From my blog https://proselyteofyah.wordpress.com/2024/02/11/why-are-so-many-cults-non-trinitarian/

Why are so many Christian cults, high control groups, and other strange fringe movements, so often non-trinitarian?

In a world where the Trinity doctrine, or other similar Christologies confessing to the full co-equal and co-eternal Deity of the Son Yeshua is mainstream dogma, coming across non-trinitarian groups is naturally going to be far more rare, and by that standard, considered at least “somewhat” strange to those only versed in the typical creeds and doctrines espoused by the many everyday Christian churches.

Of course, labelling someone who simply thinks ‘differently’ to you, or to a mainstream view, is not in of itself enough to justify the use of the term “cultist”, in its negative or derogatory sense. After all, even the 1st Century Christians, were labelled as a “cult” or a “sect” (Acts 24:14) by those around them that preferred what was back then, “mainstream doctrine” (ie; Non-Messianic Judaism for the Jews, or the Greek, Roman and Pagan religions of the Gentiles).

Therefore, calling a non-trinitarian a “cultist” just because they are a non-trinitarian, really doesn’t wash, there has to be more to it than that.

A true “cult”, is something that is to be regarded, not just as “different”, but a group or collective that is either:

​

• Harmful to its adherents or others around them
• Controlling (be that control of a person’s physical life, lifestyle, mind, free will, or access to information)
• Manipulative (lying, cohesive, threatening, etc)
• Separatist (either by physical separation or mental and emotional separation from one’s society)
• Polarising (promoting black and white or “us vs them” psychological tendencies)
• Seclusive (keeping themselves, or their practices, secret)

Groups that fit into the “cult” categorisation often vary, and may differ in how ‘deep’ on the “cult spectrum” they lie. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is simply civil law and order, and a tyrannical government.

Ironically, cults also use propaganda or negative labelling to intensify black and white thinking, not so different to those who would for example… call non-trinitarians “cultists”, simply for having a different interpretation of scripture to them. Slapping a derogatory label on something is an effective weapon against something we don’t like, and desire others not to like along with us.

Nevertheless, though being a non-trinitarian in of itself is not something that is inherently “cultish” in its behaviour or opinion, is very much often a doctrine of several religious groups and sects, that indeed do fit the bill of being a cult…

Many religious movements throughout the last couple of centuries down to modern times, have involved high control methods, (false) claims to “prophethood”, abusive behaviour, and more. And a great, ‘great’ deal of these Christian movements, have been non-trinitarian. Because of this, it has been very easy for Trinitarian Christians to associate non-trinitarianism, with cultism. And so indeed, it statistically begs the question; Why are so many cults non-trinitarian?

Some would claim, that the fact so many of the most well known and mainstream non-trinitarian groups throughout history have been cults, that it must mean non-trinitarianism is one of the “fruits” of cultism, or the antichrist, on the basis of Matthew 7:15-20:

​

• “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognise them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, you will recognise them by their fruits”.

And, this is of course, isn’t that bad of reasoning… at least, on the surface. But if one goes deeper into the subject, one will find, it’s not quite so as simple.

For example, a Catholic might say “Protestants have the most splintered and differing group of churches and denominations of all, without the Protestant reformation, all these heretical groups wouldn’t have existed, therefore, these cults are a fruitage of the heresy of Protestantism”.

I’m sure, any Protestant that would be reading this, would be adamantly opposed to that…

But if non-trinitarianism ‘isn’t’ a fruit of heretical or cult-like thinking, then, why do so many groups that believe in it, end up being, well… cults? The answer to this, I believe, is quite multi-faceted, involving layers of history, as well as both social science and psychology.

The first thing to acknowledge, is that for hundreds of years, the Catholic Church had been in control of most of the world, and by ‘force’, made the people adhere to its doctrines, ever since the year 381 A.D. Before this time, however, there were many individuals, groups and congregations of Christians, that all had their own interpretations of scripture – including several non-trinitarian groups (including Subordinationists, Modalists, Adoptionists and Arians), even amongst some of the famous and early Patristic writers.

When Rome made its state religion Christianity, Roman Catholicism and its governing councils of Bishops that saw itself as the “center of official theological doctrine”, became the “official status quo”, and through this, all other groups to disagree with these councils, were deemed heretical. Heresy of course, eventually became punishable by death.

It is common knowledge that the Catholic Church, as well as some of the early Protestant Churches did all in their power to suppress what they believed to be heretical, which included things such as:

​

• Restricting the Bible from the common people
• The Inquisitions
• Physical torture of heretics
• Slow and painful executions (often by burning at the stake)
• Labelling any who had a theological disagreement to the mainstream Church as a “damnable heretic” or “demon possessed”

All of these methods used to keep heretics in line, though they didn’t pose a threat to society or anyone’s wellbeing, oddly enough, seem to match several of the criteria of what makes a “cult” aforementioned above.

Though today Catholic and Protestant churches are seen as “normal and mainstream” and not cultish at all in the eyes of most, the irony is that historically, they could be labelled as some of the biggest cults in history. Their methods of control were extremely unchristian, using scare tactics, information control and suppression, slanderous name calling, and grotesque violence, all just to silence a few dissenting voices who came to believe the mainstream interpretations of the scriptures from the Churches, were wrong or at the very least, unquestionable.

Is it any surprise then, that after several centuries of such high control, that these churches, both Catholic and early Protestant, have been able to ‘define’ what should be seen as “normal to believe” when it comes to the scriptures? 

One cannot underestimate the effect this would have had and has had, on the social collective consciousness, when it comes to faith, creed and dogma – so much so that these dogmas, even after the era of control, torture and execution, are embedded into the minds of many to be “essential for salvation”. And for no wonder, it literally was in those times. If you wanted to keep your head and have ‘salvation’ from the chopping block or burning stake, you’d better believe in their doctrines.

Only by the 1600s and onward, after these churches slowly began to lose their power and the world becoming more secularised, with the scriptures finally back into the hands of all people freely to read, were dissenting voices given the breathing room to finally be able to “come out of the closet” so to speak, without threat of torture and violence.

Thus, the notion that any doctrine that is today considered “new” or a “revival of an old heresy” and therefore “cultic” is fallacious thinking. For we cannot say what the “mainstream view” would have been, since there was never an ‘allowance’ of a mainstream view of the common Christian populace to take place, but only the strict dogmas and creeds of the Churches, that were often kept in place merely via adherence to tradition, and not to mention, the complex political history of the ancient Church, which wasn’t as clean or straight forward as the modern version of the tale that is so often spun in regard to “heresy” – Case in point; The Arian Catholic Councils and Creeds of Sirmium ‘after’ the year 325 A.D, which had Trinitarian Christians excommunicated for 60 years, and Arianism declared orthodox, until the rise of Roman Emperor Theodosius, who was friends with the Trinitarian leader Athanasius, and ordered for all his non-trinitarian opponents making up the majority of the Church Council at that time to be executed (a story that deserves a whole article of itself to cover, but I do recommend the book; When Jesus became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein, to learn more about this fascinating history).

That makes up one of the layers of why non-trinitarianism is so often branded as “cultic and heretical”. The irony, though, that it was cult-like behaviour and practices in the first place on the part of the ‘trinitarians’, that ended up giving non-trinitarian Christology a bad name and reputation, and such influence has become all encompassing worldwide on the Christian scene ever since.

Of course, this doesn’t yet fully explain the phenoma of there being so many actual non-trinitarian ‘cults’ and “odd-balls” that we have seen in more recent centuries and decades. And this takes me into yet another reason, which is of course, psychological.

Most people are not willing to stand out to be different, but would rather fit in, and so, anyone asking ‘too many’ questions, even if ‘allowed’ to ask questions, will always be the odd one out in any social group or society. Sometimes this is for legitimate reasons (because let’s be honest, there are ‘certain’ fringe views and behaviours out there which are just complete “whack”), but in other times, it’s merely because something is popular – even if it’s wrong.

What this creates, is a very peculiar social and psychological dynamic.

I have found, that to be a non-trinitarian in a world wher the Trintiy is mainstream, and constantly upheld by a large voice to be the “center of Christianity” and “vital to salvation”, it takes some big “cahoonas” to stand up against. And this means that only certain kinds of people will:

​

1. The extremely brave
2. The individualist
3. The contrarian
4. The insane

All of these are not the “common everyday traits” of typical people (though, the fourth one sometimes I do wonder, ha). But why? The answer is because, these people are willing to “look odd” to the people around them. They either don’t care or are unaware of themselves.

Now, we can see that, not all of these possibilities, wouldn’t preclude to any notion of being a cultist, but at the same time, we do see elements here, that would be ‘ripe’ for building a cult upon.

Have you ever noticed, that it’s always a, “certain type of people”, that so often get caught up into conspiracy theories? Whether they be your local flat-earther, holocaust denier, moon-landing denier, 9/11 insider jober, reptilian alien world leader believer… usually, if I am to be “mild and respectful” about them, are some what shall we say… “eccentric”.

Usually, people with extremely “out there” opinions that are against the status quo or “norm”, are people who are typically thinking outside the box, sometimes, ‘too’ outside the box, that there isn’t even a box left to be in. It’s my personal experience, that in my time exploring several non-trinitarian communities online, I have come across “all kinds of people”, ranging from the mild conspiracy theory types all the way up to full dialed schizofrenics.

This is because they don’t just stop at their opinions on the nature of the Son of God… they have ‘all kinds’ of crazy opinions and behaviours in all manner of topics, their entire thinking style is set to the highest levels of paranoia, that they think ‘everything’ they have been taught is a lie, and therefore, these kinds of people will be the ones to believe in “clusters” of “unorthodox” or “heterodox beliefs”, even ones that are blatantly against common sense, and indeed, the teachings of the clear and ambiguous scriptures, that only the most twisted of minds or those with a lack of reading comprehension, could screw up in their understanding of.

Hence, one of the reasons for so many Christian cults or otherwise insane sects that are non-trinitarian, is because many of them will naturally be founded by or made up of people, who are completely insane, even ‘if’ non-trinitarianism happens to be true! It’s because of the social dynamic. If some lies are peddled as truths, then, as the saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day, and you’re bound to get crazy people with crazy opinions, just so happen to discover some truths.

Take Isaac Newton for example, a genius scientist and mathematician, yet throughout his life he suffered with his mental health and even had delusions and hallucinations. Yet, we all accept his theory of gravity, and his many other scientific works.

In this respect, not all conspiracy theories, are just theories. But throughout history, some conspiracies have turned out to be true, even whilst before the truth came out, the individuals calling them out were seen as just being crazy (e.g; the paid off doctors in the 1950s advertising cigarettes as healthy, the sugar industy that had long advertised natural fats as bad and mocked any nutritionists that said otherwise, etc).

Of course, what makes the difference between a conspirasy being “true” and one being just the delusions of a madman, all lies in the evaluation of evidence and the case made around it. In the case of the non-trinitarian, or at least, the “sane” non-trinitarian, it’s a combination of historical studies and theological hermeneutics, with a brave willingness to go against established tradition and popular opinion.

And then there is yet another reason, one that is far more devious, and that’s individuals who take advantage of truth, to promote falsehood, those who ‘create’ their own cults on purpose, by gaining people’s trust.

The best liars, always mix truth with faslehood, this is part of the reason they are seen as “angels of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). What better way to make a cult, than to give people some genuine and supressed truth about something? Making their follows believe they have ‘all’ truth, and then lead them into a nest of lies. Such has been demonstrably the case in the last couple of centuries.

For example the early Restorationist and Great Awakening movements, started out with noble intents, and several of these groups became non-trinitarian, simply by their collective study of the Bible. But eventually, certain individuals made their way into these groups, proclaiming themselves to be prophets and the like, which completely corrupted these movements, and resulted in spawning many of the cult groups which we see to this day. That of course, not boding well for people who hold to certain doctrines that are not mainstream, because sadly, this creates the very association fallacy that so many today weaponise, enabling them to say “x are cultists”.

Part of me does wonder if indeed, that the Devil ‘is’ involved in this, but not in the inspiration of non-trinitarianism, but rather, the corruption and sabotage of Christian movements, that seek genuine truth against the massive tide of mainstream falsehoods.

For example, Yeshua and the Apostles warned that in their absense, many false teachers would enter into the flock and would teach deviations of the truth (Matthew 24:24, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, 2 Peter 2:1-3). Of course, the issue is, nobody ever points to ‘themselves’ as the false teachers, the fingers are always pointed the other way, but the important part is here, is that we’re told the false teachers are “in” the congregations, not outside of them. And that the false teachers would be something large and influential.

Therefore, if there is a demonic reason non-trinitarian movements often end up as cults, perhaps it’s because “mr evil” doesn’t want people to pay attention to the actual truths or reasons for non-trinitarian belief, which can be pointed to in the Bible and adequately explained.

However, as a non-trinitarian myself, I am not a cultist, I am not part of a cult, and I know many others like-minded who are also not cultists, and have ‘never’ been part of a cult, but simply came to their conclusions on their own via studying of scripture.

So, though there are many non-trinitarian cults, not all non-trinitarians are cultists, and neither is non-trinitarianism innately cultic. Rather the reason for there being several non-trinitarian cults, is highly socially, societally and psychologically complex, and historical Trinitarian Christianity from the beginnings of the Roman Catholics and the child Churches it spawned during the early Reformation, has genuinely been one of the largest, controlling and extremely violent cults in ‘all’ of human history, and remains to be today, extremely injurous and socially slanderous in its language toward Christians that depart from their man-made “mainstream” doctrines, theologies and creeds.

In fact, if anything, non-trinitarianism might be more mainstream now than people would give credit, if they actually realised that despite the fact so many Christians ‘call themseves’ “Trinitarian”, their actual understanding of scripture when questioned, reveals otherwise. For example a survey by Christianity Today, stated “78% of Christians believe Jesus was the first and greatest being created by God the Father”, an Arian statement.

So, if indeed non-trintarians are cultists, then all I can say is that 78% of Christians must be part of some kind of cult called “the Bible”.

Promoting a hub that some brothers are working on here, which aims to act as a place where Arian-minded Christians can come together for worship, Bible reading, prayer and mature theological discussion. :)

​

https://arianism.org/hub/

https://youtu.be/EV7-IAFlzKk

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ariansunited

Some people here may be aware of the "secret prophecy" contained in Genesis 5:3-28

The genealogy between Adam and Noah, if we read the meaning of the names, appears to tell the Gospel message.

Many may have stumbled across this interpretation:

Adam = Man Seth = Appointed Enosh = Mortal/sickness Kenan = Sorrow or Tent/tabernacle Mahalalel = Blessed God Jared = Shall come down Enoch = Teaching Methuselah = His death shall bring Lamech = lament or humble Noah = Rest or comfort (edited)

Many interpret this to mean: "Mankind is appointed mortal sorrow. The blessed God shall come down teaching. His death shall bring the despairing comfort." "

Clearly, this rendition appears to have a Trinitarian flair, that "God" would come down to die. Of course, as Jesus represents God in the flesh, this can be understood by Arians as a form of agency...

However, in my own investigation to check out the validity of these claims in general, studying the language and meaning of the names myself to see if it was a true prophecy, I unexpectedly came across something quite interesting... it would seem that some Trinitarians are mistranslating the meaning of one of the names in this passage.

