Trinity combat kit 4

In a previous article we looked at ways in which the Bible disproves the Trinity. This article is going to cover the most common verses that Trinitarians use to support their belief of Jesus being divine. Each claim is followed by one or more refutations. Please note that this article will be continuously updated insha’Allah (God Willing) with new refutations as I come across them.

This is the methodology that I recommend to follow: Trinitarians tend to use unclear verses which can be interpreted in multiple ways in order to try and prove the divinity of Jesus. But as you will see from the list below, such verses often have multiple other plausible interpretations which do not necessitate the divinity of Jesus. Therefore in order to correctly understand the Bible, we need to rely on the clear parts of Scripture to explain any unclear parts of Scripture, otherwise people can play games with the unclear verses and can interpret the Bible to mean anything they want.

When it comes to the question of the nature of Jesus, what we find is that the Bible contains an overwhelming number of very clear verses about Jesus being distinct from God. These verses oppose those ambiguous ones that Trinitarians put forward as evidence of his divinity. But for a book to be considered God’s Word it cannot contain any contradictions, because God is perfect, and so it logically follows that His revelation must also be perfect. Therefore the Trinitarian is compelled to interpret the comparatively few ambiguous verses in light of the many clear verses, and they do reconcile as we will see. Put simply, the golden rule is that we must use clear verses to explain any unclear verses. Trinitarians cannot reject this methodology as any other alternative creates conflict within the Bible which leads to the conclusion that the Bible contains contradictions and is therefore not the pure word of God.

Please note that you can click on the list of claims below to go straight to the verse in question:

1. In the beginning was the Word [John 1:1]

2. There are three that bear record in heaven… [1 John 5:7]

3. Jesus is the begotten Son of God [John 3:16]

4. I and my father are one [John 10:30]

5. Jesus has the Father in him [John 14:11]

6. The I AM saying of Jesus

7. Jesus’ existence predates his birth on earth [John 8:58] [John 17:5]

8. Some Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he claimed divinity [John 5:18] [John 10:33]

9. Jesus accepted worship as God [Matthew 28:17]

10. Jesus had authority to forgive sins, so he must be God [Mark 2:7]

11. The miracles of Jesus prove he was divine

12. Thomas says to Jesus “my Lord and my God” [John 20:28]

13. Jesus was omnipresent, so he must be God [Matthew 18:20]

14. I am the Alpha and the Omega [Revelation 22:13]

15. The Philippians hymn [Philippians 2:6-9]

16. Jesus is the image of God [Colossians 1:15-20]

17. Baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19]

18. A child will be born and he will be called Mighty God [Isaiah 9:6] [Matthew 1:23]

19. Fullness of Deity dwells in Jesus [Colossians 2:9]

20. Jesus is God over all [Romans 9:5]

21. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. [Hebrews 13:8]

22. Jesus is Lord [Romans 10:9]

23. One like a son of man [Daniel 7:13-14]

24. The Holy Spirit is equated with God [Acts 5:3–5]


Here is a list of all the changes that have been made to this article:

01/11/2016:

– Added a new entry:

24. The Holy Spirit is equated with God [Acts 5:3–5]

04/04/2015:

– Fixed a mistake in this entry:

18. A child will be born and he will be called God [Isaiah 9:6] [Matthew 1:23]

12/04/2015:

– Added a new entry:

23. One like a son of man [Daniel 7:13-14]


 1. In the beginning was the Word [John 1:1].

Perhaps the most commonly quoted verse that Trinitarians use in support of the divinity of Jesus is the famous prologue of John:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. [John 1:1]

This is the perfect verse to demonstrate the methodology that this article is promoting. In the ancient Greek manuscripts from which the New Testament originates, there is no differentiation between capital and small letters. Without delving too much into the complexities of Greek grammar, the statement “was God” lacks a definite particle and therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, this verse could be translated as either “The Word was a god” or “The Word was God”, depending on the beliefs of the reader.

Now obviously we shouldn’t interpret books according to our own beliefs, but rather according to the intent of the author. When faced with ambiguity we have to look to other verses in order to arrive at the correct interpretation. We can see this ambiguity demonstrated in other parts of the New Testament, where we find that the exact same Greek word that was used in John 1:1 to refer to Jesus as being “a god” or “the god” (‘theos’) is also used to refer to Satan, Paul and King Herod:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel…” [2 Corinthians 4:4]

“The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.” [Act 28:6]

On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” [Acts 12:21-22]

Obviously the intention is not that Satan, Paul and King Herod are literal gods in the sense that Trinitarians take Jesus as a literal god. Now coming back to John 1:1, what we’ve learnt is that its interpretation, which in and of itself is ambiguous, should be understood in light of other clear, unambiguous verses written by John. The clear verses will help us to understand any unclear ones. So let’s look at other clear verses in John which discuss the relation between Jesus and God:

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. [John 17:3]

How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God… [John 5:44-45]

Now we have the tools to correctly interpret John 1:1. John may be trying to say that Jesus is divine, in some sense, but he most certainly is NOT saying that Jesus is literally God, because this would contradict the verse above where John says that there is only one true God who is distinct from Jesus, the one whom He has sent. If Trinitarians still insist that John 1:1 implies Jesus is literally God, then they are conceding that John’s writings contain contradictions!

2. There are three that bear record in heaven… [1 John 5:7]

The following verse, which can be found in some versions of the Bible (such as the King James Version) does come very close to the doctrine of the Trinity. This verse is known as the “Johannine Comma”:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” [1 John 5:7]

This verse used to be in all Bibles; however the editors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and New International Version (NIV) have removed the verse (please click on picture to enlarge):

johanine comma

Notice how verse 7 in the RSV is different to verse 7 in the KJV. The RSV does not contain the mention of the Trinity. Also notice that verse 7 in the NIV is different to not only the KJV but also the RSV. The NIV also does not contain the mention of the Trinity. The RSV and NIV have had to split other verses into two parts in order to make up for the deletion of the Johannine Comma, this is so that the verse numbers across all three versions of the Bible line up the same.

