The Trinity Disproven

(Excerpted from my work

The Most Controversial Book in the World: The Bible)

Copyright © 2006

By Steven Melvin McCalip

Website: www.kingjamesman.com

The reader can make copies of this article and distribute freely. Not intended for sale or profit by any user.

Introduction

The Trinity is the one doctrine that is taught by almost every “Christian” church in the world. Churches disagree on many things, but there are virtually none that disagree on the Trinity and its basic teaching. It is the central teaching of all mainline churches, Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, or Non-Denominational. Just the fact that I am discussing this sacred cow and how it is a heresy will alienate just about everyone I haven’t offended so far. I realize that I am bucking the entire religious world when I call the Trinity an abomination, but so be it. If what the scriptures say is more important than any church tradition, then you will read further. If not, this wasn’t for you anyway.

What I am about to present to you is a refutation of the Trinity like none you have probably seen before and an affirmation of the one true God-Jesus Christ. I know several of these arguments are not covered in any book I have ever read. This chapter will be an extensive study, covering definitive proofs that the Trinity is false and that the only true God is Jesus Christ. I am setting out to prove that Jesus Christ is not only God (as the Trinitarians like to say), but that he is all of who God is, that God is one person, not three, and that one person became flesh and died for us on the cross. I am refuting the fact that God exists in three persons and that only one of those persons took on flesh and died. If that was the case, you have two persons of God who never died for you; thus, your God never completely and personally died for you. I am teaching that God has always been one person (i.e., one Lord) and that this one person became a man and died for you and me.

Another of my main refutations is that I will be denying that Jesus is the eternal Son of God. I am affirming that Jesus is eternal, but not as a Son. He is eternal as the one person of God. Though this sounds heretical to a Trinitarian scholar, once you understand it, it will seem heretical to believe that Jesus has always been a Son. It will also go against natural reasoning to believe that. Keep in mind that Trinitarians officially believe (though individuals in churches may believe otherwise, thank God) that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have always existed as such. They believe that Jesus has always existed as the Son of God, the second of three eternal persons, separate and distinct from the Father and Holy Ghost. They teach that Jesus has always been a Son and call this “eternal sonship.” If I can show you that Jesus has not always existed as a Son, I have effectually dismantled the Trinitarian doctrine. If I can show you that the Son only became the Son at his birth (like all sons do), then I have destroyed the doctrine that God is three persons, for the Trinitarians claim that the Son of God was a separate person in eternity past. What’s more, they claim that it was the Son of God who became a man and died on the cross. If I can show that the term “Son of God” was only used to refer to Jesus as a son being born, then this Trinitarian heresy is exposed for the sham it is-false teaching invented by the pagans, promoted by the Catholic church, and carried over in to the Protestant faiths as well.

My contention is that if you worship three persons individually and distinctly as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (as the Trinitarians do and admit officially), then you worship three gods. It is that simple. One person plus one person plus one person equals three persons. Three persons equals three beings, and those three beings equal three gods. The Trinitarians can say they worship one god in three persons all the day long, but as long as they say that God is three persons or personalities, then they are just talking out of both sides of their mouths and are worshipping three gods. You could conceivably claim that God is 5, 7, 11, or 100 persons and still say he is one god, and you will be showing the madness of your claim that he is still one god. Three is no magic number that somehow makes one god. Satan wants us to get our worship away from Jesus Christ and on some mysterious Father or Holy Ghost. If the Father or Holy Ghost is someone other than Jesus Christ, then that opens the door for the Father to be anyone you want him to be, but he won’t be Jesus. If you can pray to three separate beings, each with his own separate and distinct personality, then please tell me how this is any different than praying to three separate gods even though you may call those three beings one god.

We are now ready to begin our discussion of just who Jesus Christ is. I will show more than ample scriptural evidence that Jesus is the Father and the Son. I will show beyond a doubt that God is one person, not three, and that this one God who is only one person died on a cross for our sins. What greater love can be shown than that? Again, if God is three persons, and only one of those persons died for you, then it cannot be said that the Father or Holy Ghost died for you, only the supposed “eternal Son of God.” This would mean that one of the three persons of God showed greater love than the other two by dying for us because Jesus said the greatest sacrifice one can give is his own life, not that of another or even one’s own son.

In conclusion, this would mean that the Trinitarians have two who are called god who never showed the greater love by laying down their own lives for us as Jesus himself said they should: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). Please keep in mind that Trinitarians believe the Father and Holy Ghost are living and thus have a life of their own, yet they did not lay down their own lives for you. I will now begin this study showing and proving that Jesus is the Father,  and the Son and thereby disproving the worldwide heresy and blasphemy that God is three persons and still one God.

Jesus: Like Father, Like Son

We read this verse on millions of Christmas cards, yet few of us have actually understood the breadth and depth of the truth that it shows. I am also talking about the verse and the song that is read and sung by multitudes every Christmas, “Handel’s Messiah.” The verse that both of these come from is Isaiah 9:6. It is one of the greatest proofs of the identity of Jesus Christ in the Bible, for in this single verse the Bible declares unequivocally that Jesus is called the Father and the Son at the same time. What I and the Bible are declaring is that Jesus is the Spirit and therefore is the Father that created the universe. There did not exist three persons in eternity past, one called the Father, one called the Son, and one called the Holy Spirit. There was only one Spirit and his name was Jesus. That same Spirit is the one who became flesh and died on a cross for our sins. The Father became a man and when he did, he became a Son. This did not make him two or even three persons. He is Spirit and flesh, the same person and the same God.

