op

Of the
Trinity
By Sean Killackey

i
ii
 op
Of the
Trinity
By Sean Killackey

Copyright © 2015 by Sean M. Killackey

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any
manner whatsoever with the intent to profit from its distribution. This may be reproduced
electronically in whole or in part freely for non-commercial purposes, but only excerpts may be
used in printed works; this work may not be printed in whole without written permission of the
author.

Contact Information
E-mail: Bible.Self.Harmony@gmail.com
Website: BibleSelfHarmony.Blogspot.com

First Edition

Bott

iii
iv
 Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
The Debate........................................................................................................................... 3
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 21
Terms ................................................................................................................................. 22
Creeds ................................................................................................................................ 23

v
vi
 Introduction

I have little new to say on the Trinity. I have thought of many of these points, but
I was not the first to do so. What I have to offer is the first in a series of discussion
relating to the Trinity. This book deals with the question of the Son’s supposed deity. It
refutes claims for it and counterclaims against those, showing the Trinitarian position to
be weak, but the anti-Trinitarian position strong.
I have prepared this work carefully, so I ask that you consider this work carefully.
If there is any benefit to be had I thank God. For this work is dedicated to help men
know that Jehovah is “the Most High over all the earth.” – Psalm 83:18

1
2
 The Debate

As a preacher, Jonathan Carlyle, was walking around David Scott decided to

reason with him and find out what his religion is.
David said, "I see you are a preacher; which faith are you?
"I am Jonathan, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.”
David said, "Let us test our beliefs, I, a Lutheran for the Trinity, and you an Arian
against it."
Jonathan said, "You’re wrong, for I am not Arain. Arius, while right in saying that
there is no Trinity, was wrong in saying that God is unknowable and Jesus is not divine.”
David replied, "Nevertheless you must have misconceptions about the Trinity, so
when I explain it you’ll see that the Trinity is true.”
Jonathan said, "For you to know that I reject it soundly I will discuss it with you.
So let’s go off into that park and discuss the matter."
After getting there, David said, "I shall first describe the Trinity. You’re liable to
think that the Trinity is some math formula that can't work, or that Jesus has to be equal
in rank and role for the Trinity to work. But such ideas are false. The Trinity you are
familiar with is the Ontological Trinity, but do not think that this is the whole of the
Trinity.
"The Ontological Trinity, to put it simply, describes what God is. It is the teaching
that states that there are three persons of the Godhead. These three persons are equal in
nature and share the same essence and attributes.
"And, while it is true that if the Son were inferior to the Father in nature the
Trinity could not stand, it is not true that the Son cannot have a subordinate role to the
Father. The Economic Trinity explains the different roles of the persons of the Godhead.
Part of this is the idea of Functional Subordination, which stresses that role and rank
does not equate to nature. The Economic Trinity describes what God does.
"Further you are bound to say that God cannot be made of three persons, for that
is like saying that God is made up of three Gods. However, God is one being made up of
three persons.”1

1Some Trinitarians acknowledge that person is not the best word to describe the three “persons” of the
Trinity, but say that there is no better word.

3
 Jonathan said, "I know all of those things. So now let me clarify my claims. I fully
acknowledge that Jesus is divine. Further I see no difference between the terms
"person" and "being" in dealing with angels, men and God. You call the Father a person,
but not a being, yet I call him both a person and a being. The Father is God, but the Son
and the holy spirit are not."
David said, “I know your arguments on scriptures such as John 1:1 and how you
contest them, so for your sake I will let my case not depend upon those verses, but I will
come to them later.
“Still the scriptures are not slow about telling of God’s triune nature. The first
indication of this is at Genesis 1:26 where God says, “Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness.” Here the obvious implication is that God is plural, for why
else would he refer to himself in such a manner? And “stranger” still, that is stranger to
you theory, the Bible calls God, “Elohim,” which means “God,” and yet is a plural.
“These are not royal plurals, for nowhere does anyone ruler refer to themselves as
“we” or “us,” so it is hard to see why God would use a manner of speaking not used by
those he communicated to.
“Further Isaiah records the Lord’s words at Isaiah 48:16, “Come near to Me,
listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I
was there. And now the Lord God sent Me, and His Spirit.” Isaiah confirmed that there
are three persons, the one sending and the two sent; all are God.
“These are not the only examples of God’s plural nature in the scriptures, for in
speaking to His people at Amos 4:11, the Lord says, “I overthrew you as God overthrew
Sodom and Gomorrah.” This is proof of two of the three previously established person,
who are again God. This is not as you assert that God was referring to Himself in the
third person.”
Jonathan said, “As for Genesis 1:26, have you never seen Proverbs 8:30 where
Jesus as Wisdom says, “Then I was beside him as a master worker?” Who else could God
be talking to, but his Son!2

2Some suggest that it could be God using a “our” and “us” as royal plurals. While it is true that no other
cases exist in the Bible it doesn't mean that this isn’t so since the Bible isn't exhaustive in expressions. The
fact that Elohim is used as a royal plural can be taken as evidence that “us” and “our” can be as well.