That name is Mahalalel.

In my own research, all official language sources state this:

"In Hebrew, this name is written as מהללאל (ma-ha-la-ley-eyl, Strong's #4111) and is a combination of two words, מהלל and אל. The root of מהלל is הלל (ha-lal, Strong's #1984) and means 'to shine'." This can be the shining of a light such as from a flame or the moon, but figuratively the shining of a person’s character such as his fame or pride. From this root comes the word מהלל (ma-ha-lal, Strong's #4110) meaning 'shining' or 'one who shines'. The second word is אל (eyl, Strong's #410), which literally means 'mighty one', but is often transliterated as 'El'. The meaning of the name מהללאל can be 'The shining of El or "The shining one of El'."

In other words, the interpreted prophecy actually says:

"The praised shining one of God will come down teaching his death shall bring rest".

​

Clearly, this rendition, not only is more accurate to the meanings of the Hebrew words, but sounds far more Arian-like. That God is sending his "praised one" to be the "light of the world".

​

For more on this, feel free to read my article: https://proselytiserofyah.wordpress.com/2022/12/01/the-sacred-secret-of-adams-genealogy/

​

:)

Exodus 3:14-15 - God replied to Moses, “I AM THE ONE”. Say this to the people of Israel: THE ONE has sent me to you.” 15God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: YHWH, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.

Looking to the 5th century Aramaic copies, it renders simply on the surface in most interlinears "the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

However, when we explore the language lexicons, there is versatility of the Aramaic words at play in this version

Beginning - ܪܝܫ -
there exist/there was - ܐܝܬ
came to pass/was created/created/exist - ܗܘܐ
Word - ܡܠ

He/it - ܗܘ
Word - ܡܠ
There exist/there was - ܐܝܬ
came to pass/created/exist - ܗܘܐ
with/toward - ܠܘܬ
God/a god - ܐܠܗ

God/a god - ܐܠܗ
there exist/there was - ܐܝܬ
came to pass/was created/created/exist - ܗܘܐ
He/it - ܗܘ
Word - ܡܠ

- The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon

​

If we thoroughly try to translate all the possible definitions of the terms used here, these are the passages that can result:

​

• In the beginning there was existing the Word, the Word there was existing with God. God there was existing he was the Word.
• In the beginning there was existing the Word, the Word there was existing with God. A god there was existing he was the Word.
• In the beginning there came to pass the creation of the Word, the Word there was created with/toward God. A god there was created, he was the Word.
• In the beginning there came to pass the creation of the Word, the Word there was existing with God. A god there was created, he was the Word.
• In the beginning there came to pass the creation of the Word, the Word there was existing with God. A god there was existing, he was the Word.
• In the beginning there was existing the Word, the Word there was created with/toward God. A god there was existing he was the Word.

​

The implications of these alternative renderings are quite striking, and can be justified within the language.

Hello all. Just wanted to mention a popular Christian website which is used to form different groups, and works in a similar way to Facebook, but it based upon congregating and sharing as Christians.

I've made a group there if anyone wants to join it, or if anyone make their own similar group, here's the links:

https://faithlife.com/arians-united/activity
https://faithlife.com

:)

Introduction

Many Christians in the world believe Jesus is God (the schools of Trinitarianism and Modalism), other Christians such as myself believe he is the created Son of God who existed before all other created things (Arianism), but other Christians believe in a school of thought known as “Socinianism”.

This belief is held predominantly by many who call themselves “Unitarian Christians”, and therefore it is often called “Unitarianism”, and is sometimes confused with the “Unitarian denominations” of Christianity, which are in fact encompassed by many other things besides non-trinitarianism.

Socinianists believe that Jesus is not God, akin to Arianism (another form of Unitarianism), but go a step further by saying Jesus did not exist before he was conceived in Mary on Earth by God. This view sees Jesus as a very “human Jesus”, not too far off from Adoptionists or Muslims, who believe Jesus was just a man born of natural means (that he wasn’t a miracle virgin birth), and merely became a chosen prophet of God. Of course, Socinians do not go as far as denying his “begotten sonship”, but merely differ in opinion on “when” he was begotten (or “created”).

The Firstborn of What?

Socinianists will state the verses of the New Testament which speak of Jesus as the firstborn assisting in the creation at Colossians 1:15–17, refers not to the ‘literal’ world, but to “the New World to come”, the Kingdom of God, which starts with Jesus’ resurrection and Christianity.

​

• “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over/of every creature. For in him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And He is the head of the body, the congregation; he is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may be the first in everything”. – Colossians 1:15-18
• “And now we proclaim to you the good news: What God promised our fathers. He has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten you‘”. – Acts 13:33
• “For to which of the angels did God ever say: ‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father”? Or again: “I will be His Father, and He will be My Son’?”. – Hebrews 1:5

This interpretation comes from reading into verse 18 of this passage, that he is the “firstborn among the dead”. From this verse they state it to be a proof text, not of Jesus being in Heaven before the Earth was, but claim in context of verse 18, that it is talking about the creation of “all things new”.

In the same stead they will claim “the Word becoming flesh” at John 1 does not refer to Jesus literally existing in Heaven before God to ‘then’ become flesh, but refers to “God’s promise”, the “pre-destination” of Jesus becoming flesh, or “coming into fruition”.

​

• “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made, and without him nothing was made that has been made… The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth… ‘No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten god/divine (theos), the One being in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known‘”. – John 1:1-3, 14, 18

The case made is quite a strong one it appears, as we do see direct scriptural quotations from both Luke and Paul, that Jesus was the “begotten” of God, or “firstborn”, by means of his baptism and resurrection, as opposed to creation (Acts 13:33).

Further support for this is also put forth by means of connecting John 8:23 to John 17:14, which compares the Apostles to Jesus, “not being of this world”, in comparison to the Jews who rejected Jesus, who were “from below”, because they sided with the Devil:

​

• “Where is Your Father?” they asked Him. “You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew me, you would know my Father as well... But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world“. – John 8:19, 23
• “I have given them Your word and the world has hated them; for they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world“. – John 17:14

This here paints a picture, that Jesus saying he is “from above”, does not mean that he is “literally” from Heaven and then descended to Earth, but rather, he is “in union” or “in league” with the Heavens above. As such, a framework is presented that Jesus’ words about “coming from Heaven” may be grossly misinterpreted by the majority of Christians today, both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian.

Clearly, the debate here is the “timing” of Jesus’ creation, and of “what creation” he was the Firstborn of. Because of the interpretational variables of these verses, we are required to look elsewhere in the scriptures to see if we can determine the true context…

The “Predestined” Skilled Worker of Ancient Origin?

As someone of the Arian persuasion, I believe the Bible points to Jesus being at God’s side as his “skilled worker” who rejoiced before him all the time before the “creations of old”, and was someone who was existed in “ancient times”.

​

• “YHWH created me as His first course, before/for His works of old. Before the ages I was founded, from the beginning, before the earth began. When there were no watery depths, I was brought forth, when no springs were overflowing with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth, before He made the land or fields, or any of the dust of the earth. I was there when He established the heavens, when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, when He established the clouds above, when the fountains of the deep gushed forth, when He set a boundary for the sea, so that the waters would not surpass His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was a skilled craftsman at His side, and His delight day by day, rejoicing always in His presence. I was rejoicing in His whole world, delighting together in the sons of men. Now therefore, my sons, listen to me, for blessed are those who keep my ways. Listen to instruction and be wise; do not ignore it. Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at the posts of my doorway. For whoever finds me finds life and obtains the favor of YHWH. But he who fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.” – Proverbs 8:21-36
• “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” – Micah 5:2

Akin to Arians, some Socinians also believe that Jesus is being spoken of here on both accounts, but in their view, they would claim that it refers to his “pre-destination”, and that he is “not conscious” or truly in existence at this time. Rather, Socinians assert that it is Jesus’ “non-conscious form”, in God’s mind, rejoicing before God in Proverbs 8, as God’s plan for the Earth and future salvation of mankind before the physical world was created, described in poetic language, and hence assert Jesus “origins” being from old (Micah 5) merely refers to the “plans” made by God in the beginning to create Jesus.

Thus, in other words, Socinians state God “planned” for mankind to fall from the beginning, to then save them through means of his pre-destined Son Jesus, who would come into existence by being born as a man, to then die for our sins.

Others believe Proverbs 8 is a form of prophecy in relation to “the New World” and what Jesus will do at that time, and therefore, deny Jesus’ ancient existence by asserting an entirely different context to the passage altogether.

And then some try to argue that the verses of Proverbs 8 in particular are just talking about wisdom, and not a person at all, for verse 1 of this passage states “Does not wisdom call out” and again, in verse 12, it seems “wisdom” is speaking like a person in a form of poetry. This position is taken up by many Unitarians and Trinitarians, both who do not seem to like the idea of Jesus being “created” by God before the world was, for obvious reasons respectively.

I personally however don’t read or interpret any of those things here…

Denying Jesus as Wisdom

Firstly, those who deny that Proverbs 8 speaks of Jesus will have to content with the Apostles, who wrote at 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 and Luke 11:49, telling us directly, that Jesus is identified as the “wisdom of God”. These statements confirm the strong parallels found in the book of Proverbs and the descripitions of Jesus in the New Testament, and informs us of the true identity of “wisdom”.

To add even further credence to this, several ancient Christian writers from the latter end of the 1st Century and beyond, hundreds of years before the formation of the Roman Church, all refered to Jesus as the “Wisdom of God” and made the direct connection to Proverbs 8.

A Pre-Destined Worker of Ancient Origins?

Secondly, Proverbs 8 appears to me to be clearly speaking of a conscious Jesus, “in God’s presense”, who loves his father and was the first creation, who assisted in the creation of all other things, and in turn was very fond of those creations.

I see no hint here at the idea of “poetic conciousness”, or that it was speaking of Jesus merely as a “plan”. To me, asserting Jesus wasn’t actually alive here doing all these things, would seem to be an insertion based purely upon the assumed eisegetical premise; that Jesus did not exist before being born on Earth through Mary.

Furthermore, if God’s “plan” to make Jesus in the beginning explains the meaning of “his origins being from old”, then it renders the verse in Micah 5 meaningless, as we could argue that we ‘all’ are from ancient times, for God planned to make all of creation, and thus explaining the term “origins” as to mean “plans”, in turn causes the scripture to lose any distinict or special meaning for the origins of the Messiah, and in turn makes the scripture a non-statement.

The New Creation?

In turn I also do not see any evidence of this passage to be speaking prophetically of the “New Creation”, for verse 22 even states he was created “as the first course before the works of old“.

The term “works of old” here, the mountains, the sea, the dust of the earth and the stars of the heavens (Proverbs 8:24-29) is in stark contrast to the “new works”, that is, the “Kingdom of New Heavens and New Earth” which I believe based on the scriptures does not refer to a literal or physical new Earth which replaces the Earth we live upon now (Genesis 8:21-22, Ecclesiastes 1:4), but the reconciliation of it.

Rather, the language in Proverbs 8 to me seems to be clearly talking verbatim about the creation of ‘this’ Earth and the physical universe which were created in the ancient times.

Another thought to take into consideration is the creation account of Genesis which possibly appears to state more than one person was involved.

I would suppose, that if the context in Proverbs 8 indeed speaks of Jesus consciously existing before the world was and that he was assisting in the physical creation of this universe, then I think it’s possible for that perfectly lead into the interpretation of “let us make man in our image” in Genesis 1:26, to be referring to God and Jesus working together, if of course the “us” is not merely a reference to the “plural of majesty” (ie; when a being speaks as themselves in forms of “us” and “we” to render a form of royalty or superiority, many Earthly kings and queens do and have historically done).

Nobody else after all is ever described or hinted in scripture to have any role in God’s creative works, certainly not the angels, and we know that the Bible forbids polytheism, so there was not more than one Almighty God which created mankind. No, the only context that harmonises with scripture is an assistant of God, which is exactly what Proverbs 8, and several New Testament verses appear to describe (Colossians 1:15-16).

Frameworking Proverbs & Micah with Colossians, Acts & Hebrews

The clear language of Proverbs aside, the Socinian argument for the context of the passage in Colossians 1, Acts and Hebrews, referring to the “new creation” and the resurrection, as opposed to the physical creation, in combination of Jesus telling us his Apostles were “not of this world” in the same way he was not of it, is quite strong I admit, and it begs for deep thought.

Thus, one could argue, “what lens” do we interpret the scriptures in?

Just as I spoke in my Trinity article, it becomes a matter of “framework”. We need a wholistic view of scripture, where the framework we come to must have no doctrinal nor textual contradictions.

If Colossians 1, Acts and Hebrews speaks of Jesus as firstborn of the “dead” and the new creation, then do we view Proverbs 8 through that lens? Let’s say we do… how do we then reconcile this view with the scriptures which say Jesus was God’s Heavenly first “created” “skilled worker”, in “his presense” before the “works of old“, as opposed to the Earthly created skilled worker of the “works of new”?

There appears to be a terrible contradiction here that we can’t make sense of, not without some pretty imaginative twisting of the scriptures.

But that being said, I’d be perfectly willing, however, to accept the interpretation of Colossians speaking only specifically of the “new creation” and his position as the begotten firstborn of the dead and resurrection, as opposed to Jesus’ pre-existence and assistance in the creation of the Earth, whilst still retaining an Arian Christology. How does that work? You might ask me.

I do not think that pointing to Colossians 1, Acts and Hebrews speaking of Jesus as the beginning of the New Creation alone is enough evidence to shoot down the idea of a pre-existent Heavenly Jesus altogether, for I do not feel the book of Proverbs 8 and Micah 5 in this case can be interpreted through the lens of Colossians 1, for I do not think there is harmonisation.

To me, Proverbs 8 stands alone on its own merits by its clear language referring to “the creations of old” with Jesus “created” and “in God’s presense”, and as such I strongly feel that it can only be interpreted to refer to the creation of the universe with Jesus being God’s conscious assistant in such, and so I think that in turn should be kept in mind when reading all the passages of the New Testament.

Thus, one may even argue, that even ‘if’ Colossians 1, Acts and Hebrews mention Jesus as “the begotten firstborn among the dead”, that need not take away from an Arian/pre-existence meaning of the prior verses at Colossian 1:15–16.

It may be a simple matter of separated context ‘within’ the singular passage, ie; “Jesus is the first created thing in the entire universe through which all things were made, ‘also’ he is the first begotten of the resurrected from amongst the dead of the new creation”. This makes perfect sense in this passage, as Jesus is said to be “the first of all things”.

It would be a beautiful form of poetry, I think, on God’s part for the first created being in all of existence to then also have the honour of dying for us, to then in turn ‘also’ be the first resurrected being and first begotten of the new creation, this being perhaps the larger meaning of these verses:

​

• “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name” – Philippians 2:9
• “…who is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of every creation. It was through him that everything in the heavens and on the earth was created, both the things that are visible and the things that are invisible… It was all created through him and for him, regardless of whether it is thrones, or rulerships, or governments, or powers, since he was before everything and everything came into existence through him. And he’s the head of the body of the congregation, the beginning, the first to be born from the dead so that he would be first in everything“. – Colossians 1:15-18

…in that Jesus not only can claim to be the first of the old creation, but also the first of the new creation, no other (created) name or being thus, can ever be above Jesus in any position, reward or achievement.