Isaiah 9:6-The Irrefutable Verse of Jesus Being the Father

The first proof is in Isaiah 9:6. Let us look at it now: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). All Trinitarians will without dispute say this verse is a direct prophecy of the names of Jesus Christ. They at least got that much right. That is not in question. What they do, however, is give different meanings to the name “the everlasting Father” and try to show that this name is not referring to “the Father” of the Trinity, but some other father like “father of Israel” or other “father of eternity” or other similar perversions. It is one of the Trinitarian’s weakest assertions and really shows the extent they will go to pervert the obvious meaning of the scripture to somehow prove that there are two everlasting fathers, the one mentioned in this verse who is Jesus and the Father of the Trinity. Either you have two everlasting fathers, or they are the same person. I am contending they are not only the same God, they are the same person-Jesus Christ.

Now to the verse: Notice that the child is referred to as “a son,” and that this son is also called “The mighty God.” Thus, we have a son born who is also called “The mighty God.” This proves biblically that Jesus is the Son of God (because he is a human child born who is also God), and it proves that he is himself God (because he is also called “The mighty God”). The verse doesn’t stop there though. This same “son” that “is given” is also called “The everlasting Father.” Therefore, in a single verse of scripture, it can be proven that Jesus is the Father and the Son. Notice that the title “The everlasting Father” starts with “The” which in itself points to and can only mean one father or “the father,” “the father” of the Trinity. Who can be said to be “everlasting” but God only? The title “The everlasting Father” can be applied only to the Father himself, and since it is applied to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, that makes Jesus the Father as well as the Son. There can be only one father who is “everlasting.”

If this phrase “The everlasting Father” is not referring to the father of the so-called Trinity, then you have two everlasting fathers, one called Jesus and the other father of the Trinity. Two everlasting fathers is, of course, impossible. To try to make this some other father like Trinitarians do is beyond even natural reasoning. No person can be everlasting except if that person happens to be God. To ascribe this title to any other person other than the Father himself is blasphemy, yet Trinitarians change “The everlasting Father” to other corruptions in their own bible like “Father of eternity” or “Everlasting Father” and leave out the all important word “The” which pinpoints that this father is “The” “everlasting Father.”

The perverted corruption of Isaiah 9:6 in other versions besides the King James Bible calls Jesus the “Father of eternity.” That title is a contradiction of terms in addition to a corruption of the word of God. You cannot be a father of eternity, for eternity doesn’t have a father. Eternity did not get “fathered” or it wouldn’t be eternity, for it would have a beginning. Calling someone “Everlasting Father” can be manipulated to mean someone other than the father of the Trinity because of the simple omission of the word “The.”

Notice also that in this verse, there is no “everlasting Son,” only “The everlasting Father.” If it said “everlasting Son,” then Trinitarians would have a case. What it does say about the son is that it “is given.” But how is it given? Isaiah 9:6 tells us, and we don’t need to rely on speculation. It is given, not from eternity past, but because “a child is born.” If you’re paying attention, “son” and “child” are used synonymously (”a child is born, a son is given”). Therefore, “son” means “child.” That is crucial, for it shows that Jesus as The Son of God refers to him having become a child. That is how he became a Son. The child is born, therefore, the son is given.

This additional evidence is showing that “Son” is defined as “child,” and that fact alone essentially dismantles an eternal Son doctrine, or the Trinitarians will have to say Jesus is an eternal child. In fact, the Trinitarians do this without realizing it. They say the Son was eternally begotten, so this means that Jesus was not only an eternal Son, he was an eternal child. That is sick. That is inferiority. That is Babylonianism. That would have an eternal Son calling his Father “Father.” Jesus didn’t call him “Father” until he was born of his Father in flesh.

Within this same verse, the word of God also proclaims that this son that is given is called “The Prince of Peace.” A Prince is the son of HIS FATHER the king. We all know that Jesus is also called “The King of kings,” so this verse is saying that Jesus who is a king is also a prince. Jesus is a king and prince, and he is a father and son at the same time. Isaiah 9:6, therefore, gives us two witnesses and two examples within a single verse that Jesus is the Father and the Son. It is an amazing verse and it without a doubt shows Jesus as The Everlasting Father and the Son of God at the same time. God could not have made it plainer who Jesus is, yet the Satanic doctrine of the Trinity, because it denies that Jesus is the Father himself, denies this verse’s clear teaching as well. There are several other verses in scripture attesting to the fact that Jesus is not only the Son of God but also the Father. We will look at these now.