4
 “Also, Elohim is a plural of excellence! If it wasn’t it would not denote a plural
nature, but a plural amount. So instead of meaning what you want it to say it would
mean that there are multiple Jehovahs! We see that it is a plural of excellence because of
its use in connection with Dagon at 1 Samuel 5:7 where he is called “Elohim.” Now,
Dagon was not multiple gods, nor was he triune in nature, so it stands to reason that
Elohim can be a plural of excellence. So your Elohim hypothesis fails to prove the
Trinity.
“Further Amos 4:11 doesn’t prove that God is plural. Yet if it does then Moses
must be plural in nature, for he wrote the Torah and yet writes, ‘Moses did such and
such a thing.’3 If it is good enough proof for the Trinity, so too Moses is plural in nature
– unless your argument is special pleading. It is much more believable that in a culture
whose writers often referred to themselves in the third person God would do the same.
“As for Isaiah 48:16, many translations exclude the phrase, “the Lord sent me and
his spirit,” from what God said thereby showing them to be Isaiah’s words.4 This is a
much more reasonable conclusion, for God was not sent, but Isaiah was; Isaiah was sent
with God’s spirit and it is not uncommon for prophets to intermingle their own words
with God’s.5
David replied, “But the scriptures show that we are made in God’s image, so if
Jesus made us and is not God, then we would not be made in God’s image.”
Jonathan said, “Where in the scriptures is your presumption that Jesus can’t
make lesser beings that are in God’s image despite him being “the image of the invisible
God?”6
David said, “You ignore the fact that Jesus existed in the form of God as per
Philippians 2:6.7 The Trinity argues that Jesus and the Father have the same nature as
each other and this is what that scripture shows.”

3Moses wrote the Torah and writes at Number 1:17, “Moses and Aaron took these men who had been
designated by names.” His writing in the third person doesn’t indicate a plural nature on his part.

4The New Living Translation, the English Standard Version, the Holman Christian Standard Version,
the World English Bible and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures render it in such a way.

5Jeremiah 5:2-7
6Colossians 1:15
7Philippians 2:6 says, “[Jesus] though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing

to be grasped.”

5
 Jonathan asked, “How do the scriptures describe God?”
David answered, “They say that “our God is a consuming fire,” – Hebrews 12:29;
“God is a spirit,” – John 4:24; the Lord is holy – Isaiah 6:3”
Jonathan said, “Angels are described similarly. Jude 14, among other verses,
shows them to be holy. God “makes his angels spirits, His ministers a consuming fire”
according to Psalm 104:4. And at Psalm 8:5 the Bible says, ‘you make man a little lower
than the angels.’ Literally the Hebrew says that man is a little lower than the “gods,” so
by quoting from it Paul sows that angels are gods.”8
David asked, “What is your point?”
Jonathan replied, “This: If angels share the nature of a spirit and are similar in
character they are in God’s form! Really this is no surprise, for God made them to
inhabit the same realm as he does, so they must be the same kind of being as he is. So
Jesus existing with the same nature that God has doesn’t make him God.
“Further it is interesting to note that angels were able to make themselves into
human bodies before the deluge.9 We accept that they were men, for they were able to
procreate, and that men are made in God’s image. This shows that beings who are not
God can make beings in the image of God.
David said, “The best that you can do is show that Jesus didn’t have to be God
according to the phrase ‘he was in God’s form.’ However, look at his actions and see that
they are the same actions that only God is credited with. Therefore Jesus must be God.
“God created all things, so did Jesus.10 God is our savior and so is Jesus – in fact
God says, “Besides me there is no savior,” and, “There is no other God besides
me.”11Further the Kingdom, about which we pray, is called “God’s Kingdom,” and also
‘the Kingdom of Christ.’12How much evidence is needed before you accept that Jesus is
God?”
Jonathan said, “It is not that you don’t have evidence, but that you assert that
your evidence speaks things that it does not, or can only mean what you say. For there is
a fundamental maxim, qui facit per alium facit per se, or “he who acts through another

8 Hebrews 2:7
9 Genesis 6:4
10 Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:7
11 Isaiah 43:11; 45:21
12 2 Peter 1:11

