Introduction to Christian Theology. Orthodox faith - holy trinity

All about the Trinity

All about the Trinity, or rather the whole truth about the teaching and belief in the Trinity. The article will show how this doctrine plays a role in the worship of God, and will also provide truthful and reliable information that every self-respecting person should know.

Should you believe in the Trinity?

Do you believe in the Trinity? Most people in Christendom believe. Indeed, for centuries, the doctrine of the Trinity has been the main teaching of various churches.

Given this, you might think that there could be no question here. But they exist, and lately even some of the supporters of this doctrine have been adding fuel to the fire of controversy.

Why should such a topic interest us? Because Jesus himself said: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.” Therefore, our future depends on whether we know the true essence of God, and this means that we need to fully understand the issue of the Trinity. So why not do this? (John 17:3).

Ideas about the Trinity vary. But in general this doctrine says that the Godhead exists as three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and yet it is one God.

According to the teaching, all these three persons are co-existent, omnipotent and uncreated, all existing eternally in the Divine.

Others, however, say that the doctrine of the Trinity is false, that the Most High God is a separate, eternal and omnipotent person. According to such people, before becoming a man, Jesus was, like the angels, a separate spiritual person created by God, and therefore he must have had a beginning. They teach that Jesus was never in any way equal to the Most High God, he was and always remains subordinate to God.

They are also convinced that the holy spirit is not a person, but the spirit of God, his active force.

Supporters of the doctrine of the Trinity say that it is based not only on religious tradition, but also on the Bible. Critics of this doctrine argue that
it is not biblical, and one historical work even says: “The origin of [the Trinity] is entirely pagan” (“The Paganism in Our Christianity”).

If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then to say that Jesus was never equal with God as part of the Godhead is to disparage Jesus. But if this teaching is false, then to call anyone equal to the Most High God is to humiliate God, and even worse to call Mary “Mother of God.” If the doctrine of the Trinity is false, then it is offensive to speak of God as one book says: “If [people] do not keep this Faith whole and undefiled, then [they] will undoubtedly die forever. The Catholic faith is this: we worship one God in the Trinity” (“Catholicism”).

Therefore, there are good reasons to learn the truth about the Trinity. But before we understand the origins of this doctrine and its claims to truth,
it will be useful to define more precisely what this teaching is. What is the Trinity? How do its supporters explain this doctrine?

How is the doctrine of the Trinity explained?

The Roman Catholic Church states: “The term “Trinity” is used to designate the main dogma of the Christian religion... Accordingly, the Athanasian Creed states: “The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.” However, there are not three Gods, but one God.” In this Trinity... Persons are coeternal and co-existent: all alike uncreated and omnipotent” (“Catholic Encyclopedia”).

Almost all the churches of Christendom agree with this. The Greek Orthodox Church, for example, also calls the Trinity “fundamental
dogma of Christianity" and even says: "Christians are those who accept Christ as God." One work of the same church says: “God is triune.
[…] The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God” (“Our Orthodox Christian Faith”).

Thus, the Trinity means “one God in three Persons.” It is believed that each of these Persons had no beginning, but exists forever. Each
the Almighty, none of them is greater or less than the others.

Is it difficult to follow the train of thought? Many sincere believers find this teaching confusing, counterintuitive, and unlike anything in their
life. They wonder: how can it be that the Father is God, Jesus is God, the holy spirit is God, and yet there are not three, but only one God?

"Beyond Human Understanding"

Such confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered a doctrine that is “beyond human understanding.”

This is also the opinion of many of those who recognize the Trinity. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “There is one God and three Gods. There is nothing like this in creation, that’s why we are not able to understand it, we can only accept it.” Cardinal John O'Connor states: "We know that this is a deep mystery that we are not yet closer to understanding." Pope John Paul II also speaks of the “incomprehensible mystery of God the Trinity.”

Therefore, one dictionary says: “Believers in the doctrine of the Trinity cannot agree on exactly how to define this doctrine, or, more precisely, how exactly it should be explained” (“A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge”).

It is clear why the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “In the seminaries of the Roman Catholic Church there are hardly any teachers
theological theory about the Trinity, which would not be addressed from time to time with the question:

“How can we preach the Trinity?” And if this question indicates the confusion that reigns among the students, then perhaps it is equally indicative of the confusion that reigns among their professors.”

The validity of this observation can be seen if you go to the library and read works written in defense of the Trinity. Countless pages are devoted to attempts to explain this teaching. But, having spent a lot of time and effort wandering through the labyrinths of incomprehensible theological terms and explanations, researchers are left with nothing.

Jesuit Joseph Bracken notes on this matter: “The priests who spent so much effort studying ... the Trinity in the seminary, as they should
to expect, they did not dare to speak about this teaching from the pulpit to their flock even on the feast of Trinity. […]

Why bother people by talking about something they won’t understand anyway?” He also says, “The Trinity is a matter of formal faith and has little or no impact on everyday Christian life and worship” (“What Are They Saying About the Trinity?”). But this is the “main dogma” of the churches!

Catholic theologian Hans Küng notes that the Trinity is one of the reasons why churches cannot achieve significant success among non-Christians. He says: “Even knowledgeable Muslims simply cannot understand the idea of ​​the Trinity, just as Jews have not yet been able to comprehend it.

[…] The distinctions that the doctrine of the Trinity makes between one God and three hypostases do not convince Muslims; they are not enlightened, but rather confused, by theological terms borrowed from Syriac, Greek and Latin. Muslims consider all this to be a play on words. […]

Why is it necessary to add anything to the concept of the unity and exclusivity of God, if this only negates his unity and exclusivity? (“Christentum und Weltreligionen”).

"God is not a God of disorder"

How could such a confusing teaching come about? The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “So mysterious a dogma presupposes divine revelation.”

Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Forgrimler write: “Strictly speaking... the Trinity is a mystery... which cannot be known without revelation and which even after revelation cannot be fully understood” (“Kleines Theologisches Wörterbuch”).

However, the assertion that if the doctrine of the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, then it must have arisen as a result of God's revelation,
raises another serious problem. Why? Because God's revelation itself does not allow such a view of God, saying: “God is not God
disorder" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Taking these words into account, let us think: would God create such a confusing doctrine about himself that even experts cannot explain it?
Hebrew, Greek and Latin?

Moreover, do people really need to be theologians in order to ‘know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent’? (John 17:3). If yes, then
Why did few of the educated Jewish religious leaders accept Jesus as the Messiah?

It was not they who became his faithful disciples, but humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, and housewives. These simple people were so confident in what Jesus taught them about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their faith (Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36 ; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13).

Is this biblical teaching?

If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, it must be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles stated, the Bible is
it is God's revelation of himself to humanity. And since we need to know God in order to worship him correctly, we can expect the Bible to clearly explain who he is.

Believers living in the first century considered the Holy Scriptures to be trustworthy revelation from God. It was the basis of their beliefs, the decisive authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to the people in the city of Berea, “they received the word with all diligence, examining the Scriptures daily,
Is this really so?” (Acts 17:10, 11).

Jesus himself set the example by basing his teachings on Scripture, repeatedly saying, “It is written.” He “explained to them what was said about Him in everything
Scripture" (Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27).

So Jesus, Paul, and the first century believers taught the people from Scripture. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 2 Peter 1 :20, 21; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

If the Bible can correct, then it must clearly teach such an important doctrine as the doctrine of the Trinity. But do theologians and historians themselves believe that this teaching is biblical?

Trinity in the Bible?

One Protestant publication says: “The word Trinity does not appear in the Bible... It did not officially enter the theology of the church until the 4th century.”
(“The Illustrated Bible Dictionary”). And in a well-known Catholic work it also says that the Trinity is “not ... a word spoken directly and directly
God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia).

The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes: “There is really no single term in Scripture that designates the Three
Divine Faces together. The word τρίας [trías] (which is translated into Latin as trinitas [trinitas]) first appears in the writings of Theophilus
Antioch around 180 AD. e. […] After some time, the Latin form trinitas appears in the writings of Tertullian.”

However, this does not prove that Tertullian taught the Trinity. One Catholic work, for example, notes that some of Tertullian's words
subsequently used by others to describe the Trinity. And then this work gives the following warning: “But from the fact that he used these words, one must not draw hasty conclusions, since he does not apply these words to the theological theory of the Trinity” (“Trinitas-A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity” ).

The Hebrew Scriptures Testify

If the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, does it at least have a clear idea of ​​the Trinity? What do the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) show, for example?

One encyclopedia states: “Theologians today agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible.” (“The Encyclopedia of Religion”). And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “There is no dogma about the Holy Trinity in the Old Testament.”

Likewise, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits in his book The Triune God: “The Old Testament... neither directly nor indirectly speaks of a Triune God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. […]

There is no evidence that any of the holy writers even suspected the existence of [the Trinity] in the Godhead. […] To see in the [Old Testament] indications or allusions to the trinity of persons, or its “veiled signs” means going beyond the words and meaning of the holy writers” (emphasis added).

A study of the Hebrew Scriptures confirms these words. This means that in the first 39 books of the Bible, which constitute the reliable canon of divinely inspired
There is no clearly stated doctrine of the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Greek Scriptures Testify

But perhaps the Trinity is clearly spoken of in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament)?

One encyclopedia says: “Theologians agree that there is no clearly stated doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” (“The Encyclopedia of Religion”).

Edmund Fortman states: “The writers of the New Testament... did not formulate the official dogma of the Trinity and did not clearly teach that in one God there are three coequal divine persons. […] We will nowhere find any dogma about three separate divine persons existing and acting in one Godhead.”

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “In the New Testament there is neither the word Trinity nor any express doctrine of it.”

Bernhard Lohse writes: “As for the New Testament, there is no real dogma of the Trinity to be found in it” (“Epochen der Dogmengeschichte”).

One dictionary similarly states: “There is no stated doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament. “There is no express statement in the Bible that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same in essence [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]” (“The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology”).

Yale University professor Washburn Hopkins confirmed: “Jesus and Paul were obviously not familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity ... they say nothing about it” (“Origin and Evolution of Religion”).

Historian Arthur Wygall notes: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word “Trinity” appear. This idea was not accepted by the Church until three hundred years after the death of our Lord" (“The Paganism in Our Christianity”).

So, neither in the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor in the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures is there a clear doctrine of the Trinity.

Did the first Christians teach this?

Did the first Christians teach the Trinity? Let's see what historians and theologians say:

"In early Christianity there was not such a clear doctrine of the Trinity as was later developed in the creeds" (The New International Dictionary of
New Testament Theology").

“The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea [of the Trinity] to their own faith. They were devoted to God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son
God, and also recognized... the Holy Spirit; but there was no idea that these three constituted a real Trinity, being coequal and united in One” (“The Paganism in Our Christianity”).