John 14:6-9- Seeing is Believing

In John chapter fourteen, Jesus tells us plainly that he is the Father, yet so many of us don’t see it. In John 14:6, Jesus begins his discussion with Thomas the disciple and answers Thomas’ request to actually see the Father: Remember that this was “doubting Thomas,” and this Thomas needed to actually see nail prints in the resurrected Jesus’ hands before he would believe. Jesus just said if you want to go to the Father, you go to him, but if that wasn’t convincing enough for some of you, he tells you again in the very next verse: “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth, ye know him, and have seen him. Jesus now points out that knowing him is knowing the Father, not just knowing about him, but actually knowing him because he is the Father. Philip then answers for both he and Thomas and demands to physically see the Father: “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John 14:7-9). Jesus actually rebukes Philip for asking Jesus to show him the Father when Jesus just got through telling Philip that he was looking at the Father (”he that hath seen me hath seen the Father”). This again proves that Jesus was the Father in human flesh because he chides Philip for not readily believing what he in fact asked for and was shown.

Philip knew he could “know” the Father through Jesus. That is not what he asked Jesus to “shew.” Philip just heard Jesus say “ye know him, and have seen him.” Philip asked him, almost ignoring what was just said, to show him the Father just in case “know” and “see” meant just seeing the qualities of the Father in Jesus. Jesus’ answer equated the word “shew” with the word “see” that he just used. In other words, when Philip asked Jesus to “shew us the Father” and Jesus answer was “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” and Jesus’ extra reply “and how sayest thou then shew us the Father?” Jesus was telling Thomas that by seeing Jesus, he was shewing him the Father in human flesh.

Trinitarians will argue that Jesus was not saying that he was the Father, only that the Father could be seen “in him.” That is a half-truth, but good enough to deceive you. Don’t get fooled by this trickery, for if you look at the verse again and again, you will see exactly what Thomas and Philip wanted and that was to actually have Jesus “shew us the Father.” Just as Thomas wanted to see the nail prints in Jesus’ hands and the wound in his side, he wanted to actually see and touch the Father. This request to see was not “seeing” as the Trinitarians will have you believe Thomas and Philip wanted. This verse plainly teaches that Thomas wanted to see with his eyes and handle with his hands the Father himself just as Thomas did later with Jesus’ nail prints and side. Jesus knew exactly what Thomas was requesting, and if all Jesus meant by telling Thomas that “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” is that you see the Father in me would be misleading Thomas and the billions who read his words. Jesus knew what would “suffice” Thomas, and that one thing that would do it would be to see the Father in person, to see the Father in flesh. If Jesus was not telling Thomas that he was looking at the Father in human flesh, it could easily be argued that that is what he conveyed to Philip in plain, simple terms and thereby mislead him, of which we know he did not. So then, Jesus had to mean Thomas and Philip were actually looking at the flesh of the Father himself or any other answer would have not sufficed Thomas and Philip and would have been misleading on Jesus’ part.

To get back to the weak Trinitarian argument that Jesus meant that you only see the Father in him, Jesus himself refutes this lame assertion in his statement if you were paying attention: “…and from henceforth, ye know him, and have seen him.” Jesus answers the Trinitarian argument precisely, because if you noticed, he said concerning Thomas’ request to see the Father that “ye know him and have seen him.” Yes, Trinitarians, you can know the Father through the Son, but you can also see the Father in person by looking at the Son. Jesus did not mean by “see” to mean seeing only the Father’s attributes, for that is covered by Jesus’ use of “know”. You cannot see love, goodness, mercy, and other qualities of God. “Know” and “see” are two different words that mean two different things. The Trinitarians want you to believe these words mean the same thing. If they meant the same thing, Jesus wouldn’t have differentiated them. Jesus says you can know the Father and you can see the Father. If “know” and “see” meant the same thing, Jesus is saying you can “know” and “know” the father. That is repetitive nonsense.

Let me state again that Philip and Thomas both already recognized that the Father’s qualities were in Jesus in the fullest. They didn’t refute that or press that issue. What they pressed Jesus for was to actually see the Father. Jesus knew what they wanted, and his responses to them showed and proved that what they wanted was to see the Father, not just know him through Jesus. All of Jesus’ replies contained the words “shew,” “see,” and “come to” in reference to seeing and coming to the Father.

John chapter fourteen is one of the greatest proofs of the identity of Jesus Christ as the Father and the Son. Any Trinitarian can come up with his weak, childlike arguments, but he can’t get around the simple, clear, and convincing question and answer from Philip and Jesus: “Lord, shew us the Father…”-”he that hath seen me hath seen the Father…” If Jesus is not the Father, then maybe that verse should have read “he that hath seen me hath not seen the Father”. That is the way the Trinitarians read it, so they might as well change it to that. They don’t have any problem with changing verses anyway. For those of you who have ears to hear and eyes to see, the Everlasting Father became the Son of God and his name is Jesus.

I John 2:23-To Have One is to Have the Other

“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.“

Here we have a verse that clearly teaches that if you have the Son, you have the Father also: (”…he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” “Hath” means “have,” and if you have the Son, you have the Father also. Here is what the Trinitarians don’t understand about this verse and here is their dilemma: if God is two or three persons, then this verse could in no way possible be literally true. The reason is simple: if the Father and Son are separate and distinct persons, it is quite easy to have one without having the other. Please think about that statement carefully. You could believe in one without believing the other. You could talk to one without talking to the other. And the list goes on. This verse emphatically declares that if you have the Son, you in fact have the Father. The only way having one would mean having the other is for them to be identical. That statement is worth reading several times. They are not two for one, they are one and the same. They are not just one in unity, they are identical. The one is the same as the other. They are the same person, the same identity, the same being, the same personality. The only reason they are called Father and Son is the Father had always existed as a spirit until this Father became flesh and blood and became a Son who was Jesus. The same person that said “Let there be light” was the same person that died on Calvary.

