THE ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY

I. TRINITY ORIGINS
THE ANTIQUITY OF PAGAN TRINITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD This article will propose to examine the philosophical and pagan origins of the Trinity and its early development. Pagan pantheons (national families of gods) of the various ethnic gods will be compared, and triads (sets of three gods) in these pantheons will be examined for specific trinitarian qualities. The antiquity of the Babylonian pantheon, and its subsequent influence upon the various pantheons, is pointed out. The idea of the Greek Logos (Word), a secondary, derived messenger god, is seen in the ancient pantheons of the nations with a clear differentiation observed between the pagan-philosophical use of the term logos (word), and the Hebrew understanding of the term in their writings up to the time of Philo, the Jewish priest-philosopher of Alexandria. The gnostic influence of the Greek and neoplatonic philosophers upon the architects of the Christian Trinity is emphasized, especially the critical role of Philo in the development of the Logos doctrine, which is a keystone doctrine of trinitarian theology. The Catholic fathers of the Trinity are identified, and comments will be made upon the comparative, developmental trinitarian theology among them. Theological concepts developed by early trinitarians will be noted. One such example is subordinationism, a fatal flaw of trinitarian theology, which forever subordinates Jesus Christ to the status of a secondary, derived God. The antiquity of the Trinity is not denied. On the contrary, the Trinity doctrine has taken many millennia to develope, and is yet in the process of change. Our study will show that the Trinity is actually of pagan, philosophical ancestry, and was engrafted onto, and accomodated to, Christian theology. Many scholars in comparative religion and mythology have found common relationships and attributes among the various pantheons. Alexander Hislop, in his TWO BABYLONS, seems to trace the various mythologies back to a common heritage. Hislop pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept of the Trinity by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India. He noted that the recognition of the Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world. He went so far as to say that the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations was triune. While Hislop was attempting to prove that mankind has always believed in a trinity, he also unwittingly shows the pagan origins of the idea of a trinity.

NO TEACHING OF A TRINITY IN OLD TESTAMENT JUDAISM Arthur Wainwright can find no doctrine remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity taught in Judaism, the ancestor of Christianity, until the time of Philo in the first century AD. And we know that Philo, even though he was a Jewish priest, was heavily influenced by Greek pagan thought. The idea of a plural God was far from the Hebrew mind. The non-canonical book of Jubilees (second century BC) alters the plural verb of Genesis 1.26, in conformity with Genesis 1.27, stating, And after all this he created man, a man and a woman, created he them (Jubilees 2.14). Both the Palestinian Targum and the Jerusalem Targum maintain that God was addressing the angels in Genesis 3.22 and in Genesis 11.7. The Jews, who, after all, wrote the Old Testament under the inspiration of the Spirit, themselves refute the presence of any Trinity in Genesis. VARIOUS ANCIENT PAGAN TRIADS The pagan idea of a triad is very old. Sumerians, according to Morris Jastrow, paid homage to a triad of El-lil, god or lord of the storm, Ea, water deity of Eridu on the Persian Gulf, and Anu, sun god of Ur-uk. El-lil, was called the father of Sumer (Shinar), and chief of gods, creator and sustainer of life. The universe was apparently up among these three pre-eminent deities. Later, Marduk, the firstborn of Ea, and the patron deity of Babylon, is made god of the earth, and his symbol, oddly enough, is the dragon. He was called Bel or Baal (lord). Ashur, the god of the Assyrian capital was a sun god, and his consort or wife was Ishtar, the great mother goddess of Nineveh, a city founded by Ninus or Nimrod. Ishtar, known as Ashtoreth to the Phoenicians, and Astarte to the Greeks, was often portrayed riding on a lion. She was called the daughter of the moon, and identified in astrology as the Roman Venus (goddess of love). She was also known as Nana or Madonna (Lady). Morris Jastrow tells us that the Mother Goddess was quite common throughout the Middle east. She was brought from Asia minor to Rome with the hope that her statue (idol) might save the Roman state from the Carthaginians. Ishtar has a bloody history as a goddess. She was reputedly the murderer of her consort Tammuz (variously known as Baal, Adonis, the Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Bacchus, or simply Nimrod). Queen Semiramis later brought forth an illegitimate son, which she claimed was Nimrod resurrected. He was called El-Bar, or God the Son, and the Branch of Cush. Thus was formulated one of the ancient triadic patterns of father, mother, son The early triadic pattern is noted in connection with the construction of the Tower of Babel. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca, relates that in the topmost completed story of the Tower was placed the images of three gods.