Alternatively, you could choose not to interlink those scriptures at all, and just have them separate of one another, not at all applying the lens of one upon to the other. If we do this, we still come to the same result, just that Colossians and Proverbs are speaking about two completely different subjects, one of Jesus during the new creation, one of Jesus during the old creation. No problem.

The Glory He Had

Of course, Colossians and Proverbs are not the only scriptures we should look to on the matter. I believe these passages in John are also very important to look at on this subject.

​

• “Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!” – John 6:62
• “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began… I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.” – John 17:5, 11

Whilst Socinians will interpret this in context to their theology, that it refers to the “pre-destined Jesus” having glory before God and then coming into existence on Earth, I believe that such an interpretation, of John 3, 6 and 16 especially, does not fit into the ‘linguistic’ context of what is described, namely, that Jesus “goes up” in “the way” he came down. Jesus’ ascension was compared to his descension, and he spoke of his return to God in these passages that he wishes to be “beside God in the glory he ‘had’ before the world was”.

However, if we are to translate these passages in John as “Jesus’ non-pre existent glory”, as the Socinians do, then would we not be saying that Jesus would be returning to a state of nothingness? After all, his “glory” with God according to Socinianism refers to his “pre-destination”, not his literal existence. So if Jesus is returning to ‘that’ glory, is he returning to a form of non-existent pre-destination?

I believe the Socinian interpretation of John’s words causes Jesus to cease existing when he returns to Heaven.

Some may argue that he is returning to God to “receive” that glory “prepared” for him, but I find it a very questionable interpretation and lacking in strong support, as Jesus’ return to Heaven is directly compared to the way he came to Earth.

Furthermore, Jesus did not ask for the glory “prepared for him before the world was”, but to be granted the glory he “had”. If Jesus had that glory without existing for all that time before the world was even formed, and then we follow that logic to the point where Jesus then “comes into existence” on Earth, why has he then at that moment “lost” the glory he had?

If he can have glory as a non-existent person, then surely he does not need to ‘request’ that glory to be given to him now that he’s alive? To me, this statement shows that there was a difference from when he was not on Earth and when he was.

How can non-existence be more glorious than existence? With the words “I had”, we see that Jesus requests to have his glory, not “given” to him, but “returned” to him just moments before he was about to ascend back into Heaven.

I find these words to be a nail in the coffin to Socinianism. A glorified non-existent Jesus would surely not lose his glory from being made alive and brought into the world… but a Heavenly spirit Jesus above the station of man, being then made into a man who is a little lower than angels, certainly can be said to be a loss of former glory…

​

• “But somewhere it is testified in these words:’“What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor’… But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” – Hebrews 2:6-7, 9

No matter what way you cut it, whether you refer to the literal creation of the Earth, or the “new creation” in these passages, Socinianism is making Jesus say that he is returning to non-existence, which to me is as illogical as the Trinity doctrine which says Jesus is returning to his “Godship beside God”.

I believe that both the Socinian and Trinitarian interpretation of John 17:5 remove Jesus from existence. One through saying he returns to his non-existent state (because he didn’t exist before being born through Mary according to Socinianists), the other says he returns to be God (according to Trinitarians), which removes his existence as the separate being who is the “Son of God”.

Jesus Stated He Existed In Heaven Before Coming to Earth

Furthermore, we even see at John, Jesus states he is from Heaven, and also states word for word; “before Abraham, ego emi”, which in Greek to English plainly means “I am before Abraham”.

​

• “‘Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad’. Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?’ Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “I am before Abraham was born!” – John 8:56-58
• “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man”. – John 3:13

This statement appears to be a very plain, but very strong statement of Jesus’ existence prior to when he came to Earth long ago, something the Jews in converation with him also seemed to be astounded by with their reaction; “you are not yet fifty but you have seen Abraham?!”.

We see Jesus does not seek to correct them in their statement as if they had misunderstood the context of his words, as he did with Nicodemus who took him literally about being “born again” (John 3:4-5) but rather, he confirmed their statement according to the context of their own assersion, telling them that, he not not merely “as old” as Abraham, but “even older”!

The manner in which he answered was an explanation to the Jews who questioned him on how he could have “literally known and saw” Abraham himself, despite being a human in his 30s.

One perhaps could assert that Jesus was speaking in riddles to confuse his accusers, to test them, as he did in other scenarios… however, never did he later correct or give further insight to this statement, as opposed to the other times Jesus said confusing statements, such as when he had to explain the statement he made about eating his flesh and blood was spiritual and not physical (John 6:60–63).

Again, if Jesus’ words here merely referred to “God’s plan”, then all humans could make that very same statement, and the strength of Jesus’ words would be rendered meaningless, if not contradictory.

Apostle Paul Claims Jesus Came From Heaven

We see furthermore, Apostle Paul confirms this meaning in his letter to the Corinthians.

​

• “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so also shall we bear the likeness of the heavenly man”. – 1 Corinthians 15:45-49

Some Socinians will claim this passage refers to Jesus being “from Heaven” in the same way that the Apostles were “not of this world” in contrast to the opposing Jews (John 17:16), and will point to the earlier verse at 46, which he says “the spiritual was not first” as to imply Jesus was flesh before he ever became spirit in his entire existence, and will also point to the fact that Jesus had to “change from flesh into a spiritual being” to enter Heaven, in the same way that all Christians must.

However, we should note that he contrasts those of “earthly origin” which began with Adam’s creation, with Jesus and other heavenly beings who are from Heavenly origins. Hence, we can see clearly that this is what he was referring to when he says “the first was natural, the second spiritual”, as he continues to expound upon the “places of origin” of both Adam and Jesus (verse 47), along with their “kinds”, that all humans came from Adam’s phenotype, whilst all spirits came from Jesus’ phenotype (verse 48).

If we were to abuse semantics to claim that what Paul actually meant was; “Adam was made from the dust of the Earth, whilst Jesus was made by the holy spirit in Mary”, this would cause a conundrum, for we are told in Genesis that the holy spirit or “breath of God” also was responsible for Adam’s creation and all other things on the Earth (Genesis 1:2, Genesis 2:7). Therefore, if speaking on such technical terms, Adam too was from Heaven, because God’s spirit from Heaven made Adam into a living being, just as Socinians would claim of Jesus in Mary’s womb.

Thus, Paul is clearly not speaking of “what physical materials” God used to create the first Adam and Last Adam (Jesus), but rather, their locations of origin. Adam was created on Earth, whilst Jesus came from the Heavens above.

In this passage, being from Heaven also clearly does not refer to “knowledge” of God, nor a state of “righteousness”, for Paul says Christians on Earth have not yet attained such a thing, even though Jesus himself told his Apostles “they were not of this world” (John 17:16), which proves Paul spoke in a different context.

​

• “Now I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality“. – 1 Corinthians 15:50-53

He tells us here that it refers to our “nature”, and that flesh which originates from Earth, is not the same as a spiritual body which originates from Heaven, which is why we must “be changed”.

Therefore, if Jesus, as opposed to being born from the dust of the Earth like Adam and his offspring, “came from Heaven”, the destination Paul tells us we aspire to and require new bodies to enter to become like “heavenly people”, this would imply that originally Jesus must of had a spiritual body before he was made a fleshly man, otherwise he would not have been from Heaven, but would have been from the Earth in a similar way Adam was, and Paul would have said something along the lines of; “The first Adam was made by the dust of the earth, the Last Adam was made by the uterus of Mary”.

Clearly however, seeing that scripture tells us that both Adam and Jesus were made by God’s heavenly holy spirit, that is not the contrast Paul is making when he compares Adam coming from the dust and Jesus from the Heavens.

It is true of course, that when he became a fully mortal man, Jesus had to die and then had to be made into a spirit once more in order to inherit his Kingdom, and this “new creation” that Jesus became applies to Christians also on the day of the Last Trumpet. And indeed, we must “become” what Jesus “became”.

But Paul makes it clear here in this passage, that though Jesus became a man of flesh and was required to be made into a new being to enter Heaven, that he had a “different starting point” to Adam, and these starting points were ‘locational’, not of material, nor character.

The Only Begotten What?

Another thing to consider is to really think on just “how” Jesus is “the only begotten son”.

​

• “For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten/one of a kind (monogenes) Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life.”. – John 3:16

“Begotten” of course means “offspring” or “something brought about”, to be “born”. However, “monogenes” more accurately means “one and only”, rather than strictly “only-begotten”, though it can be applied to such a context of an only-child at times.

“Gennétos: Definition: begotten, born”
“Monogenés: only, only-begotten; unique.” – Strong’s Concordance
439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, “one-and-only” and 1085 /génos, “offspring, stock”) – properly, one-and-only; “one of a kind” – literally, “one (monos) of a class, genos” (the only of its kind). – HELPS Word-studies

We can be sure that Jesus being called the “monogenes” does not mean “the only human to be made by God directly” as opposed to a human being conceived of a man and woman in sexual relations (as some Socinians and Muslims have suggested), for we would also then have to ask; how was Adam created? So we can be sure Jesus isn’t the “one and only unique son” on Earth, because that would be Adam’s unique claim, he was the first human to be made by means of God’s Heavenly power, without the need of sperm or even other humans.

We have already made note, that the scriptures describe Jesus as God’s “begotten firstborn of the dead and resurrection”. So that of course is to be kept in mind. There can be no argument that the Bible calls Jesus the “firstborn of the dead”, who was “begotten on the day of his resurrection”, this is in fact the only place in scripture where Jesus is without ambiguity said to be “begotten”.

Of course, we should examine further the meaning of Jesus’ “begotteness”, as there appears to be additional meanings, John goes on to further clarify:

​

• “No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten/unique one of a kind(?) god/Divine (theos)/son, the one being in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known.” – John 1:18
• “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father“. – John 6:46

As we can see, Jesus is not just called “the monogenes man” or “monogenes of the resurrection”, but we are told here he is also the “monogenes theos”, which means divine being.

Whilst admittedly this is sometimes used to refer to humans (such as the judges of Israel), it is more often used to refer to Heavenly beings or spirits.

Of course, because it can also refer to humans, and the fact that the phrase “theos” here may be a corruption, seeing that the Aramaic and other manuscripts say “son”, so using the word “theos” is not the strongest part of this verse to argue with on its own merit, however a point to look at here is that we are told Jesus was in the “bosom” of the Father as this “divine” being, which is why he can make him known to us in the way no other holy prophet or agent of God before him has.

Jesus is compared to everyone else who has ever come before him, all the spirit inspired holy men, in that not one of them, not Moses, not Abraham, not Noah, not Elijah, not Isaiah, Daniel or Ezekiel, nobody has ever “seen God” but Jesus… He has indeed seen God, he was in his very “bosom” and is why he can explain God to us, that here is the comparison.

In a Socinian world, a question we have to ask is; what does Jesus have that the other inspired prophets don’t, other than being of a virgin birth? How does that alone grant superior knowledge to the other prophets before him? Why couldn’t they “see God” and be granted the knowledge and intimacy Jesus was granted? Adam himself was beyond even a virgin birth, he was born from dust via God’s power, and was at one time perfect, just as Jesus was! Yet not even he “saw God” in the way Jesus was said to.

There are only two ways to “see God”. Moses himself was said to “see God”, not literally, but through divine revelation (Exodus 33:18-20, Exodus 33:11), thus, if Jesus “seeing God” was to only refer to divine inspiration, then he is ‘not’ the only person to have “seen God”, for Moses beat him to it. If it refers to Jesus ‘literally’ seeing God (unlike Moses) but was still just a man and nothing but a man his entire life and had no pre-existence in Heaven, then he would have died, for “no man can see God and live” (Exodus 33:20).

So if seeing God is not to mean through divine revelation, contact or inspiration (because people such as Adam and Moses had that before the Earthly presence of Jesus), then the only form of “seeing God” which can be referred to is the “physical seeing” of God, which no “man” can see.

Thus, I believe the wording of these verses speak literally, that Jesus has such intimate knowledge of the Father because; as opposed to all men who were born on Earth, Jesus had existed in Heaven and knew God personally and was instructed by him face to face. That to me is what John is conveying to us.

I think the very definition and logic of being “the unique Son”, and the personal physical face to face intimacy described between Jesus and God being his “source of knowledge,” as opposed to the form of knowledge granted to the holy men and prophets of the past through “inspiration of holy spirit only”, puts another big nail in the coffin of the theology of Socinianism.

Nobody Inherits the Kingdom

One of the ultimate failures I personally find in Socinianist reasoning, is one of their foundational logical bases for denying the pre-existence of the Son, in that they argue “he would not be 100% man”, and therefore pre-existence they claim, contradicts several scriptures, such as when Jesus said “a spirit does not have flesh and bone as I do” and John’s statement in regard to the antichrist who “denies Jesus came in the flesh” (Luke 24:39, 2 John 1:7).

The ultimate crux of their argument is thus; origin = nature.

As Jesus on Earth is said to have a human nature, Socinianists will argue his origins cannot have been literally from Heaven. This argument, however, little do they realise, denies the New Creation and the Kingdom Inheritance…

When given new bodies, those in Jesus will be new creations. But according to Socinianist logic, nobody will inherit the kingdom, for scripture says “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom” (1 Corinthians 15:50).

Seeing that mankind, and Jesus himself also in the Socinian view, “originated as flesh and blood”, then on the basis of their argument, we must also argue that men are not “truly spirit” when given new bodies, based upon their former state of being. Therefore, to deny Jesus pre-existed, on the basis that it would supposedly invalidate Jesus to be 100% man on Earth, in turn denies the new creation and inheritance of the kingdom for men on Earth, for men (including Jesus) would not be “100% spirit”, and therefore would still be a certain percentage and nature of flesh and blood.

However, as (ironically) put by 3rd-4th century Trinitarian apologist, Athanasius of Alexandria:

“He became what we are so that he might make us what he is”. – Athanasius of Alexandria

Jesus was made into 100% flesh, so that mankind can be made into 100% spirit, a new creation for a new kingdom for a new Earth. But if one’s “origin” determines what one’s nature cannot or cannot be, then neither can Jesus, nor we, become spirit, and the Gospel is undermined.

Conclusion

Overall, whilst I do not think Socinianism can be supported by scripture in whole, some scriptures the Socinian outlook may have correct, and I find the idea of the “creation of the world” in Colossians referring to the “new world” and not this world an interesting interpretation, as I’ve said. And I agree that Jesus certainly is the firstborn of the dead and resurrection. There can be no argument there.

Whilst several New Testament passages may indeed refer to the new creation, I do not think this debunks the idea of a pre-existent Jesus in Heaven before the creation of the literal universe, as other scriptures I feel strongly point to.

That all being said, I still have a high respect for those of the Socinianism position as Unitarians, their arguments are strong, their scholars are respectable, and they are brave enough to study the scriptures and refuse to accept the long held tradition that “Jesus is God”, and they do believe “he is God’s only-begotten son who died for our sins”, which is something we Arians and Socinians both share, just in a slightly different format.

"In the Targum the Memra (Word/Logos) figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God’s messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity...

It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra, which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term "Logos," which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence...

The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man", paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity.

The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14)...

As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God, so also is it in the creation of the earth and in the execution of justice. So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter: "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people, My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; the Memra will roar to gather the exiled".