The King James Version (KJV) has grave defects, and so these newer versions of the Bible (which are based on older and hence more reliable manuscripts) were produced. Here is the NIV footnote regarding this verse:

Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. {8} And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

In other words, it is a fabricated verse that was inserted into the New Testament over 1,500 years after Jesus. Trinitarians should reflect on this question: why is the only clear Scriptural evidence for their beliefs a fabrication? Clearly, it had to be forced into the Bible to lend support for the doctrine because it is unbiblical.

3. Jesus is the begotten Son of God [John 3:16]

This is the most popular verse used to try and prove that Jesus is the literal Son of God:

“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]

Among Christians there have been disputes about the meaning and usage of the Greek word ‘monogenes’, which is translated as “only begotten” in the King James Version. The NIV Bible renders it differently:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [John 3:16]

Notice how the NIV Bible translates ‘monogenes’ as “one and only”. Even if we take “only begotten” as the correct translation, it cannot be interpreted in a literal sense. The proof is as follows:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” [Hebrews 11:17].

If Trinitarians were to be consistent and interpret the above verse literally like they do with John 3:16, then the consequence is that there is an error in the Bible. Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham, he had an older brother, Ishmael. However, Isaac was Abraham’s unique son, in the sense that he was the only son that Abraham had with his wife Sarah. How about Jesus, is he unique? He certainly is, he’s the only Prophet coming back in the End Times. This is what Muslims also believe.

Now regarding the phrase “Son of God”, does that imply divinity? It does not, because there are many “Sons of God” in the Bible. In the words of the great Ahmad Deedat, God has sons by the tons in the Bible:

“the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” [Luke 3:38]

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” [Job 1:6]

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” [Matthew 5:9]

Here we have examples where Adam, the angels and peacemakers are called “sons of God” and “children of God”. This proves that in first century Palestine, the term son of God was a sort of title which was bestowed on any righteous or holy person.

Here the writings of the author of the First Epistle of John, whom Christians believe is the same author that wrote John 3:16, should settle any dispute over the interpretation of the term “son of God”:

“This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.” [1 John 3:10]

Are Trinitarians prepared to say that any person who “does not do what is right” is the offspring of the devil, in a literal, begotten sense? Consistency and common sense dictates that Son of God, much like children of the devil, is a metaphorical title that in no way relates to the genealogical relationship of a person with God or the devil.

4. I and my father are one [John 10:30]

The following verse is commonly used to try and show that Jesus and God are one in nature:

“I and the Father are one.” [John 10:30]

Just four short verses later, Jesus refutes the Trinitarian understanding of the above verse. When some Jews twist the words of Jesus and try to accuse him of claiming divinity, he responded with:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’ [John 10:34]

So Jesus clarified, with a scriptural example well known to them, that he was using the metaphorical language of the prophets which should not be interpreted as ascribing divinity to himself or to other human beings.

Moreover in a later chapter Jesus uses exactly the same language in relation to the Disciples:

“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 17:11]

Here Jesus is praying that his Disciples be made one like him and the Father. The Trinitarian understanding of John 10:30 necessitates that Jesus here is praying that the Disciples become one human entity, which is absurd. The correct understanding in this verse and John 10:30 is a oneness of purpose, not a oneness nature.

5. Jesus has the Father in him [John 14:11]

In this verse Jesus responds to a request by the Disciples to show them God:

“Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.” [John 14:11]

This might imply Jesus’ divinity as Trinitarians claim, but only if the remainder of the same Gospel is ignored. Jesus goes on to say:

“On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” [John 14:20]

Thus, if Jesus’ statement “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” means that he is God, then so were the Disciples. However this clearly symbolic language that means oneness of purpose, not oneness of nature.

6. The I AM sayings of Jesus

For the following verse of the Old Testament, many versions of the Bible translate one of the Hebrew names of God as “I am”:

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” [Exodus 3:14]

Trinitarians often point out that Jesus uses the same phrase “I am” in a declaration about himself in the Gospel of John:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” [John 8:58]

They claim that this echoes the name God gives Himself in the Old Testament, and so Jesus is God.

Let’s first start with the Old Testament. It turns out that the Hebrew word that has been translated as “I AM”, ‘ehyeh’, is inaccurate. The Trinitarian Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House, pp. 330-331, says of Exodus 3:14:

“It has been rendered, ‘I WILL BE that I WILL BE’ as an indication of God’s sovereignty and immutability” and “the translation … that probably comes closest to the intention of God at this point is, ‘I will be there’.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica has to say on this subject:

“The writer of Exodus 3:14-15 … explains it [the meaning of God’s name] by the phrase EHYEH asher EHYEH (Ex. iii., 14); this can be translated ‘I am that I am’ or more exactly ‘I am wont to be that which I am wont to be’ or ‘I will be that which I will be.’” – p. 995, 14th ed., v. 12.

Moreover the Hebrew ‘ehyeh’ itself is always rendered as “I will be” in the rest of the writings of Moses:

Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. [Genesis 26:3]

And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.” [Exodus 3:12]

The Lord gave this command to Joshua son of Nun: “Be strong and courageous, for you will bring the Israelites into the land I promised them on oath, and I myself will be with you.” [Deuteronomy 31:23]

Furthermore, it can be shown that New Testament writers themselves understood ‘ehyeh’ to mean “I will be” and NOT “I am”. Paul demonstrates this understanding when he quotes Old Testament verses in Greek:

I will be (Hebrew ‘ehyeh’) his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands.” [2 Samuel 7:14]

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?
Or again,

And:

I will be (Greek ‘ego esomai’) his Father,
and he will be my Son” [Hebrews 1:5]

“Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be (Hebrew ‘ehyeh’) their God.” [Ezekiel 11:20]

This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be (Greek ”) their God,
and they will be my people. [Hebrews 8:10]

Note how Paul translates the Hebrew ‘ehyeh’ into the Greek ‘ego esomai’ (“I will be”) and NOT ‘ego eimi (“I am”). So, we can safely conclude that when John quotes Jesus as saying “I AM”, he is not referring to the Old Testament declarations of God. If Trinitarians insist that Jesus was in fact echoing the Old Testament sayings of God, then John cannot be an inspired writer, because he uses the Greek ‘ego eimi (“I am”) which is a mistranslation the Hebrew, as another writer of the New Testament, Paul, proves.