The Trinitarians cannot say this and deny it as well. They have no idea who was talking in Genesis chapter one and even all throughout the Bible. They have no idea who is talking every time the name God is mentioned as talking in scripture. They would either have to say that one of them is talking (which would mean the other two didn’t ever utter the word of God to anyone such as “Let there be light”, or they would have to say two or three are talking at the same time which is “mischievous madness.” With God being one person, this issue of who’s doing the talking poses no problem whatsoever. The same person and the same God is always talking, and that God is, of course, the Lord Jesus Christ. His sheep know his voice, and they know who’s doing the talking.

The first part of the verse is interesting as well and supports my contention: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father…”. If you deny the Son, you do not have the Father. How is this possible? The Jews deny the Son, but claim to have the Father. So do other religions. Many religions deny that Jesus is God in human flesh but supposedly believe in the God of Jesus. The scriptures don’t allow for this, and the reason is revealing about the heresy of Trinitarianism: If Father and Son are two persons, then you could deny one without necessarily denying the other. In other words, you could say “no” to one but not mean that to the other person you call God. It doesn’t matter how “one in spirit” the two persons are or how unified they are, because if they are distinct enough to be separate persons as the Trinitarians firmly believe, then anyone could also acknowledge or deny separately and distinctly to match their three person God.

However, if God is only one person, then this verse makes perfect sense and holds together beautifully. Since the Son is the same person as the Father, denying the Son is also denying the Father. Denying one is denying the other because you would be denying the same person. To repeat, if God is three distinct personalities, you can easily deny one without denying the other, yet scripture says you can’t, and the reason is precisely the fact that the Son and the Father are identical. Any other explanation is not only unreasonable, it is not even possible. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I did not see the word Trinity in there or eternal Son of God. Maybe it will be in a new translation soon.

Revelation 21:6-7 and Revelation 22:13

“And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”

Now that we have positively identified the speaker as the Lord Jesus, pay particular attention to what Jesus says about the believers who overcome from verse seven above: “…I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Since Jesus is saying we will be his son, then that would make him our Father. If a man has a son, then that man is a father. We are the sons of Jesus according to this verse. That without a doubt makes him the Father of the so-called Trinity, for we cannot have two fathers. It is the Trinitarians that have two or three fathers, which means they have none of them.

It is without controversy that Jesus is the one talking in this verse. Simply compare the four times where he is called Alpha and Omega in Revelation: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:7-8). That was also the only verse where Jesus is called the “Almighty.” That title of “Almighty” could by itself be sufficient for this study, but let us continue. Notice this previous verse says that the one who was pierced is coming again and he is called “Alpha and Omega.” This same title is bestowed three verses later: “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11). The Bible ends with these same titles as it talks about Jesus reigning with the saints on earth: “And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega” (Revelation 21:6). “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end”

God: Always Been a Son or Became a Son?

By showing in the above paragraphs that Jesus is the Father himself in human flesh, I have effectively done away with the fact that he is the eternal Son of God, for I have shown that it was the Father who became a man and, thus, became a Son. Nevertheless, I will also set out here to show how an eternal Son of God is a contradiction of terms. I will show that the reason he is called the Son of God is the fact that God became a Son (a male child), not always was a Son. This has huge ramifications, for if you believe that Jesus was always a Son, then you change the meaning of the word “son” and start declaring ridiculous notions like “eternal begettings” or eternal births. You do away with the need for God to become a Son because you already believe he was one. You believe only one of those gods died for you. You hold to the absurd doctrine that something can be an eternal son without ever having been born. As we will also see, you must invent a meaning for “begotten Son of God” to mean that he was eternally begotten, an absolute contradiction of terms as will be discussed later.

When most people hear the phrase “Son of God,” they assume that this means a different person than the Father or is somehow less than the Father, or even is not God. Now the Trinitarians will shout that the phrase “Son of God” means God as well, but if it truly did, they would have no problem with calling Jesus the Father or the Holy Ghost. You see, the Trinitarians will say that Jesus is God, but what they are saying by that is that he is of the same substance as God, not that he is all of who God is. They just say he is all of what God is. There is a huge difference. If Jesus is not all of who God is, he is also not all of what God is. You can’t separate them. Who God is and what God is go hand in hand. You can’t separate God into compartments of who and what or one person each. You can call each of the three persons God all day long, but if each is not all of who God is, they are not really all of God at all.

The Trinitarian’s Give

Jesus Two Birthdays

Here is the Trinitarian teaching in a nutshell: The Father gave his eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, to us to die for our sins while the Holy Spirit was given to us later. I could spend an entire other chapter showing why the Father and the Holy Spirit have to be the same person also. Suffice it to say for now that since the Father is a spirit, and the Holy Spirit is a spirit, and since the scriptures say there is only “one spirit” and that it is the “same spirit”, then they have to be the same person. By the way, if the spirit lives in side you, then how many persons live inside you?