“At first the idea of ​​the Trinity was not inherent in the Christian faith... As can be seen from the New Testament and other Christian writings of early times, the idea of ​​the Trinity did not exist either in apostolic times or immediately after them” (“Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics").

“The formulation “one God in three Persons” was firmly entrenched and finally entered Christian life and religion only at the end of the 4th century. […]

There was nothing among the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers that even remotely resembled such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic
encyclopedia").

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught

The Ante-Nicene Fathers were recognized as the leading religious teachers of the first centuries after the birth of Christ. What they taught is of interest to us.

Justin Martyr, who died around 165 AD. e., called Jesus before his coming to earth a created angel, who is “different from God, who created all things.” Justin said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator...wished him to do or say."

Irenaeus, who died around 200 AD. e., said that before becoming a man, Jesus existed separately from God and was subordinate to him.

Irenaeus pointed out that Jesus is not equal to “He who is the true and only God,” who “is above all and besides whom there is no other.”

Clement of Alexandria, who died around 215 AD. e., called God “the uncreated, eternal and one true God.” He said that the Son “stands next to the only omnipotent Father,” but is not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died around 230 AD. e., taught that God has superiority in everything. He wrote: “The Father is different from the Son (different) because he is greater; how the one who generates is different from the one who is generated; the one who sends is different from the one who is sent.” Tertullian also said: “There was a time when the Son was not. […] Before the appearance of everything else, God was one.”

Hippolytus, who died around 235 AD. e., said that God is “one God, the first and only, Creator and Lord of all,” who “had nothing equal to him in time [the same duration]… But he was One, in himself; who, having willed, created what did not exist before,” for example, he created the one who later became the man Jesus.

Origen, who died around 250 AD. e., said that “the Father and the Son are two persons ... two beings, as far as their essence is concerned” and that “compared to the Father [the Son] is a very small light.”

Summarizing this historical evidence, Alvan Lamson writes: “The doctrine of the Trinity current today ... finds no support in the words of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation can be applied to all the Ante-Nicene Fathers, that is, to all Christian writers of the three centuries after the birth of Christ.

True, they speak of the Father, the Son and... the Holy Spirit, but not as coequal, not as one being, not as Three in One, as is recognized today by those who believe in the dogma of the Trinity. Just the opposite is true” (“The Church of the First Three Centuries”).

Thus, the Bible and history clearly show that the doctrine of the Trinity was unknown in biblical times and for several centuries after.

How did the doctrine of the Trinity develop?

You may now be wondering: If the doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical, then how did it become a dogma in Christendom? Many believe that this dogma was formulated at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. e.

But it is not so. The Council of Nicea did declare that Christ had the same essence as God, and this statement laid the foundation for the later theological theory of the Trinity. But at that council the dogma of the Trinity was not adopted, because then the holy spirit was not mentioned as the third person of the triune Godhead.

The role played by Constantine at Nicaea

For many years there was strong resistance to the idea that Jesus was God, based on the Bible. Eager to end
Due to disagreements, the Roman Emperor Constantine summoned all the bishops to Nicaea. Only part of the bishops came to the meeting, about 300 people.

Constantine was not a Christian. It is believed that he later converted to Christianity, but was baptized only when he was on his deathbed. Henry
Chadwick says of him: “Like his father, Constantine worshiped the Invincible Sun... his conversion cannot be considered as the result of an internal
location... He was guided by military considerations. He never fully understood Christian teaching, but he was confident that the God of Christians would grant victory in battle" (“The Early Church”).

What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopedia Britannica says: “Constantine himself presided,
actively led the discussion and personally proposed... the key formulation about the relationship of Christ to God in the symbol that was adopted at the council, “[that Christ is] one essence with the Father.”... Trembling before the emperor, the bishops, with the exception of only two, signed the symbol, and many They did it against their will.”

Thus, the role of Constantine was decisive. After two months of bitter religious disputes, this pagan politician intervened in the dispute and
decided the case in favor of those who claimed that Jesus was God. But why? Of course, not because of any biblical beliefs. “Constantine understood practically nothing about Greek theology,” says one book (“A Short History of Christian Doctrine”). What he realized was that religious divisions threatened his empire, and he wanted to unite his domains.

However, none of the bishops who gathered at Nicaea spoke about the Trinity. They ruled only on the nature of Jesus, but not on the role of the holy spirit. If the Trinity were a clear biblical truth, shouldn't these bishops have brought it to the attention of the council?

Further developments

After the Council of Nicaea, debate on this topic continued for decades. For a time, those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even managed to regain favor with themselves. But later Emperor Theodosius decided the matter not in their favor. He took the creed adopted at the Council of Nicea as the basis for the creed of his empire and, in order to clarify its wording, convened in 381 AD. e. Cathedral of Constantinople.

At this council it was decided that the holy spirit was on the same level with God and Christ. For the first time, the Trinity of Christendom came into the spotlight.

And yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a generally accepted creed. Many resisted accepting this teaching and thereby incurred severe persecution. It was only in later centuries that the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the creeds.

The Encyclopedia Americana states: “The final formation of the theological theory of the Trinity occurred in the West within the framework of scholasticism
The Middle Ages, when they tried to explain this theory in philosophical and psychological terms."

Afanasiev Creed

The dogma of the Trinity was formulated more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a priest who supported Constantine in Nicaea. The symbol bearing his name says: “We honor one God in trinity... The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three Gods, but one God.”

Knowledgeable scholars, however, agree that this symbol was not composed by Athanasius. The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The Eastern Church did not know about this symbol until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (who died in 373), but was probably composed in southern France in the 5th century. […]

During the 6th and 7th centuries the influence of this code seems to have extended mainly to southern France and Spain. In the 9th century it was used in church liturgies in Germany and somewhat later in Rome.”

Thus, centuries passed from the time of Christ before the doctrine of the Trinity became widespread in the Christian world. But what were they guided by?
making decisions? The Word of God or clerical and political motives? Washburn Hopkins replies: "The ultimate orthodoxy
the definition of the Trinity was, by and large, a matter of church policy” (“Origin and Evolution of Religion”).

Apostasy was foretold

The shameful history of the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity is consistent with what Jesus and his apostles predicted for the time that would come after them.

They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a departure from true worship that would continue until the return of Christ, and then, before the coming of God's day of destruction of this system of things, true worship would be restored.

About this “day,” the Apostle Paul said: “That day will not come, unless a falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7).

Later he predicted: “After my departure, fierce wolves will come among you, not sparing the flock; and from among yourselves men will arise who will speak perverse things, so as to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29, 30). Other disciples of Jesus also wrote about this apostasy and his "man of sin" -
clergy. (See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.)

Paul also wrote: “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires they will heap up for themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they will turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4).

Jesus himself explained what was behind this apostasy from true worship. He said that he had sown good seeds in the field, but the enemy, Satan,
will sow tares in the same field. With the first sprouts of wheat, the tares also appeared. Therefore, it was to be expected that before the harvest, until the time when
Christ will correct everything, there will be a deviation from pure Christianity (Matthew 13:24-43).

The Encyclopedia Americana states: “The theological theory of the Trinity that emerged in the fourth century did not accurately reflect the original Christian teaching about the nature of God; on the contrary, this theory was a deviation from this teaching.” Where did this deviation come from? (1 Timothy 1:6).

What influenced this?

In ancient times, as far back as Babylonia, many people worshiped pagan gods grouped into three, or triads. It was also widespread in Egypt, Greece and Rome centuries before Christ, during his life and after his death. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to penetrate Christianity.

Historian Will Durant notes: “Christianity failed to destroy paganism; it took it over. […] From Egypt came ideas about the trinity
deities."

And Siegfried Morenz writes: “The attention of Egyptian theologians was almost completely focused on the trinity... The three gods were united and treated as one being, addressing him in the singular. This shows a direct connection between the spiritual power of the Egyptian religion and Christian theology” (“Ägyptische Religion”).

This also influenced the way in which clerics such as Athanasius formulated the ideas that led to the doctrine of the Trinity in Alexandria, Egypt, in the late third and early fourth centuries. Their own influence also spread, so that Morenz calls “Alexandrian theology an intermediate link between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”

The preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity states: "If paganism was conquered by Christianity, then
It is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by paganism. The pure deism of the first Christians... was transformed by the Church of Rome into an incomprehensible
dogma of the trinity. Many pagan principles introduced by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato have been preserved as worthy of belief.”

One dictionary notes that, according to many, the Trinity is “a distortion borrowed from pagan religions and grafted onto the Christian faith.”
(“A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge”). And another work says: “The origin of [the Trinity] is entirely pagan” (“The Paganism in Our Christianity”).

This is why James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, for example, we find the trinity of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu; and in the Egyptian religion -
Osiris, Isis and Horus... And the idea of ​​God as a Trinity is found not only in historical religions.

One is reminded, in particular, of the Neoplatonic idea of ​​the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which “is presented in a triune form” (“Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics”). But what does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?

Platonism

Plato supposedly lived from 428 to 347 BC. e. Although he did not teach the Trinity as such, his philosophy prepared the way for it. Later, philosophies grew rapidly that included the tripartite beliefs and were influenced by Plato's ideas about God and nature.

One French dictionary speaks of Plato’s influence as follows: “It seems that Plato’s trinity, which itself was only a reconstruction of the more ancient
trinities of earlier peoples, became a rational philosophical trinity of symbols, giving rise to three hypostases, or divine persons, which are taught in
Christian churches. […]

This Greek philosopher's idea of ​​a divine trinity... is to be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions" ("Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel").

Of the influence of this Greek philosophy it is said: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity were given form by the Greek Fathers, who... were greatly influenced, directly or indirectly, by the philosophy of Plato... That errors and distortions crept into the Church from this very source is irrefutable” (“The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge").

“The doctrine of the Trinity was formed gradually, and it happened comparatively late... this doctrine originates from a source that has nothing to do with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures... it was formed and introduced into Christianity by the efforts of the Fathers, who were influenced
philosophy of Plato" (“The Church of the First Three Centuries”).

By the end of the 3rd century AD. e. “Christianity” and Neoplatonic philosophies became inseparable. As Adolf Harnack says, church teaching is “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [the pagan Greek worldview]. Thus it became a secret for the vast majority of Christians” (“Grundriß der Dogmengeschichte”).

The church said its new teachings were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality, she legitimized in her midst Hellenic speculation, superstitious views and customs of pagan sacramental worship.”

Andrew Norton says about the Trinity: “We can trace the history of the origin of this doctrine and find its source, not in Christian revelation, but in the philosophy of Plato ... The Trinity is not the teaching of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of later followers of the teaching of Plato” ( "A Statement
of Reasons").