6
does the act himself.” Let us see what the scriptures say about Jesus and what he says
about himself, for by doing so we will get an entirely different picture.
“Hebrews 1:2 says, “Now at the end of these days he was spoken to us by means
of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the ages.”
So we see that God made it not “with” Jesus as with a co-creator, nor that it was the
Father “alone” who made all things trough Jesus, but God who made all things through
Jesus.13 Therefore Jehovah as the originator of creation deserves the credit for it and
Jesus as the agent can rightly be said to have created all things. This does not support
the Trinity.
“And Hebrew exaggeration lends insight into the statements God made to the
effect that he is the only God and the only Savior. It cannot be said that the judges God
raised up for Israel were not saviors, or that the angels are not gods. But to show that he
is the source of all authority and salvation belongs to him he made those statements.
Hebrew exaggeration allowed for the denial of something that, while true, was lesser to
prove the main point (that God was supreme and chief above all).”14
“Further Philippians 2:6 actually argues against you, for it shows that Jesus was
not equal to God. This is shown in Jesus own words where he shows that he was sent by
God and that the one sent is lesser than the one sending.15
“After returning to heaven, Acts 2:33 shows that he went to God’s right hand, a
highly exalted, yet lesser position. Further the scriptures show that just as the head of a
women is the man and the head of man is Christ, the head of Christ is God.16Jesus
always holds a lower position than God, one a Son would hold.”
David argued, “All you are explaining is functional subordination. Therefore your
points don’t harm my position. Function by itself doesn’t determine nature, so it follow

13 See the paper “Is Jesus a Co-Creator?”

14Where Jehovah said, “on the day I brought your forefathers out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak
with them or command them concerning whole burnt offering and sacrifice. But I did give them this
command: “Obey my voice and I will become your God.”” at Jeremiah 7:22,23 he wanted to stress the
importance of obedience over sacrifices rendered meaningless by sinfulness. See page 15 of The Self-
Harmony of the Bible.

15 John 17:3; John 13:16

16 1 Corinthians 11:3

7
that the different roles and stations of the three person of the Trinity in relation to each
other doesn’t mean they differ in nature.”
Jonathan said, “I agree that the Father and the Son have the same nature, but the
Father, who I say is alone God, has a greater abundance of the qualities. For example
some angels, in addition to having different stations than each other, have different
strengths.17For example Gabriel the angel was hindered from going to Daniel for quite
some time by a wicked angel.18 Further Jesus when addressed as “Good Teacher,” said,
“Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.”19This isn’t to say that
Jesus wasn’t good, but in accord with Semitic expression Jesus denied his own goodness
to affirm God’s. Even we talk in such a manner from time to time.
“Further, why is Jesus, who is said to be God, the image of God and the “exact
representation of His very being,” as Hebrews 1:3 shows? For the image is not the same
as the substance. Paul says that Jesus is the “Charakter,” or “exact reproduction, exact
imprint,” of God’s being. That word denotes an imprint on a coin, according to HELPS
Studies, where the imprint represents (but is not) the reality. Wherein something
represents something else it cannot be that which it represents. We see that Jesus is
lesser in role, and in righteousness.20Why? Because he is not God.”
David said, “I see the point that you are trying to make, and I appreciate it. But let
me ask you a question. Who alone deserves our worship and whom may we pray to?”
Jonathan said, “Jehovah.”
David said, “So if Jesus is prayed to as Acts 7:59 says21and if God says at Hebrews
1:6, “Let all God’s angels worship him,” what does that make Jesus?”
Jonathan said, “Acts 7:59 literally reads, not that Stephen was praying, but that
Stephen was calling out or appealing – which isn’t the same as prayer.22
David replied, “Why did he appeal to Jesus, when he saw God?”
Jonathan said, “Jesus is entrusted to raise up the dead. Also Stephen had a vision
of Jesus, so seeing Jesus he felt it fine to appeal God’s appointed Judge. Even Paul
talked to Jesus and John to an angel.23At best for you this is ambivalent.”
17 For example there is an archangel, there are Seraphs and Cherubs and the rest of the angels.
18 Daniel 10:13
19 Mark 10:17,18
20 See the paper “Is Jesus Less Righteous?”
21 Acts 7:59 says, “As they continued to stone Stephen, he kept praying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.””
22Strong’s Concordance says that ἐπικαλέω can mean “appeal to.”

8
 David then said, “Suppose that you are right there. Jesus still receives worship
and he gets the same honor as Father. Jesus said at John 5:23, “all may honor the Son
just as they honor the Father.”
Jonathan said, “We will honor the Son just as we honor the Father. The word
translated “just as” can mean either ‘in the same manner,’ or ‘to the same degree,’24 so
both our positions on this scripture are possible by this verse alone. Consider this
statement, I will pay you just as I pay all my workers. On its own, it is hard to tell if you
will get the paid the same amount, or just if your certainty of getting paid is the same as
the others.
“Further the word rendered worship, at Hebrews 1:6 could be rendered, ‘bow
down to,’ or ‘do obeisance to.’25 Not all bowing is worship, so we are not forced to
conclude that Jesus is worshipped. Considering that Jesus is God’s appointed King, and
is in charge of the armies of the heaven, so they rightly bow down to him just as the
Israelites and others bowed to David.”
David said, “Why then do all knees bend to God and to Jesus, at the same time.” 26
Jonathan said, “Well this has to do with the point I just said and the maxim I
mentioned earlier. Remember Jehovah rules through Jesus, so Jesus as the agent also
gets allegiance. For he is God’s appointed ruler, just as Moses was; and when the people
murmured against Moses it was as if they did so against God.27 When Israel rejected
Samuel they rejected Jehovah,28 for even Jesus says that whoever disregards him
disregards also the One who sent him.29 So it follows that whoever accepts Jesus accepts
his Father and whoever bends his knee to Jesus does so to God’s glory.”30
David said, “The maxim is not the only explanation of these scriptures, is it?”
Jonathan said, “By these verses alone, no, but by all the scriptures and common
sense, I’d say yes.”