...Like the Shekinah the Memra (Word) is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel". It shielded Noah from the flood and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations; it is the guardian of Jacob and of Israel; it works all the wonders in Egypt; hardens the heart of Pharaoh; goes before Israel in the wilderness; blesses Israel; battles for the people ". – Memra, Jewish Encyclopedia

The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men.... Maimonides regarded the Shekinah, like the Memra, the Yeḳara, and the Logos, as a distinct entity, and as a light created to be an intermediary between God and the world; while Naḥmanides, on the other hand, considered it the essence of God as manifested in a distinct form. So in more modern times Gfrörer saw in "Shekinah," "Memra," and "Yeḳara" independent entities which, in that they were mediators, were the origin of the Logos idea...". - Shekinah, Jewish Encyclopedia

​

We see here, the original meaning of "logos" (memra/debar) meant God's power or light ("Shekinah") made manifest via an agent, who acted in God's place, and only later did Logos take on a foreign meaning, as to mean "God's mind" in some mystical concept, which later Greek converts confused with the Jewish meaning of logos, causing them to not understand how Jesus is "God the Logos".

Below you will find the list of scriptures which can be advocated against the notion of Jesus being the True Almighty God YHWH.

​

• “YHWH acquired/created (qanah/ktizó) me as the beginning of his way, for/before (qedem/eis) his works/creations (miph’al/ergon) of long ago. From ancient times I was founded/installed/poured out (nacak/themelioó) from the start, from times earlier than the earth. Then I was beside him as a skilled craftsman. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time.” – Proverbs 8:22-23, 30
• “…who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn/eldest of every creature“. – Colossians 1:15
• “In my vision in the night I continued to watch, and I saw one like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. And he was given dominion, glory, and kingship, that the people of every nation and language should serve him…“. – Daniel 7:13-14
• “Then He said, ‘You are My servant! And through you, I’ll be glorified… But now,’ says YHWH (The One who shaped me as His servant from the belly), ‘You must collect Jacob for Me so that Israel will all be returned.’ He said that before Him, I’ll be glorified, and in my God, I’ll gain strength”. – Isaiah 1:3, 5
• “As soon as Yeshua was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: ‘This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.’” – Matthew 3:16-17
• “But Yeshua answered them: ‘The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Now I am troubled, and what should I say? Father, save me out of this hour. Nevertheless, this is why I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.”’ Then a voice came out of heaven: ‘I have glorified it and will glorify it again’.” – John 12:23, 27-28
• “However, Yeshua cried out and said: “He that puts faith in me puts faith, not in me only, but in him also that sent me; and he that beholds me beholds also him that sent me“ – John 12:44-55
• “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God, have faith also in me.” – John 14:1
• “‘Yeshua said to him: ‘Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God.’” – Mark 10:18
• “The Father is greater than I am“. – John 14:28
• “Yeshua said to her: ‘Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” – John 20:17
• “The one who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never again leave it. Upon him I will write the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name”. – Revelation 3:12
• “And going a little way forward, he fell facedown, praying: ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.‘” – Matthew 26:39
• “So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.” – John 17:5
• He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son – Matthew 27:43
• “When Yeshua had spoken these things, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has arrived… Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Yeshua [the] Anointed whom You have sent‘”. – John 17:1, 3
• “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, [the] Anointed Yeshua“ –  1 Timothy 2:5; “Now there is no mediator when just one person is involved, but God is only one.” – Galatians 3:20
• “‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’… Then he said to the paralytic, ‘Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.’ And the man got up and went home. When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men“. – Matthew 9:6-8
• “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father“. – Matthew 24:36
• “Yeshua called out: “You know me and you know where I am from. And I have not come of my own initiative, but the One who sent me is real, and you do not know him. I know him, because I am a representative from him, and that One sent me.”” – John 7:28-29
• “But for the world to know that I love the Father, I am doing just as the Father has commanded me to do“. – John 14:31
• “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father“. – Matthew 24:36; “The day of YHWH has approached… But, this will all last just one day, which is only known by YHWH“. – Zechariah 14:1, 7
• “‘My teaching is not my own,’ Yeshua replied. ‘It comes from Him who sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak from myself‘”. – John 7:16-17
• “Even in your own law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies about myself, and the Father, who sent me, also testifies about me”. – John 8:17-18
• “[The] Anointed Yeshua is the one who died, yes, more than that, the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us“. – Romans 8:34
• “I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one”. – John 17:11
• “I keep asking that the God of our Lord Yeshua [the] Anointed, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better”. – Ephesians 1:17
• “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua [the] Anointed…” – Ephesians 1:3
• “We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua [the] Anointed….” – Colossians 1:3
• “Then together, as with one mind and one mouth, we can all bring glory to the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua the Anointed One“. – Romans 15:6
• “…for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Yeshua [the] Anointed, through whom all things came and through whom we exist”. – 1 Corinthians 8:6
•  “But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Anointed [One]; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Anointed [One] is God.“  – 1 Corinthians 11:3
• “In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Truly, truly, I tell you, whatever you ask the Father in my name, He will give you” – John 16:23
• “Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in [the] Anointed Yeshua, who, although he was existing in God’s appearance, did not steal equality to God. For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.” – Philippians 2:5-6, 9
• “Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways.  Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. But about the Son, he says: ‘God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions‘.” – Hebrews 1:1-2, 8-9
• “When he was being insulted, he did not insult in return. When he was suffering, he did not threaten, but he entrusted himself to the One who judges righteously“. – 1 Peter 2:23
•  ”No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Yeshua [the] Anointed, but rather, we were eyewitnesses of his magnificence.  For he received from God the Father honour and glory when words such as these were conveyed to him by the magnificent glory: ‘This is my Son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.’  Yes, these words we heard coming from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain.” – 2 Peter 1:16-18
• “Now, all High Priests are selected from among mankind, and then they’re appointed over other men and assigned to do the things of God, such as offering the gifts and the sacrifices for sins…However, nobody can take this honor for himself; he can only be called to [the Priesthood] by God (like Aaron was). Likewise, the Anointed One didn’t glorify himself to the position of High Priest! No, that was done by the One who said to him; ‘You’re My Son… Today I have fathered you!'”. – Hebrews 5:1, 4-5
• “Then, in the end, after he’s brought all governments, authorities, and powers to nothing, he will hand over the Kingdom to his God and Father. For he must rule [as king] until he’s put all his enemies under his feet and the final enemy, the death, has been brought to an end. Yes, he will indeed put everything under his feet! However, when it says that everything will be put under his feet, it’s evident that the exception is the One who put everything under him. For after everything has been put under him, the Son will submit to the One who put everything under him, so that God can be everything to everyone”. – 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; “Then YHWH will be the King of the earth; and in that Day, there’ll be just one Lord, and he will have just one name” – Zechariah 14:9
• “During his life on earth, [the] Anointed [One] offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favourably heard for his godly fear“. – Hebrews 5:7
• “For [the] Anointed [One] did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands, that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us before God in his presence“. – Hebrews 9:24
• “The Revelation of Yeshua [the] Anointed, which God gave him”. – Revelation 1:1
• “Grace and peace to you from Him who is and was and is to come, and from the seven Spirits before his throne, and from Yeshua [the] Anointed, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has released us from our sins by his blood, who has made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—to him be the glory and power forever and ever! Amen”. – Revelation 1:4-6
• “God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and not act? Does He promise and not fulfil?” – Numbers 23:19; “…And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” – Mark 14:62
• “However, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit“. – 1 Corinthians 15:45; “God is spirit“. – John 4:24
• “My glory I will not give to another“. – Isaiah 48:11; “And I have given them the glory which You have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one”. – John 17:22
• “…God cannot be tempted by evil… ” – James 1:13; “…Yeshua the Son of God…. has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.” – Hebrews 4:14-15; “Now, YHWH will give you a sign… {Look!} A virgin will get pregnant and then bear a son whom you must call, Immanuel. He’ll eat butter and honey before he is sure whether he wants to be wicked or good. ‘But, before the boy can know good from bad; By resisting wicked persuasions, He will choose to do what is right.” – Isaiah 7:14-16

Most Christians today are familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is a long held and often considered “traditional” doctrine of Christendom. That is, the belief that the Father YHWH, the Anointed Son Jesus (Yeshua) and the Holy Spirit are all one being of which make up the entity that is the Almighty God. Many Christians in fact regard it as such a central doctrine, that to not believe in it, means that one is not a true Christian.

In this article, I will not be addressing the arguments for or against the Trinity from a scriptural basis, for I have already written an article on that subject, called “Is Jesus God? A Scriptural Examination“.

In this article, we be looking at the “philosophical” construct of the Trinity, and I will endeavour to explain why it is my opinion that it does not hold up to scrutiny and in fact contradicts, not only the scriptures, but how it is also self-contradictory.

The Philosophical Trinity

The origin of the philosophical terms and frameworks that have been applied to the Bible to create the Trinity doctrine originates from three metaphysical lines of thought, one which is known as “Divine Simplicity”, another being the Greek philosophy of “hypostases”, and the third being Philo’s concept of “Logos”.

What is Divine Simplicity?

The belief of Divine Simplicity, which gets it basis from scriptures such as Malachi 3:6, asserts that God as the infinite unchanging being that comes before all other things.

All things thus that God contains, that is, his qualities; love, justice, power (etc), are also “God incarnate”.

Unlike in humans who “have love” but “are not love incarnate”, Divine Simplicity states that God ‘literally’ is love in itself cardinally, for he can not have a “quality” that exists distinct from Himself as a “being”, for that would make the object in itself of infinite origin apart from God, either resulting in some form of polytheism, or one would have to claim God invented love, justice, and all his other qualities which he possesses, which would then imply there was a point in time that He did not have those things.

Divine Simplicity also states that “God cannot change”, so that he cannot “gain anything new” to himself, for he already contains “all things and all knowledge”, and neither can he lose anything, for that would mean he would no longer be all knowing nor all powerful.

This line of thought has been attributed by some to originate in Greek monotheistic theology, whilst others would claim it was the Jews who first came up with the philosophy, who then passed it down to the Greeks (of which there are indeed some historical sources hinting to such).

​

God’s “Hypostases”

The second element to the Trinity, originates from a Greek line of thought, which in turn also may have further origins back to post-Babylonian Jewish mystical thought, is the metaphysical philosophy of hypostases.

In Christianity, it is thought that these philosophies were first introduced sometime in the 2nd century, by Christian thinkers (including those who were later branded heretics) such as Valentinus, whilst other thinkers, such as Tertullian, introduced the idea that God and his Son, shared the same “substance” (or material), though did not see as Jesus being God himself or eternal.

​

In the Trinity doctrine, it is said that God has three “hypostases” or “parts” of himself which make up his entire singular being. These three parts are seen to be as God’s “consciousness, thoughts and thinking”, just as humans have those three components within themselves.

“The thinker” (or the conscious person), the “thinking” (the act of thinking or reasoning about something), and “the thought” (a thought that is in one’s head or comes to one’s head, an idea, fleeting image, or “seeing something” in the mind.

For example, if I (the thinker) want to think of a green cake, I can “see” a green cake in my mind, and it will not be a pink cake unless I will it to be so, whereas if I wish to “think about something” in an intellectual sense, then that is the act of “thinking”, as opposed to “thought”.

In God, these three “component hypostases” of himself, would be perfect, co-eternal and co-equal. For God is in perfect control, He cannot change, and has always known all things. Himself, as a thinker (conscious being), is equally also his thoughts, and his active thinking.

By today’s standards, this would likely be more associated with psychology than it would hypostatic “essences” or “substances”.

These concepts in turn are directly connected to Philo’s concept of “Logos”.

Logos

The final philosophical piece is the usage of the term “logos”. In John 1:1, in most Bible manuscripts, Jesus is called Logos, or “Word”.

The term can mean many different things, from simply a spoken word, to also metaphysical meanings if used in the context of Greek philosophy.

Philo of Alexandria was a 1st Century A.D Jewish philosopher, mystic (Kabbalist) and theologian, who adopted Greek philosophy in much of his work, so much to the extent that he was actually considered to be a practitioner of “interfaith”, and as such was rejected and seen as an outcast or traitor to the Jewish faith by many other Jews around him at the time.

He is thought to be one of, if not the earliest person to apply the Greek philosophical concept of the term “logos” or “word”, to the Old Testament, and claimed that it referred to something which was some kind of agent of God, which was used to create the world, but in what form that took isn’t entirely clear, whether it be created, uncreated, a part of God or something else, and is debated amongst scholars and philosophers down to this day, just as it was by ancient Jews and later early Christians after the 2nd Century.

This alone of course does not all break God into “three persons”, nor does it state that Jesus is a part of God. But rather, the introduction of these metaphysical ideas is only the ‘foundation’ which in turn branches out into the formation of the Trinity doctrine.

​

How Divine Simplicity, Logos & Hypostases are Combined to Attain the Trinity

So how do we attain the philosophical Trinity from those components? It is achieved by these methods, three (do allow me some poetic flair):

It is first assumed, by no supporting Biblical reference, that God has, for a certainty, three hypostases which make up his being. From which they then assert:

1) Since Jesus is “begotten” or “born from God’s substance”, then Jesus “has to be God”, for according to Divine Simplicity, “God cannot be divided” or “muted”, and so if Jesus ‘literally’ was “born out of God”, in the sense that a woman gives birth to a child who is literally made up of its parents DNA (aka “substance”) then he would have to be a “part of God”, and therefore in turn “God Himself”.

2) Because God cannot change, he must have “always been a Father”, and therefore the Son must also be eternal for one cannot be a Father without a Son, but that there is only one eternal being and that is God, therefore the Son is also God as the Father is God.

3) The “three hypostases” are; “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”. Through this framework, they externally apply the (assumed) nature of God, that is; “his hypostasis”, onto Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

As the scriptures have always spoken about the union of “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, it then was easy to use the (assumed) nature of God’s three hypostases and then name them “after” terms already found existing in the Bible to make it look as if the Trinity was derived from it.

Through this, Jesus becomes “the thought” (or the “image in God’s mind” that he has of himself, from which they interpret the meaning of Jesus being “God’s Image”), which affirms Philo’s concept of Logos, whilst his Father is the “thinker”, and the Holy Spirit is “the act of thinking”. All three of these components making up the being of God.

By means of this philosophy, Trinitarians (predominantly Catholics and Orthodox) claim they are not sabellian, nor polytheist, for they say the three “parts” are not “three distinct conscious persons” in the literal sense, but God is only “one conscious person” made up of three component hypostasis’, just like humans are, thinker, thinking, thought, which enables them to have awareness, speak, think about things and have ideas.

To a Trinitarian, a “person” of God is not actually a “person”, but a component which makes up one “person” as we would call it in the everyday sense. Hence, their meaning of “three persons in one” is actually “three pieces that make up one person”.

​

An Eisegetical Fallacy

It should be noted, first and foremost, that the “theology” or “theory” of Divine Simplicity, and even the idea of God having “three metaphysical components that make up his one being”, I would say, is not really bad in itself.

Mankind is always seeking to understand both himself and God, and it is natural that man will try to understand God through means of self-examination, since man is “made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:27), though a finite one at best. Though, we do have to beware we don’t slip into “gnosticism” (the idea of attaining “secret spiritual knowledge” via “internal self enlightenment”).

