Pastors

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Mike Harvey writes:

The revelation of the God Head is the Foundation that the true church 
is built upon... any other (Trinity) is on the sand.

Someone else:

When these scriptures were written the doctrine of the tinity didn't 
exist so I would say that there was no need to prove a doctrine that 
went against trinity.  

Me, from my web site:

If you have taken the previous two parts of this challenge you have seen
that the doctrine of the Trinity has no direct Biblical basis. You have
also seen that it is also not described without being explicitly expressed.
Even the proponents of this doctrine admit that this teaching is an
"implied" or "hidden" one. The underlying implication is, whether intended
or not, that it takes a heightened spirituality to "comprehend" the great
"Is but Is Not." To those who are offended by that name I would ask them to
consider the descriptions of the Godhead prescribed by the doctrine of the
Trinity. 

According to the teaching of the Trinity God is one but not one since He is
also three. God is a "Him" but is not a "Him" since He is also "Them." The
interesting thing about this last one is that the proponents of the Trinity
have a "taboo" about calling God "them." Why? If God is three and One then
why can't you call Him "Them" sometimes? The Bible strictly forbids the
worship of more than The One True Living God. God has to be either three or
One and cannot be both. Not the "Is but Is Not" One. 

I have heard people say "The Godhead is beyond human comprehension" and
then proceed to "explain" it to me! This is the God that cannot be
explained but is explained. We have an indomitable God that is submitted
unto Himself (God the Son is submitted to God the Father and God the Holy
Ghost to God the Son). We have a God that is all- powerful but in Jesus
powerless to act independently. We have three separated but in unity. I
could go on but these will do. Let me say friends that the statements above
are not apparent contradictions but are real and virtual impossibilities.
The God of the Trinity "Is but Is Not": comprehensible, supreme,
all-powerful and singular being. 

If this doctrine didn't come from the Bible where did it come from? I
recall a young man saying to me that the idea of the Trinity was such a
profound concept that only God could have thought of it. If this is true
then God did not speak to early Jews but to their pagan neighbors.
Centuries before the day of Pentecost the Heathen nations of the world
worshipped Gods in Trinity. Laotse of China in 600 B.C.E. wrote that Tao
had one nature and that was that the first brought forth the second and
these two brought forth the third and these three created the universe.
Three but One. In India we have the Trimurti of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva.
These three are worshipped separately but Brahma is the unifying
"principle" which makes them one. These are said to be co-eternal. I spoke
to an Indian friend of mine about the Gods of his country and in reference
to Brahma, Vishnu and Siva when I said I was confused about whether there
were three or one he said "Both, like your Trinity. All exist eternally but
Brahma is the strongest and the other two pre- existed in Him." There is
the Rig Veda with three Gods but one Godhead or great soul. The Chaldeans
had a Trinity (Anos, Illinos and Aos) as did the Babylonians (Ulomus,
Ulosurus and Elirn) and the Egyptians (Kneph or Ammun, Pthath and Osiris).
We also have the Greeks, the Scandinavians, the Prussians, the Pomeranians,
the Wends and the old Americans as well as the Romans which I will now
discuss in greater detail. 

The principle or head deity in the pantheon of the Roman era was Jupiter.
Jupiter was "expressed" as a Trinity. I have heard people say that it is a
matter of interpretation. Well let's see, Jupiter would appear as Jupiter
Elicius, Jupiter Fulgur and Jupiter Latiaris all other "Jupiters" are
variations on these three main identities. These three were expressed as
individuals who were independent of each other with their own agenda. Then
there was Jupiter Optimus Maximus which had the memories of the other three
and could answer as either of the three. Interestingly enough the three
could not speak as Jupiter Optimus Maximus but he could speak as any or all
of the others. This representation of the Supreme Roman Godhead was to be
referred to always as him and not them. This Jupiter having all the
characteristics of the three could fully act as any combination of the
three or as a "new" and separate entity beyond the three. Jupiter could of
course assume any form he chose but basically held these three identities. 

At the time of the formation of the Catholic Church there was a conserted
effort to among the Pagans to unify Jupiter into a more inclusive package
by saying that he was in reality his own father in the form of Saturn, his
own brother in Juno and his own sister and wife in Minerva. If memory
serves the dialog goes something like this ( Jupiter speaking and
paraphrased from the "Aneid" I believe.) "I was present in my father
(Saturn) and as the driving force of his will brought forth myself" He then
goes on to tell how he is "manifest" in all things. This brought about the
introduction of a female into the Roman Godhead. Just as a point of
interest consider that Jupiter was the Patriarch or chief God of Nicopolus
(Nicolaitans) at the time The Revelation was written and there was a "push"
to unify Roman worship with Jupiter at the "head of the pack." I just throw
that out there for your consideration since there is no real way to
decipher the cursed "deeds" of the Nicolaitans in Revelation 2:6, but I
find it interesting. Remember also that the Church had suffered great
persecution under Nero and that those who stayed in Rome had to at best go
underground. It is not hard to imagine how Pagan beliefs could "creep" into
Church doctrine.