So, in the 4th century AD. e. The apostasy predicted by Jesus and the apostles flourished.

The formation of the doctrine of the Trinity was just one proof of this. Apostate churches began to adopt other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, the immortality of the soul, and idolatry.

Spiritually speaking, Christendom has entered the prophesied age of darkness, dominated by the growing “man of sin”—the clergy (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7).

Why didn't God's prophets teach this?

Why did none of God's prophets teach God's people the doctrine of the Trinity for thousands of years? After all, couldn't Jesus have used his powers as a Great Teacher to explain the Trinity to his followers?

If this were the “central article” of the faith, would God inspire the writing of hundreds of pages of the Bible and yet not use any of the instructions written in it to teach people about the doctrine of the Trinity?

Should Christians believe that, centuries after Christ and after the completion of the inspired Bible, God will support
the formation of a doctrine that its servants did not know about for thousands of years; a teaching that is an “unfathomable mystery” “beyond human understanding”; a teaching that admittedly has pagan roots and is “largely a matter of church politics”?

History clearly testifies: the doctrine of the Trinity is a deviation from the truth, it is an apostasy.

What does the Bible say about God and Jesus?

If an unbiased reader were to read the Bible from beginning to end, would he himself come to the conclusion that God is triune? Not at all.

It would be absolutely clear to an unprejudiced reader that only God is the Most High, the Creator, a separate person, unlike anyone else, and that Jesus, even during his pre-human existence, is also a separate and individual person, a creation subordinate to God.

God is one, not three

The biblical teaching that there is only one God is called monotheism. Church history professor L. L. Payne shows that monotheism in its purest form leaves no room for the Trinity: “The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a separate person. The idea that the trio could be found there... is completely unfounded."

Did anything happen to monotheism after Jesus came to earth? Payne replies: “On this point there is no break between the Old and New Testaments. The monotheistic tradition continues. Jesus was a Jew, raised by his parents in the spirit of the Old Testament scriptures.

His teaching was traditionally Jewish; certainly he presented a new gospel, but not a new theology. […] And he was convinced of the truth of the sublime verse of Jewish monotheism: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.”

These words are found in Deuteronomy 6:4. In the Synodal edition this verse reads like this: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Nothing in
The grammatical structure of this verse does not give reason to assume that we are talking about more than one person.

In the words of the Christian apostle Paul there is also no indication of any change in the nature of God, even after Jesus came to earth.
Paul wrote, “God is one” (Galatians 3:20; see also 1 Corinthians 8:4-6).

Thousands of times the Bible speaks of God as one person. When he speaks, he speaks as an undivided personality. This is expressed in the Bible very clearly. God says: “I am Jehovah, this is My name, and I will not give My glory to another” (Isaiah 42:8, NASB). “I am Jehovah your God... You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2, 3, AMP) (emphasis added).

If God really had three persons, then why would all the inspired writers of the Bible need to speak of him as one person? Wouldn't that be cheating?

Surely, if God were three persons, he would have the writers of the Bible write this so clearly that there would be no doubt about it. At least those who wrote the Christian Greek Scriptures must have done this, since they had personal contact with God's own Son. But they didn't.

From the words of the writers of the Bible, the exact opposite is quite clear: God is one Person; a unique, indivisible Personality who has no equal. “I am Jehovah, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me” (Isaiah 45:5, NASB). “You, whose name is Jehovah, alone are high above all the earth” (Psalm 83:19, PP).

A God who is not made up of several Gods

Jesus called God “the only true God” (John 17:3). He never spoke of God as a deity consisting of several persons. This is why in the Bible no one other than Jehovah is called Almighty.

Otherwise the word “omnipotent” would lose its meaning. Neither Jesus nor the holy spirit is ever called this way, because only Jehovah is the Almighty. In Genesis 17:1 he declares, “I am God Almighty.” And Exodus 18:11 (AM) says: “Jehovah is greater than all gods.”

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word 'elohʹah (god) has two plural forms, 'elohim (gods) and 'elohʹeh (gods of something or someone).

These plural forms usually refer to Jehovah and are then translated into the singular "God." Do these plural forms refer to the Trinity? No.

William Smith says: “The strange idea that ['elohim] refers to a trinity of persons in the Godhead is unlikely to find support among scholars today. It is either what philologists call the plural denoting greatness, or an indication of the fullness of God's power, the totality of all the powers exercised by God" (A Dictionary of the Bible).

Of the word 'elohim it is said: "It is almost always required to be followed by a singular verb predicate and a singular adjective attribute" (The American Journal of Semitic Languages ​​and Literatures).

As an example, the title elohim appears 35 times in the creation account, and each time the verb describing God's words and actions is singular (Genesis 1:1-2:4). This journal concludes: “['Elohim] should be explained rather as an intensifying plural indicating power and greatness.”

The word elohim does not mean “persons,” but “gods.” Therefore, those who claim that this word implies the Trinity become polytheists, worshiping more than one God. Why? Because in this case there must be three gods in the Trinity. But almost all believers in the doctrine of the Trinity reject the view that the Trinity consists of three separate gods.

In the Bible, the words 'elohim and 'eloheh' are also applied to some false idol gods (Exodus 12:12; 20:23). And in some cases, these words may refer to just one false god, as when the Philistines referred to “Dagon their god ['eloheh]” (Judges 16:23, 24).

Baal is called “the god ['elohim]” (1 Kings 18:27). Moreover, this word is also applied to people (Psalm 82:1, 6). Moses was told that he would
“God ['elohim]” for Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1).

Obviously, the use of the titles 'elohim and 'eloheh' for false gods and even for people did not imply that each of them represented many gods; Likewise, the application of the titles 'elohim and 'eloheh' to Jehovah does not imply that he is more than one person, especially in view of all the other evidence contained in the Bible on the subject.

Jesus is a separate creation

When Jesus was on earth, he was a man, only perfect because his life force was transferred into Mary's womb by God (Matthew 1:18-25). But this was not the beginning of his existence. Jesus spoke of himself as “coming down from heaven” (John 3:13).

So it is only natural that he later said to his followers, “What if you see the Son of Man [Jesus] ascending to where he was before?” (John 6:62).

Thus, before Jesus came to earth, he existed in heaven. But was he one of the persons of the omnipotent eternal triune Godhead? No, because the Bible clearly shows that during his pre-human existence, Jesus was a created spirit person, just as the angels were spirit persons created by God. Neither angels nor Jesus existed before their creation.

During his pre-human existence, Jesus was “the firstborn of every creation” (Colossians 1:15). He was "the beginning of God's creation"
(Revelation 3:14). The word "beginning" [Greek. archi] cannot be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the 'beginning' of God's creation.

In the writings of John included in the Bible, various forms of the Greek word archiʹ appear more than 20 times and always carry the general meaning of “beginning.” Yes, God created Jesus as the beginning of his invisible creations.

Let's see how closely these references to the origin of Jesus are connected with the words of the figurative “Wisdom” in the biblical book of Proverbs: “I, Wisdom, am the first that the Lord created. I was born before the mountains appeared and before the hills appeared. I appeared before the Lord created the fields of the earth and the first specks of dust” (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, CoP).

Although the one who was created by God is represented in these verses as “Wisdom,” most scholars agree that this is a rhetorical figure designating Jesus as a spiritual creature before he came to earth.

Speaking during his pre-human existence as “Wisdom,” Jesus goes on to say that he was “next to him [God] as a skillful helper” (Proverbs 8:30, CoP). Consistent with this role as a skilled helper, Colossians 1:16 (NA) speaks of Jesus that “through Him” God created all things in heaven and on earth.

So, through this skilled worker, as if his junior partner, Almighty God created everything else. The Bible summarizes it this way: “We have one God, the Father, from whom are all things... and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things” (1 Corinthians 8:6, NA) (emphasis added).

Of course, it was to this skilled helper that God spoke with the words: “Let Us make man in Our image” (Genesis 1:26). Some argue
that the words “let us do” and “to ours” in this verse point to the Trinity. But if you say: “Let’s do something for ourselves,” hardly anyone will think that you have several personalities combined into one.

You simply mean that two or more people will do something together. In the same way, when God said “let us create” and “ours,” he was simply addressing another person, his first spiritual creation, the skillful helper, the Jesus who existed before he came to earth.

Is it possible to tempt God?

Matthew 4:1 says that Jesus was “tempted by the devil.” After showing Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,” Satan said, “All these things I will give you if you will fall and worship me” (Matthew 4:8, 9). Satan tried to get Jesus to betray God.

But what kind of test of devotion could there be if Jesus himself were God? How could God rebel against himself? No. But angels and men could rebel against God, and they did. The temptation of Jesus only made sense if he was not God, but a separate person with his own free will; a person who, like any angel or person, could, if desired, commit treason.

On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine that God could sin and betray himself. “His works are perfect... God is faithful... He is righteous and true” (Deuteronomy 32:4). Therefore, if Jesus were God, he could not be tempted (James 1:13).

Without being God, Jesus could commit treason. But he remained faithful, saying: “Get behind Me, Satan; for it is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only’” (Matthew 4:10).

How big was the ransom?

One of the main reasons why Jesus came to earth is directly related to the Trinity. The Bible says, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:5, 6).

Jesus, who was no more and no less than a perfect man, became a ransom that exactly compensated for what Adam had lost - the right to a perfect human life on earth. Therefore, the apostle Paul could rightly call Jesus “the last Adam,” adding: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall live” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45).

Jesus' perfect human life was exactly the kind of "redemption" that God's justice required. Even human justice requires that the punishment correspond to the evil committed.

But if Jesus had been part of the Godhead, the ransom price would have been immeasurably greater than God's Law required (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21). It was not God who sinned in Eden, but only perfect man, Adam. Therefore, in order to truly satisfy the demand of God's justice, exactly the same ransom was needed - a perfect man, the “last Adam.”

Thus, when God sent Jesus to earth as a ransom, he intended Jesus to be the one to satisfy the demand
justice: not an incarnation of deity, not a god-man, but a perfect man, standing “lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9, CoP; compare Psalm 8:6, 7). How could any portion of the supreme Deity, whether Father, Son, or holy spirit, ever become inferior to the angels?

“Only Begotten Son” - what does it mean?

The Bible calls Jesus the “only begotten Son” of God (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Believers in the doctrine of the Trinity say that since God is eternal, then the Son of God is also eternal. But how can anyone, being a son, be the same age as his father?

Supporters of the doctrine of the Trinity argue that in the case of Jesus, the word “only begotten” takes on a different meaning, different from the definition of the word “to give birth”, which is given in the dictionary: “To give life to someone, becoming a father” (“Dictionary of Modern Russian Literary Language” in 17 volumes).

They say that in the case of Jesus it carries a “sense of eternal relationship,” a kind of relationship between father and only son, but not on the basis of birth (Vine, Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words). Does this seem logical? Can a person be a relative?
father of someone without giving birth to him?