Franz Cumont tells us that triads were very common in the religion of the Chaldeans. The Babylonian triad became the Syrian triad of Hadad, Atargatis, and Simios. In Rome, this triad was Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury. Not only did the triadic pattern of deity spread throughout the world, but Cumont remarks on the continuing influence of the Babylonian priesthood after the fall of Babylon from political leadership. The system of the Babylonian priests affected many other countries worldwide (e.g., the Druids of England and Europe). SOME PAGAN TRINITIES SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE TO THE CATHOLIC TRINITY Trinitarians today may argue that the pagan trinities were completely different from the model of the Christian Trinity. But some pagan triads have models which are surprisingly familiar. For example, the Hindu Trinity: The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. The syllable we write as om, but which is in reality made up of three words, a, u, and m, (which) is the symbol of this trinity. -Asiatic Mythology And the Egyptian triad of the sun god was one god expressed in three persons. He was known as the noonday sun (Ra), the evening sun (Tum), and the dawning sun (Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and Tum at eventide. He was one god in three distinct persons. And so it is not correct to say that the pagan trinities do not resemble the Christian Trinity, insofar as the structure goes.

II TRINITARIAN DEVELOPMENT
NEO-PLATONIC SCHOOL INDEBTED TO BABYLONIAN WISDOM The ancient Greeks were very impressed with the wisdom of the Babylonians. Franz Cumont said, Philosophy claimed more and more to derive its inspiration from the fabulous wisdom of Chaldea (Babylon) and Egypt. According to Cumont, the entire neo-platonic school is heavily indebted to the Chaldeans (Babylonians). It was the neo-platonic school of philosophy which influenced the Catholic fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Porphyry reveals that the neo-platonists had incorporated Babylonian and Persian demonology into their philosophical system. PLATO CONVEYED THE IDEA OF A MESSENGER GOD (LOGOS) TO THE CATHOLIC FATHERS Plato, the famed Greek philosopher, greatly influenced the Catholic fathers. He was acquainted with Babylonian wisdom, and had traveled to Babylonia, Israel, and Egypt. Plato advocated the idea of a secondary messenger god, representing the unknown primary god, who remained impassible (unable to suffer or to feel pain) and unknowable. This being was called the Logos (the Word).

This messenger god was known in Babylon and Egypt. The Egyptian god Thoth (Tammuz) was called the Logos:
Father of Light, O Logos that orderest day and night, come show thyself to me. O god of gods, in thy apeform enter. -Lewis R. Farnell

Showerman says that the ancient writer Harpocration associated the phrase mysterious Logos to the god Attis (who would equate to Tammuz, Thoth or Nimrod). He also accords the Greek messenger god Hermes the title of Logos, and Dunlap speaks of a Chaldean Logos. The idea of a separate, secondary messenger god is a key element in the Trinity doctrine. We can see that this idea is pre-Christian and it is pagan. The Catholic fathers obviously obtained this idea from the Greek philosophers, who in turn obtained it from Babylonian and oriental religions. It does not come from the Bible. Ishtar was identified as the Logos of the Babylonian god El-lil. She supposedly exclaimed, Of the lord (El-lil), his Word (Logos) am I. In other words, she (her priests) claimed to be the spokesperson for El-lil. THE APOSTLE JOHN ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF A SECONDARY LOGOS MESSENGER GOD The pagan concept of the Logos can be seen as a bridge for introducing the equally pagan idea of a triadic deity. The apostle John, in penning John 1.1 was actually apparently responding to those early Christian gnostics who were identifying Jesus with the pagan Logos. He specifically identifies the biblical logos (word) as God the Father Himself. He does not advocate the concept of Christ as a separate, pre-existing divine Person, co-existing with God the Father. As Granville Henry has observed:
Did John intend to introduce Greek philosophical, scientific or religious representations for the person of Christ? A broad concensus of contemporary New Testament scholars maintains that the logos Christology of John must be understood in its peculiarly Hebrew context. To deviate from this context and emphasize Greek meanings is to make a major error in interpretation.