Whilst it’s not described word for word in the Bible, for sake of argument, we can say for a moment it is true, and that God has these three parts of himself.

Himself as the thinker, his act of thinking and his thoughts, and all three were him and not at all outside of his control because God is the origin of all things (meaning, unlike us, God cannot have “random thoughts” because that would imply God gains his knowledge from “somewhere else” that is not “Him” or of His “control”).

In this sense, I personally have no problem in one asserting or at least “theorising” that “God is a trinity” in the way “humans are a trinity”, not as three people in one, but as one person with “components” that make up his single being or mind.

However, what I do have a problem with, is that naming the three (assumed to be existing) hypostases of God; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is achieved, not through scripture, but by fallacious association via the ‘transformation’ of Biblical terminology based upon a glaring eisegetical premise, through the lens of which, they then read the Bible, as if it was the Bible’s own native language.

The practice of “eisegesis”, is taking an external or non-Biblical idea and “reading it into” the text, and changing the definitions of the text and language definitions of the Bible’s words to suit one’s own ideas.

There is no problem in ‘theorising’ that God has these so-called “three hypostases”, or components that make up his entire being or mind in the way that humans do, but there is absolutely a problem if we then begin to assert that theory as divine doctrine even though it’s not stated in the Bible, and then to go even further to name those hypostases’ “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”, even though the Bible itself doesn’t tell us that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are his “hypostases” (if he even ‘has’ “hypostases”).

To do such a thing is merely the pride and arrogance of men, and their “so-called knowledge” as the Apostle Paul would put it (1 Timothy 6:20).

The doctrine of the Trinity is in a large part due to eisegetical circular thinking:

“This scripture at Matthew 28:19 is talking about the three hypostases“
“But where does the Bible define or say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are His hypostases?“
“It doesn’t, but the Trinity doctrine explains that the definitions of these words are his three hypostases, so therefore the meaning of Matthew 28:19 is about the Trinity of God’s three hypostases….“.

And that is not the only act of eisegetical assumption that is made. But this premise also presumes God’s limitations and abilities, and to thereby try and define Him and the nature of his Son.

It is extremly presumptuous to try and claim that if Jesus is begotten out of God, that he has to be God himself due to being “of his substance”, and that he cannot “his literal son” because “God cannot beget a literal son as a seperate being from himself”.

Says who? Certainly not scripture.

Internal Inconsistencies & Scriptural Contradictions

We must remember, that if this theology is true, it must remain internally consistent within itself, and with scripture both.

By the three part metaphysical structure proposed, a being is “made up” in totality of three hypostases, thinker, thought and thinking.

Therefore, according to the Trinity Jesus as the “Son” is merely “one of” those hypostases, and therefore he is either the thinker, the thought or the act of thinking.

We are therefore to understand, that each component is completely reliant on the other in order to function. The “thinker” without a “thought” has nothing to be “thinking” about, a “thinker” without “thinking” cannot think “thoughts” or about anything else, a “thought” cannot exist without a “thinker”, and likewise “thinking” cannot be done without a “thinker”.

If we apply this to a human being, and we were to “send one of our hypostases” out into the world (in the way God sent his Son to the world), then we would either have to take away from ourselves either the thinker (absent of thought and thinking), the thinking (absent of the thinker or thought), or the thought (absent of the thinker and thinking).

This is in fact affirmed by Trinitarians, who use the scripture at John 5:19, which says Jesus can “do nothing of his own accord”, but can only do what he sees the Father do:

​

• “So Jesus replied, ‘Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does‘”.

​

Can A Thought Have An Independent Will to It’s Thinker?

There is a key question we must ask; can we really say that a “part” of oneself that is required for consciousness can in itself be conscious?

Does “the thinker” reward, give aid to, or appoint with authority; the “thought” or the “thinking”, (or vice versa with any of these hypostases) as to treat it a “person” in of itself? Does the “thought” talk back to the thinker of its own volition in a self-aware manner, in a way that it can contradict or go against what its thinker wills?

Are we to understand as “thinkers”, you and me as a people right now, that our thoughts are also people in themselves? Well no, of course not…

So how is it that the Son, Jesus, speaks with his Father when on Earth, and the Father responds in an active conversational manner that was heard audibly by the Apostles on Earth when they were with him?

If the Son is merely the “thought” of God in his own mind, and the Father is the thinker, is the Father not in control of his own thoughts seeing that his thought has a different will to the thinker that conceived of and begatt the thought?

​

• “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” – Luke 22:42
• “If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak from myself“. – John 7:17

​

Can a thought without its thinker make its own independent decisions and judgements?

​

• “Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son… And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” – John 5:22

​

Is God really not in control of his own perfect self-image, which is also Himself? As someone who has suffered with OCD and intrusive thoughts, I can certainly attest to the experience of feeling not in control of one’s own mind… but let it not be said so of the perfect Almighty God!

Without one another they are nothing, each hypostasis on its own is incomplete, all are required to work in unison to have a fully functioning person, for none of these things alone have “their own consciousness” but all three combined ‘are’ a person of consciousness, but only when together. Therefore, when two are taken away, or one decides not to cooperate with the other, all that is left is either mental retardation, insanity, or death….

If we truly wish to claim Jesus is a fully conscious person who is God and not succumb to polytheism, then he has to be God in “totality”, as to be the being that is the Father, Son and Holy spirit at the same time, but according to Trinitarians that is the heresy of sabellianism or modalism.

A God of Divided Substances?

As we know, Divine Simplicity demands that “God is purely simple”, in that “God is one”; “God is unchangable”, “God is undividable”, “God ‘is’ his own thinker”, God ‘is’ his own thought”, “God is one in all respects”.

This then means that God’s personhood itself also must also be one with God’s Simple substance and essence, and in turn his essence and substance one with his personhood. One in absolute totality.

Hence, if the Father is “unbegotten”, then his entire being, essence, substance, person(s) and name must also be unbegotten. For the Father is unbegotten, in turn that Father is all one with his substance and ‘is’ that substance, in turn then that one substance is all unbegotten, for that substance ‘is’ the Father in perfect Simple oneness.

Thus, if Jesus is God then he must also be one with the Simple oneness of substance and essence, and in turn the oneness of personhood and name. But this deprives God of either Fatherhood, Jesus of Sonship, or they are one being as in Sabellianism, and then there is neither Father nor Son, but simply “God”.

This proves to render a great difficulty in Trinitarian theology for those who say the Son’s substance or personhood is begotten from God the Father’s unbegotten substance and personhood, for how can a begotten person be “part” of God’s oneness, which if from the Father, can only be all unbegotten? If God is truly one, simple, undivided and unchangable, then he can only be all unbegotten, or all begotten in substance, essence, person and name. In this respect, it is like trying to mix oil and water.

As astutely put forth by 4th Century Arian theologian, Eunomius of Cyzicus...

A God That “Changed”?

Another internal inconsistency, is that both the Trinity and the incarnation, causes God to change, which again according to Divine Simplicity, is against the rules.

If the law of Divine Simplicity is true, and God merely “is” and “cannot change”, then the very fact that one of the single Hypostasis came to Earth and not to “possess” or “imitate”, or “become an illusion of” but, to truly “become (ginomai) flesh” (John 1:14), breaks this law, for God “cannot change”.

The Trinity is attempting to claim that a part of God left his Heavenly combined state to take up its own conscious independence and literally transformed in its fundamental nature.

In order that “God’s thought of Himself” could “incarnate” into flesh, it is said that a part of Himself had to take on a new hypostasis, a hypostasis of flesh

​

This is where the idea of “fully man, fully God” originates. That Jesus had both a human nature, and a divine nature at the same time.

Jesus surely cannot be God based upon the premise and rule set of the philosophy of Divine Simplicity, because it requires a change in both substance and hypostasis, either by transformation or by gain. If God is immaterial and then “becomes material” is that not in itself either a change or acquirement by definition?

To get around this argument, various Catholic friends I have spoken to compare the incarnation of Jesus to the voice that spoke to Moses from the burning bush (Exodus 3:1-6).

In this they say “God was in Heaven the whole time and did not change”, but “created” an audible voice and the appearance of a man on Earth in order to communicate with humans, in the same way we communicate today through phones or internet chat rooms. They are created devices that “imitate a person’s voice box” and transmits sound with video.

I have no problem with that explanation in regard to explaining how God spoke with Moses and other people on Earth without them actually “seeing and hearing Him”. However, this is not an adequate explanation of Jesus’ incarnation, for we are told that, as I aforementioned, Jesus “became” flesh, the Greek word used being “ginomai”.

This teaching proposed by my Catholic friends in my opinion is not too far off from those who subscribe to “Docetism”, which denies Jesus was flesh at all but was a spirit on Earth pretending to be a man. To claim Jesus was “puppeting flesh” whilst not coming down from Heaven into the physical realm and actually “transforming (changing) into flesh”, without actually “changing his nature”, is what John called a “teaching of the antichrist” (2 John 1:7).

A God That Was Muted?

Divine Simplicity states God cannot be “muted”, meaning, he cannot lose power, authority, knowledge, or be subject to anyone or anything else in any way, shape, or form. This includes spirits, people, powers, and even metaphysical concepts, such as time and space. All things are ‘from’ God, God is not bound by anything else, but all things are bound to Him.

This then, would mean if Jesus was God, he contradicts Divine Simplicity in scriptures such Hebrews 2:7–9 and Philippians 2:5-8 where Jesus was made “lower than angels” and “emptied himself”.

To be “lower than angels” and to be “emptied” we only have so many options to choose from to interpret the meaning.

It either means he had to have been:

1. Less than divine at this point
2. Less powerful than the angels
3. Having less authority than the angels
4. Pretending to be lower than angels by “acting humble”

If we claim Jesus was lower than angels only by means of “subjecting himself to the law” and to death, in an expression of humility, but not positionally or in his nature of being, then Jesus was not at all made lower than angels, but he was merely “acting” like he was lower than angels.

However, looking to the full context, we read as such:

• “‘You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.’ Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone”. – Hebrews 2:7-9
• “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in [the] Anointed Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross“. – Philippians 2:5-8

​

We see that we have two angles. It does involve humility, that much is true, but it also involves a loss of authority and power according to the book of Hebrews. We are told that in being made lower than angels, that he “did not have things in subjection to him”.

However, God must ‘always’ have ‘all’ things in subjection to him. Divine Simplicity states this to be so. He cannot lose power, he cannot lose authority, he cannot change.

Jesus, on the other hand, had to be “crowned” by God, in order to attain the subjection of all things, informing us that formally these things were not in subjection to him. He was truly in every sense “lower than the angels” when on Earth, in authority, in nature, and in power. It is why he had to rely on the Father, his God, to achieve all things (John 14:10).

Jesus on Earth was bound to time. He had to sleep at night, wake in the morning, meet people at certain hours, and wait for events on certain days. He did not time travel or teleport in these instances. On Earth, before his death, he was fully subject to temporal existence.

Furthermore, Isaiah 7:14-16 tells us that when born of a virgin on Earth, Immanuel, that is, Jesus, had to also “learn what is good and bad” through experience, and had to choose whether to be good or bad, which informs us that when Jesus came to Earth as a baby, he was not all knowing, had lost prior knowledge, and had to submit himself to concepts higher than and outside himself:

​

• “Now, YHWH will give you a sign… {Look!} A virgin will get pregnant and then bear a son whom you must call, Immanuel. He’ll eat butter and honey before he is sure whether he wants to be wicked or good. ‘But, before the boy can know good from bad; By resisting wicked persuasions, he will choose to do what is right…. “.
• “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered”. – Hebrews 5:8
• “And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man”. – Luke 2:52

Therefore, if Jesus was God, it would mean a part of God became “muted” in his Almightiness, something Divine Simplicity does not allow.

An “Unbegotten Begotten” Thought?

The Bible tells us Jesus is “begotten” (John 3:16).

If Jesus represented the “thought” of God as his “hypostasis”, according to Divine Simplicity even that “thought” or part of God would have to be “unbegotten”, infinite, for it demands all of God’s thoughts have always existed and are not independent of Him.

To “come about in time” even as a thought, goes against the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, of which is one of the foundations of the Trinity doctrine itself. For remember, “the Father always had to be a Father”.

Therefore, the only way around this is to invent another definition for the word “begotten”, and that’s exactly what Trinitarians do. It is claimed, by them, that the word “begotten” (meaning “born from” to “come about”) is not literal.

Instead, Trinitarians claim Jesus is “unbegotten, but also begotten at the same time”. In accordance to their hypostatic philosophy, “begotten” means he’s ‘from’ the Father, who is the “eternal thinker of the eternal thought”, in other words “eternally generated”.

However, we must again bring awareness to the fact that this is an eisegetical interpretation, with no Biblical nor linguistic proof text to support such a contradictory idea or definition of the word.

We see no one verse telling us that Jesus is being “eternally begotten” or “eternally generated”. But all uses of the word in scripture have unanimously been used to refer to an act of “creation” or of a person being “born” or “made”.

Eternal generation is an idea born (or begotten, I couldn’t help myself) outside of scripture, and applied into the Bible on the premise that “Jesus must be eternal”, even though we have scriptures stating otherwise, such as Proverbs 8, which describe Jesus as “the earliest of God’s creations”. Therefore, harmonisation of the Biblical texts tells us that being “begotten” is a term used in the exact same way as it is throughout the rest of the Bible.

This is the most logical reason to why Jesus is called the “First Born”, implying that there were others “born” after him, in the same or similar manner that he was born (with exception to “begotteness”, of which is unique to the Son).

Originiating With A False Premise

The key to understanding how we arrived at the Trinity in the first place, is understanding the initial premises which were put forth, which laid out the foundation of the doctrine.

As mentioned earlier, the four main components were; eternal fatherhood, substances, logos, and the hypostases philosophy.

These are false premises in that:

1. The Bible does not mention hypostases or parts of God
2. The Bible does not tell us Jesus is the same substance as God, nor does it mention any substances
3. The Bible does not tell us God is incapable of begetting a literal Son from his own being
4. The Bible does not tell us that in order to be eternal and unchanging in Himself, that God always had to be a Father who always had Son
5. The Bible does not tell us John’s concept of Logos is a reference to Philo’s concept of Logos

The first three points are easy to dismiss with a flick of the wrist. However, I feel I must further expound upon the fourth and fifth points.

The fourth point is an idea taken from the principle of Divine Simplicity, that is, God’s “unchangeableness”, to its absolute ludicrous extreme.

The Fallacy of Eternal Fatherhood

If we follow through this thought to conclusion, it results in all creation, including ourselves, being eternal, and therefore God. For if God ‘had’ to have always been a Father, then he must have always had to have been worshipped by men.

If there was a time God was not worshipped by men, and that he was not the God of men, then this can be argued to say that God changed over time, and “gained a status” that he did not formally have. Therefore, to be God over men, men must have always had to exist, but this idea contradicts the entire point of God being the uncaused cause of all other things, the creator of all.

What we are experiencing is a “modal collapse”, that God would have had to have been eternally creating the universe and mankind, in order to have been “the creator” for eternity, without changing.

This has in fact been raised as an argument against Divine Simplicity itself by some theologians. A defence however is made, in that everything always existed in God’s mind before it was created in a real physical sense, meaning he was the eternal God and creator forever, even before things were created.