Furthermore, why is the same Greek word translated "only begotten" used in the Bible (and Vine acknowledges this without explanation) to describe the relationship between Isaac and Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as the “only begotten” son of Abraham. There is no doubt that Isaac was the only begotten in the truest sense of the word, and not equal to his father in age and position.

One work states that the main Greek word translated "only begotten" that was applied to Jesus and Isaac is the word
monogenes, derived from the word monos, which means “one,” and the word ginomai, a root word meaning “to give birth,” “to come into being” (Strong, “Exhaustive Concordance”).

Consequently, the word monogenes is defined as “the only begotten, the only begotten, that is, the only child” (Robinson, “A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament”).

The dictionary, edited by Gerhard Kittel, states: “[Monogenes] means ‘sole descendant’, i.e. having no brothers or sisters.”
(“Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament”).

This dictionary also states that in John 1:18; 3:16, 18 and 1 John 4:9, “Jesus' relationship with the Father is not simply compared to the relationship that exists between an only child and his father. This is the relationship of the only begotten with the Father.”

So Jesus, the only begotten Son, had a beginning. Almighty God may rightly be called the Giver of Life, or Father, in the same sense as an earthly father, such as Abraham, who gave life to a son (Hebrews 11:17). Therefore, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means exactly what it says: that they are two different persons. God is elder. Jesus is the youngest - in time, position, power and knowledge.

If you think about the fact that Jesus was not the only spiritual son of God created in heaven, then it becomes clear why in relation to Jesus it was
the expression “only begotten Son” is used.

Many other created spirit creatures, angels, are also called “sons of God” in the same sense in which Adam was called, because their life force comes from Jehovah God, the Origin or Fountain of life.—Job 38:7; Psalm 36:10 ; Luke 3:38). But they were all created through the “only begotten Son,” the only one who was directly begotten of God (Colossians 1:15-17, NIV).

Was Jesus considered God?

In the Bible, Jesus is often called the Son of God, but no one in the first century ever considered him God the Son. Even the demons who believe “that there is one God” knew from their experiences in the spiritual realm that Jesus was not God. Therefore, they correctly addressed Jesus as a separate person—the “Son of God” (James 2:19; Matthew 8:29).

And when Jesus died, the Roman soldiers standing nearby, who were pagans, had enough knowledge to confirm the truthfulness of the words they heard from the followers of Jesus, but not that Jesus was God, but that “he was truly the Son of God” ( Matthew 27:54).

Therefore, the expression “Son of God” refers to Jesus as a separate created person and not as part of the Trinity. Being the Son of God, Jesus could not be God himself, because John 1:18 says, “No man has ever seen God.”

The disciples considered Jesus to be “the one...mediator between God and men,” not God (1 Timothy 2:5). By definition, a mediator is someone other than those who need mediation, so it would be illogical for Jesus to be the same person as one of the parties he is trying to reconcile. Then he would pretend to be someone he is not.

The Bible talks about the relationship between God and Jesus clearly and consistently. Only Jehovah God is Almighty. He personally created Jesus as he existed before he came to earth. So Jesus had a beginning and could not possibly be equal to God in power or eternity.

Is God Always Greater Than Jesus?

Jesus never claimed to be God. All his statements about himself show that he did not consider himself equal to God in anything - neither in strength, nor in knowledge, nor in time.

In every period of existence, whether in heaven or on earth, Jesus' words reflect his submission to God. God always stands above, Jesus, created by God, below.

Jesus was different from God

Jesus repeatedly showed that he was a creation separate from God, and that above him, Jesus, there was a God—the God he worshiped and called “Father.” When Jesus prayed to God, that is, the Father, he called him “the only true God” (John 17:3). As recorded in John 20:17, he said to Mary Magdalene, “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.”

This relationship is confirmed by the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Since Jesus had God, his Father, Jesus could not at the same time be this very God.

The Apostle Paul did not hesitate to speak of Jesus and God as completely different persons: “We have one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The apostle shows the difference when he says, “Before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels” (1 Timothy 5:21). Just as Paul speaks of Jesus and the angels in heaven, so Paul speaks of Jesus and God as individuals.

Also noteworthy are the words of Jesus recorded at John 8:17, 18. He says: “It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true; I testify of Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies of Me.” With these words, Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two different entities. How else could they be two witnesses?

Moreover, Jesus showed that he was not one person with God by saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18).

With these words, Jesus emphasized that no one, not even himself, is as good as God. The extent to which God is good distinguishes him from Jesus.

Servant Subject to God

Jesus spoke words like these many times: “The Son can do nothing in Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it” (John 5:19). “I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 6:38). “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me” (John 7:16).
Is not the one who sends greater than the one who is sent?

This relationship is clearly described in Jesus' parable of the vineyard. Jesus likened God, his Father, to the owner of a vineyard who went away, leaving the vineyard in the care of the tenants, who were the Jewish clergy. When the owner later sent the slave to the vineyard to collect fruit, the winegrowers beat the slave and sent him back empty-handed.

Then the owner sent another slave, then a third, and the winegrowers treated both of them the same way. Finally the owner decided: “I will send my beloved son [Jesus]; perhaps when they see him they will be ashamed.” But the evil vinedressers said: “This is the heir; Come, let us kill him, and his inheritance will be ours. And they brought him out of the vineyard and killed him” (Luke 20:16).

Thus, Jesus clearly showed that he was just one whom God sent to do his will, just as a father sends an obedient son. Followers of Jesus always considered him a servant, subordinate to God, not equal to him. They prayed to God for His Holy Servant Jesus, Him whom He had chosen as Christ, and for signs and wonders performed in the name of His Holy Servant Jesus (Acts 4:23, 24, 27, 30, CoP).

God is higher at all times

At the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry, as he was emerging from the water after being baptized, the voice of God was heard from heaven, saying: “This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16, 17). Did God say that he himself was his own son, that he favored himself, that he sent himself? No, God, the Creator, said that he, as a superior, favored the inferior, his Son Jesus, in the work entrusted to him.

Jesus pointed out the Father's supremacy with these words: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; for He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18). Anointing means the granting of power or authority by a superior to someone who does not already have power. Here God is clearly supreme because he anointed Jesus, giving him authority that he never had before.

Jesus made clear the superiority of his Father when the mother of two of his disciples asked Jesus to seat them on his right and left when he came into the Kingdom. Jesus answered, “It is not up to Me to give to sit at My right hand and on My left, but to whom My Father has prepared” (Matthew 20:23). If Jesus were Almighty God, he could control these places. But Jesus could not do this because God was in charge of them, and Jesus was not God.

A powerful example of Jesus' subordination is his prayers. Shortly before his death, Jesus showed who was superior by saying in prayer: “Father! Oh, that You would deign to carry this cup past Me! Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done” (Luke 22:42). Who did he pray to? Parts of yourself? No, Jesus prayed to another person, his Father, a God whose will was greater and might be different from his own, the only one who could “pass this cup past” him.

Just before his death, Jesus exclaimed: “My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me? (Mark 15:34). Who was Jesus speaking to? To yourself or to a part of yourself? Of course, the cry “My God” was not made by someone who considered himself God. And then, if Jesus was God, then who left him? Himself?

It is pointless. Jesus also said: “Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit” (Luke 23:46). If Jesus was God, then why did he need to surrender his spirit to the Father?

After his death, Jesus spent three incomplete days in the tomb. If he were God, then the words of Habakkuk 1:12 (CoP) would be wrong: “You are my Holy God, who never dies!” But the Bible says that Jesus died and was unconscious in the tomb. Who raised Jesus from the dead?

If he was truly dead, he could not resurrect himself. On the other hand, if he was not dead, then his apparent death would be impossible
pay ransom for Adam's sin. But Jesus paid the ransom in full because he really died. So it was “God who raised Him [Jesus] up, breaking the bonds of death” (Acts 2:24).

The superior God Almighty raised the inferior, his servant Jesus, from the dead.

Does Jesus' ability to perform miracles, such as resurrecting people, indicate that he was God? The apostles, prophets Elijah and Elisha also possessed such power, but at the same time they remained just people. God gave the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles the power to perform miracles to show that He supported them. But this did not make any of them part of the many-faced Divinity.

Jesus didn't know everything

Prophesying the end of this system of things, Jesus said, “But of that day or hour no one knows, not the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). If Jesus were an equal part of the Godhead, he would know everything the Father knows. But Jesus did not know everything because he was not equal with the Father.

Likewise, in Hebrews 5:8 (JIV) we read that Jesus “learned obedience through all that he suffered.” Can you imagine that God needs
was there anything to learn? No, but Jesus needed to learn because he did not know everything that God knew. Jesus also needed to learn something that God never needs to learn—obedience. God never needs to obey anyone.

The difference in knowledge between God and Christ also existed when Jesus was raised to heavenly life with God. Let's pay attention to the first words
the last book of the Bible: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him” (Revelation 1:1).

If Jesus were part of the Godhead, would he need another part of the Godhead - God - to give him revelation? Surely he would have known all about this revelation, just as God did. But Jesus didn't know because he wasn't God.

Jesus remains in submission

Before becoming a man and then on earth, Jesus submitted to God. After the resurrection, he still remains in subordination, occupying a secondary position.
position.

Speaking about the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those with him said to the Jewish Sanhedrin: “God has exalted him [Jesus], seating him at his right hand.”
(Acts 5:31, CoP). Paul wrote, “God exalted Him to the highest position” (Philippians 2:9, CoP).

If Jesus were God, how could he be exalted, that is, given a higher position than he previously occupied? He would already be an exalted part of the Trinity. If Jesus had been equal to God before his exaltation, then after his exaltation he would have become greater than God.

Paul also said that Christ has entered “into heaven itself to appear now in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24). If you stand in front of someone, can you be the same person? No. You must be a different, separate being.

Likewise, Stephen, before being stoned, “looked up into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55).
It is clear that he saw two separate persons, but did not see the holy spirit, did not see the Trinity Godhead.

The message recorded in Revelation 4:8-5:7 shows God sitting on his heavenly throne, but Jesus is not sitting there. He must approach God
to take the scroll from his right hand. From this it is clear that in heaven Jesus is not God, but a completely different person.

In accordance with the above, in the “Bulletin of the John Rylands Library” published in Manchester (England)
states: “After his resurrection to heavenly life, Jesus is described as a person who retained his individuality as special and separate from
the individuality of God as it was during Jesus' life on earth.

Next to God and in comparison with God, he appears, of course, as a separate, angelic, heavenly being in the heavenly court of God, although, being the Son of God, he belongs to a different category and occupies a much higher position than them. (Compare Philippians 2:11, CoP.)