Only one of the three persons who were up in heaven came down to earth and took on flesh according to the tritheists, I mean Trinitarians. Trinitarians call this the eternal, second person of the Trinity, the eternal son. They say that the Father sent this eternal son to earth to be born a son again. The scriptures say something else entirely: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Notice that it is said that God gave us his begotten son,” not “eternally begotten son.” The son that God gave us was called a Son because he was “begotten” or born. This proves that the Son that was given to us was not from eternity past as the son but was called a son because he was born a son. In other words, God gave himself to us by becoming a son. God became a man, not the eternal son became a man. This is another immensely significant distinction. One teaches that God himself, the Father, became a son and died on a cross, while the other teaches that only one of three persons (the eternal son) took on flesh and died. Only the second person loved you enough to die for you while the other two sat up in heaven and watched. The other two persons of God did not offer themselves as a sacrifice to die for you according to official Trinitarian doctrine. They did not show the greater love according to Jesus himself.

There are many scriptures that attest that God gave us his begotten son, not eternal son. Again, why this is important is that if God gave us his eternal son, then only one of the three died for you. If God himself became a Son only at his birth, then God himself as the Father was sacrificed for us as the begotten Son. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). Nowhere in scripture do you see the phrase “eternal Son of God.” When you see places in scripture where Jesus is talking and he declares he was eternal, for example, “Before Abraham was, I am,” he did not say that before Abraham was, the Son existed, only that he existed. That would have to mean that Jesus was in existence only as the Father or the Spirit. Jesus was claiming that he existed as the only spirit before he was the Son in human flesh.

Proving that Jesus is eternal does not mean that the Son was eternal. That is a fallacy. Nowhere in scripture are we asked to believe that the Son of God is eternal. We are asked to believe that Jesus is eternal. You can believe that Jesus is eternal without believing that the Son was eternal. That is the point of this whole chapter. The Trinitarians want you to believe that you must believe the Son is eternal in order to believe that Jesus is eternal. Those two are not dependent on each other. The difference is that Jesus is eternal because he was the only person that existed. If Jesus is eternal, and he is, that has to make him the Father, for there was no eternal son, though we can easily show that the Father was eternal as the Father.

Nowhere in scripture do you see that Jesus “was” the Son of God as used in the past tense. God over and over again says he sent his begotten son into the world, which means that after the son was begotten, that’s when he was sent into the world. He had to be begotten before he was sent, for it says he “sent his only begotten son.” Think about that for a while. That proves that the Son was sent after his birth in flesh, and not a second before. Believing anything else forces you to believe that Jesus was born or begotten sometime in eternity past, which is rank inferiority and makes him less than the Father. You are forced to believe that the Son became a Son, that the eternal Son of God became a son of flesh and blood. That is the Son becoming a Son, and nowhere does scripture say the Son of God was manifested in the flesh. It says what I am saying: “God was manifest in the flesh.”

You are also forced to now believe that Jesus had two births, one in eternity past and one on earth, for if he was “eternally begotten” and he was physically begotten, that makes two births. That would also make him born again. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus had two births. That is heresy. If you are convinced now that the begetting is talking about the physical birth, you must also believe that the sending of the begotten son occurred by sending the physically born son, after he was born, into the world.

There is no contradiction to believe that because Jesus was sent into the world, that that must mean he came from heaven as a Son: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him” (1 John 4:9). Again, we see that it is his begotten Son that is sent, meaning that a child that was begat or born was then sent into the world. To deny this would mean that this Son of God was born or begotten in heaven at some time in the distant past. That would shatter the supposed equality of the Trinity.

Another time “beget” is used with Jesus sheds more light on this critical doctrine: “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Hebrews 1:6). The angels are told to worship this newly begotten Son of God. There was no need to tell the angels to worship him if he was already begotten from eternity past. This was a new thing in the earth being witnessed by the angels. Another scripture shows even greater revelation on this subject: “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:36). This scripture says the Son was sanctified before he was sent. If this is talking about an eternal Son in heaven billions of years ago getting sanctified by the Father, that is shear nonsense. There was no need to sanctify some supposed eternal Son. There was a need to sanctify the Son who was also a man, for men get sanctified by the Father as happens all throughout scripture.

Now we get to an even weaker assertion by Trinitarians. Having backed themselves into a corner by saying that Jesus is the eternally begotten son (which is contrary to reason, for how can something be eternal and have a beginning or birth?), they must now deal with scriptures that say this begetting occurred on a certain day. Of course, I am teaching that this begetting of the Son occurred on a certain day, the day of his birth in the flesh, just as the scriptures say it does. Trinitarians must say that there was a certain day in eternity past when the Son was begotten, for the scriptures say there was a certain day. Because of this “rock in a hard place,” the Trinitarians must now change the word “day” to mean some eternally unending day, an obvious contradiction in terms and an obvious stretch beyond natural reasoning.

Hebrews 1:5 is the deathblow to Trinitarians who teach an eternal Son: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” (Hebrews 1:5). You must not overlook the critical words “will” and “shall” as it applies to the relationship between Father and Son. God said about the Son that “I will be to him a Father”. This verse makes it crystal clear that the Father was speaking about what would happen in the future, that he “will be to him a Father.” If he “will be to him a Father,” then that means he wasn’t yet. And since that’s the case, that verse alone shatters the eternal Son of God hoax. That verse alone dispels any notions that there were three persons in eternity past. That would definitely exclude there being a Son in existence already. This verse makes no sense if there was always a Father and Son, for God would have no need to say “I will be your Father” since he already was supposedly.