23Acts 9:3-6; Revelation 1:1

24Strong’s Concordance says that καθώς can mean “according to the manner in which,” or “in the degree
that.”
25Strong’s Concordance says that προσκυνέω can mean “do obeisance.”
26Isaiah 45:23; Philippians 2:10
27 Numbers 14:2,11
28 1 Samuel 8:7,8
29 Luke 10:16
30 Philippians 2:11

9
 David replied, “By common sense? Well how could three persons, the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit, have one name unless they are one?”31
Jonathan said, “In the same way I could say, “In the name of Jon and Joseph,”
and not mean that they make up one being. Further the phrase “in the name of” can
mean ‘by the power of,’ therefore it doesn’t prove Trinity.32 Even some Trinitarians view
this as weak or no evidence for them. And your position will not be able to overcome my
next points.
“Let me ask you, who is the angel of Jehovah?”
David answered. “From the early church it has been suspected he is Jesus, and I
agree. What is interesting about him is that he calls himself God and that the angel of
the Lord accepts worship from Israel.33This fits perfectly with the Trinity and our
understanding of Jesus.”
Jonathan asked, “How do you explain John 1:18, where it says that God has never
been seen?”34
David answered, “We see from other scriptures that the Father has never been
seen,35 so seeing that Jesus is God we let the scriptures be our guide and assume that by
“God,” it means “God the Father.” This is a clear example where “God” doesn’t refer to
the Divine Being.”
Jonathan answered, “I distaste reading more into the scriptures that is allowed by
saying that God doesn’t mean what it is clearly meant to mean. Supposing the Trinity is
true let me ask, when the scriptures say “God” do they mean God the being, or a person,
who, while is “fully God,” is not the whole of God? Wouldn’t the scriptures mean the
Divine Being when they say “God?”
“Now, though, what proof do you have that “God” can be so “atomized,” seeing
that the natural conclusion drawn from these two verses is that the Father is God, but
Jesus isn’t?”
David answered, “We see that God appeared many times in the Old Testament.”

31 Matthew 28:19
32NAS Exhaustive Concordance says that ὄνομα can mean “a name” or “authority.”
33 Exodus 3:2,6
34John 1:18 says, “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is

the one who has explained Him.

35 John 6:46

10
 Jonathan said, “Really? To me it seems that every time “Jehovah” appears it is
always an angel acting in his behalf. For example, Abraham never saw Jehovah by the
oak trees of Mamre, nor anywhere.36 The accounts reveal that it was always an angel, or
in the named occasion, three angels.37
“Therefore when the scriptures say that “the God of glory appeared to our
forefather Abraham,” or “I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God
Almighty” it doesn’t mean that God physically appeared, but that he used various
mediums, for example angles, visions or dreams.”38
David said, “There are times when God was seen and the scriptures do not say
that it was through an angel or by a vision. At Numbers 12:8 God says about Moses,
“With him I speak face to face [and] he sees the form of the Lord.”
Jonathan said, “This too does not show that Moses saw God. For did Moses see
God’s face? No, for even the angel of Jehovah, who acted as Jehovah, said, “You cannot
see my face, for no man can see me and live.”39 Therefore this saying is figurative,
showing the intimacy that Moses and Jehovah had.
“The scriptures explicitly state that Moses never saw God. At Hebrew 11:27, Paul
writes, “By faith he left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he continued
steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible.”40 Now we know that the angel of Jehovah
became visible. Therefore you have to say that Jesus is not God, or that he is not the
angel of Jehovah.
“In either case it shows that a being who is not God can come down and “be” God,
that is accept recognition as God and act in his behalf. This means that “being” called
God doesn’t make you God per se.”
David said, “At most you have proved that Jesus isn’t the angel of the Lord. At
most you show that Jesus doesn’t have to be God to do the things he does.”