Finally, for the sake of argument, even if the Hebrew ‘ehyeh’ did mean I AM, then it doesn’t prove the divinity of Jesus. A blind man uses this exact same phrase when referring to himself in the New Testament, so it can’t be interpreted to mean divinity:

His neighbours and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?” Some claimed that he was. Others said, “No, he only looks like him.” But he himself insisted, “I am the man.” [John 9:8-9]

7. Jesus’ existence predates his birth on earth [John 8:58] [John 17:5]

Trinitarians often quote verses such as the following to show that Jesus had a pre-existence before coming to earth and therefore that shows he is divine:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” [John 8:58]

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. [John 17:5]

This does not prove that Jesus was divine, because the concept of the pre-existence of the Prophets Solomon and Jeremiah is found in the Old Testament:

“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old” [Proverbs 8:22]

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” [Jeremiah 1:5]

If Jesus is divine by virtue of his pre-existence, then so too must be Solomon and Jeremiah according to this standard!

8. Some Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he claimed divinity [John 5:18] [John 10:33]

Trinitarians use the following verse to try and prove that Jesus claimed to be equal to God:

“For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” [John 5:18]

This verse is actually unsupportive of the Trinity. It records that Jesus was saying that God was his father, not that he was himself God, or that he was “God the Son.” It is clear that Jesus’ authority came from the fact that he was a Son of God (see point 3 for more detail), not God Himself.

In the very next verse, Jesus says:

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

The fact that he cannot do anything of his own power negates the notion that he is “equal” with God in a literal sense. Again, Jesus repeats himself:

“By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgement is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” [John 5:30]

So, the Son Jesus is subordinate to the Father, not equal as Trinitarians claim. Moreover the concept of people being “equal” is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him:

Then Judah went up to him and said: “Pardon your servant, my lord, let me speak a word to my lord. Do not be angry with your servant, though you are equal to Pharaoh himself. [Genesis 44:18]

Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered “equal with us”:

“And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.” [2 Corinthians 11:12].

Is any Trinitarian really going to claim that Joseph and Pharaoh, or Paul and his opponents, are “of one substance,” and make up “one being” simply because they are called “equal”? Thus this verse of John should be handled consistently like the other verses that mention equality. Jesus was using God’s power and authority on earth, and was thus “equal” to God in the same way Joseph, who was using Pharaoh’s authority and power, was equal to Pharaoh.

Another incident Trinitarians try and use to show that Jesus claimed to be God is when some Jews tried to stone him on the charge of blasphemy:

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” [John 10:33]

Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they do in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (Greek ‘theos’, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” So there is inconsistently in the translation. This is important because throughout the Bible many different people are referred to as “gods” in a metaphorical sense. For example the exact same Greek word that was used in John 1o:33 to refer to Jesus as is also used to refer to Satan, Paul and King Herod:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel…” [2 Corinthians 4:4]

“The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.” [Act 28:6]

On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” [Acts 12:21-22]

Obviously the intention is not that Satan, Paul and King Herod are literal gods in the sense that Trinitarians take Jesus as a literal god.

In any case, the very next verse Jesus refutes the Trinitarian understanding of John 10:33. Jesus was not claiming divinity, rather his accusers were twisting his words in order to have an excuse to stone him to death, the punishment for blasphemy. Look at his response:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’ [John 10:34]

So Jesus clarified, with a scriptural example well known to them, that he was using the metaphorical language of the prophets which should not be interpreted as ascribing divinity to himself or to other human beings. He is making the point that it is not blasphemy to describe himself as God’s Son in a metaphorical sense as his accusers’ own Scriptures address human recipients of God’s message as “gods”.

9. Jesus accepted worship as God [Matthew 28:17]

They will quote a passage like the following in order to show that people worshipped Jesus as God and he accepted it (or at least, didn’t reject it):

“When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.” [Matthew 28:17]

The Greek word used in this verse for worship is ‘proskyneō’. Strong’s Bible Dictionary says that this word literally means:

“to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence”

This same word is used to describe acts of reverence to people other than Jesus. Here a servant falls to his knees and “worships” (‘proskyneō’) his master:

“At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’” [Matthew 18:26]

This is part of a parable Jesus gave of a slave who was unable to repay a substantial sum of money to his master. He was merely expressing the kind of reverence and respect due the king, his master and superior. Another example is that Jacob bowed down seven times upon meeting his brother, Esau [Genesis 33:3], or when Joseph’s brothers prostrated themselves, or did obeisance, before him in honour of his position at the Egyptian court [Genesis 42:6]. Clearly, then, acts such as prostrating and kneeling (which are translated as “worship”) are not reserved exclusively for the type of adoration due to God. It can also refer to the respect and honour shown to another person.

Finally, there is a Greek word which does refer to the worship of God, ‘latreuó’. Here is an example of its usage in the New Testament:

‘But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves’, God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship [latreuó] me in this place’. [Acts 7:7]

This word is never once used in the New Testament in relation to Jesus, it’s only ever used to describe the devotion given to God. If Jesus were God then one would expect this word to be used in reference to him, but it never is, it’s reserved exclusively for God. There is a perfectly logical explanation as to why this is: the authors of the New Testament did not use this word in relation to Jesus because none of them believed that he is equal to God!