The Bulletin also states: “However, what is said of his life and duties as the heavenly Christ does not mean or imply that in divine status he stands on a par with God himself and is God.

On the contrary, in the way his heavenly personality and his
service, both his independent existence and his subordination to God are revealed.”

In the endless future life in heaven, Jesus will remain a servant under God. The Bible says it this way: “Then will be the end, when He [Jesus in heaven] shall deliver up the kingdom to God the Father... ...Then the Son Himself also shall be subject to Him who put all things in subjection to Him, that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:24, 28) .

Jesus Never Claimed to Be God

The Bible's position is clear. Almighty God Jehovah is not only different from Jesus, but has always been superior to him. Jesus is always portrayed as a separate and inferior humble servant of God. This is why the Bible explicitly says that “the head of Christ is God,” just as “the head of every man is Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3). And that is why Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. More and more scientists agree with this. As the John Rylands Library Bulletin states: “It must be admitted that in the course of New Testament scholarship over the last, say, thirty or forty years, a growing number of respected scholars have come to the conclusion that Jesus ... never believed himself to be God.”

Of first-century Christians, the Bulletin says: “When they therefore called [Jesus] by such honorable titles as Christ, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord, they did not express that he was God, but that he I was doing God's work."

So, even as some theologians admit, the concept of Jesus as God contradicts the entire testimony of the Bible. According to the Bible, God is always superior, and Jesus is given the place of a subordinate servant.

The Holy Spirit is the active power of God

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the holy spirit is the third person of the Godhead, equal to the Father and the Son. One work says: “The Holy Spirit is God” (“Our Orthodox Christian Faith”).

The word most often used for "spirit" in the Hebrew Scriptures is the word ru'ach, meaning "breath, wind, spirit." In the Greek Scriptures the word pneuma has a similar meaning. Do these words indicate that the holy spirit is part of the Trinity?

Effective force

The Bible's use of the term "holy spirit" shows that it is a controlled force used by Jehovah God to carry out his many purposes. To some extent, this force can be likened to electricity - a force that can be adapted to perform a wide variety of tasks.
Genesis 1:2 says that “the Spirit [Heb. The ruʹach] of God hovered over the waters.” In this case, the spirit of God was his active force, which gave shape to the Earth.

God uses his spirit to enlighten those who serve him. David prayed, “Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God; Let Your good Spirit [ruʹach] guide me into the land of righteousness” (Psalm 142:10). When 70 able men were assigned to help Moses, God told him, “I will take from the Spirit [ruʹach] that is on you and put it on them” (Numbers 11:17).

Men of God wrote prophecies “as they were moved by the Spirit [Gr. from pneuma] to the saints” (2 Peter 1:20, 21). Therefore Scripture is “breathed out by God” [Greek. Theopneustos, meaning "breathed in by God"] (2 Timothy 3:16). In addition, the holy spirit guided some people so that they saw visions or
prophetic dreams (2 Samuel 23:2; Joel 2:28, 29; Luke 1:67; Acts 1:16; 2:32, 33).

The Holy Spirit prompted Jesus to go into the wilderness after his baptism (Mark 1:12). The Spirit burned within God's servants like fire, urging them to action. And he helped them speak boldly and courageously (Micah 3:8; Acts 7:55-60; 18:25; Romans 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19).

Through his spirit, God executes judgments against people and nations (Isaiah 30:27, 28; 59:18, 19). The Spirit of God can penetrate anywhere, working for or against people (Psalm 139:7-12).

"Excessive Power"

The Spirit of God can give God's servants “abounding power” (2 Corinthians 4:7). This allows them to endure tests of faith and do things that they would not be able to do without this spirit.

For example, Judges 14:6 says of Samson: “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he tore the lion like a kid; but he had nothing in his hand.”
Did a divine figure actually enter or take over Samson, causing his body to do what he did? No, according to another Bible translation, “the power of the Lord made Samson strong” (“Today’s English Version”).

The Bible says that when Jesus was baptized, the holy spirit descended on him in the form of a dove, not in the form of a man (Mark 1:10). This active power of God enabled Jesus to heal the sick and raise the dead. Luke 5:17 says, “The power of the Lord was manifested in healing the sick.”

The Spirit of God empowered Jesus' disciples to perform miracles. Acts 2:1-4 tells us that while the disciples were together at Pentecost, “suddenly
there came a sound from heaven, as from a rushing mighty wind... And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”
So, the holy spirit gave Jesus and other servants of God the power to do what people normally cannot do.

Not a person

But aren't there verses in the Bible where the holy spirit is animated? There is, but note what the Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this: “Although this spirit is often described as animate, the holy writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] apparently never considered this spirit to be a separate person and did not represent it as a person in his labors" (“The Triune God”).

Scripture often speaks of something inanimate as if it were animate. Wisdom is said to have children (Luke 7:35). Sin and death are said to reign (Romans 5:14, 21). Genesis 4:7 (as translated by The New English Bible) says, “Sin is the demon that lurks at the door,” so sin is animated as the evil spirit that lurks at Cain’s door.

But, of course, sin is not a spiritual person; in the same way, the animation of the holy spirit does not make him a spiritual person.

Likewise, at 1 John 5:6, 8, not only the spirit, but also “the water and the blood” are said to “bear witness.” But water and blood are clearly not personalities,
neither is the personality and the holy spirit.

This is consistent with the Bible generally speaking of the “Holy Spirit” as inanimate, e.g. the parallel between the holy spirit,
water and fire (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8). People are encouraged to be filled with the holy spirit instead of getting drunk on wine (Ephesians 5:18). They are said to be filled with the holy spirit as well as with wisdom, faith, and joy (Acts 6:3; 11:24; 13:52).

And 2 Corinthians 6:6 mentions the holy spirit among other qualities. Such expressions would not occur so often if the holy spirit were a person.

Additionally, although some Bible verses say that the spirit speaks, other verses show that it is actually through men or angels (Matthew 10:19, 20; Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Hebrews 2:2 ). The action of the spirit in such cases is similar to the action of radio waves, with the help of which messages are transmitted between people located far from each other.

Matthew 28:19 says, “In the name...of the Holy Spirit.” But the word “name” in both Greek and Russian does not always mean a personal name. When we say “in the name of the law,” we do not mean a person. We refer to the relevant law and its force. One work says: “The use here of the word 'name' (onoma) is common in the Septuagint and in the papyri to denote power or authority" (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament).

Therefore, one who is baptized “in the name of ... the Holy Spirit” recognizes the power of this spirit: that this spirit comes from God and acts according to God's will.

"Comforter"

Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “comforter” who would teach, guide, and speak (John 14:16, 26; 16:13). The Greek word Jesus used for “comforter” (paraʹkletos) is masculine. Therefore, when Jesus mentioned what this comforter would do, he used masculine personal pronouns (John 16:7, 8).

On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word (pneʹma) is used to denote spirit, the Greek text appropriately uses the neuter pronoun, which indicates the inanimate nature of the spirit.

Most translators who support the doctrine of the Trinity hide this fact and in John 14:17, as in many other places, give the word “spirit” the meaning of a living being, a person. This is expressed grammatically in Russian in the form of the accusative case. The accusative case of animate masculine nouns corresponds to the genitive case, and the accusative case of inanimate masculine nouns corresponds to the genitive case.
nominative

Although "spirit" here denotes the active power of God and is therefore an inanimate noun, in many
In Bible translations, the accusative case of the word “spirit” corresponds to the genitive case (“spirit”), which erroneously indicates the animation of the spirit.

Not part of the Trinity

Various sources acknowledge that the Bible does not support the idea that the holy spirit is the third person of the Trinity. For example:

“Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a clear reference to a Third Person” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

“The Jews never considered the spirit to be a person; There is no hard evidence that even any of the Old Testament writers thought so. […]
Usually the Holy Spirit is presented in the Gospels and Acts as God’s power or might” (Catholic theologian E. Fortman).

“The Old Testament does not give any idea of ​​the spirit of God as a person... The Spirit of God is simply the power of God.

If he is sometimes described as separate from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts as an external force.” “In most of the verses of the New Testament, the spirit of God is depicted as something, not as someone; this is especially evident in the parallelism of the spirit and power of God” (New Catholic Encyclopedia) (emphasis added). “In general, in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, the spirit is spoken of as God’s energy or power” (Catholic Dictionary).

Therefore, neither the Jews nor the early Christians considered the holy spirit to be part of the Trinity. This teaching appeared centuries later. As noted in the Catholic
dictionary", "the third Person was approved at the Council of Alexandria in 362... and finally adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381",
that is, three and a half centuries after the disciples were filled with the holy spirit at Pentecost!

So, the holy spirit is not a person and not part of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is the active power of God, which he uses to accomplish his will. This power is not equal to God, but is always at his disposal and subordinate to him.

What verses are used to support the doctrine of the Trinity?

The doctrine of the Trinity is said to be proven by certain Bible verses. However, when reading such verses, it should be remembered that this doctrine is not supported by either biblical or historical facts.

Three in one

Three such “proving” verses are given in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, but it also admits: “The Old Testament does not teach the dogma of
Holy Trinity. In the New Testament, the earliest evidence is found in the letters of Paul, mainly in 2 Cor. 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles] and 1 Cor. 12:4-6. In the Gospels, the proof of the Trinity is clearly found only in the baptismal formula in Matt. 28.19.”

The Synodal Edition lists three “persons” in these verses. 2 Corinthians 13:13 says, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit with you all.”

1 Corinthians 12:4-6 says, “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and the services are different, but the Lord is the same; and the actions are different, but God is one and the same, working everything in everyone.” And Matthew 28:19 says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Do these verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute the Triune Godhead, that all three are equal in essence, power, and eternity? No, it is not said, just as listing three people - for example, Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov - does not mean that they are three in one.

References of this kind “prove only that there are three so-called subjects... but such references do not in themselves prove that these three subjects
necessarily of the divine nature and worthy of equal divine honor" (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature").

Although this work supports the doctrine of the Trinity, it says of 2 Corinthians 13:13, “They cannot justly be said to have equal power, or equal nature.” And Matthew 28:18-20 says, “If taken separately, this passage does not conclusively prove that all three of these subjects are persons, nor their equality, nor their divinity.”

In the account of Jesus' baptism, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus saw the Spirit of God descending as
a dove, and descended upon Him” (Matthew 3:16). However, this does not prove that they are three in one. Many times Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are mentioned together, but this does not make them one. Peter, James and John are mentioned together, but they also do not become one.

Also, at the time of Jesus' baptism, the spirit of God came upon Jesus, which shows that Jesus was not anointed with the spirit before His baptism. But how then could he be part of the Trinity, in which he and the holy spirit were always one?

Another reference that speaks of three subjects together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. However, scientists
admit that these words were not originally in the Bible; they were added much later. In most modern translations this inserted verse
rightly omitted.