A final thought on this false doctrine of eternal begetting. One of the last scriptures showing this begetting delineates this concept even more narrowly: “So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee” (Hebrews 5:5). Not only was the begetting on “this day,” it was on “to day.” That narrows the time even further and without a doubt makes the begetting occur on a specific day in time, not some nebulous, ambiguous, unknown, nonsensical “eternal begetting” as the Trinitarians espouse. Again in Psalms this verse is used: “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Psalm 2:7).

Another prime example of how the Son of God didn’t exist in eternity past is the declaration that the Son was called the Son because of the fact that he was born: “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). If you were paying attention, the word “therefore” shows us the reason why he was called the Son of God-because Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost and was God become man. This verse also uses the future tense “shall,” saying that Jesus “shall” be called the Son of God. Again, that title is shown to be a new title bestowed on God, not something that he has always been called according to misguided yet deceived Trinitarians.

This verse in Romans teaches that the Son of God was not declared to officially have power until he was resurrected: “And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). Even beyond that, Jesus was not declared to even be the Son of God with power until his resurrection. It was the resurrection that sealed and confirmed the power of the Son of God, for he had to defeat the death of his own body. Since he was supposedly already the Son of God with power, why is this verse used? If he was already the Son of God with power as the Trinitarians teach, this verse would be redundant and meaningless.

The Meaning of “Is”

“Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God” (1 John 4:15). It is confessions like this that are just too packed full of truth to be of any use to Trinitarians. Since Trinitarians and all church members like confessions, they need to try the one just mentioned from the scriptures. This one is particularly interesting because it states that you are “in God” and thus saved if you confess that “Jesus is the Son of God.” This passage says “is,” meaning that you are confessing that Jesus as of right now is the Son of God, not “was” the Son of God in eternity past. Nowhere are people told to believe that Jesus was the Son of God before he was born. That is a requirement of the churches for your very salvation, and yet that requirement is heresy. The word “is” is used over and over again. “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37). That was one of the few confessions of salvation for a sinner in scriptures, and besides being completely removed from scriptures (This whole verse is missing in several modern versions) as I covered earlier in this work, it is another direct confession that Jesus “is” the Son of God, not was. Paul preaches the same thing concerning the belief that Jesus is the Son, not was the Son: “And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Lastly, the disciple John preaches the same very thing: “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:5).

Here’s a little bonus scripture proving that the Son of God was not always the Son of God: The Apostle Paul says in Hebrews that God “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:2). That verse is easy to miss, but a careful reading will show that the Son did not speak to the world except in the last days. That also shows that the Son of God never spoke to the world before he was born, for the term “last days” never referred to a time during the Old Testament and before Jesus’ birth. This again obliterates the eternal son doctrine, for if the Son of God never spoke except for time he was on the earth and afterwards, then you have billions of years of complete silence from the missing Son of God in heaven.

The “In the Flesh” Test

In the two times that confessions are made of who came in the flesh, the name “Jesus” is used, not the name “Son of God”: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:2-3). John repeats this whole confession: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 John 1:7). John goes so far as to say that if you are proclaiming anything but the fact that is was Jesus who came in the flesh, you are a deceiver and an antichrist. It doesn’t get any stronger than that, and John reserves this stinging condemnation to those who would add to the confession that you have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God who came in the flesh. Believing that is being deceived and being an antichrist according to Jesus’ own disciple. It boils down to this: If you believe that only Jesus came from heaven and became flesh, you are a true believer. You see, by saying that, you are saying that is was God who came from heaven and became flesh and blood because Jesus would be the only one up there who came down, thus making him the only God. Adding to that by saying that it was the Son of God who came from heaven makes one a deceiver and an antichrist. This is, therefore, not some trivial issue. It is a literally a matter of life and death. Who came down from heaven and died for you determines your whole faith. You must believe in who this is to be saved. You cannot be deceived on who Jesus is and was or your faith will be misplaced to a wrong god. A wrong god cannot save you.

What I want the reader to see is revelatory-this confession that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” is basically your whole faith. It does not say that you must confess that the “Son of God” is come in the flesh. If it did, the Trinitarians would have a case for an eternal son, albeit still a weak one at that. The fact that scripture says Jesus Christ came instead of the Son of God came bolsters my argument considerably. What is said in scripture is that “Jesus is come,” and that you must confess that. The point is that Jesus is now the Son of God, but what or who came from heaven was only Jesus, not some eternal Son.

Who’s the Word?

So far we have seen that it was God who was manifest in the flesh: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh”-1 Timothy 3:16. We have seen that it was Jesus who was manifest in the flesh: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” There are, however, two other terms used to describe who came in the flesh, and they are not “Son of God” as mentioned before. The scriptures say that “The Word” was manifest in the flesh, and the Bible says that “the life” was manifest in the flesh. This understanding is critical. Though this may seem confusing to keep up with all these titles, keep in mind that the confusion is made simple by understanding that they all refer to Jesus. Let us look exactly at who the scripture says was manifest in the flesh and who died on a cross for us: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Again, another scripture tells us: “(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us”) (1 John 1:2). The scriptures say that Jesus is called “the Word” and “the life” and that both of these were manifest in the flesh.