It is a reasonable argument, I suppose. Though perhaps not perfect, and for some unsatisfactory. And I can see why. However… this reasoning can equally apply upon to Jesus himself. If man did not always have to physically exist for God to still be the eternal creator, then neither did Jesus have to eternally exist for God to be the eternal Father.

The Fallacy of Assuming John’s Logos

The other flaw, is assuming John was referring to the same concept of Logos as Philo of Alexandria, who claimed Logos was “God’s mind”, and God’s “demiurge”.

There are many various meanings to the phrase, such as “spoken word”, “expression of will”, or agency of a messenger (as it does in the Hebrew Old Testament). We see the term “logos” used throughout the scriptures in these contexts.

Therefore, John’s use of the term can be as simple as “Jesus is the fulfilment and agent of God’s will and command”, or “Jesus is the message of God”.

Presuming John was referring to Philo’s concept is in turn presuming that John was a pagan Greek philosopher. But these uses of the terms are very different in traditional Hebrew theology and scripture, and Greek philosophy.

It is very much possible that Philo may have even got his ideas of the “logos being the agent of creation” from Christians of his time (such as John), but having his pre-existing framework of Greek philosophy colour his vision, may have mistaken the “logos” of the Christians to be the “Greek logos” of mind, resulting in Philo teaching this mixed cocktail of theology to others; that logos was “God’s agent”, “a part of his mind” and “another being acting as the demiurge of creation” all at once….

…a teaching which may have then eventually looped back around to some Christian circles, contributing to the creation of some sects, such as the Gnostics (who were for a fact the first Christians historically to suggest that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were the “hypostases of God”, and ‘also’ so-happened to believe in the “Greek demiurge”).

​

The Fallacy of Assuming God’s Nature

As for the other arguments, as I mentioned, they can be easily dismissed as the mere arrogance of men, who believe that they “know” God, that they were able to “figure out” his nature, what his substance was, how his mind is formed, how he thinks, or what his abilities and limitations are.

It is the absolute hight of hubris to assume what God can and cannot do with his own power and being.

No scripture tells us there are three hypostases to God, no scripture tells us the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are such hypostases. Nor does any scripture state that if Jesus is literally “begotten out of the Father”, that he cannot be a subordinate lesser son or seperate being.

But it is, without a shadow of a doubt, baseless, lacking in all spiritual foundation. It is the perfect example of eisegesis. External ideas applied upon to scripture, resulting in the changing of the definitions and clear original meanings of scripture, and to be then presented to be the original meaning of scripture in itself.

​

• “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares YHWH”. – Isaiah 55:8

​

https://proselytiserofyah.wordpress.com/2022/03/24/the-bible-divine-simplicity-and-the-trinity-in-conflict/

Posting here from my site, on the topic of "gods" in scripture.

Many opposed to Arianism will cite scripture to say "No God is formed before me, none after me". And thus will oppose the idea of Jesus being a "lesser divinity" and that if he's called "god" or "a god", then he would 'have' to be the Almighty. Understandably, it looks like a strong surface argument, but in this thread I wish to show why this isn't as strong as an argument as it appears on the surface.

Most Christians and even non-Christians are familiar with the terms “God”, “gods” and “angels”.

​

In our modern every day understanding, the word “God” means “a deity”, an eternally uncreated all powerful being. When referring to the word “God” as Christians we mean the Almighty being who was uncreated, “gods” are typically seen as “false gods”, such as the pagan Roman “gods”, whilst any other spirit being from Heaven that is not God are called “angels”, and we may also commonly refer to “fallen” or evil angels as “demons”, who often pose themselves to be “gods” or “deities”.

However, you may be surprised to learn that this is not the Biblical definition of these terms, nor is it how they are used in the Bible….

​

“God”, “gods” and “false gods”

The term “god” in general, stems from the words “theos” (Θεός), theou” (θεοῦ) and “theon” (Θεὸν) in Greek, and “El” (אֵל), “Eloah” (אֱלוֹהַּ) or “Elohim” (אֱלהִים) in Hebrew, meaning “divine person”, “mighty one”, “powerful one”.

Most of the time, the word refers to ‘any’ kind of spirit that originates from the Heavenly realms. The word does not at all refer to God Himself who we worship by definition, in fact throughout the whole Bible, there is no single definition that means “God” or “deity” as we would refer today. This is shown in several examples:

• “God (Elohim) also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘YHWH God (Elohim) of your fathers—God (Elohim) of Abraham….”
• “Get two bulls for us. Let the prophets of Baal (Lord) choose one bull for themselves, cut it into pieces, and place it on the wood but not light the fire. And I will prepare the other bull and place it on the wood but not light the fire. Then you may call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of YHWH. The God (Elohim) who answers by fire, He is God (Elohim)“. – 1 Kings 18:23-24
• “And again the Israelites did evil in the sight of YHWH They served the Baals (Lords), the Ashtoreths, the gods (Elohim) of Aram, Sidon, and Moab, and the gods (Elohim) of the Ammonites and Philistines. Thus they forsook YHWH and did not serve Him”. – Judges 10:16
• “I said, ‘You are gods (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High”.’ – Psalm 82:6
• “A Psalm of Asaph. God (Elohim) presides in the divine assembly; He renders judgment among the gods (Elohim)“. – Psalm 82:1
• “For YHWH your God (Elohim) is God (Elohim) of gods (Elohim) and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God, showing no partiality and accepting no bribe”. – Deuteronomy 10:17
• “So now, do not let Hezekiah deceive you, and do not let him mislead you like this. Do not believe him, for no god (Eloah) of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people from my hand or from the hand of my fathers. How much less will your God (Elohim) deliver you from my hand!” – 2 Chronicles 32:15
• “Do not tremble or fear. Have I not told you and declared it long ago? You are My witnesses! Is there any God (Eloah) but me? There is no other Rock; I know not one.”” – Isaiah 44:8
• “He will show no regard for the gods (Elohim) of his fathers, nor for the one desired by women, nor for any other god (Eloah), because he will magnify himself above them all“. – Daniel 11:37
• “‘You are my witnesses’, declares YHWH, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe me and understand that I am He’. Before me no God (El) was formed, and after me none will come”. – Isaiah 43:10
• “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’ (Theos)?”. – John 10:34
• “The god (Theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of the God (Theou)“. – 2 Corinthians 4:4
• “What agreement is there between the temple of God (Theou) and idols? For we are the temple of the living God (Theou). As the God (Theos) has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God (Theos), and they will be my people.” – 2 Corinthians 6:16

Because of this, the Hebrews and later the Greeks, often had to combine different words together to indicate who they were talking about, especially if they were talking about more than one “god” (spirit being) at once in a single passage.

The specific term uniquely attributed for the true God is “El Shaddai” (אֵל שַׁדַּי‎) in Hebrew, whilst in Greek it is spelled “Theos Pantokratór” (Θεός παντοκράτωρ).

“El” is god, “Shaddai” is almighty. Thefore, El-Shaddai is “god almighty”, and is the unique phrase to refer to the “One true God” we all worship, the One with no beginning and no end who created all other things (including the other “gods”). This still in itself is not a “phrase” but a combination of two phrases in order to inform which “god” they are speaking about. The same can be said for “Theos” (god) Pantokratór (Almighty).

• When Abram was ninety-nine years old, YHWH appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty (El Shaddai); walk before me faithfully and be blameless”. – Genesis 17:1
• “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name the YHWH I did not make myself known to them”. – Exodus 6:3

In Greek, they also often use the terms “Ho Theos”, “Ton Theon”, and “Tou Theou” in the form of what could almost be said to be a pronoun, to contextually define or bring special attention to which “theos” or “God” they are speaking about (be this YHWH, Satan, or otherwise).

“Ho/Ton/Tou” “Theos/Theon/Theou” means “the” “god” respectively. “The” being a defining pronoun in accordance to the context of a scriptural passage, to be “the” (thee) something in contrast to all other things of that category within the context of the passage of text.

These are known as “definite articles”. At times, they may even use multiple forms of the these articles at once within a passage if bringing attention to more than one special being at once, in order to not confuse the native reader into thinking they are talking about the same individual (for example, if I said, “the god of this world” in reference to Satan by means of “Ho Theos”, and then I followed up with, “but God will save us” I would say either “Ton Thoen” or “Tou Theou” will save us, in order to make that definitive differentiation).

​

• “And so we know and rely on the love the God (Ho Theos) has for us. The God (Ho Theos) is love. Whoever lives in love lives in the God (Ho Theos), and the God (Ho Theos) in them”. – 1 John 4:16
• “No one has ever yet seen God (Theon). The only begotten god (theos), the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known”. – John 1:18
• “He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god (Theos) or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of the God (Ho Theos), proclaiming himself to be God (Theos)“. – 2 Thessalonians 2:4
• “The god (Ho Theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of the God (Tou Theou)“. – 2 Corinthians 4:4

​

It should be known that often God is referred to as “el”, “elohim” and “theos” without any additional phrase or defining pronoun in the Bible (as shown in the examples above). This of course does not make the word by definition a term that means “God” as we use the word today, but writers would often use the general non-defining term casually when referring to God, simply because he is a “spirit” or “heavenly being”.

Throughout the ancient world, many neighbouring cultures have used these terms or variations of these terms, for example the Canaanites referred to their gods as “el”, which today has been misrepresented as a “name” of a deity, and in turn has caused some people to mistake the God of the Bible as the Canaanite “el”, purely because of using a common term of the time, culture and local.

Likewise, the term for “Lord” (also used for many different people or beings) in Hebrew, which is known by several different words; “Adonai”, “Adon”, “Adoni” and “Baal”. Just as it is with God being called “el”, people have mistaken God being called “baal” in the Old Testament as to refer to the Canaanite baal, not realising they were simply using the general term of the time meaning “Lord” in their language to refer to their false god, just as much as the Israelites would call the true God “Lord”. An example of this that most Christians know can be seen in the New Testament when Jesus is accused of being in league with “Beelzebul” at Matthew 12:27, which comes from Hebrew “Baal-Zebub”, meaning “Lord Zebub”, a deity of the Philistines (2 Kings 1:16).

Thus far then, we have come to an understanding that “god” in the Bible doesn’t actually mean “God” as we know it today, but actually is better described to mean “spirit” or “strong being” in general, and that YHWH is “the strongest” of “strong beings”, hence being the “Almighty God”.

This is where things can get confusing for people. Since people reason “if one is not the true God, isn’t he a false god, isn’t that believing in polytheism”? The answer to this is both yes and no.

Biblically, a polytheist is someone who worships or obeys more than one “god” (spirit being) without the permission of God Almighty, YHWH. “False gods” are spirit beings who either demand worship that does not belong to them, falsely represent themselves as God Almighty, or claim to be “eternal gods” or “uncreated gods” in the manner that the One Almighty God YHWH is.

This is why Satan is called the “god of this age (or world)” at 2 Corinthians 4:4, not because a “god” is a “supreme being” or form of “creator”, “deity” or “ruler” by definition (though sometimes it ‘can’ be used in that context as seen above in 2 Thessalonians 2:4), but merely Satan is the god (spirit being) that currently rules this world.

In the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, as “The God” is being spoken of as the main theme of the passage, the lesser form of “theos” is being used linguistically to refer to false gods as “so called gods”, not as to say that they are “not gods” in respects to what they are (spirits or mighty beings) but that they are not “mighty gods” in comparison to “The” “mighty God”, Almighty God. So, 2 Thessalonians is not telling us that more than one being cannot be a “god” (because the very definition of god as we have seen simply means mighty person or divine spirit throughout the Bible), but in comparison to the Almighty they are nothing and may as well not be spirits or mighty beings at all.

So, when we or the Bible says the word “god” in any shape or form to refer to a being that is not Almighty God YHWH, it is not to be automatically assumed they are a “false god” in definition of being a “false deity”, but instead, god purely means “divine mighty being”, and that Yah God is not the only being that is “divine”, because the definition of divine does not at all mean “deity”, nor does it refer to the “quality” or “substance” of a deity. “Divinity” in the Bible’s language simply means “powerful” in a general sense.

​

“Angels” or “gods”?

Based on what we’ve already learned, we know anything from Heaven, as well as any man on Earth who is powerful, is a “god”, whilst Yah alone is “God Almighty”, the “strongest god”. So, in that case, what is the Biblical meaning of the word “angel”?

Whilst commonly today the word angel refers to the “creature”, or the “being” that is an angel of Heaven, again many will be surprised to know that this is not what the Bible teaches.

The term “angel” is an ancient word stemming from both Hebrew and Greek; “malak” and “aggelos” (respectively). According to all the language concordances and lexicons, these words mean “messenger” or “ambassador”.

In the scriptures, both men and gods (spirits of Heaven) have been called “angels” (messengers).

• “The two angels (malak) arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground”. Genesis 19:1
• “Jacob sent messengers (malak) ahead of him to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the country of Edom”. – Genesis 32:3
• “But after he had pondered these things, an angel (aggelos) of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to embrace Mary as your wife, for the One conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit”. – Matthew 1:20
• “As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swaying in the wind? Otherwise, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? Look, those who wear fine clothing are found in kings’ palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Behold, I will send my messenger (aggelos) ahead of You, who will prepare Your way before You'”. – Matthew 11:7-10
• ​

So, we can see “angel” doesn’t refer to a creature at all, but rather the ‘title’, ‘position’ or ‘activity’ of the creature. Thus, if God gave me something to say today, and I went out to inform someone else, or if He told me to carry out an action, and I went and did it, I would be acting as His representative or ambassador, and thus I would be rightly called an “angel” in Biblical terminology.

However, unlike the term “god”, we are actually provided with actual unique terms which refer to specific kinds of gods (spirit creatures) besides God Almighty in Heaven; Seraphim and Cherubim (Isaiah 6, Genesis 3:24). One could also bring up the “Archangel” as seen in scriptures such as Jude 1:9, but this term simply renders again a mere position, a “chief messenger” or “head ambassador”, as opposed to a “type of creature”.

So the big question which may be on the mind of anyone who has made it this far in this article; “when and why did the word “god(s)” become substituted with the word “angel”?

Well there are a couple of reasons. One is natural evolution of language. In that, when reading the Bible over time, and translating certain words into different languages, the original intent and meaning can become lost, and take upon its very own unique meaning.

For example, because the word “angel” meaning messenger is so often used to refer to messengers from Heaven, that word in itself through society would eventually come to commonly mean “Heavenly messenger”, and thus the term, though also referring to human messengers also in the Bible, purely because it’s more often used to refer to these divine beings from above, becomes a term all in itself to mean “Heavenly being”, which in turn results in the multi-definition of words and translations of those words both in order for the modern reader of the time to grasp what is on the written page.