36 Genesis 18:1-5;
37 Not the three supposed person of the Trinity, for it is agreed that the Father cannot be seen.
38 Acts 7:2; Exodus 6:2
39 Exodus 33:20

40In the context of Hebrews 11 “seeing” is not by sight, but by faith. Hebrews 1:1 states, “Faith is the
assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.” So
Moses’ faith in God let him remain steadfast and to not fear. God, therefore, is a reality that is not literally
beheld.

11
 Jonathan replied, “No, for I showed that God has never been seen, but when he
was “seen” it was by faith, or through a medium or intermediary. Therefore when Jesus
was seen he cannot be God, for it says that he became flesh, not that an angel did so in
his place.
“Further Jesus does things that he could not do as God. We’re both familiar with
the concept of mediation, right?
David answered, “Yes, mediation is the attempt to settle differences between two
parties by another party.”
Jonathan continued, “In that regard it is interesting to note that Paul writes at 1
Timothy 2:5, “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ
Jesus.”41If if you hold Jesus is always God then he can’t stop being God when he is a
mediator. That means that there would be no intervening party, only the two, God and
man with no mediator.42
“If “God” by itself cannot be so changed in meaning it must refer to the whole
Being, regardless of a his nature. So it is of some importance that Jesus status is
compared to God, not just the Father as you see him, and he is the Son, not just of the
Father, but of God.43 He sits not at the Father’s right hand, but God’s and He is sent by

41“Men” here refers to sinful men who are alienated from God. Jesus is called “a man” most likely because
he was a man when he gave his life as a ransom, or it could be in the same way the angels were called men.
Jesus does not need a mediator with God, so he is not to be included in the second party – men.

42On a similar note Moses received the Law from angels. He then acted as a mediator with the rest of
Israel who had not received the law directly from the angels. (Galatians 3:19) Some might object and say,
“Moses was told to tell Israel the law, but he was part of Israel, so he was part of that second party. Since
he is explicitly called a mediator and yet is part of Israel and like them was under it, then Jesus can be part
of God and yet a mediator.”

This ignores that “the sons of Israel” meant “the sons of Israel other than Moses,” for it is clear that “the
people” is the same as the “they” that said, “You speak with us, and we will listen, but do not let God speak
with us, for fear that we will die.” (Exodus 20:19). “They” clearly did not include Moses, so every time God
said sometime like, ‘let me annihilate them’ it didn’t include Moses, yet meant Israel in the
aforementioned way.

Since Moses was a mediator with a party that he did not include himself, that is the rest of Israel who did
not get the law directly from the angels, he was a mediator with them (and by extension God) and (the rest
of) Israel. Therefore Moses’ cases only strengthens my positon and cannot weaken it. If anything, by
pressing this claim, Trinitarians make God out to be a group like how the Mormons view the Trinity. The
Mormons view the Godhead as a group of people; For more on this last point see Of the Mormon Trinity.

43 John 3:16; God sent his only-begotten Son.

12
God.44 Even when the creation of man takes place it is not just the Father speaking, but
it is God.45 Jesus is therefore separated from God at every turn! This being the case the
idea that Jesus is part of God makes little sense, but the idea that Jesus is not God
comes into its own.
“Now let me show you some scriptures that show that Jesus is created and that
he is the Son of God not just of the Father (as you view the Father).
“I know you how you say that “The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor
created; but begotten.”46And that the scriptures call him God’s only-begotten Son, so
what is the difference between being created and begotten?”
David said, “You see that the word literally is “monogenes” and, while it literally
means “only offspring,” it often is used figuratively, for it can mean “unique.”47 Take the
example of Abraham’s son Isaac. He is called Abraham’s “only-begotten son,"48 yet
Ishmael was his first. So Jesus being begotten doesn’t mean he was created, but that he
is unique.”
Jonathan said, “You are right that it can mean unique, but that unique compared
to what? Other sons!
“As for Isaac Paul makes it clear that Ishmael was born according to the flesh, but
Isaac was the only son born through the promise.49 Isaac was therefore literally the
only-begotten son of Abraham in this regard.50
“Further one would not call something not begotten “only-begotten” to denote its
uniqueness. Isaac was a begotten and created son of Abraham. So to Jesus is one of
God’s sons, yet because he was the first and the only directly created by God he is called
God’s only-begotten Son.51
“However for now let’s assume that “only-begotten” doesn’t mean by itself that
Jesus is created. The scriptures still explicitly call Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation”
at Colossians 1:15.”