Other verses that are cited to support the doctrine of the Trinity deal with the relationship of only two subjects - the Father and Jesus. Let's look at some of these verses.

“I and the Father are one”

This verse, recorded at John 10:30, is often cited to support the doctrine of the Trinity, although it does not mention a third person. But Jesus himself explained,
what he meant when he said that he was “one” with the Father.

In John 17:21, 22 he prayed to God for his disciples: “That they may all be one; as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, so may they also be one in Us... ... May they be one, even as We are one.” Did Jesus pray for all his disciples to become one being? No, Jesus obviously prayed that they, just like he and God, would be one in thought and purpose. (See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.)

In 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered... But he who plants and he who waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he
Apollos was two persons in one, he meant that they had a common goal.

The Greek word that Paul used here and that is translated
as “one” (hen), refers to the neuter gender and indicates community in cooperation. This is the same word that Jesus used in John
10:30 to describe his relationship with the Father. And this is the same word Jesus used in John 17:21, 22. Therefore, when he used in these
in places the word meaning “one” (hen), he spoke of unity in thoughts and goals.

John Calvin, a believer in the Trinity, said of John 10:30: “The ancient thinkers misused this verse to
evidence that Christ has... one essence with the Father. Because Jesus testifies not to the unity of essence, but to the agreement between him and the Father" (“Commentary on the Gospel According to John”).

In the verses immediately following John 10:30, Jesus convincingly demonstrated that he was not claiming to be God with these words. Jesus asked the Jews who had come to this wrong conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Do you say to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:31-36). Jesus claimed that he was not God the Son, but the Son of God.

“Making Yourself equal to God”?

Another verse cited to support the doctrine of the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as in John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because he “called God his Father, making himself equal with God.”

But who said that Jesus made himself equal to God? Not Jesus. In the very next verse (19) he refutes this false accusation: “To this Jesus said...
The Son cannot do anything on his own if he does not see the Father doing it.”

With these words, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not do anything on his own initiative. Is it possible for someone equal to Almighty God to say that he “can do nothing of Himself”? (Compare Daniel 4:31, 32.)

Interestingly, the context of John 5:18 and John 10:30 shows that Jesus was defending himself against false accusations made by Jews who, like those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, were drawing incorrect conclusions.

"Equal to God"?

Philippians 2:6 in the Synodal Edition (1876) says of Jesus: “He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.” This verse is also translated in the King James Bible, published in 1611.

Some still use such translations to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But let's see how this verse sounds in other translations:

1869: “Who, being in the form of God, did not think it necessary to encroach upon being equal with God” (Noise, The New Testament).

1965: “He is truly of a divine nature! - never presumptuously made himself equal to God” (Friedrich Pfäflin, “Das Neue Testament”, revised edition).

1968: “Who, although he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be eagerly pursued” (“La Bibbia Concordata”).

1976: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that he should try to become equal with God by force” (“Today’s English Version”).

1984: “Who, although he was in the form of God, did not admit the thought of encroaching on equality with God” (“New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures”).

1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider that equality with God should be encroached upon” (“The New Jerusalem Bible”).

And yet some argue that even these more accurate translations imply that 1) Jesus was already equal with God, but did not seek to maintain it
equality, or 2) he did not need to encroach on equality with God because he already had it.

Ralph Martin says about this about the original Greek text: “It is doubtful, however, whether the meaning of the verb could be displaced from its original
the meaning of “to seize”, “to appropriate” to the meaning of “to hold fast”” (“The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians”).

Another work says: “Nowhere can one find a verse in which the word ἁρπάζω [harpazo] or any of its derivatives would have the meaning of “possessing,” “preserving.” It almost always means “to seize”, “to appropriate”. Thus, it is inadmissible to shift from the true meaning of the word “to encroach” to the completely different meaning of “to hold fast”” (“The Expositor’s Greek Testament”).

From the above, it becomes clear that the translators who worked on such translations as the Synodal and the King James Bible distorted the rules,
to support the doctrine of the Trinity. If we read the Greek text with an open mind, Philippians 2:6 does not say that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal with God, but quite the opposite - that Jesus did not think that such equality was appropriate.

The correct meaning of verse 6 is made clear by its context (verses 3-5, 7, 8). The Philippians are exhorted: “With humility of mind, honor one another
superior to yourself." Paul then cites Christ as an outstanding example of this behavior: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.”

What “feelings”? Is it not robbery to be equal with God? No, that would be exactly the opposite of what Paul was saying! Jesus, who considered God superior to himself, would never have encroached upon equality with God; instead, he “humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death.”

Of course, these words cannot be attributed to any of the constituent parts of Almighty God. This was said about Jesus Christ, excellent personal
the example of which Paul used to emphasize the main idea - the importance of humility and obedience to the Most High and Creator, Jehovah God.

"I am"

In John 8:58, some translations, such as the Synodal translation, quote Jesus as saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Did Jesus teach here?
How do believers in the doctrine of the Trinity claim that he was known by the title "I am"? And does this mean, as they claim, that he was Jehovah in
Hebrew Scriptures, because Exodus 3:14 (NAM) says, “God said to Moses, I am He that I am”?

In Exodus 3:14, the phrase “I am” is used as a title for God, showing that he truly exists and fulfills what he has promised. In one work,
of which Dr. J. G. Hertz was the publisher, it is said of this phrase: “To the captive Israelites it meant: “Although He has not yet shown you His power, He will do so; He is eternal and will definitely save you."

Most modern translations follow Rashi [a French commentator on the Bible and Talmud], translating [Exodus 3:14] with the expression “I will be what I will be” (“Pentateuch und Haftaroth”).

The expression in John 8:58 is markedly different from the expression in Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or title, but as an explanation of his existence before becoming a man. Let's see how these words from John 8:58 are rendered in other Bible translations:

1869: “From the Time Before Abraham I Am” (Noise, The New Testament).

1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" (Smith and Goodspeed, The Bible-An American Translation).

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already what I am” (Jörg Zink, “Das Neue Testament”).

1981: "I lived before Abraham was born!" (“The Simple English Bible”).

1984: “Before Abraham came, there was I” (“New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures”).

1990: “I was before Abraham was born” (translation by L. Lutkovsky).

So, the idea that the Greek conveys in this verse is that God's firstborn, Jesus, who was created “before all creation,” existed long before Abraham was born (Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30 , CoP; Revelation 3:14).

And again, the correctness of this understanding is evidenced by the context. At that time, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming that he “saw Abraham,” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old (verse 57). Jesus' natural reaction to this was to tell the truth about his age. Therefore, as one would expect, he told them that “he was before Abraham was born” (translation by L. Lutkovsky).

"The Word was God"

John 1:1 in the Synodal Edition reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” According to those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, this means that the “Word” (Greek: ho logos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was none other than Almighty God.

Note, however, that the correct understanding here again helps the context. Even the Synodal edition says that “the Word was with God” (our italics - Ed.). A person who is “with” another person cannot himself be that other person.

In agreement with this, a journal edited by Jesuit Joseph Fitzmyer notes that interpreting the last part of John 1:1 to mean “God” would “contradict the previous part of the verse,” which states that the Word was with God ( "Journal of Biblical Literature").

Let's also see how this part of the verse is rendered in other translations:

1808: “and the word was god” (“The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text”).

1864: “and God was the word” (Benjamin Wilson, “The Emphatic Diaglott”).

1928: “and the Word was a divine being” (Maurice Godgiel, “La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean”).

1935: “and the Word was divine” (Smith and Goodspeed, “The Bible-An American Translation”).

1946: “and of divine kind was the Word” (Ludwig Timme, “Das Neue Testament”).

1950: “and the Word was God” (“New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures”).

1958: “and the Word was God” (James Tomanek, The New Testament).

1975: “and the god (or divine kind) was the Word” (Siegfried Schulz, “Das Evangelium nach Johannes”).

1978: “and of a godlike kind was the Logos” (Johannes Schneider, “Das Evangelium nach Johannes”).

In John 1:1, the Greek noun theosʹ (god) appears twice. The first time it refers to Almighty God, who had the Word (“and the Word [logos] was with God [the noun form theos]”). In this case, the word theosʹ is preceded by the word ton, a form of the definite article in Greek that refers to a specific person, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [tone] God”).

On the other hand, the second time the word theosʹ appears in John 1:1, there is no article before it. Therefore, literally it is translated “and the Word was God.” However, as we have already seen, in many translations the second word theosʹ (the nominal part of the compound predicate) is translated as “divine,” “godlike,” or “god.” On what basis is this done?

Koine Greek, the common Greek language, had a definite article, but no indefinite article. Therefore, if before
a noun representing the nominal part of a compound predicate does not have a definite article; depending on the context, this noun can be indefinite, that is, it expresses its belonging to a number of similar ones.

One journal (Journal of Biblical Literature) states that expressions “in which the verb is preceded by a nominal part of a compound predicate without
articles, as a rule, have a qualitative characteristic.” As the journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be called god-like.

John 1:1 says, “That the nominal part of a compound predicate has a qualitative characteristic is so evident that the noun [theosʹ] cannot be regarded as definite, that is, as expressing its singularity.”

Thus, John 1:1 emphasizes the quality of the Word that it was “divine,” “godlike,” “god,” but not Almighty God.

This is consistent with what is said in other parts of the Bible, showing that Jesus, who here acts as the representative of God and is called
“By the Word”, he was an obedient subordinate who was sent to earth by the Supreme, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses with the same grammatical structure, and almost all translators into other languages ​​translate the nominal part of the compound predicate so that it has a qualitative characteristic.

For example, Mark 6:49, where the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, says, “They thought it was a ghost.” In Koine Greek there is no indefinite article before the word "ghost".

But in order to harmonize the translation of this verse with the context, almost all translators into other languages ​​translate the nominal part of the compound predicate so that it has a qualitative characteristic. Likewise, since John 1:1 says that the Word was with God, it could not be God, but was “god” or “divine.”

Theologian and scholar Joseph Henry Thayer, who worked on the American Standard Version Bible, said, “The Logos was the divine, not the Divine Being himself.” Jesuit John Mackenzie wrote: “John. 1:1 must be accurately translated... “the word was a divine being”” (Dictionary of the Bible).

Breaking the rules?

Some, however, argue that such a translation violates the rules of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E.
Colwell in 1933. He argued that in Greek the nominal part of a compound predicate “has a [definite] article if it follows
verb; if it precedes the verb, then it does not have a [definite] article.”

By this Colwell meant that the nominal part of a compound predicate, which comes before the verb, should be understood as if it were preceded by
definite article. In John 1:1, the second noun (theosʹs) is the nominal part of the compound predicate and precedes the verb - “and [theosʹs]
was the Word." Therefore, Colwell argued, John 1:1 should be read “and God was the Word.”