10. Jesus had authority to forgive sins, so he must be God [Mark 2:7]

Christians use the following incident to try and prove that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins, so he must be God:

“Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” [Mark 2:7]

It is true that Jesus seems to have the authority to forgive sins in this instance. However, this does not make him divine, as Jesus told the Disciples they can also forgive sins:

If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” [John 20:23]

So in the Bible it seems that God grants the authority to forgive sins as He pleases. If Trinitarians want to insist that this authority makes Jesus God, then the implication is that so too are the Disciples because they all had the authority to forgive sins.

11. The miracles of Jesus prove he was divine

The point made by Trinitarians is that Jesus must be divine because he performed miracles such as healing people and raising the dead.

Firstly, we must remember that Jesus was only able to perform such feats because God granted him these abilities:

“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” [Acts 2:22]

This is similar to ho God granted other prophets the ability to perform miracles, such as Moses splitting the sea. Although Moses carried out the physical act of striking the sea with his staff, it was God who spilt the sea in two.

Secondly, other prophets throughout the Bible performed miracles which were identical to the miracles of Jesus (please click on image to enlarge):

Jesus miracles table

In conclusion, merely performing miracles does not mean that one is divine.

12. Thomas says to Jesus “my Lord and my God” [John 20:28]

They may use the following verse to support the notion of Jesus being God:

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” [John 20:28]

The Greek language uses the word ‘theos’ (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “God” was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today. Remember that it was common at that time to call God’s representatives “God,” and the Old Testament contains quite a few examples. When Jacob wrestled with “God,” it is clear that he was actually wrestling with an angel (Hosea 12:4).

Now if the Disciples really believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that Trinitarians claim, then they would not have “deserted him and fled” when he was arrested. The confession of the two Disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveller, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God…and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21). The Bible is clear that these Disciples thought Jesus was a “prophet.” There is no evidence from the Gospel accounts that Jesus’ Disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas, upon seeing the resurrected Christ, was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

Moreover the context of the verse shows that its subject is the fact that Jesus was alive. Only three verses earlier, Thomas had ignored the eyewitness testimony of the other Disciples when they told him they had seen Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus was such a disputed doctrine that Thomas did not believe it (the other Disciples had not either), and thus Jesus’ death would have caused Thomas to doubt that Jesus was who he said he was – the human Messiah. If Thomas really did believe that Jesus is God, then he would not have doubted (or shown surpirse) that Jesus was alive because such a thing would be a given – God cannot die.

13. Jesus was omnipresent, so he must be God [Matthew 18:20]

Christians use the following statement by Jesus to try and prove that he is divine because they claim it demonstrates his omnipresence:

“For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” [Matthew 18:20]

Firstly, this verse can be interpreted metaphorically. When we look at the context we find that the topic it is speaking of starts earlier in verse 15:

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” [Matthew 18:15-16]

Notice here the numbering: this is where the “two or three” phrase is first brought into the picture. This is a reference back to the Mosaic law:

“On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.” [Deuteronomy 17:6]

This is a system of accountability, Mosaic law never allowed for the conviction of another without a “fair trial.” In Matthew, we have the same situation. There is a believer who has been charged with an unnamed offense. If you cannot take care of it on your own, get some others to listen to each side. The final act, if the previous encounter was unfruitful, is to bring it before the church. If the accused is deemed guilty by the church and still does not repent, disassociation is necessary. “Two or three” have gathered in the name of Jesus and as such Jesus will be in their midst, metaphorically speaking, by virtue of them following the commands he has ordained.

Secondly, even if we were to interpret this as Jesus literally being omnipresent, it still wouldn’t prove his divinity as the same author tells us:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” [Matthew 28:18]

If Jesus has the ability of omnipresence, then it is only because God gave him the authority. Since he receives his authority from a higher power, then he cant be God.

Finally, any ambiguity over whether Jesus is omnipresent in a Godly sense is resolved when we read explicit verses in Matthew where Jesus is said to have limited knowledge:

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” [Matthew 24:36]

Since the knowledge of Jesus is lacking by his own admission, then he can’t be omniscient, which is an attribute of God. If Jesus lacks any of the attributes of God then he is inferior to God and not His equal.

14. I am the Alpha and the Omega [Revelation 22:13]

Trinitarians claim that because Jesus refers to himself as “Alpha and Omega”, “First and Last” and “Beginning and End”, which are all attributes of divinity, and so he must be God:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” [Revelation 22:13]

Throughout Revelation 22 the subject that is speaking switches between God, John, the angel and Jesus. John is identified as speaking in 22:8. The angel speaks in 22:9 and continues speaking in 22:10. The angel may be still speaking in 22:11, or it could be John.

Now, is it the angel still speaking in 22:12, or is it God, Jesus, or even John? We can analyse the styles of speech to try and work out who it might be. If we take John as an example, we find that he typically commences speaking with the phrase “I, John”. In fact this phrase identifies him as a new speaker in every instance John uses it, such as Revelation 1:9; 22:8. In Revelation 22:16, we see Jesus using the phrase “I, Jesus”, which like John would indicate that he has started speaking. If Jesus has only started speaking in 22:16, then he can’t be the one speaking in 22:13, which is the key verse in question (“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End”).

So who is speaking in 22:16? It most likely is the angel quoting God, as the angel earlier mentions “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place” in 22:6. So the angel is quoting God as saying “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End”.

Trinitarians may argue that because 22:6 says that God sent the angel, and 22:16 says Jesus sent the angel, therefore God and Jesus are one and the same being who sent the angel. This is not necessarily the case, as God the Father (to use Biblical terminology) is the ultimate sender but he has put the angels under the control of Jesus. Remember Jesus was given all authority according to the Bible, so the angels could have been put under his command. We see in John, for example, that Jesus had the authority to call on God to send him angels:

“Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” [Matthew 26:53]

So although Jesus can call upon them for help, ultimately it is God who has the authority to send them.