The Greek concept of a personal, separate divine Logos, distinct from God, or a second God, was unknown to the apostles, and entirely foreign to their understanding of a solitary divine God, who was known to them from the days of Abraham. They recognized that sole divinity in Jesus Christ. Thomas had knelt before Him exclaiming My Lord and my God (John 20.28). HOW WAS THIS GREEK CONCEPT OF A DERIVED SECONDARY MESSENGER GOD INTRODUCED INTO CHRISTIANTIY? Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD) of Alexandria was the man who attempted to fuse the strict monotheistic theology of the Hebrew religion with the transcendental theology and philosophy of the Greek platonists. As Alvan Lamson has written:
The authors of the Septuagint version and the Platonists employed the same term (logos) to express totally different views: the former (Septuagint) intending by it simply a mode of action in the Deity; the latter (the

Platonists) , a real being, (the Deitys) agent and minister in executing his will. Philo was the first, we believe, who attributed to the Logos a permanent subsistence.

There is a vast difference in understanding the word of God as a mode of action (e.g., God speaking light into existence) and in understanding the word of God as a separate being from God. But Philo was to have a profound influence upon the Catholic fathers, and therefore upon the development of the Catholic Trinity. Through the use of allegorical interpretation (what we also understand as spiritualization today), which had long been known to the students of Homer, and which was systematized by the Stoic philosophers, Philo began his effort to combine the absolute monotheism of Judaism with the transcendentalist theology of Platonism. He was actually attempting a synthesis of biblical theology and pagan philosophy. Plato described the pagan Logos as a Jewish archangel. To Philo, the Logos was the Idea of ideas, the firstbegotten Son of the uncreated Father, and the second God. The cosmos, Philo wrote, is held together by the power of the Logos. The Supreme God is too remote and impassible to have direct contact with this world, and so it is the Logos who appears to man (e.g., as in the burning bush to Moses). Philo wrote about this concept of his in the following manner:
The Absolute Being, the Father, who had begotten all things, gave an especial grace to the Archangel and First-born Logos (Word), that standing between, He might sever the creature from the Creator. The same is ever the Intercessor for the dying mortal before the immortal God, and the Ambassador and the Ruler to the subject. He is neither without beginning of days, as God is, nor is He begotten, as we are, but is something between these extremes, being connected with both.

The reader can see that Philos conception of the Logos, with some modifications, is very similar to later trinitarian teaching on the Catholic Logos. Charles Semisch has stated, The early (Catholic) Fathers only poured the contents of the scriptures into a Philonian vessel: they view the biblical passages through a Philonian medium. Henry Malter believes that Philo actually wanted to prove that Judaism and Hellenism (Greek philosophy) taught the same divine truth in just a different way. WAS PHILO A GNOSTIC? If we accept the thesis that Philo greatly influenced the development of the Catholic Trinity through his idea of grafting the pagan Logos into the Old Testament teaching, then we might well consider his relationship to gnosticism. Philip Carrington believes that Philo was a gnostic, and Carrington had this to say:
(Philo was) the first and only Jewish philosopher of antiquity. To him Plato was only Moses talking Greek. But in spite of his Judaism and Platonism, he shows only too many traces of that gnostic error which is so fatal to sound thinking.

Elaine Pagels, in her excellent study of the gnostic gospels, has stated that Wilhelm Bousset claims to have traced gnosticism back to ancient Babylonian and Persian sources. The gnostics believed that matter was evil, and they believed in an unknown God with lesser emanations from the spirit world.

Martin Larson, speaking of Christian gnosicism, said, The gnostic heresy had its roots in the concept that Christ had existed as a separate power since the creation of the world. And James Adam noted, The distinction which Plato...introduced into the being of the Godhead prepared the way for the theology of Philo. Platos conception of the divine nature as a differentiated unity...(bears) a certain resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Philo was influenced by Platos Timaeus when he called the Logos the image of God, and the second God. This led James Adam to write:
The Timaeus did more than any other literary masterpiece to facilitate and promote the fusion of Hellenism and Hebraism out of which so much of Christian theology has sprung.

Why dont the trinitarian Christians today want people to know the background of the Trinity doctrine? Why do they attempt to ignore the history of the doctrine? When confronted with this truthful history, many of them attempt to belittle the importance of the origins of the trinity doctrine. H.A. Wolfson declares that the Catholic fathers, in discussing the pre-existent Christ, show unmistakable evidence of the influence of the Philonic Logos. And Wolfson notes that:
All of these (Catholic) fathers seemed to have identified the Johannine Logos with the Philonic Logos, and they also seemed to have known of Philos two-fold stage theory of the pre-existent Logos, and they seem to have consciously transferred this twofold stage theory from the Platonic Logos to the Johannine Logos.

