leaders and the clergy can vary but, in theory, national or political divisions are subsumed under the leadership of a church institution.


This vision would tempt Church leaders and political leaders alike throughout European history.

Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 to order the government to stop the persecution of Christians, and convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 whose Nicene Creed included belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church", possibly an interpretation of the Great Commission, see also Constantine I and Christianity. Christianity became the state religion of the Empire in 392 when Theodosius I passed legislation prohibiting the practice of pagan religions. The orthodox Church gradually became a defining institution of the Empire."


As we know, politics is a science of compromise and seems to regularly show poor moral behaviour. Consequently, by becoming in effect an instrument of the state, the church became Christendom and instead of following the Bible, slowly drifted into following the Emporers polical whim. We can see this in Augustines "Just War" and the regular moral issues facing churches who get involved in politics.

As we have shown, this becomes pretty obvious when you read up on the issue, as Constantine became in effect the substitute for Jesus Christ, then people would have seen Constanine as "divine", and his church as his instrument. If Constantine was seen as divine in being the substitute for Jesus Christ, then this would from a trinitarian perspective, the worship of Constantine in the new Imperial Cult.


Naturally people in Christendom are quick to disagree with this, however as we have documented writings, i.e. the Bishop Eusibus giving a speech with Constantine present at the speech ( "The Life of Constantine" ) close to Constantines death. The interesting thing about this speech is that it was given in the Emporers presence, so it would have been approved by the emporer.


This speech marked Constantine as the "saviour", so can there be any doubt that Constantine was now the head of the new Imperial Cult? Remember that Constantine was a pagan, and to be worshipped as man-god would have many uses.


So now we have the early church taken over from within - its understanding of God had distorted into an un-Biblical trinity.Constantine was now in place of Jesus Christ as the early christian worlds "saviour", with Christendom now doing Constantines’ bidding and involved in imperial politics by its own consent.........

In less than 4 centuries, satan had perverted the early church into a political being, with a false christ ( Constantine ) and un-Biblical beliefs ( the trinity ).


Now putting things in perspective, see

"[Constantinian Shift] ......This phenomenon is known as Caesaropapism. In its extreme form, such critics say, Christianity became little more than a religious justification for the exercise of power and a tool in the expansion and maintenance of empire, a Christian empire, also known as Christendom.

Augustine of Hippo, who originally had rejected violence in religious matters, later justified it theologically against those he considered heretics, such as the Donatists, who themselves violently harassed[citation needed] their opponents."


Before him, Athanasius believed that violence was justified in weeding out heresies that could damn all future Christians.[1] "


We also see this : See

"Some modern historians suggest that the tactics of Athanasius were a significant factor in his success. He did not hesitate to back up his theological views with the use of force. In Alexandria, he assembled a group that could instigate a riot in the city if needed. It was an arrangement "built up and perpetuated by violence."[16] Along with the standard method of excommunication he used beatings, intimidation, kidnapping and imprisonment to silence his theological opponents. Unsurprisingly, these tactics caused widespread distrust and led him to being tried many times for "bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason and murder.[17] While the charges rarely stuck, his reputation was a major factor in his multiple exiles from Alexandria. He justified these tactics with the argument that he was saving all future Christians from hell. Athanasius stubbornly refused to compromise his theological views by stating, "What is at stake is not just a theological theory but people's salvation."[18] He played a clear role in making the Constantinian shift a part of the theology of the church."


From Athanasius, we now see the clear beginnings of Spanish Inquisition type of thinking. While this is only one person amongst many, it is concerning to us.


Add to this Augustines morally corrupt doctrine of "Just War" and we must ask serious questions of Christendom.

"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ( Matt 5:39 )


What is included here is purely to show how fast the rot set in after Christ left earth for heaven.

So why should bishops of the early Christendom do such a thing? This is not christian behaviour.



6. Secular Power and the early church's losing its way


- Developement of un-Christian traditions


Its worth a short section on the role of the Bishops in the early church under constantine. Obviously the bishops were now signed up to the trinity doctrine, so we ask now what were the spritual fruits of the Bishops?