Moreover the Priest Melchizedek is spoken of in a similar light to Revelation 22:13:

“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever”. [Hebrews 7:3]

If Melchizedek has no beginning and end, does that make him God? Such language could simply be figurative. Remember our methodology though, we use the clear verses to explain the unclear ones. In another chapter of Revelation, Jesus explicitly claims to have a God which shows that the author of Revelation did not believe he was equal to God:

“The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.” [Revelation 3:12]

15. The Philippians hymn [Philippians 2:6-9]

Trinitarians claim that this passage (known as the Philippians hymn) is clear proof of Jesus being God:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name.

[Philippians 2:6-9]

At first glance this passage may appear to be a clear cut evidence for Jesus being God, especially given the statement “being in very nature God”. However we need to look to the whole of Philippians to get the correct understanding. Later in Philippians, Paul clearly distinguishes between Jesus and God:

“and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” [Philippians 2:11]

Besides speaking of God and Jesus separately, when Paul mentions “Form of God” he uses the Greek word ‘morphe’ which  means “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision”. This is another way of saying image of God, and an image of something is not the thing itself. The Greek word ‘eikon’ is also used by Paul in his writings, and the two words are interchangeable. This is according to the New Testament scholar Ralph P. Martin who states in “Morphe in Philippians 2:6 Expository Times, Vol. 70, no.6”:

“That morphe and eikon are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX.”

The New Testament scholar James Dunn also states in Christology in the Making, p. 115:

“It has long been recognized that morphe and eikon are near synonyms.”

An understanding of image will help us in the understanding of form. Paul also says that man is the image of God, which proves that such statements do not imply equality with God:

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God…” [1 Corinthians 11:7]

Furthermore, the following clear statement by Paul should dispel any notion of Jesus being equal to God:

“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [1 Corinthians 11:3]

If God is the “head of Christ” then Jesus is clearly not God’s equal!

Now, let’s examine the Philippians hymn statement “he made himself nothing”. If this hymn really is an evidence for the divinity of Jesus, then Trinitarians have a problem. If Jesus made himself nothing then that means that his divine side was made “nothing”. But this violates the Orthodox creedal formula for the Trinity s defined in the Chalcedon Creed and as believed in by Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians:

“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.”

 

You can see that the Chalcedon Creed defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. Yet to understand the hymn’s mention of “he made himself nothing” in Trinitarian terms is a violation of this creed, a rejection of the Trinity, because the implication is that the divinity of Jesus became “nothing”.

Another problematic statement in the hymn is “God exalted him to the highest place“. If Jesus was already equal to God as Trinitarians claim, then the implication is that Jesus was elevated to a position higher than God! So, it shows that he could not be God to begin with.

So, what is the Philippians hymn actually saying about Jesus? What is apparent is that the author of Philippians, Paul, is not comparing Jesus to God but rather contrasting Jesus with Adam. This contrast is unmistakable in Paul’s other writings:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…

…Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come [Jesus].

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many…

…For if, by the trespass of the one man [Adam], death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!”

[Romans 5:12–17]

This contrast between Jesus and Adam is echoed in the Philippians hymn as well, in that Adam was made in the image of God (see Genesis 5:1) and disobedient, while Jesus is similarly the form of God but was obedient. Thus God rewards Jesus by giving him a higher status than what he had before.

In summary, when taken in the context of all of Paul’s writings, the Philippians hymn doesn’t support the claim that Jesus is God. Rather all it shows is that he obeyed God by humbling himself and thus was exalted. This is in contrast to Adam who was the image of God but disobedient.

16. Jesus is the image of God [Colossians 1:15-20]

Trinitarians claim that this passage is clear proof of Jesus being God:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been 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 church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

[Colossians 1:15-20]

At first glance this passage may appear to be a clear cut evidence for Jesus being God, especially given the statement that the “Son is the image of the invisible God”. There are two noteworthy points here, the reference to Jesus being the “Son” and the reference to him being the “image of the invisible God”:

The term “Son of God” is applied to many people throughout the Bible and so is not meant to be taken literally (see point 3 for more detail).

With regards to being called the “image of the invisible God”, this statement cannot be affirming the Trinity. If Jesus were “God”, then the verse would simply say so, rather than saying he is the “image” of God. By comparison the Father is plainly called “God” throughout the New Testament, and this would have been a good place to say that Jesus was God. Instead, we are told that Jesus is the image of God. If one thing is the “image” of another thing, then the “image” and the “original” are not the same thing. The Father is literally God, and that is why there is no verse that calls the Father the “image” of God! Moreover the same author, Paul, also applies the same term “image of God” to people other than Jesus. The Greek word used in the verse for image, ‘eikon’, is also applied to man in general which proves that such statements do not imply equality with God:

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image [eikon] and glory of God…” [1 Corinthians 11:7]

Moving on in Colossians, the next statement is “For in him all things were created… all things have been created through him and for him”. This verse must be read carefully with an understanding of the usage of words and figures of speech. For example, when Absalom was holding a council against his father, David, 2 Samuel 17:14 says that “all the men of Israel” agreed on advice. “All” the men of Israel were not there, but the verse means “all” who were there. Another example is Jeremiah 26:8, which says that “all the people” seized Jeremiah to put him to death, but the context makes it very clear that “all the people” were not even present, and people who came to the scene later wanted to release Jeremiah. In John 16:30 the Disciples say that Jesus “knows all things”. If this is interpreted literally, then we have a contradiction, because Jesus himself says that he does not know when the Hour will occur (Matthew 24:36). In summary the phrase “all things” as used in Colossians is ambiguous as it can be reasonably interpreted to mean a limited sense of “all”.

The final statement in Colossians is “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him”. Please refer to point 19 for an explanation of why this cannot equate to the divinity of Jesus.

Finally, recall our methodology for correctly understanding the Bible – we will interpret ambiguous verses in light of clear ones. Any ambiguity in Colossians can be resolved by the existence of clear statements by the same author, Paul, which dispel any notion of Jesus being equal to God:

“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [1 Corinthians 11:3]

If God is the “head of Christ” then Jesus is clearly not God’s equal!

17. Baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19]

Trinitarians claim that Jesus commanding the Disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit represents a Trinitarian formula:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. [Matthew 28:19]

This verse is part of the ending of Matthew and is known as the Great Commission. It turns out that there are serious doubts about the reliability of this verse in Matthew. One reason is that if Jesus really did command his Disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then we would have to expect that whenever the New Testament mentions baptisms, they would have been obedient to Jesus by uttering this exact formula. However what we find is that in the Book of Acts – which occurs long after the Great Commission would have taken place – Peter and the Disciples consistently baptise in the name of Jesus only:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. [Acts 2:38]

“because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus”. [Acts 8:16]

“So he ordered that they be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days”. [Acts 10:48]

“On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus”. [Acts 19:5]

There is not a single occurrence of the Disciples baptising anyone according to the so-called Trinitarian formula, and no rational explanation for their apparent disobedience. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptised into the name of Jesus only. Moreover Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340), known as “the Father of Church History”, quoted this passage in several places without the Trinitarian baptismal formula. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name”.

This argument alone does not prove that the Trinitarian baptismal formula is a fabrication, as it is an argument from silence (plus there are some early Church fathers who do quote it in their writings). However its omission in the writings of Eusebius, together with its consistent omission by the Disciples whenever they performed baptisms, provide strong evidence that the original verse in Matthew only mentioned to baptise in the name of Jesus. Thus its plausible that the Trinitarian formula was subsequently added to Matthew to justify a later-evolved doctrine of the Trinity.

Now, even if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the three persons of the Trinity – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – together make “one God”. This verse refers to three individuals, but it never says that they are “one”. The only statement of this nature that can be found in the Bible is 1 John 5:7, known as the “Johannine Comma”, which is a fabrication (see point 2 for more detail). The reasoning of Trinitarians is that in order to be baptised into something, that something has to be God. But that reasoning is demonstrably false, because the Bible states that the Israelites were “baptised into Moses”:

“They were all baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. [1 Corinthians 10:2]

Clearly it would be absurd to argue that because the Israelites were baptised into Moses, therefore Moses is God!

Finally, in reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. If the mention of baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit really is a Trinitarian formula as claimed, then it is strange indeed that Jesus would introduce the doctrine of the Trinity for the first time here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier.

18. A child will be born and he will be called God [Isaiah 9:6] [Matthew 1:23]

Here is an Old Testament passage which Trinitarians often take as a prophecy of God being born on earth:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

[Isaiah 9:6]

Firstly this is a mistranslation of the Old Testament. Christians render Isaiah 9:6 in the future tense to make it appear like a Messianic prophecy. Here is a more accurate translation of the original Hebrew (please note that Isaiah 9:6 is actually Isaiah 9:5 in the Jewish Bible):

“For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and [He, the] Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace”

So, the original Hebrew actually has the perfect form for the verb ‘yalad’ (“born”) which indicates it carries the literal meaning of a completed action i.e. it is a historical statement (the child has already been born) and not the Messianic prophecy that Christians make it out to be. To demonstrate the inconsistency of the English Bible translations, let’s look at an example of another usage of this same exact verb ‘yalad’:

Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord”. [Genesis 4:26]

Note that in this case the same verb ‘yalad’ has been correctly translated into the past tense in English.

Moreover Jews believe that this is a statement referring to the Prophet Hezekiah which was fulfilled long before the birth of Jesus. Hezekiah is the only person called mighty God in entire Bible, as his name itself means “Strength of the Lord”. Such a description is never used for Jesus anywhere in the Bible.

In fact the verse actually goes against the doctrine of the Trinity, because Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, therefore the phrase “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6 cannot be a reference to Jesus. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and so Jesus cannot simultaneously be the Son and the Father; it is an obvious self-contradiction.

Another common verse they use is a statement in Matthew which gives the baby Jesus a name which means “God with us”:

“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”). [Matthew 1:23]

The name can be translated as, “God with us” or “God is with us”. We know that God was with the people in Jesus, just as He was with Moses and the other Prophets.  Moreover the verse actually only says that the child will be “called” by this name, and does not tell us anything about his intrinsic nature by having such a name. Symbolism in names can be seen throughout the Bible, it is not unique to Matthew 1:23 or Isaiah 9:6. Many people were given names that would cause great problems if believed literally. Are we to believe that Elijah was “My God is Yahweh”, or that Bithiah, a daughter of Pharaoh, was the sister of Jesus because her name is “daughter of God”? Are we to believe that Dibri, not Jesus, was the “Promise of God”, or that Eliab was the real Messiah since his name means “My God [is my] father”? Of course not, it would be a great mistake to claim that the meaning of a name proves a literal truth. Even places like Jerusalem and things like altars were given such names:

“In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The Lord Our Righteous Savior”. [Jeremiah 33:16]

“Moses built an altar and called it The Lord is my Banner”. [Exodus 17:15]

These verses prove conclusively that just because someone or something is called “God”, that does not make it God!

19. Fullness of Deity dwells in Jesus [Colossians 2:9]

Trinitarians try to say that because Jesus is said to have the “fullness of Deity” he must therefore be God:

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” [Colossians 2:9]

What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians:

“God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him”. [Colossians 1:19]

If Jesus were God, it would make no sense to say that God was “pleased” that the fullness of deity dwelt in him, because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God! So the word “fullness” demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the “fullness” of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about “the fullness of God the Father” because, by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about Jesus being God, but about God in some way providing Jesus with “fullness”. A fullness of what exactly? The Gospel of John provides clarification:

“For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit.” [John 3:34]

So we see that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible. This is all that “fullness” means, that one is filled with the Holy Spirit, a gift from God according to the Bible.