44 John 17:3; Acts 2:33; Jesus calls the Father the only true God who sent him. Jesus sits by God.
45 Genesis 1:26; God speaks.
46 See the Athanasian Creed.
47Strong’s Concordance says that μονογενής can mean “unique.”
48Hebrews 11:17
49Galatians 4:23
50See page 13 of The Self-Harmony of the Bible.
51 1 Colossians 1:15,16

13
 David said, “The word firstborn can also be figurative. For example David is
called God’s firstborn.52 So why should it be any different with Jesus?”
Jonathan said, “Because the primary meaning of firstborn is literal and David
was explicitly not Jehovah’s firstborn, although he was still a created being. Further the
scriptures explain that Jesus is the first creation of God. Revelation 3:14 shows that
Jesus is “the beginning of the creation by God.”
David said, “This isn’t the only possibility, for the word you translate as
“beginning” can also be rendered as “ruler.”53 Therefore that scripture isn’t definite
proof for your position.”
Jonathan said, “Nor was it meant to be, but it was a lead in to my next scriptures.
Proverbs 8:22 says of Jesus, “Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The
earliest of his achievements of long ago.” And of Jesus it is written at Micah 5:2, “From
[Bethlehem] will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel, Whose origin is from
ancient times, from the days of long ago.”54 Therefore, we see that Jesus had a
beginning, was both begotten and created. God of course was not created.”55
David sad, “So you say. Also you attack the Trinity and assert that it has no basis
in the scriptures. However there are a number of good scriptures which together form
the foundation for the Trinity.
“Jesus claims the Divine name “I Am,” at John 8:58 where he said, “Truly, I say
to you, before Abraham was born, I Am.” This is a clear allusion to Exodus 3:14 where
God says that his name is “I Am Who I Am.””
Jonathan replied, “The actually Hebrew is not “I am who I am,” but rather “I will
be what I will be,” and the Greek could just as accurately be rendered, “I have been.”56
“Regardless we see that Jesus was not applying the Divine Name to himself, for
the context reveals that the Jews were inquiring of his age. Further, if Jesus was going to

52Psalm 89:27
53Strong’s Concordance says that ἀρχή can mean “rulers, magistrates.”
54NAS Exhaustive Concordance says that ‫ םָלֹוע‬can mean “antiquity.” It is always used to denote eternity.
55 Psalms 90:2
56“I Am Who I Am” in Hebrew is literally “become which become.” Therefore it ought to be “I Become

What I Become,” or the like. ‫ה‬

ֶ‫( יא ְא י ה‬Ehyeh) primarily means “become.”

Moulton notes that ego eimi “indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment
. . . that action is conceived as still in progress.” The Century English Version, the New World Translation
of the Holy Scriptures, among others, render it in such a way.

14
saw that he is “I Am,” he would not do it in the way you say he does, for the way you say
he does is ridiculous. Replace “I Am,” with God and see how it sounds, “Before Abraham
was born, God.”
David said, “Suppose that you are correct, Jesus still affirms the unity he and his
Father have in the Godhead at John 10:30 where he says, “I and the Father are one.”
Jonathan said, “You assert that the unity of Jesus and the Father must be in the
Trinity, but Jesus says, “I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order
that they may be one just as we are one,” so the oneness isn’t oneness in essence or
being, but a unity of purpose.”57
David replied, “I believe The Pulpit’s Commentary has something to say about
this verse. It says, “it is nowhere there said that the believers and the Father are one, but
such a statement is scrupulously avoided,” and, “If [Jesus’ statement at John 10:30] be
merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father . . . why should the
utterance have provoked such fierce resentment?” The fierce resentment was that the
Jews rightly accused Jesus of being God, as the context shows.”58
Jonathan said, “John 17:22 seems to fight against your commentator’s notion.59
Further, I am not saying that we are actually one with the Father in being, but in
purpose and union. The Jews misunderstood Jesus words as they misunderstood his
speech at other times. For example, Jesus says at John 6:53, “Most truly I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in
yourselves.” What he said was shocking and may became stumbled and left off from
following Jesus. Why should such statement provoke such resentment? It didn’t have to,
but the Jews there interpreted it wrongly. For that reason your commentator’s second
point fails.
“In fact there is more than enough abundant proof that being one is always
figurative: a man and a woman become one in marriage, Christ and the Congregation

57John 17:22

58John 10:33. This scripture can also be correctly translated as, “for you although being a man, make
yourself a god,” rather than “. . . to be God.”

59John 17:21 says, “So that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in
union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me.”