Wolfson believes that the Catholic fathers consciously transferred the pagan idea of the Logos to the Christian Logos of the apostle John! How can trinitarian scholars today honestly claim that the doctrine of the Trinity has no pagan influence in it? H. Kennedy wrote, It can scarcely be denied that (Philos) particular differentiation of the Logos from the Supreme God had an exceptional influence on the subsequent Christology of the church. How can trinitarians not see the influence of Greek philosophy and the Jewish priest, Philo, on the doctrine of the Trinity? Their only answer is that the Catholic fathers merely used Greek philosophy to confirm the scripturality of the Trinity doctrine. But since there is a glaring lack any of the components of the Trinity doctrine in the scriptures (e.g., terms such as three persons, three-in-one, co-equal, co-eternal, not to mention the word trinity), it is obvious that this is not so. And, as Henry Chadwick said, The history of Christian philosophy begins not with a Christian, but with a Jew. It is sad indeed that a Jew played such a role in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity, which downgrades the Lord Jesus Christ to a subordinate role contrary to scripture. Another Jew, Paul of Tarsus, warned Christians about philosophy, vain deceit, and the traditions of men (see Colossians 2.8).

III ARCHITECTS OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITY

Clement of Alexandria (150-213 AD), head of one of the early Christian schools, which was heavily influenced by philosophy and gnosticism, admitted that he was opposed by those who still considered philosophy evil. He made light of their opposition and said that they were light and ignorant. He denounced the so-called orthodoxy who, like beasts which work from fear, do good works without knowing what they are doing. But Clement, of course, knew what he was doing. He had a special gnosis (knowledge) that

the ignorant orthodox did not possess. Friedrich Ueberweg says that Gnosticism was the first comprehensive attempt to contruct a philosophy of Christianity. The more flagrant gnostics, such as Cerdo, Cerinthus, Saturninus, and even Marcion, had been expelled from the church. These more flambuoyant gnostics were only the tip of the iceberg. There was still a remnant in the churches, who obviously began developing some philosophical system of Christianity that would compete, so they thought, in the Gentile world. The apostle Paul was troubled with gnostics, and spoke against those who clung to falsely-named science (knowledge or gnosis) (1 Timothy 6.20). Simon Magus (Acts 8), who clashed with Philip and Peter, was said to have been the teacher of the gnostic Menander. Menander, in turn, was the master of the famous gnostics, Saturninus and Basilides. Gnosticism, after Judaism, had the dubious honor of being the earliest heresy of Christianity. Isnt is strange that gnostics seem to disappear, to some degree, after the ascendancy of the Catholics? Gnosticism is probably the breeding ground of trinitarian theology. Clement of Alexander is certainly one of the Catholic fathers of the Trinity. The influence of Philo and gnosticism is seen in both him and his successor Origen. In Stromateis (i.vi.28), Clement wrote, Philosophy...was a schoolmaster to bring Hellenism to Christ, (just) as the Law was for the Hebrews. The Bible college at Alexandria, under the presidency of Clement of Alexandria, opened its arms to the teachers of gnosticism (Charles Merivale). E.G. Weltin called Clement a Christian Platonist and gnostic. Like Philo, Clement taught that the Logos was an Angel. In Paedagogus, Clement wrote, the Logos has appeared, and fear is turned to love, and that mystic angel (Jesus) is born. And he wrote, God is one, and beyond the one, and above the Monad itself. According to Moses Stuart, Clement so distinguished between the substance of the Father and of the Son as to make the latter inferior. And Photius wrote that Clement, in his now lost work Hypotyposes, held to the argument of the Son as a creature, and asserted the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. And while Alexandria may well be the site where the Trinity doctrine was transplanted into Catholic Christianity, there was an earlier writer from Athens, Quadratus, who may have written Logos theology as early as 125 AD. If Quadratus was the author of The Epistle To Diognetus, he used the Logos doctrine and praised gnosticism. Another Catholic architect of the Trinity doctrine was Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD), who was reportedly converted to Catholicism, which was probably a small minority group at that time, in about 133 AD. Justin never discarded his pallium (philosophers cloak). Justin taught during the time of an outburst of gnosticism (the heyday of Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, and Marcion). Justin desired to understand the Messiah in the light of Greek philosophy. He wrote:
At the beginning, before all creatures, God begat of Himself a certain rational power, which, by the Holy

Spirit, is also called the Glory of the Lord-now Son, now Wisdom, now Angel, now God, now Lord, and Logos.