Moreover the same is said of Christians in numerous places throughout the Bible, they too can be filled with the Holy Spirit and have the fullness of God:

“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires”. [2 Peter 1:4]

“and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God”. [Ephesians 3:19]

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit”. [Luke 1:41]

If Trinitarians want to insist that Jesus having the “fullness of God” makes him God, then the implication is that every Christian is God!

20. Jesus is God over all [Romans 9:5]

This is a common evidence put forward by Trinitarians to try and prove the divinity of Jesus:

“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen”. [Romans 9:5]

We need to be aware that the original Greek text has no punctuation, and thus in some instances there is more than one way a verse can be translated without violating the grammar of the text. Romans 9:5 is one of the verses that can be translated in different ways. Note that the New International Version of the Bible, which the above verse has been taken from, has the following footnote:

a. Romans 9:5 Or Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Messiah. God who is over all be forever praised!

As you can see, the NIV acknowledges that there are alternative ways of parsing the verse, all of which are perfectly valid. Here are some examples of different translations:

RSV: “to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen”.

KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen”.

NAS: “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen”.

Note from the examples above that translators and translating committees vary greatly in their handling of Romans 9:5. Although the exact wording of the above translations differs, they fall into two basic categories: those that are worded to make Christ into God, and those that make the final phrase into a type of eulogy referring to God. The context gives us a good clue as to the intent of the author: Paul is writing about the way that God has especially blessed the Jews. The verses immediately before Romans 9:5 point out that God has given them the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship and the promises:

“Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises…” [Romans 9:4]

It therefore makes perfect sense that Paul would follow these statements by praising the one who provided them with all these things, God: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever! Amen”.

Finally, any notion that Paul’s intent was to equate Jesus with God is refuted when we look to his other writings which make it perfectly clear that Jesus is inferior to God:

“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [1 Corinthians 11:3]

If God is the “head of Christ” then Paul clearly does not believe that Jesus is equal to God!

21. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. [Hebrews 13:8]

Trinitarians says that this verse proves the eternality of Jesus and therefore his divinity:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”. [Hebrews 13:8]

There is nothing in the context to warrant believing that this verse has anything to do with a “plurality of persons”, “one substance in the Godhead” or any other Trinitarian concept. The verse preceding it says to “remember” the leaders and “imitate” them. The verse just after says, “Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings”. The context makes the intent of the author obvious – believers were being led astray by new teachings, and the author of Hebrews, Paul, was reminding them that Jesus does not change because the truth about him yesterday is the same now and will be the same in the future.

To adopt the understanding of Trinitarians creates a contradiction. The doctrine of the Trinity states that God temporarily took on flesh when the second person of the Trinity, the Son, entered into humanity as Jesus. At this point God was subject to the limitations of human beings, such as needing to eat, drink and sleep, because of the human nature of Jesus. Once Jesus was crucified, resurrected and ascended back to God, he took on a new glorified, spiritual body and is free of all the limitations he had when he was here on earth. If Jesus took on a human nature, whilst at the same time still being God, then the implication is that in becoming man, the nature of God changed. When Jesus then ascended and took on a glorified, spiritual body, whilst still being God, then the nature of God changed once again. Here is a diagram which summarises the Trinitarian claims and why they conflict with their own understanding of Hebrews 13:8 (please click on picture to enlarge):

dawah-diagram

Now, Trinitarians often try to escape this predicament by saying that the nature of God didn’t really change, rather “an additional nature was taken on”. This is a game of semantics, regardless of what happened – the taking on of an additional nature, a mixing of natures etc. – the overall nature of God is different to what it was before. If it wasn’t, then one has to question the purpose of the incarnation in the first place! Now imagine if the reverse was the case, a regular human being took on a divine nature in addition to their human nature. No Trinitarian would argue that this scenario doesn’t result in a change of nature to the human being. They wouldn’t argue, “well, this man-God hasn’t really changed in nature, his original finite human nature is only being complemented by an additional infinite nature”. Yet this scenario is no different to God becoming man, the only difference is the direction of change (God → man v.s. man → God). Clearly, God changed according to the doctrine of the Trinity, and clearly, this conflicts with the Trinitarian understanding of Hebrews 13:8.

Finally, any notion that Paul’s intent was to equate Jesus with God is refuted when we look to his other writings which make it perfectly clear that Jesus is inferior to God:

“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [1 Corinthians 11:3]

If God is the “head of Christ” then Paul clearly does not believe that Jesus is equal to God!

22. Jesus is Lord [Romans 10:9]

Here Trinitarians claim that by referring to Jesus as “Lord”, it proves Jesus is God:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord”, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [Romans 10:9]

Jesus may be Lord according to the Bible, but “Lord” is not “God”. “Lord” (the Greek word is ‘kurios’) is a masculine title of respect and nobility, and it is used many times in the New Testament. To say that Jesus is God because the Bible calls him “Lord” is very poor scholarship. “Lord” is used in many ways in the Bible, and others beside God and Jesus are called “Lord”:

Property owners are called “Lord” (Matthew 20:8, “owner” = kurios).

Heads of households are called “Lord” (Mark 13:35, “owner” = kurios).

Slave owners are called “Lord” (Matthew 10:24, “master” = kurios).

Husbands are called “Lord” (1 Peter 3:6, “master” = kurios).

A son calls his father “Lord” (Matthew 21:30, “sir” = kurios).

The Roman Emperor is called “Lord” (Acts 25:26, “His Majesty” = kurios).

Roman authorities are called “Lord” (Matthew 27:63, “sir” = kurios).

The problem these verses cause to anyone who says Jesus is God because he is called “Lord” is immediately apparent – many others beside Jesus would also be God!

Moreover it must be recognised that it was God who made Jesus “Lord” according to the Bible. Acts 2:36 says: “God has made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ”. If “Lord” equals “God”, then somehow God made Jesus “God”, which is something that even Trinitarians do not teach, because it is vital to Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. The fact that the Bible says God made Jesus “Lord” is an argument against the Trinity.