15
become one, fellow believers become one with each other, and we become one with the
Father.60 These are all figurative, so why would this one be literal? It seems to be special
pleading.”
David said, “There is good reason to suppose that John 10:30 means exactly what
I say it does. Let me ask you, who raised Jesus up?”
Jonathan answered, “It was God.”
David asked, “Then why did Jesus say, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up,” at John 2:19?”
Jonathan asked, “Who cured the woman with the flow of blood?”
“It was Jesus.”61
Jonathan said, “Then why did Jesus credit the woman’s faith for healing her?
Was Jesus and the woman the same person, or his power the same thing as her faith?
No, but in the same way the woman’s faith provided a basis for Jesus to do his powerful
work Jesus provided a basis for God to resurrect him because of his perfect obedience.
“In fact if it was actually Jesus who raised himself from the dead then according
to Galatians 1:1 Jesus would be the Father. However that is too modalistic for either of
us to accept.”62
David said, “John 1:1 still proves my point. Also I am aware of your claims urging
for the translation, “and the Word was a god.” And how you profess that the lack of a
definite article in Greek text and the inclusion of an indefinite article in the Coptic
version proves your point.
“However it is inconceivable that the Copts, or Greeks, would mean for the
indefinite article to denote what you are saying. In Coptic and Greek, John 1:1c can
denote quality. So the text would more accurately read, “and the Word was in quality
God.” For if Jesus was “a god,” then he would be viewed as a rival God.”
Jonathan said, “I already showed you that the loyal angels are gods. This deflates
your argument against saying that “the Word was a God.” It doesn’t matter what the
Copts would have made of Jesus if they thought of him as a god, but it does matter what
the scriptures allow and they are fine with faithful spirits being called gods.

60Matthew 19:6; Ephesians 5:29-32

61 Luke 8:43-48
62 According to the Trinity “the Son is not the Father.”

16
 “And why must the qualitative translation be designed to support the Trinity? It
could just as well be translated “the Word was divine,” or “the Word was like God.” John
1:1 is therefore poor evidence for your position.”
David said, “Acts 20:28 still proves the Trinity, for there it says, “shepherd the
church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
Jonathan said, “A number of translations render the verse as ‘which he purchased
with the blood of his own Son.’63 And, while the word “son” is not in the text, it is
important to note that “his own,” can refer to those related to him.64 For example the
Greek text literally reads at John 1:11 “To the own he came and the own him not
received.” The “own” refers to his own people of course.
“Or it could be, as the renowned Biblical scholars Westcott and Hort suggested,
“that [“of the Son”] dropped out after [“of His own”] at some very early transcription
affecting all existing documents.”65 Even so the meaning is still ascertainable after a
little thought, and the Trinity is by no means secured by this verse.”
David said, “Those verses are not the whole of my evidence, for Romans 9:5 calls
Christ “God who is over all.”
Jonathan said, “Not necessarily, for as many translators contend “God who is
over all,” doesn’t refer to Christ, but to God. In that case it would be a doxology.”
“Why,” David asked, “would Paul be so moved to praise the Father after
lamenting the faithlessness of Israel?”
Jonathan said, “Why would he be moved to praise the Son according to your
theory? Really Paul had just finished saying how great God’s love is and how despite
“being put to death all day long” Christians are actually coming out victorious.66
“Further he showed after Romans 9:5 that despite Israel’s faithlessness, God’s
word has not failed, “for not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.””67 If
anything his mood acknowledges the sadness and yet is glad toward God since “God is

63 The Darby Bible Translation, Today’s English Version, the English Revised Version render similarly.
64Strong’sConcordance says that ἴδιος can mean “one’s own family.”
65The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol. 2, pages 99,100 of the appendix.
66 Romans 8:36
67 Romans 9:6

17
for us.”68 This all coupled with the fact that grammatically it could be rendered both
ways gives no strength to the Trinity.”69
David said, “Take into consideration Titus 2:13. There it reads, “we wait for the
blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Clearly Jesus is called God. Further this translation is not open to any debate because it
is strongly backed by Sharp’s rule.”
Jonathan said, “Sharp’s rule has been long debated and even the modern
iteration has not been accepted as certain.70A strong piece of evidence against it is found
in Patristic writings. Often, phrases such as “to the God and Father and Holy Spirit”
appear which would under Sharp’s rule mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the
same person – Modalism.
“Sharp himself appealed to common sense saying that the distinction between the
three persons would be readily perceived, yet I could argue along those lines in regards
to Titus 2:13!”
David said, “That isn’t the only possible reason why the Church Fathers “broke”
Sharp’s rule. In fact it is clear that it was early church Fathers who spoke in such a way.
They wrote in the second and third century, before the councils that defined the Trinity
were held. The very subtle distinction between “person” and “being” could hardly be
expected of them, therefore it is more likely that these early Church Fathers were
actually hammering out a Christology that wasn’t ready yet. Also given the revised
understanding of Sharp’s rule it seems very unlikely that it is only broken here.”
Jonathan said, “More likely? If the Trinity is true you might be correct. But given
that the scripture cannot prove the Trinity as I have already shown there is no reason to
assume that such a rule existed that was unbreakable. If there was then why did the
Church Fathers not use that to argue against “heretics?” In fact it seems that such an
unbreakable rule exists only because the doctrine of the Trinity exists.

68 Romans 8:31
69 Some ancient manuscripts have a mark indicating a pause between the two parts thus showing the
latter to be a doxology.