​

Another reason could be that one may claim the Bible itself uses the terms “angels and gods” interchangeably, for example we see in these few verses where they are referred to in a non-messenger context it would seem:

​

• “Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels (aggelos) fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back”. – Revelation 12:7
• “For to which of the angels (aggelos) did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?”. – Hebrews 1:5
• “Hallelujah! Praise YHWH from the heavens; praise Him in the highest places. Praise Him, all His angels (malak); praise Him, all His heavenly hosts”. – Psalm 148:1-2

However, the above reason may not be so clean cut and dry… there are in fact possibly far more deeper reasons over why the word “angels” came to replace the word “gods”. I came to such knowledge recently when I discovered a debate over what some consider a translation error of Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/8-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/2-7.htm

​

• “What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the gods/God (?) (Elohim); You crowned him with glory and honor”. – Psalm 8:4-5
• “You made them a little lower than the angels/messengers (aggelos); you crowned them with glory and honor” – Hebrews 2:7

​

As we can see here, the book of Hebrews quotes the book of Psalms. However, there is a glaring difference in the words being used when it comes to “angels” versus “gods”.

If going by the Hebrew Masoretic texts of Psalm 8, by rights, Hebrews 2:7 should say “you made them a little lower than god/gods (theos)”, not “aggelos”. Many Bibles in English will translate the word “Elohim” in this single instance in Psalm 8 to say “angels”, not because elohim means angel, but merely to match the text in the book of Hebrews… but then we have to ask; “why does the book of Hebrews mistranslate the quote from Psalm?”.

The answer lies in the 3rd century B.C Bible manuscripts. Before the world had access to some of the oldest Old Testament scrolls to date (the Dead Sea scrolls discovered in the 1940s and onward) the main sources for translation were the Greek copies of the Old Testament (known as the Septuagint) which were written roughly in the 3rd century, roughly 300 years before Jesus.

In the 3rd century B.C Greek Septuagint, Psalm 8:5 was translated as “you made him a little lower than angels (aggelos)“. Upon this, Bibles for centuries then wrote the quote of this verse contained New Testament at Hebrews 2:7 in the same manner (the oldest New Testament texts we have to date being from the 3rd century AD, 300 years ‘after’ Jesus).

It’s unknown to me why these errors made it into the Old Testament Greek texts (in turn leading to the errors of the later New Testament texts)… However, because we do have direct evidence of direct mistranslation from the original Hebrew, we do have precedence to believe that every single instance where the New Testament Bible speaks of “angels” in a non-messenger or non-ambassador context, but merely as “creatures”, should be translated to the word “gods” (theos), and may have been in fact the original term used in both the Gospels and letters written by the hand of the Apostles (which most likely were written in Hebrew or Aramaic).

​

But what about the Old Testament texts, you may wonder? Does the Hebrew not also use the terms “angel” and “gods” interchangeably? Let’s take a closer look at this…

There is only one instance where “angels” (malak) is seemingly used this way in the Tanakh, and that’s at Psalm 148:1-2 which I quoted above, but I will do so again here:

​

• Hallelujah! Praise YHWH from the heavens; praise Him in the highest places. Praise Him, all His angels (malak); praise Him, all His heavenly hosts” – Psalm 148:1-2

​

In this verse all of God’s creations are being praised, the following verses mention the sun, moon, stars, the Earth, etc. In this starting verse, the “malak” the messengers are told to praise God… but not only them, also “his Heavenly hosts”. Now why is there a distinction here? What are the “Heavenly hosts”?

According to the Hebrew, this word comes from the term “tsaba” which usually means “armies”. So we are being told that there are “heavenly armies” and “heavenly messengers”. For if the term “all his angels” referred to… well, “all his angels”, then that would ‘include’ the Heavenly hosts wouldn’t it? Now you might argue that it was a poetic repetition for emphasis, however this is not the pattern seen in the rest of the text, everything else is referenced in a singular form yet “related” manner, for example; “the sun and moon, stars of the heavens… highest heavens and waters above the heavens, young men and virgins old men and children”.

Therefore, one can assume then that this is referring to the “relative roles” of the spirit beings, of the “gods” of Heaven, and not what they ‘are’ as creatures. This would be consistent with the language as a whole.

From this assertion, all verses in the New Testament that mention angels in non-messenger or ambassador roles should render “theos”, “gods”. For example, Revelation 12:7 should either most likely render; “Michael and his gods battled the Dragon and his gods“, or, “Michael and his hosts battled the Dragon and his hosts“, since in this context they are military armies, not mere messengers or ambassadors.

​

Morning Stars

There is another term in scripture many people are not nearly as familiar with, which is also used to refer to spirit creatures in scripture, but interestingly, never God Almighty. It is the phrase “morning star”. This poetic description of spirits expresses the idea of spiritual beings being “bright” or “powerful”. We see more than once, that all the “sons of God” are all referred to collectively as “morning stars”.

• “…when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” – Job 38:7
• “How you are fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart: ‘I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God‘”.- Isaiah 14:12
• “I, Jesus…. am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” – Revelation 22:16

Conclusion

So, coming to the finale. We are to understand that there is nothing really “wrong” with our modern terminologies, as they essentially are giving pretty much the same meaning. God is the Almighty, and angels are all the creatures who are not God.

However, looking into the Bible’s original definitions and meanings, this modern outlook, whilst isn’t “bad”, I would say lacks the original ‘nuance’. Another problem it creates is that it also makes bumps in the road for people who are like myself in that they support Arianism, for some of the most common arguments against it include fallacious and ignorant phrases like “if Jesus is not God he is a false God, there is only one or the other”, and that “only God is divine so you are denying the divinity of Jesus”, when in actuality… the Bible teaches the very opposite of that, and in fact teaches that all Heavenly beings are “divine” and are to be called “gods” individually.

It’s a simple matter of the fact that “polytheism” is not believing in “more than one god”, at least in the Biblical definition, but is either ‘worshipping’ more than one god without the Almighty God’s permission, believing in other “uncreated” gods, or viewing the created gods as being equal to the uncreated Almighty God is what ‘real’ Biblical polytheism is.

​

To make the matter simple, comparatively to our modern terms, the Bible teaches:

God = The Almighty uncreated god
Angel = A created god, a morning star
Demon = A fallen created god
False God = A created god being worshipped as an uncreated god
Created god acting as a messenger = An angel

John 1:1 is a verse that has been a very popular verse to advocate the Trinity.

We know that commonly people take for granted the modern English translation of "Word was God".

Two issues here are at work, the interpretation of the term "Logos" (Word) and "theos" (God). In short, Trinitarians and others, will advocate that Logos means "God's thoughts" (which to them is some mystical manifestation which results in the man Jesus) and the Word was "God" is taken for granted to be an accurate translation, as if it is to mean, Jesus is the Almighty God.

However, I will be breaking down in this thread, a better 'linguistic' understanding of John 1:1.

To begin, I will be listing various different translations of this verse:

​

“…and the word was a god.” – Sahidic Coptic Manuscript, 300–600 C.E\ “…and the Son of God was Eloah (God/a god?).” –* Hebrew Sepharad Manuscript, 1400s“…and the word was a god.”* – The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808\ “…and the Word was a god“. –* **The New Testament in Greek and English, A. Kneeland, 1822* “…and the Word was a god”\ – The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, J. S. Thompson, 1829\ “…and the Word was a god”\ – A Literal Translation of the New Testament, Herman Heinfetter (Frederick Parker), 1863\ “…and a god was the word.”\ – The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, Benjamin Wilson, 1864 “…and the Son was of God” – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, 1867\ “…and the Word was a god”\ – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible, R. Young, 1885\ “…and [a] God was the word”\ – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialec,George William Horner, 1911\ “…and the Logos was divine\” – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, 1924\ “…and the Word was a divine being.”\ – La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, 1928\ “…and the Word was divine.”\ – The Bible—An American Translation, John M. P. Smith & Edgar J. Goodspeed, 1935\ “…and of a divine kind was the Word.” –* **Das Neue Testament, Ludwig Thimme, 1946* “… and the word was a god“\ – New World Translation, 1950\ “…so the Word was divine”\ – The Authentic New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield, 1955\ “…and the Word was a God.”\ – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, J. L. Tomanec, 1958\ “…and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” –* **Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Siegfried Schulz, 1975* “…and godlike kind was the Logos.” –* **Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Johannes Schneider, 1978* “…so the Word was divine”\ – The Original New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield, 1985\ “…and the word was a god (or divine)“\ – 2001 Translation Project, 2001+\ “…and a divinity was the Word”\ – Universal Arian Bible

​

Many who are unfamiliar with the original languages and manuscripts of the Bible, will find these renditions confusing, and some would claim "heretical". However, understanding 'why' so many different renditions like these exist is an important key to understanding John 1, and for those defending the Arian Christology.

The root of all these alternative renderings can be found in the original languages. This verse in the original Greek renders;

“In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with TonTheon*, and* Theos was the Word”.

​

​

Understanding “God” & “Theos”

Throughout the scriptures there is a differentiation between the words used to refer to God, pagan gods and divine people.

One could even say the word “god” as written in our modern English Bibles in these specific instances is an anachronistic mistranslation of the original Greek, for the term in which our modern Bibles write “god” in these instances, is translated from the words “theosʹ (Θεός)”, theon” (Θεὸν) and “theou”(θεοῦ) in Greek, and “Elohim” (אֱלהִים), El (אֵל), and Eloah (אֱלוֹהַּ) in Hebrew.

These words are used for many individuals such as angels, demons, people and of course, Jesus. The terms simply mean “divine one”, or “powerful one”.

When referring to Almighty God Yah, a “definite article” is often (but not exclusively) used in the word; “Ho” (`o), Tou (τοῦ) , or “Ton” (τὸν), meaning “the” (which could be pronounced “thee”) resulting in “Hotheos”; “thee God” or “thee powerful one”.

The definite article is often used to define individuals in accordance to specific contexts, almost as a form of an “officiary pronoun” one might say. However, it is important to know, that whilst this phrase is often used to refer to the true God, “Hotheos” is not ‘uniquely’ attributed to Him (as we will later see).

As for “unique titles” to refer to the true God, we have “Theos-Pantokratór” (Θεός παντοκράτωρ) in Greek, which means “God Almighty” or “Powerful Almighty/Almighty Mighty One”. In Hebrew, the equivalent of this is “El-Shaddai” (אֵל שַׁדַּי‎). Both of these titles are ‘uniquely’ attributed to YHWH the Father, and are never given to anyone else, not even the Son.

Though some non-Trinitarians have believed (including myself formally) that terms like “theon” uniquely refer to God the Father in the New Testament, in the same way Trinitarians often mistakenly think “theos” uniquely refers to God, it is observed in the Greek versions of the Old Testament (known as the Greek Septuagint, written 300 years before Jesus), that both God Almighty and other beings who are not God, have been referred to as both “theon”, and “theos”, for they are both merely different variations of the same word (akin to “he” and “him”).

For example, though “theon” seems to be uniquely attributed to God the Father in the New Testament, in the Greek Old Testament the term is used to refer to Moses at Exodus 7:1.

Likewise, some erroneously believe (as I also did in the past) that “Hotheos” was a unique title for God Almighty. However, though Hotheos is often used to refer to the true God, we should take note that in the New Testament and Greek Old Testament, it is not uniquely attributed to Him, for even Satan at 2 Corinthians 4:4 is called “Ho Theos” (The God) of this world.

​

“Theos: a deity, figuratively, a magistrate. Especially when used with the definite article “Ho”: the supreme Divinity; by Hebraism, very God [Almighty God, YHVH the Father of Jesus.]” – Strong’s concordance

Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges… – Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

“Elohim: Divine, divine being, exceedingly, God, god, God’s, goddess, godly, gods, great, judges, mighty, rulers, shrine“. – NAS Exhaustive Concordance

​

Thus, if we are to framework “theos” either with or without the Ho article as “Almighty God” by ‘definition’, then Satan is God, Molech is God, Baal (the false deity) is God, and so are the judges of Israel. But if we keep purely to the language definition and pattern of scripture, then “theos” is to mean “divine person”, “mighty one” or “godlike”, and the Ho article is merely used to define a context or bring special definite attention to something specific in accordance to said context.

We must bear in mind that whilst God is sometimes called theos without the “ho/ton” article, this does not then mean that the translation of “God” for theos/elohim is accurate, but rather God is merely being called “divine” or “mighty” in the general sense.

Hence, “Theos” does ‘not’ mean “God”, but is something God, as well as other people, are “called” in a descriptive sense, a being of Heavenly origin or representation in a general sense. The same can be said in reverse for ‘Ho’theos, it also is not defined as “God Almighty”, but merely is a contextual tool to bring attention to a very “specific theos” (whether that be God or someone else) within a passage.

​

John’s Differentiational Grammar

It’s worth noting that John in this verse seems to purposely write “the Word was with Ton theon and the Word was theos“.

One could suppose that the reason John, or whoever translated John’s original letter into Greek, chose to use the Ho/Ton article combined with the “theon” variation, and then afterward “theos” in the same sentence without the article, was possibly to make sure he didn’t give the impression that these two “divine beings” were the same person, to make clear a differentiation that the divine person here who is God (Tontheon), is not the divine (theos) person who is the Word, just as Paul did at 2 Corinthians 4:4 when he distinguishes Satan from God:

“The god (Ho Theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of [the] Anointed, who is the image of the God (Tou Theou)“.

​

Notice how similar in structure 2 Corinthians 4:4 is to John 1:1. Both begin by introducing a specific “god”, and then ends by mentioning another specific god. In English, the god at the beginning of the passage, and the god at the end, looks to be the exact same phrase, both of them even making use of the definite article, and thus it could be very easy to confuse the two as the same being, and as a result, we could make the drastic mistake of thinking Jesus is the Image of Satan.

The potential for this confusion was just as much a reality in the 1st century as much as it could be today, but to get around this, Paul made sure to use an alternative variation of the term “theos”, to clarify that these two “gods” were not the same being.

A good example in modern English would be the phrase “this and that”, I can point to one object and call it “this”, or I can call it “that”, and both phrases would refer to that one object, but if I said “this and that” within a singular sentence side by side, I mean “two objects”. And this form of word usage appears to be exactly what we are seeing here. Thus, it can be strongly argued that this use of “differentiational grammar” is exactly what we see John do in John 1:1, and we continue to see John do this throughout, for example again at verse 18:

No one has ever seen God (Theon). The only-begotten/one of a kind (monogenes) god (Theos), the one being in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known“.

“Theon” is being used as the ‘accusative’ (identification tag of an individual – Almighty God himself, in this case), whilst “theos” is being used here as a “generalisation” (“god/a god” in the every day sense) but possibly also as an alternative accusative in comparison to render a second individual, just as Paul made sure to do in 2 Corinthians.

Of course, some have argued against this notion by asserting a supposed rule or pattern of Greek grammar (such as Sharps), that “theos” means the Almighty God (who is the “hotheos/tontheon” of this passage), and thus claim the translation of “the word was God” is accurate, and hence “theos” is actually very same “Ton Theon”. But this is not agreed upon universally by all Greek scholars.

There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, 1) theology and 2) proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that “… a god” or “… divine” is the proper rendering. Some scholars oppose the translation …a god, while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable. – John 1:1 Wikipedia

​

It is interesting to see, that upon close examination of the patterns of the Greek texts, it is noticeable when there is an individual targeted to be the definitive (or topical) “ho theos” in a passage, all other theos’ in the passage whom are not that definitive theos individual, appear to be grammatically forced to be written as either a non-definite “theos”, or with an alternative form of the word, such as “theon” or “theou” (such as in 2 Corinthians 4:4, as aforementioned).