Thus, we are given the definition of the phrase “the Word,” and its meaning is “the life” of God, for the “Word” was manifested, and then it narrows it further to say “the life was manifested.” In other words, if God was made flesh, and if Jesus was made flesh, and if the Word was made flesh, then all three of these are synonymous for “the life” which was also made flesh. The Word, then, is the Father’s life or Jesus’ life, and it was made flesh.

Who Was With the Father?

Not only does the scripture say that the Word is the Father’s life, it says that this life was “with” the Father. Trinitarians will use the word “with” to try to prove that someone else (the supposed second person or eternal Son of God) was “with” the Father. That word “with” is also used in John 1:1-2 and is the matching verse for 1 John 1:1-2. You must compare these two sets of verses together, and if you do so studiously, God will show you a marvelous truth. Let’s look at John chapter one to see that the same words are used by the disciple John in his other book of first John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2). Remember that the definition of the “Word” was shown to be “life,” so the phrase “the Word was with God” proves to mean that the life was with God. By comparing these next verses to “the Word was with God” in John 1, you will get a very clear understanding of what was “with the Father” and “with God.” 1 John 1:1-2 is the answer to all who are confused as to what was “with the Father.” I have showed from other scriptures by comparison that is was the life of the Father that was with him (also called “the Word”), but let us see this fact even plainer in 1 John chapter one verses 1-2: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;).” This verse is so clear and so pertinent to our discussion that I could have based the whole section on it alone. This verse single-handedly overthrows the pagan doctrine of the Trinity, the three-headed God of this world.

Thousands of pages have been written on what this “Word” means, and this somehow means a supposed second person of a Trinity, but scripture tells those who have eyes to see exactly what it is. So then, it is quite correct to say that God came in the flesh, for it says in 1 Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” It is correct to say that the Word became flesh; for it says “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” (John 1:14). It is correct to say that the life of God became flesh, for it says again that “For the life was manifested” (1 John 1:2). It is correct to say that Jesus became flesh, for it says in 1 John 4:1 that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.”

All of those terms (God, the Word, the life) refer to Jesus Christ. Nowhere in scripture is it stated that the Son of God became flesh. The reason is simple: there was no Son of God before Jesus was born. The book of Romans tells us that the Son of God was made, not eternal: “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:2).

“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). What a beautiful thing indeed. God himself laid down the only life he had to give-his very own. He loved us enough to sacrifice himself, not someone else or some second person.

The Image of God and Let Us Make Man

We will now consider and go into detail on probably the most used scripture in defense of the doctrine of the three person Trinity: Genesis 1:26 (”And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth”). At first glance, the word “us” does seem to indicate more than one, but as any student of the Bible has seen, there are many things that seem right, but when they are examined under the light of other scriptures, they are not what they seemed at first. Since this scripture is the Trinitarians stronghold, refuting their understanding of it will make their doctrine slowly collapse.

First off, let us realize that when God is spoken of in the opening chapter of Genesis, he is not referred to as “us,” but as “he”: “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5). “And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10). “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also” (Genesis 1:16). Three times God is called “he” before he refers to himself as “us.” First and foremost, then, God is referred to as “he.” There are thousands of scriptures that call God “he” and only a handful that call him “us.” Though that does not disprove the Trinity, it certainly does not help its case-several thousand of “he” and only four or five “us.”

Genesis chapter one is a fascinating study for many reasons, one of which is something that is rarely discussed; the chapter is prophetic as well as historical. This is key to understanding “Let us make man.” If I can show you that the opening chapter of the Bible is also a preview of world history, then my point on “Let us make man” will make even more sense. Before I get to the prophetic sense of Genesis chapter one, let’s look at a few more preliminary things. Seven times when God created something in this chapter, he used the word “Let”. For example, in Genesis 1:3, he says, “Let there be light: and there was light.” In Genesis 1:6, he says, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. Genesis 1:9 says “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place…” Four other times he uses this same terminology. All of these acts of creation were used in connection with the pronoun “he” as you remember that I stated earlier. Seven times and in every act of creation God said “Let there be” or similar words, but it was not until man was created that the phrase “Let us” was employed. God did not say “Let there be man” for a specific and telling reason. It was not coincidence or happenstance. It is by design just like everything else in this chapter.

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” is now ready to be studied. The first point that needs to be made is that God said he made man in God’s image, which was defined as God’s likeness in the same verse. That meaning of “image” is critical, for the term “image” has been misunderstood and misapplied by most scholars. “Image” means likeness according, not to Hebrew scholars or dictionaries, but to God himself who defines it in the same verse by giving a synonym for image to be likeness. And what does likeness mean? If you do a word study, it means physical resemblance-in other words, two persons look alike.