70Some say that “great God” can only apply to Jehovah, so when it appears here it has the restrictive force
of a name. Therefore, regardless of the validity of Sharp’s Rule, the text clearly indicates two persons,
Jesus (“our savior”) and Jehovah (“our great God”). For in that case Sharp’s rule allows for two
substantives to be joined without the Greek for and if they refer to people.

18
 “Further if they wrote without knowledge of the difference between person and
being they would still write about the holy spirit and the Father. They are still
substantives connected by the Greek word for and, so I fail to see how the knowing or
not knowing of the supposed difference between person and being allows what
otherwise would be a glaring failure in Sharp’s rule to be ignored.”
David said, “Admittedly the subject of Sharp’s rule is complicated. Still I have
explained the doctrine of the Trinity. Further you haven’t answered the point about
Thomas calling Jesus God at John 20:28.”
Jonathan replied, “He was either referring to Jesus as God in the sense the angel
of Jehovah was called God, or, most likely, he was exclaiming to God above and not
referring to Jesus. We, unlike what you think of us, do not think that he was swearing.
Whoever invented that straw-man should take that to heart.”
Jonathan collected his thoughts and said, “I showed how so many of your
arguments for the Trinity are wrong and that the arguments against it are stronger.”
David said, “You just showed that the Trinity isn’t the only option available for
certain passages.”
Jonathan said “I have done more than that, for I also showed where the Trinity
could not work with the scriptures. You asserted that the Hebrew Scriptures show God
to be plural in nature. I showed your confidence to be misplaced. You assume that Jesus
has to be God if he is in God’s form, yet I showed you to be mistaken. I showed that God
was never seen, so that Jesus is either God and not the angel of Jehovah, or the angel of
Jehovah and not Jehovah. In either case a being who is not God can act as God and call
themselves God (something Jesus never did) and not be a rival to God. That by itself
undermines your arguments against calling Jesus a god.
“I showed that the scriptures require Jesus to be separate from God and that
nowhere do the scriptures teach that “God” can refer to a supposed person of God and
not “all” of God.
“Really even if all I did was just show that the Trinity wasn’t certain it would be
enough to prove my point. For I explained why Jesus and God do the same thing and yet
are not the same being – a foundation of the Trinity in ancient times where they
professed that such an assumption was necessary.

19
 “Further it is clear that the Trinity is complicated and confusing and professed to
be ‘irrational,’ or ‘unknowable.’ And while that does not disprove it outright it is
important to note that my interpretation is simple and in fully accord with the
scriptures.”
David said, “I have to admit I found your point concerning Jesus as mediator
between God and man interesting. Further your point about the angel of the Lord was
also interesting. I’m at a loss as what to say about the fact that “God” can refer to all of
the Godhead or only one of its persons without saying so. Perhaps that is reading into
the verses too much.
“I will have to consider this further. I am not as sure as I thought I would be. For
now let us part ways, but come back to discuss it at some later time.”
Jonathan said, “Good. Let’s meet back here at this time in a week.”

20
 Conclusion

I hope that you prayerfully consider what is said here. I seek to express the truth,
for there is nothing of value apart from it, so I did not just throw this together to prove
my stance right. No, but rather I sought to prove what the scriptures say and answer
objections against it.
God, who is the judge of the hearts and knows the thoughts of men, wants all to
have a relationship with him, but if they have no knowledge of what he is how can they
have such? To that end this work is for the benefit of others.

21
 Terms

This section will contain some background information on terms used in this paper that
are not fully defined in the main body of the text.

Modalism: The idea that God is one person who appears as three persons in his
dealings with men.

Partialism: Each person is not fully God but is one third of God. It is not part of the
Trinity as understood by most denominations.

Arianism: One of many anti-Trinity view, Arianism denies the divinity of Jesus.

Sharp’s Rule: A rule, having its origin in 1798 and since then revised, that states that
“when a single article modifies two substantives connected by the Greek word for and,
and when both substantives are singular (in grammar and semantics) and personal and
common nouns (not names or ordinals) they have the same referent.” This rule is still
debated. It seems possible that it is true, but like so many other rules in Greek it is not
followed in every time.

22
 Creeds

These creed are not the only ones, but are the two very significant creeds as far as the
Trinity is concerned.

Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all
things seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God;
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were
made.
Who, for us all for our salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by
the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us
under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, in
accordance with the Scriptures; and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of
the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead; whose
kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from
the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who
spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy universal and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one
baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life
of the world to come.
Amen.

Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the
universal faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without
doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the universal faith is this: That we worship one
God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the
substance.

23
 For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy
Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the
glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father
uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father
incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are
not three eternals, but one Eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one
Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son
Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one
Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are
not three gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.
For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by
Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the universal religion to
say that there are three gods or three lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the
Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not
three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than
another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things,
as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He
therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly
the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and
confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the
substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his
mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human
flesh subsisting.
24
 Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as
touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one
Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood
into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who
suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for
their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they
that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the universal faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be
saved.

25