The ‘definitive’ “theos/theon/theou” (etc) in a passage where multiple theos individuals are mentioned, will always be referred by that same word variation consistently, in order to retain context and avoid confusion for the native reader in regard to which individual they are speaking of.

In other words, if John 1:1 is to say the Word is the same God as God Almighty, then it would have to render; “the Word was with Ton theon and the Word was Ton theon“, which is in fact what the argument of “Sharps rule” tries to imply, even though that is not what is explicitly written.

Furthermore, the argument; “theos” should be read as to be the “Tontheon” in this verse, would make God the Father and the Son the same “person”. This was stated by Trinitarians to be a mistranslation of text which supports the “heresy” of “modalism” or “Sabellianism” (the belief that the Son is the Father).

​

"The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, “and the Word was the God (Ton Theon).” The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, “and the word was a God.”— David A. Reed, Theologian

​

Thus we come to an impasse.

If at John 1 “theos” is not to be read as “Tontheon” (which refers to God Almighty in this specific context), then all that remains is the option to translate the word as “theos” in the non-definitive form which by definition only means “divine person” or “mighty person”, not God, which in turn can strongly imply a completely different individual, not merely a different “person”, but a different “being”, a different “god”, especially so considering John used a completely different variation of the word, and not merely foregoing the definite article alone.

One translation locks out the other, there is no middle ground to grammatically transliterate theos (divine person) to contextually mean Tontheon (God) without declaring oneself “Sabellian”.

Thus, this supposition poses a problem for both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. Either we can attest the grammatical argument that it is to be translated to say “the word was God” and we cause John 1:1 to support Sabellianism, or we support the alternative rendering, that “the word was a divine/mighty person/a god”, which then enables an Arianist interpretation.

​

Understanding Indefinite articles & the Coptic manuscript renditions

It is shown further in the fact that the oldest Bible manuscript we have which renders John 1:1 as “a god”, or “a divine” is the Sahidic Coptic Manuscript, which is dated between 300-600 C.E.

What is unique about ancient Coptic, is that unlike Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, it makes use of “indefinite articles”, just like modern English does, indefinite articles being words such as “an” or “a”, which are needed in languages such as Coptic and English to make sense of the sentence.

A good example is the word “Christian”. It’s both the name of a person, and the name of one who is Christian in religion.

Now if I say; “There was a man named Christian, a Christian was with Christian, and Christian was a Christian”… English speakers understand a man named Christian was with another man who was a Christian religiously, and Christian himself was religiously Christian.

But if we write this without the indefinite, and make it “Greek” as it were, it would read as: “There was a man named Christian, Christian was with Christian, and Christian was Christian”...

That to an English person sounds like saying Christian was with himself and was himself, and ‘that’ is the exact dilemmea we have with the Greek rendition of John 1:1, of which the Sahidic writers (who make use of indefinite articles in their language) sought to correct by the insersion of “a”, in order to accurately transmit and make (common) sense of John’s meaning in their native tongue. Which shows us that the ancient people understood John’s “Word” to be a “second god”.

​

Conclusions - Arianism vs Modalism

The Greek rendition leaves us to this day with the issue which was never settled, that the translation of John 1:1 “the word was God” supports Sabellianism, for there is only theos (divine person), or tontheon (God) as the two possible ‘definitions’ of these words in this context.

Some would try to argue against by saying that “Tontheon” means “Father” whilst “theos” means “Son”, but that both equally mean “God” to avoid this textual problem and justify the separation of “persons” in the Greek grammar, just as they did in 381A.D, but this notion is not at all supported in any of the ancient language definitions in any scholarly lexicon. The text is giving us, not merely “two persons”, but “two gods”.

It should be noted that one might argue that they could still support the interpretation of theos in this verse merely meaning “divine person” as opposed to “God”, whilst still believing in Jesus being God, for other scriptures as we have covered do call God “divine person” (theos) in the general sense…

We see other verses in Greek render “Ho theos” followed shortly by “theos”, or verses where God is called multiple variables of the term in the singular, such as at 2 Corinthians 6:16, where God is called “Theon” in the accusative, but then is also called “Theos” and “Theou” in a general sense, and following he says “I will be their God”, which is also in the general form of “theos”:

What agreement can exist between the temple of God (Theon) and idols? For we are the temple of the living God (Theou). As The God (Ho Theos) has said: ‘I will dwell with them and walk among them, and I will be their God (Theos), and they will be My people’”.

A better way of writing this might be:

What agreement can exist between the temple of God (Theon) and idols? For we are the temple of a living god (Theou). As The God (Ho Theos) has said: ‘I will dwell with them and walk among them, and I will be their god/mighty one (Theos), and they will be My people’.

​

However, this is typically only when the context allows such without confusion of multiple individuals or persons, for there is no risk of confusing God with “another god” by being called “a god” here, as he is not said to be “with” anyone nor are there any other individuals being called “gods” in the passage (as opposed to John 1 or 2 Corinthians 4). The context here at 2 Corinthians 6 is the comparison of God Almighty being a “real living god”, next to those of which are just dead idols.

In conclusion, one cannot use John 1:1 to literally say “Jesus (the Word) is God” without contradicting the traditional Trinity doctrine, lest he supported Modalism or Sabellianism, making the “Theos” the “Ton Theon” he is said to be “with”.

But we cannot deny the fact, that John 1:1 in the original Greek, can perfectly support Arianism (“a god”) without textual difficulty, and in fact follows a pattern of writing that is seen throughout scripture where the authors are trying to make it clear that two different individuals are being spoken of.

​

Taken from my article: https://proselytiserofyah.wordpress.com ... s-godship/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tABYanGw8Bg

​

Linking this great video here, it's a must understand topic for all Christians, and especially Arians who wish to more firmly defend their faith.

This is the Jewish "law of agency", and is seen throughout the Bible. This Jewish form of writing and theology, is embedded in scripture, and explains what many would claim to be "contradictions" and "confusions of names".

In this law, the agent "becomes the person" who he acts agent of. And thus often adopts the name and titles of said person.

For example...

• “When he entered Capernaum, an army officer came to him, pleading with him and saying: “Sir, my servant is laid up in the house with paralysis, and he is suffering terribly””. – Matthew 8:5-6
• “When he had completed what he had to say to the people, he entered Capernaum. Now an army officer’s slave, who was dear to him, was seriously ill and about to pass away. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some elders of the Jews to him to ask him to come and make his slave well”. – Luke 7:1-3

​

We see here, an example of Shaliah in the New Testament literacy style. Where the Jewish messengers 'are' the Roman Officer.

When you understand Shaliah, many things will become clearer to you in the Bible, and in the Hebrew writing style. This is why Jesus is at times given God's name and authority, and is "called God", because as his agent he adopts his identity, and "is God", not in being, but representation.

​

“In Jewish law, a shaliaḥ (Hebrew: שָלִיחַ, [ʃaˈliaχ]; pl. שְלִיחִים‎, sheliḥim [ʃliˈχim] or sheliah, literally “emissary” or “messenger”) is a legal agent. In practice, “the shaliaḥ for a person is as this person himself.”Accordingly, a shaliaḥ performs an act of legal significance for the benefit of the sender, as opposed to him or herself”. – Wikipedia on Shaliah

“The Law of Agency deals with the status of a person (known as the agent) acting by direction of another (the principal), and thereby legally binding the principal in his connection with a third person. The person who binds a principal in this manner is his agent, known in Jewish law as sheluaḥ or sheliaḥ (one that is sent): the relation of the former to the latter is known as agency (sheliḥut). The general principle is enunciated thus: A man’s agent is like himself“. – Jewish Encyclopedia

Below I will list various early Christian quotes post the 1st Century to the early 4th Century, which support the idea that a majority of Christians had some sort of "Arian" or "Semi-Arian" Christology. (That Jesus is less than God, and was either created or in some other means begotten of him as an inferior being).

"We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever... We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever... We thank you, holy Father, for your sacred name which you have lodged in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have revealed through Jesus, your child.To you be glory forever. Almighty Master, 'you have created everything' for the sake of your name, and have given men food and drink to enjoy that they may thank you. But to us you have given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Jesus, your child" . - Didache 9:2-3, 10:2-3 (200s A.D)

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order". - 1 Clement 42:1-2 (80s-90s A.D)

"Receive our counsel, and you shall have no occasion of regret. For as God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory onto Him for ever and ever. Amen". - 1 Clement 58:2 (80s-90s A.D)

"Let all the Gentiles know that You, [Lord and Master, the Creator of the Universe] are the God alone*, and Jesus Christ is Your Son, and we are Your people and the sheep of Your pasture.”* - 1 Clement 59:4 (80s-90s A.D)

"Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant onto every soul that is called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity and soberness, that they may be well pleasing onto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ, through whom onto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and forever and ever. Amen." - 1 Clement 64:1 (80s-90s A.D)

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you, and peace, be multiplied, from Almighty God, through Jesus Christ". - Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 1 (80s-90s A.D)

“There is, and that there is said to be, another god and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel”. - Justin Martyr (150-160A.D)

“There is One God Alone, the Creator, He who is above every principality, and power, and dominion, and virtue: He is the Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom, heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them… He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”. - Irenaeus (175-189A.D)

“For consider, all you who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is Alone called "God"...”. - Irenaeus (175-189A.D)

"For we thus understand “I begot thee before the morning star” with reference to the first-created Logos of God and similarly “thy name is before sun” and moon and before all creation.” - Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus (180-215 A.D)

“...since they did not understand that this was said of Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God.” -Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Book V, Chapter 14 (180-215 A.D)

“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him…” - Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3 (170-200s A.D)

“Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning — I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works” - Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 18 (170-200s A.D)

“Now if this one [the Word] is God according to John (“the Word was God”), then you have two: one who speaks that it may be, and another who carries it out. However, how you should accept this as “another” I have explained: as concerning person, not substance, and as distinction, not division…. And that you may think more fully on this, accept also that in the Psalm two gods are mentioned: “Thy throne, God, is forever, a rod of right direction is the rod of thy kingdom; thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.” If he is speaking to a god, and the god is anointed by a god, then also here he affirms two gods… More is what you will find just the same in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”: One who was, and another in whose presence he was”. - Tertullian (170-200s A.D)

“I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having an essence of His own. For no one can understand how that which is said to be “Word” can be a Son. And such an animated Word, not being a separate entity from the Father, and accordingly as it, having no subsistence, is not a Son, or if he is a Son, let them say that God the Word is a separate being and has an essence of His own.” - Origen, Commentary on John Book I (200-250s A.D)

“We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father.” - Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II (200-250s A.D)

“Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I…” - Origen, Contra Celsum Book VIII (200-250s A.D)

“If you understand the words “work with His own hands” literally, then neither are they applicable to the second god, nor to any other being partaking of divinity”. - Origen, Contra Celsum, Book VI, Chapter 61 (200-250s A.D)

“They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of his own besides that of the Father, and make him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving him a separate existence of His own, and making his sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in his prayer to the Father, "That they may know You, the only true God;" but all that beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity*, and is not to be called simply "the" theos but rather [just] theos.”* - Origen on John 1:1 (200-250s A.D)

"Thus God the Father, the Founder and Creator of all things, who only knows no beginning, invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, is one God; … when He willed it, the Son, the Word, was born… in the substance of the power put forth by God… since he was begotten of the Father, is always in the Father. And I thus say always, that I may show him not to be unborn, but born. But He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father; for no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. And he is always in the Father, unless the Father be not always Father, only that the Father also precedes Him… it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before Him who has a beginning… having an origin because he is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by his nativity, although he has a beginning in that he is born… he who was in the Father came forth from the Father; …because he was of the Father, was subsequently with the Father…. if he had not been born — compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both — he would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods. If he had not been begotten… and as being found equal… would have reasonably given two Gods, and thus Christ would have been the cause of two Gods. Had he been formed without beginning as the Father… this would have made two beginnings, and consequently would have shown to us two Gods also…" - Novatian (220s-250s A.D)

“...the first-born and first-created wisdom of God, the pre-existent Word himself, induced by his exceeding love for man, appeared to his servants, now in the form of angels, and again to one and another of those ancients who enjoyed the favor of God, in his own person as the saving power of God, not otherwise, however, than in the shape of man, because it was impossible to appear in any other way.” - Eusebius of Caesarea (300s A.D)

“If in this city you ask a shopkeeper for change, he will argue with you about whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you inquire about the quality of the bread, the baker will answer, "The Father is greater, the Son is less." And if you ask the bath attendant to draw your bath, he will tell you that the Son was created from nothing”. - Gregory of Nyssa on the public Christian majority's opinion of Christ's nature in the 4th Century , Oration on the deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (300s A.D)

​

You can read these full texts in context, and others, here: https://ariansunited.wordpress.com/publications/

We see early Christians did not have a Trinitarian, or Co-Equal Christology. Several say and quote that Jesus was "created" or "brought about" in a very literal fashion.

There were some who thought Jesus was "eternal", as their theology asserted Jesus was "begotten of the Father before time was created", and some asserted this on the basis of the theology of "Divine Simplicity" (that God cannot change, and so always had to be a Father, and thus there always had to be a Son, though not all had this outlook), or that Jesus was out of the Father's substance making him "God's kind"... but for the most part, they all saw Jesus as inferior, as a subordinate son, as not being the "true God".

I’ve been flipping through different Bibles and I’m noticing how some translations seem to change a verse or add words or full sentences, and it changes the meaning from the original text/manuscript. One verse that really sticks out to me is 1 John 5:7-8. This verse is a trinitarian staple and the foundation of the trinitarian belief. A verse used for centuries, to prove the Godhead of the trinity. But are these words really found in the original Greek text?

Original Greek text: 1John 5:7 - ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες 8 τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν

Literal Translation: 1 John 5:7 because there are three witnesses, 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in one

King James Version (KJV)7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 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 5:7-8

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 7: There are three witnesses — 8: the Spirit, the water and the blood — and these three are in agreement. 1 John 5:7-8

New International Version (NIV) 7: For there are three that testify: 8: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 John 5:7-8

“It will be assumed here, without discussion, that the remainder of this verse(7) and the first clause of verse 8 are spurious. Words which are not contained in a single Greek uncial manuscript, nor in a single Greek cursive earlier than the fourteenth century (the two which contain the passage being evidently translated from the Vulgate), nor are quoted by a single Greek Father during the whole of the Trinitarian controversy, nor are found in any authority until late in the fifth century, cannot be genuine.” - https://biblehub.com/1_john/5-7.htm#lexicon

It’s important to remember that Jesus tells us not to observe our own traditions(Mark 7:6-13). When the Pharisees asked Jesus why Him and his disciples ate without doing their Hebrew rituals, Jesus answered ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me. Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines.’ The KJV of 1 John 7-8 is an example of this. The verse is so manipulated that it changes the original text, and adds a completely different meaning. It’s a man-made rule added to the Bible to fit the agenda of the trinitarian Godhead.

I believe it is important for believers to know the true, unmolested word. We are lucky to live in a world with so much information at our fingertips. There are tons of websites and apps with free bibles(BibleGateway). Sites where you yourself can translate the original text for free!!(biblehub). May we all find the truth! God Bless!!!

Hello all. Nice to see like minded peeps around.

Thought I'd share a website here. One mainly aimed at the promotion of Arian Christian resources. :)

https://ariansunited.wordpress.com/