23. One like a son of man [Daniel 7:13-14]

Trinitarians claim that the following Old Testament passage is proof that Jesus is God, because Jesus refers to himself as the son of man (e.g. Mark 14:61-62) and here the Old Testament states that the son of man will be worshipped by all nations:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed”. [Daniel 7:13-14]

The first thing to note is that these verses are describing a visionary experience and as such the reality need not conform to the vision’s symbolic details. Daniel does not understand the vision that he is witnessing, and so the Angel Gabriel has to explain it to him:

But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever. [Daniel 7:18]

So the immediate context of these verses indicate that the “son of man” refers collectively to a faithful core of people (“holy people of the Most High”) and not an individual. Now even if the Aramaic phrase “son of man” (literally “son of Adam” in Hebrew) is a reference to an individual, this in and of itself does not prove divinity, it’s an Aramaic idiom of sorts. Daniel himself is referred to as “son of man”:

As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.” [Daniel 8:17]

The key statement that Christians claim is proof of the divinity of the son of man is “all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him”. The original Aramaic which is often translated as “worship”, ‘pĕlach’, means:

“to serve, worship, revere, minister for, pay reverence to”

So this word doesn’t necessarily mean worship as an act of reverence that is only due to God. We can see this a little later in the chapter:

Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’ [Daniel 7:27]

Here we can see that the same Aramaic word is used in reference to the “holy people of the Most High”. Are Trinitarians going to claim that this means the nations will worship these holy people in the same way as God, or that these holy people are also divine? It is clear that the Aramaic term here means “serve” and is describing how the nations will wish to obey the orders and work for God.

Still assuming that the son of man is referring to an individual, then two distinct beings are presented in the verses, God Almighty (“the Ancient of Days”) and one who is portrayed as being subordinate to Him (“son of man”). If the son of man is God then it would make no sense in the context of the verses as the son of man is said to be given dominion by God Almighty. If the son of man were God then he would already own everything!

Finally, Paul states that Jesus will give whatever dominion he has back to God:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. [1 Corinthians 15:24]

After handing back what rightfully belongs to God, Jesus will be made subject to God:

When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. [1 Corinthians 15:28]

These verses show that the dominion of Jesus is temporal and he is ultimately subordinate to God, the opposite of what the Trinity doctrine teaches.

24. The Holy Spirit is equated with God [Acts 5:3-5]

The argument put forward is that the Holy Spirit is equated with God:

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land… You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” [Acts 5:3-5]

The Trinitarian reasoning is this – these verses equate God and “the Holy Spirit”, and so they claim that this proves their case that God and “the Holy Spirit” are the same.

At best, these verses offer minimal support for the Trinity because there are other completely acceptable ways to interpret them. For example, throughout the Bible there are many instances where an action is attributed to God and also attributed to another entity that represents God. One such instance is 1 Samuel 12:1,13. Verse one says:

“Samuel said to all Israel, Behold, I have listened to your voice in all that you said to me, and have made a king over you.”

We can see that it was Samuel who directly appointed Saul as King of Israel. In verse 13 however, we read:

“Now therefore see the king whom you have chosen, and whom you have asked for: and, behold, Yahweh has set a king over you.”

Here we see that it is Yahweh, God, who set a king over Israel. If we apply the same logic that Trinitarians apply to Acts 5:3-5, then we would conclude that Samuel is God. However, using common sense we understand that Samuel represented God when he appointed Saul as king over Israel, just like the Holy Spirit represents God in the New Testament.

Written by Many Prophets One Message
A CALL TO THE TRUTH

    10 Comments

  1. rambo2016 March 26, 2015 at 10:46 am Reply

    “and [He, the] Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace”

    so it is god who called the child “ruler of peace” , right?

    • manyprophetsonemessage March 28, 2015 at 9:23 pm Reply

      I don’t think so, at least not according to my understanding. It’s more that it’s in the past tense and therefore has already been fulfilled, so it can’t be a future prophesy.

  2. thomas raja April 4, 2015 at 6:20 am Reply

    Biblical Hebrew is not a “tense” language, so your understanding is wrong.

    • manyprophetsonemessage April 4, 2015 at 10:26 am Reply

      Thank you for your feedback, this has been corrected. This article is encyclopaedic in scope so there will undoubtedly be some minor issues here and there which I will correct over time, God Willing. For Isaiah 9:6 the point still stands – it’s a completed action according to Hebrew translations.

  3. thisisownage July 12, 2015 at 1:21 pm Reply

    Here is another:

    Micah 5, Christians says that the Bible uses the term to say that Prophet Jesus (alayhi salaam) is from eternity in the past.

    2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    though you are small among the clans[b] 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.”

    Response:
    In the rest of the Bible where this term ‘origins are from of old, from ancient times’, it never refers to the person being from eternity, it always means from a long time ago, never for eternity, since Prophet Jesus (alayhi salaam) is from the house of David which is old then that makes sense, or since the concept of the Messiah is old.

    Similarly, if we just read on, we see that God, may He be glorified, is greatly made distinct from this person:

    4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
    in the strength of the Lord,
    in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
    And they will live securely, for then his greatness
    will reach to the ends of the earth.

    ‘strength of THE LORD’, ‘in the name of THE LORD HIS GOD’

    Hope that helps, it’s not a perfect response but I don’t want Christians to spread anymore lies.

    • thisisownage July 12, 2015 at 1:22 pm Reply

      Sorry I meant that the Prophet made a distinction not God.

    • thomas raja July 16, 2015 at 3:36 am Reply

      “it never refers to the person being from eternity, it always means from a long time ago” ?????

      never??? that’s your own interpretation, and your interpretation is not a fact

      • thisisownage July 16, 2015 at 4:06 pm Reply

        I’m basing it on fact brother, read the rest of the old testament – and then when you read the next verse the Messiah would clearly be different to God The Almighty, and a slave of God The Almighty like Isa (as).

Leave a Comment