But let's look at just two examples found in John 8:44. There Jesus says about the Devil: “He was a murderer” and “He is a liar.” As in
John 1:1, in the Greek text, the nouns (“murderer” and “liar”), representing the nominal parts of the compound predicates, precede the verbs (“was” and the omitted “is” in Russian).

None of these nouns have an indefinite article before them, because there is no such article in Koine Greek. But in most translations the nominal part of the compound predicate is translated so that it has a qualitative characteristic, because the grammar of the Greek language and the context require it. (See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.)

Colwell was forced to admit this in relation to the nominal part of the compound predicate and said: “In this word order it is indefinite [with
indefinite article] only if the context so requires.”

So, even Colwell admits that, when the context requires it, in sentences with such a structure, translators may insert an indefinite article before the noun, or translate the nominal part of a compound predicate as,
so that it has a quality characteristic.

Does the context require that the nominal part of the compound predicate be translated this way in John 1:1? Yes, because, as the entire Bible testifies, Jesus
- not Almighty God. Therefore, in such cases, the translator must be guided by the unquestionable rules of grammar issued by
Colwell, but the context.

Many scholars disagree with such made-up rules, as evidenced by many translations that insert an indefinite article into John 1:1 and other verses, or translate the nominal part of a compound predicate so that it has a qualitative characteristic. The Word of God does not agree with such rules.

No contradiction

Does the statement that Jesus Christ is “god” contradict the biblical teaching that there is only one God? No, because the word is sometimes used in the Bible to refer to powerful creatures. Psalm 8:6 says, “Almost likening them [people] to gods [Heb. 'elohim], that is, the angels.

When Jesus responded to the Jews who accused him of making himself equal with God, he noted that “[in the Law God] called those to whom the word of God came gods,” that is, judges from among men (John 10:34 , 35; Psalm 81:1-6). Even Satan is called “the god of this age” in 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Jesus occupies a position far above angels, imperfect men, and Satan. If they are called “gods”, powerful, then, of course,
can be called the “god” of Jesus. Jesus' unique position in relation to Jehovah allows him to be called “the mighty God.”​—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But doesn't the capitalized title "Mighty God" mean that Jesus is somehow equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah simply prophesied that this would be one of the titles that would be applied to Jesus, and in Russian such titles are written with a capital letter.

However, although Jesus is called “mighty,” only one can be “Almighty.” Calling Jehovah God “Almighty” would not make sense if there were not other persons who were also called gods, but who occupied a lower position.

The John Rylands Library Bulletin, published in England, notes that, according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, although verses such as John 1:1 use theosʹ in reference to Christ, “in none of these cases does the word “Theos” is not used in a way that would identify Jesus with the one who appears throughout the New Testament as “ho Theos,” that is, with the Most High God.”

The Bulletin adds: “If the New Testament writers believed that believers needed to acknowledge Jesus as ‘God,’ then how do we explain the almost complete absence of this particular form of recognition in the New Testament?”

But what about the words of the Apostle Thomas, who, according to John 20:28, said to Jesus: “My Lord and my God!”? To Thomas, Jesus was like “god,” especially considering the unusual circumstances under which Thomas spoke these words.

Some scholars believe that with these words Thomas simply expressed his amazement, and although he said them to Jesus, they were addressed to God. Be that as it may, Thomas did not consider Jesus to be Almighty God, because he, like all the other apostles, knew that Jesus never said that he was God, but taught that the “one true God” is Jehovah alone (John 17 :3).

And again, context helps to understand this. A few days earlier, the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell his disciples, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17).

Although Jesus had already been resurrected as a powerful spirit, Jehovah was still God to him. Jesus continued to speak of Him this way even in the last book of the Bible, after He had been glorified (Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12).

Just three verses after Thomas's exclamation, John 20:31 makes the matter even clearer: “These are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” and not Almighty God. And the word "Son" is used in its direct sense, as in the case of a literal father and son, and not in the sense of some mysterious part of the Triune Godhead.

Must be consistent with the Bible

Several other verses are said to support the doctrine of the Trinity. But, as with the verses already discussed, close examination reveals that this is not the case.

Such verses only show that when considering any claims in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, one must ask oneself: Is this interpretation consistent with the consistent teaching throughout the Bible that Jehovah God alone is the Most High? If not, then this interpretation is wrong.

It should also be remembered that not a single verse that is cited as evidence states that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are one
whole in some mysterious Deity. No verse in the Bible says that all three are equal in essence, power and eternity. The Bible consistently portrays Almighty God, Jehovah, as the only Most High, Jesus as His created Son, and the holy spirit as God's active force.

Worship God in a way that pleases Him

Jesus said in prayer to God, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent” (John 17:3). What do you need to know? “[God] wants all people to be saved and to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

This means that God wants us to know him and his intentions accurately and in accordance with divine truth. And the source of this truth is the Word of God - the Bible (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17). If people know exactly what the Bible says about God, they will not be like those of whom Romans 10:2, 3 says, “Have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” Or those Samaritans to whom Jesus said, “You do not know what you worship” (John 4:22).

Therefore, if we want to receive God's approval, we need to ask ourselves:
Accurate knowledge of the truth gives the correct answers to these questions. Knowing these answers, we can worship God in a way that pleases Him.

They dishonor God

“I will glorify those who glorify Me,” says God (1 Samuel 2:30). Does calling someone his equal glorify God? Does it glorify him that Mary is called “Mother of God” and “Mediatrix… between the Creator and His creatures,” as can be read in the New Catholic Encyclopedia?

No, such views offend God. He has no equal, and he has no fleshly mother, since Jesus was not God. And there is no “Mediatrix,” because God has appointed only one “mediator between... [himself] and men,” Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1, 2).

Undoubtedly, the doctrine of the Trinity has complicated and blurred people's understanding of the true position of God. This prevents people from gaining accurate knowledge about
The Master of the Universe, Jehovah God, and worship him the way he wants.

The theologian Hans Küng said: “Why is it necessary to add anything to the concept of the unity and exclusiveness of God if this only negates his unity and exclusiveness?” But this is exactly what faith in the Trinity led to.

Those who believe in the Trinity do not have “God in their minds” (Romans 1:28). The same verse says, “God gave them over to a corrupt mind to do evil things.”

Verses 29 through 31 list some of these “bad things,” such as “murder, strife,” and that people are “treacherous,” “unloving,” and “unmerciful.” All this is typical for followers of those religions that teach the dogma of the Trinity.

For example, believers in the dogma of the Trinity often persecuted and even killed those who rejected this dogma. But that is not all. During wars, they also killed their fellow believers. What could be more “obscene” than the fact that Catholics killed Catholics, Orthodox killed Orthodox, and Protestants killed Protestants, and all in the name of the same Triune God?

Jesus said directly: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). The Word of God develops this idea, saying: “The children of God and the children of the devil are known by this: everyone who does not do righteousness is not from God, neither does he who does not love his brother.”

The Bible likens those who kill their spiritual brothers to “Cain, who was of the evil one [Satan] and killed his brother” (1 John 3:10-12).

So, teaching people confusing doctrines about God leads to actions that violate his laws. And indeed, what happened to the Christian
world, is consistent with the description made by the Danish theologian Søren Kierkegaard: “Christendom has broken with Christianity without even realizing it.”

The Apostle Paul accurately described the spiritual condition of Christendom today: “They say that they know God; but by deeds they deny, being vile and
disobedient and incapable of doing any good work” (Titus 1:16).

Soon, when God puts an end to this evil system of things, the Trinity-believing Christian world will be called to account. And he will be condemned for
their deeds and teachings that dishonor God (Matthew 24:14; 25:31-34, 41, 46; Revelation 17:1-6, 16; 18:1-8, 20, 24; 19:17-21).

Reject the Trinity

Compromise with God's truth is impossible. Therefore, to worship God in a way that pleases him is to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. It contradicts the beliefs and teachings of the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians. It contradicts what God says about himself in his inspired Word. This is why God advises, “Remember that I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9, NKJV).

God does not want to make himself incomprehensible and mysterious. Rather, the more people become confused about who God is and what his intentions are, the more this plays into the hands of God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, “the god of this age.” He is the one who spreads such false teachings to blind the minds of unbelievers (2 Corinthians 4:4).

The doctrine of the Trinity also serves the interests of the clergy, who seek to maintain power over people, trying to present this doctrine as if only theologians can understand it. (See John 8:44.)

Accurate knowledge about God leads to great changes. It frees us from teachings contrary to God's Word and from apostate organizations. As Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).

By glorifying God as the Most High and worshiping him as he desires, we can avoid the fate that will soon befall an apostate Christian world.

We, on the other hand, can hope for God's favor when this system comes to an end: “The world and its lust pass away, but he who does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17).

Live forever in heaven on earth

God promises that those who honor him will live forever. “The righteous will inherit the earth, and will dwell in it forever,” God’s Word assures us (Psalm 36:29).

But to be among the “righteous”, it is not enough for you to learn about the doctrine of the Trinity. You need to grow in the knowledge of God. Jehovah's Witnesses will be happy to help you with this if you are not already receiving such help.

I liked the article all about the Trinity, then share with your friends on social networks. Would you like to receive more useful information?
Subscribe to new articles, and also order a topic or question that interests you

For why, like a plant that is crooked on one side, bend with all your might in the opposite direction, correcting the crookedness with the crookedness, and not be content with straightening only to the middle and stopping within the limits of piety? When I speak about the middle, I mean the truth, which alone must be kept in mind, rejecting both inappropriate confusion and even more absurd division.

For in one case, out of fear of polytheism, having reduced the concept of God into one hypostasis, let us leave only bare names, recognizing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, and affirming not so much that they are all one thing is that each of them is nothing; because, passing and changing into each other, they cease to be what They are in themselves. And in another case, dividing the Divinity into three essences, or (according to Ariev, beautifully so-called madness) one another alien, unequal and separate, or without beginning, unsubordinated and, so to speak, anti-God, then we will indulge in Jewish poverty, limiting the Divinity to one Unborn , then we will fall into the opposite, but equal to the first evil, assuming three principles and three Gods, which is even more absurd than the previous one.

Shouldn't be such a lover (admirer. - Ed.) Father, in order to take away from Him the property of being a Father. For whose Father will he be when we remove and alienate from Him, along with creation, the nature of the Son? One should not be such a lover of Christ that He does not even retain the property of being the Son. For whose Son will he be if he does not relate to the Father as the author? One should not diminish the dignity in the Father - to be the beginning - that belongs to Him as Father and Parent. For it will be the beginning of something low and unworthy, if He is not the author of the Divinity contemplated in the Son and Spirit. All this is not necessary when it is necessary to maintain faith in the One God, and to confess three Hypostases, or three Persons, moreover, each with His personal property.