"Constantine also played an active role in the leadership of the Church. In 313, he issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christian worship. In 316, he acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), to deal mostly with the Arian controversy, but which also issued the Nicene Creed, which among other things professed a belief in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the start of Christendom. "


"The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty of maintain orthodoxy.[52] The emperor did not decide doctrine—that was the responsibility of the bishops—rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[53] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine. This precedent would continue until certain emperors of the fifth and six centuries sought to alter doctrine by imperial edit without recourse to councils, though even after this Constantine's precedent generally remained the norm.[54] "


So we now find a blending of politics and religion - Christendom is born. Consequently, despite the statement that the "bishops determined issues of faith", in real terms, the emporer was the overall controller of the faith. No longer would the word of God be taught as it was, rather it was taught in line with the Emporers wishes, and man-made doctrines frequently altered the meaning of Gods word (e.g. the trinity, apostolic succession, praying to saints etc ).



"By the late first and early second century, a hierarchical and episcopal structure becomes clearly visible; early bishops of importance are Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Irenaeus of Lyons.


This structure was based on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession where, by the ritual of the laying on of hands, a bishop becomes the spiritual successor of the previous bishop in a line tracing back to the apostles themselves.


Each Christian community also had presbyters, as was the case with Jewish communities, who were also ordained and assisted the bishop; as Christianity spread, especially in rural areas, the presbyters exercised more responsibilities and took distinctive shape as priests. Lastly, deacons also performed certain duties, such as tending to the poor and sick."


Not once in the Bible is "Apostolic Succession" EVER mentioned. Christain communities of course have elders and those who assist the congregation, but never was there to be apostolic succession. Apostolic Succession is purely a man made doctrine. The laying on of hands is a purely physical practice intended to publically proclaim the successor of a Bishop.


I have included this so anyone can see how rapidly the "churches" who labelled themselves "christian" were moving away from the unchanging Word of God.


Surely we see how quickly the church has allowed man-made un-Biblical doctrines to become important. With this devlopment comes a movement away from pure worship of the Word of God. And of course once this begins, as Jesus said :


"Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?" ( 1 Cor 5:6 )


.......and it did. The leaven is un-biblical man-made traditions.

When you wonder "how did we get to such a state, when we look carefully at church history, we can see how the church drifted from the Word of God.



7. Conclusion.


- summary



We hope you have enjoyed reading this article on the trinity. We have tried to make it cover as much material as was needed, without going into unnecessary detail.


The key points are as follows:


(1) Not ONCE is the trinity EVER mentioned explicitly in any Bible

(2) God cannot lie.

(3) Yahweh the God of the Bible is a God of order - He would not create a mess called the trrinity, based on just the basics of what we know about Him.

(4) Ancient triads of gods and Neoplatonism has created a pagan foundation for the trinity idea to sprout from

(5) The Bible always says that God is God ALONE. Never has Gods word said anything else. -- scriptures required in earlier sections

(6) The idea that Jesus and Gods breath are members of the trinity cannot be supported by Gods word.

(7) Constantine has been shown to be highly likely to be pagan ( a sun worshipper ) right up until his death , and used christianity as his new administration framework for

the empire. Constantine never once decalred himself a christian in any recorded writings.

(8) Constantine required unity to maintain order in his empire. As he was a pagan and master politican, he would have been content with signing decrees that stabilised his

empire - in this case we point to the evidence that the Nicene Creed did this.

(9) Constantine committed many un-christain acts including murdering his wife and son. Constantine provided money for churches, but this does not prove he was christian.

(10)Constantines vision and use of the Labarum ( the "XP" symbol ) doenst prove he was christian. 40000 soldiers with him did not see the same vision - odd....

(11) The early church became in effect part of the official state administration - the church traded its independance and integrity before God to change into Christendom.

(12) Many post-Nicene writers like Augustine provided writings that un-Biblically gave the emporer the moral "authority" to wage war and kill.

(13) Many man-made traditions ( like the trinity ) crept into the church and are un-Biblical and false and against Gods word.

(14) Not ONCE is the trinity EVER mentioned explicitly in any Bible





8. References



A note on references -


Where possible all articles quoted in this document have been quoted from articles included in the section above. All efforts have been made to ensure as high degree of accuracy as possible is attained. However, it is upto the reader to independently verify everything. Most web based articles ( like those in wikipedia ) have been created using other books etc.


As always, do your own research to verify all things - as we are told :


"Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good." ( 1 Thess 5:21 )


This means check what is said/written, and compare it to Gods word. Amen.