Since image means likeness, and likeness means physical resemblance, how was man created in God’s image? That’s a good question since God didn’t have an image at creation. The New Testament says God was invisible and then speaks of Jesus “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15). Since God didn’t have an image at creation, how could he create man in his image? This is the million-dollar question. Here is the million-dollar answer: God created man in the image God himself was going to become when he himself became a man as Jesus Christ. Since God can see the future, he was telling us that he himself would take an image by taking on a body (in Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God”). That is why Genesis 1:26 is prophetic. It is an astounding prophecy, for in the opening chapter of the Bible, God in his signature fashion has told us that he was going to become a man. He could refer to himself as “us” because he was referring to himself and the man he would become. He was referring to the spirit at the time and the flesh he would take on and called it “us”. It was two natures, but it was not two people; it was the one person of God declaring 4000 years in the future that he himself would become flesh and blood. It would not be incorrect to call the person of Jesus and God himself at creation “us.” It would just be a fatal error to assume that “us” means two people. When it comes to God, he can be in two places at one time and in two modes at one time (spirit at creation and flesh later on), but that doesn’t mean he becomes two persons.

There is another wonderful truth taught to us in Genesis concerning the image of God and it relationship to man. Since Adam was created in God’s image, the question that has to be asked is how that is related or not related to the Trinity. If God is a Trinity, that means God’s image includes three personalities. Man doesn’t have three personalities. Herein lies the great truth and a bombshell against Trinitarianism: If God created man in God’s own Trinitarian image, man would have to have three personalities as well to match God’s image and look like or be like him. Since Adam had only one personality, and since Adam was in God’s image, God would also have to have only one personality. Simply put, God created man in his image, and man has only one personality, so God must have only one as well. The doctrine of the Trinity is overthrown simply by the fact that man is in God’s image.

Trinitarians have to change the meaning of “image” to avoid this great truth, but if they’re honest, they will see that “image” means likeness as God himself defined it; thus, man has to have a physical and spiritual resemblance to God. Three persons in one God is about as far as you can get from resembling man. But if God is one person, you have a beautiful analogy completed. A one person God made a one person man in that God’s own image and likeness. That one God would also become flesh to complete the image and the likeness. It is the truth that is simple and clear. Any argument against it is an argument against nature, the Bible, and human reason. Man is in God’s image because God and man share the one characteristic that unites them; they are both a person, a flesh and bone person with one spirit.

The Old Shell Game:

Who’s Doing the Talking?

The old shell game reminds me of the trinity. You never know which shell God is under or is speaking from. Which shell is God speaking from when the name God is mentioned in the Old Testament? Is he speaking as Father, Son or Holy Ghost? One of the main objections to God being one person is Jesus talking to the Father. Of course, when people bring this up, they always seem to leave out that Jesus never talks to the Holy Ghost or the Holy Ghost to him. I could spend quite a while discussing why that’s just as important, but suffice it to say that if God were a Trinity, wouldn’t you expect the three to talk to each other? While we’re at it, the Holy Ghost and the Father never talk to each other either. You mean to tell me that billions and trillions of years of eternity went by and not one single, solitary mention of any conversation going on up there between these “three people?” Something’s way out of whack! All it would take is one conversation between any two members of the Trinity BEFORE Jesus came to earth and you could convince me. The fact that there is not a single conversation recorded in scripture severely damages the case of Trinitarianism. Where do you see the eternal Son of God talking to the Father, or the Eternal Son talking to the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Ghost talking to the Father. Nowhere. Why? Because they weren’t different persons. The only thing that could possibly be brought up is the “Let us make man” statement, but I have shown that to be prophetic and easily dismissed.

The only recorded conversation in the Bible is between the MAN Christ Jesus and the Spirit of the Father. These conversations would take place mostly in Jesus’ prayer. Since Jesus was a real man, didn’t he have to pray just like everyone else? Of course he did. Since that is the case, who would he pray to? The same God that all Old Testament saints prayed to: the one spirit that existed who was called the Father.

You might object that Jesus was then praying to himself, since I have made the point that Jesus and the spirit are the same person. You would be right. Jesus did pray to himself, but called the spirit his father because it was his father. For Jesus not to call this spirit his Father would be a lie. That spirit gave birth to him. Since I have already shown with overwhelming evidence that Jesus was called the Father, why would it be considered a great thing if he was said to be praying to himself. Since Jesus is the Father (he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; the everlasting Father, etc.), and since scripture says he prayed to the Father as well, we see easily that the Father was praying to the Father, as well as the Son praying to the Father. That my friends is Jesus praying to Jesus, or God praying to God, but more specifically God in flesh praying to the God in spirit. Flesh and spirit don’t make you two persons, and because Jesus’ spirit was omnipresent, it could be millions of miles away while his flesh called to it.

You might say, “Show me where scripture says that Jesus prayed to himself.” Fine, how about “my prayer returned unto mine own bosom”: “But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom (Psalm 35:13). That is Jesus prophesying that his prayer on earth would return to his very own bosom in heaven. He said his prayer (which has to refer to him on the earth, for that is the only time he prayed) returned unto his own bosom, which is he himself. That is Jesus praying to Jesus, and that is your verse. Simple, isn’t it?

Christ, by highest heaven adored;
Christ, the everlasting Lord;
late in time behold him come,
offspring of a virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
hail th’ incarnate Deity,
pleased with us in flesh to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel.
Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the new born King!”

“Hark, the Herald Angels Sing”

Charles Wesley