In my opinion, faith in the One God will be maintained when we attribute both the Son and the Spirit to the One Author (but not add them up or confuse them with Him) - attribute them both to the same (I will call it that) movement and desire of the Divine , and the identity of essence. We will also maintain faith in the Three Hypostases, when we do not imagine any confusion or fusion, as a result of which, among those who honor more than one thing, everything could be destroyed. Personal properties will also be observed when we imagine and name the Father as beginningless and beginning (beginning, as the Culprit, as the Source, as the Ever-Essential Light); and the Son is not in the least beginningless, but also the beginning of all things.

When I say: Beginning - do not introduce time, do not put anything in between the One who gave birth and the one who is born, do not divide the Nature by putting something bad between the coeternal and the coexistent. For if time is older than the Son, then, without a doubt, the Father became the author of time before the Son. And what would be the Creator of times, He Who Himself is under time? How could He be Lord of all, if time anticipates Him and possesses Him?

So, the Father is Beginningless, because He did not borrow existence from anyone else, not even from Himself (1). And the Son, if you imagine the Father as the Author, is not without beginning (because the Beginning of the Son is the Father as the Author); if you imagine the Beginning in relation to time - Beginningless (because the Lord of times has no beginning in time).

And if from the fact that bodies exist in time, you conclude that the Son must also be subject to time, then you will attribute the body to the incorporeal. And if, on the basis that what is born among us did not exist before, and then comes into being, you begin to assert that the Son also had to come from non-existence into being, then you will equate the incomparable among themselves - God and man, the body and the incorporeal. In this case, the Son must both suffer and be destroyed, like our bodies. You conclude from the birth of bodies in time that God is born in this way. But I conclude that He is not born this way, from the very fact that bodies are born this way. For what is not alike in being is not alike in birth; Can you really admit that God is subject to the laws of matter in other respects, for example, he suffers and grieves, thirsts and hungers, and endures everything that is characteristic of both the body and both the body and the incorporeal. But your mind does not allow this, because we have a word about God. Therefore, allow no other birth than Divine.

But you ask: if the Son was born, how was he born? Answer me first, persistent questioner: if He was created, then how was He created? And then ask me: how was He born?

You say: “And in birth there is suffering, just as there is suffering in creation. For without suffering, is there the formation of an image in the mind, the tension of the mind and the disintegration into parts presented collectively? And in birth, just like what is created, is created in time. And here is the place , and there is a place. And in birth, failure is possible, just as in creation there is failure (I heard such speculation among you), for often what the mind intended, the hands did not carry out.”

But you also say that everything is composed by word and will. "To that speech, and it was: To that commanded, and it was created"(Ps. 32:9). When you affirm that everything was created by God’s Word, then you are introducing a non-human creation. For none of us does what he does with words. Otherwise, there would be nothing lofty or difficult for us, if we only had to say and the word was followed by the execution of the deed.

Therefore, if God creates what He creates with the word, then He does not have a human image of creation. And you either show me a person who would do something with a word, or agree that God does not create like a person. Designate a city according to your will, and let a city appear to you. Desire that your son be born, and let the baby appear. Wish for something else to happen for you, and let the desire turn into action.

If for you nothing of the sort follows from volition, whereas in God volition is already action, then it is clear that man creates differently, and differently - the Creator of everything - God. And if God does not create in a human way, then how can you demand that He give birth in a human way?

You once did not exist, then you began to be, and then you yourself give birth and thus bring into being that which did not exist, or (I’ll tell you something more profound), perhaps you yourself do not produce that which did not exist. For Levi, as the Scripture says, "still in my father's loins"(Heb. 7:10) before he came into being.

And let no one catch me at this word; I do not say that the Son came from the Father in the same way as existing before in the Father and later coming into being; I’m not saying that He was at first imperfect and then became perfect, which is the law of our birth. Making such connections is typical of hostile people who are ready to attack every spoken word.

We don't think that way; on the contrary, confessing that the Father has existence unbegotten (and He always existed, and the mind cannot imagine that there was never a Father), we confess together that the Son was begotten, so that both the existence of the Father and the birth of the Only Begotten, from the Father who exists, and not after the Father, is it possible to admit consistency in just the idea of ​​the beginning, and of the beginning as the Author (more than once I return to the same word the fatness and sensuality of your understanding).

But if without inquisitiveness you accept the birth (when this is how it should be expressed) of the Son, or His independence (upostasis), or let someone invent for this another, more appropriate speech for the subject (because what is intelligible and uttered exceeds the methods of my expression), then do not be inquisitive also regarding the procession of the Spirit.

It is enough for me to hear that there is a Son, that He is from the Father, that one thing is the Father, another thing is the Son; I am no longer curious about this, so as not to fall into the same situation that happens to a voice that is interrupted by excessive stress, or to vision that catches a ray of sunlight. The more and more detailed someone wants to see, the more it damages the sense, and to the extent that the object being examined exceeds the volume of vision, such a person loses the very ability of vision if he wants to see the whole object, and not such a part of it as he could have seen without harm.

You hear about the birth; do not try to know what the manner of birth is. Do you hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; don't be curious to know how it comes out.

But if you are curious about the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, then I will also ask you about the union of soul and body: how are you both the finger and the image of God? What is it that moves or moves you? How is it that the same thing both moves and moves? How does a feeling reside in the same person and attract the external? How does the mind dwell in you and give birth to a concept in another mind? How is thought conveyed through words?

I'm not talking about what's even more difficult. Explain the rotation of the sky, the movement of the stars, their harmony, measures, connection, distance, the limits of the sea, the currents of the winds, the changes of the annual seasons, the outpouring of rain. If you, man, do not understand anything about all this (you will understand, perhaps over time, when you achieve perfection, for it is said: "I will see the heavens, the works of your finger"(Ps. 8:4), and from this one can guess that what is visible now is not the Truth itself, but only an image of the truth), if you have not realized about yourself who you are, reasoning about these objects, if you have not comprehended that about As even feeling testifies, how can you undertake to find out in detail what God is and how great God is? This shows great folly!

If you believe a little in me, the intrepid Theologian, then I will tell you that you have already comprehended one thing, and in order to comprehend another, pray about it. Do not neglect what is in you, but let the rest remain in the treasury. Ascend through works in order to acquire what is pure through purification.

Do you want to eventually become a Theologian and worthy of the Divine? Keep the commandments and do not go against the commandments. For deeds, like steps, lead to contemplation. Work with your body for your soul. And can any person become so tall as to reach Pavlov’s measure? However, he also says about himself that he sees only "mirror in fortune telling" and that the time will come when he will see "facing liiu"(1 Cor. 13:12).

Let us assume that in words and we are superior to others in wisdom, however, without any doubt, you are lower than God. It may be that you are more prudent than another, but before the truth you are small to the same extent as your existence is distant from the existence of God.

The promise is given to us that we will never know as much as we ourselves are known (1 Cor. 13:12). If it is impossible for me to have perfect knowledge here, then what else remains? What can I hope for? - Without a doubt, you will say: the Kingdom of Heaven. But I think that it is nothing other than the achievement of the Purest and Most Perfect. And the most perfect of all that exists is the knowledge of God. Let us partly preserve this knowledge, let us partly acquire it while we live on earth, and partly let us preserve it for ourselves in the local Treasuries, so that as a reward for our labors we may receive the full knowledge of the Holy Trinity, what She is, what she is and what she is like, if I may express it this way. , in Christ our Lord Himself, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever, amen.

Dogma of the Holy Trinity

God is one in Essence and threefold in Persons. The Dogma of the Trinity - the main dogma Christianity. A number of great dogmas of the Church and, above all, the dogma of our redemption are directly based on it. Due to its special importance, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity constitutes the content of all the symbols of faith that have been and are used in the Orthodox Church, as well as all private confessions of faith written on various occasions by the pastors of the Church.

Being the most important of all Christian dogmas, the dogma of the Holy Trinity is also the most difficult for limited human thought to assimilate. This is why the struggle about no other Christian truth was as intense in the history of the ancient Church as about this dogma and the truths directly related to it.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity contains two basic truths:

A. God is one in Essence, but Trinity in Persons, or in other words: God is Triune, Trihypostatic, Trinity Consubstantial.

B. Hypostases have personal, or hypostatic properties: The Father is not born. The Son is born from the Father. The Holy Spirit comes from the Father.

We worship the Most Holy Trinity with one indivisible worship. The Fathers of the Church and in divine services often refer to the Trinity unit in the Trinity, unit of the Trinitarian. In most cases, prayers addressed to the worship of one Person of the Holy Trinity end with a doxology to all three Persons (for example, in the prayer to the Lord Jesus Christ: For Thou art glorified with Thy Beginning Father and with the Most Holy Spirit forever, Amen.)

The Church, turning in prayer to the Most Holy Trinity, calls on Her in the singular, and not in the plural, for example: Yako Cha(not you) all the powers of heaven praise you, and you(not for you) We send up glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen.

The Christian Church, aware of the mystery of this dogma, sees in it a great revelation that elevates the Christian faith immeasurably above any confession of simple monotheism, which is also found in other non-Christian religions. Dogma - three Hypostases - points to the fullness of the mysterious inner life in God, for God is love, and the love of God cannot only extend to the world created by God: in the Holy Trinity it is also turned into the Divine life. Even more clearly for us, the dogma of the three hypostases indicates the closeness of God to the world: God is above us, God is with us, God is in us and in all creation. Above us is God the Father, the ever-flowing Source, in the words of the church prayer, the Foundation of all existence, the Father of generosity, loving us and caring for us, His creation, we are His children by grace. With us is God the Son, His birth, who, for the sake of Divine love, revealed Himself to people as Man, so that we would know and see with our own eyes that God is with us, most sincerely, that is, in the most perfect way, “communed with us” (Heb. 2:14). In us and in all creation - with His power and grace - the Holy Spirit, who fills everything, the Giver of life, the Life-Giving, the Comforter, the Treasure and the Source of good things. Three Divine Persons having pre-eternal and pre-eternal existence, revealed to the world with the coming and incarnation of the Son of God, being “one Power, one Being, one Divinity” (stichera on the day of Pentecost).

Since God, by His very Being, is all consciousness and thought and self-consciousness, then each of these threefold eternal manifestations of Himself as the One God has self-consciousness, and therefore each is a Person, and Persons are not simply forms, or individual phenomena, or properties, or actions; The Three Persons are contained in the very Unity of the Being of God. Thus, when in Christian teaching we talk about the Trinity of God, we are talking about the mysterious, hidden inner life of God in the depths of the Divine, revealed - half-opened to the world in time, in the New Testament, by the sending from the Father into the world of the Son of God and the action of miracle-working, life-giving, saving the strength of the Comforter - the Holy Spirit.