THE SUBORDINATION OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DERIVED GOD Justin did not teach the eternal generation of the Logos, as later Catholic fathers (such as one of his pupils, Irenaeus, was to do) did, but rather he taught that the Logos, or reason of God, which, was before the creation, voluntarily begotten (or emitted) from the Father, and was thus converted into a real, separate Person. Thus the Son became a derived Being. This doctrine of derivation implies inferiority, and as Alvan Lamson says, a derived God cannot be a self-existent God. The subordination of Jesus Christ has been a hallmark of trinitarian doctrine down through the centuries. Although the Athanasians (and modern trinitarians) claim to have corrected this subordination at Nicea in 325 AD, there are those today (and especially the common people who are trinitarians) who still argue that Jesus cannot be God the Father due to His inferiority to God the Father. If Jesus is not entitled to every title that belongs to God, then Jesus is not fully God. Since we know that Jesus is fully God, we know that He is worthy of the title God the Father. The twofold-stage theory of the Lords birth is a key building block of the doctrine of the Trinity. Initially, Proverbs 8.22 was used to validate this teaching. The CatholicConfraternity-Douay Version of this passage reads: The Lord begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago. This was used to show that Jesus was born before the ages. Thus, the Lord was (1) born before the ages, and (2) born at Bethlehem. The gross inferiority that this brought to the Son began to be apparent, and Catholic fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Novatian, began to teach an eternal begetting of the Son in order to assure the Sons eternal equality with the Father. Athenagoras, Theophilus, who is first noted using the word triados (180 AD) to describe the Godhead, and Tertullian all held to the twofold stage theory. Novatian, realizing that this greatly subordinated the Son, wrote:
But He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father; for no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. And He is always in the Father, unless the Father be not always Father, only that the Father precedes Him-in a certain sense-since it is necessary in some degree that He should before (since) He is Father.

He is always in the Father, but the Father precedes Him-in a certain sense? In some degree? What contradictory nonsense! He is always in the Father, but, then again, no He is not since the Father precedes Him? But this great spiritual truth is qualified with in a certain sense, and by some degree! To what lengths will the trinitarian go to keep his co-equal Persons and yet keep his eternal Son? Athanasius tried to correct this imbalance dogmatically, and Augustine saw it. He said, The Son is equal to the Father, but not while the Son is in the flesh. By making this statement, Augustine denies the incarnation, since the incarnation is God manifest in the flesh. The Son is the flesh. It is not the Son in the Son, but rather the Father in the Son. THE LOGOS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT MADE INTO TWO PERSONS

Another step in the origin and development of the Trinity was the introduction of the heretical view that the Holy Spirit and the Logos were two separate divine Persons. Wolfson notes that the Catholic fathers merely followed Philo in alleging that the Holy Spirit and the Logos were two distinct beings or persons. When the Catholic fathers distinguished between the Holy Spirit and the Logos, they were then forced to re-interpret the writings of Matthew and John. John had written that the Logos was made flesh (John 1.14), but Matthew had said that that which was conceived in Mary was of the Holy Ghost (the supposed Third Person) (Matthew 1.20). And Jesus clearly identified the Father as His Father (the supposed First Person). This presented a problem for the founding fathers of the Trinity. How did they respond to this paradox. Justin Martyr of Rome and Theophilus of Antioch stated that the Holy Spirit in Luke 1.35 and Matthew 1.20 was not actually the Third Person in this case, but rather the Logos (the Second Person) in a sense! Here is some more specious nonsense! Justin wrote, It is wrong to understand the Spirit and power of God as anything else (other) than the Logos, who is also the firstborn of God (Apology I.33). Most of the Catholic fathers were astute enough to avoid the contradiciton by maintaining that the members of the Trinity had cooperated in the virgin birth. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian all held this view. Otherwise, they would have been forced to admit that God the Father was the Holy Spirit, and that He was the Logos (Word). Just as John 1.1 explicitly states, And the Word (Logos) was God. John of Damascus (675-749 AD) put it in the customary dogmatic terminology of the Catholic-Protestant tradition when he wrote:
He was made by the whole Trinity, for the works of the Trinity are not separable...when one of the Three is mentioned as the author of any work, the whole Trinity is to be understood as working.

This preposterous statement surely had to be made with tongue in cheek. Because the main trinitarian argument for identifying the separate divine Persons is their individual functions. So if one argues that the works of the Trinity are not separable, then it becomes nearly impossible to identify the difference, for example, between the First Person (a Spirit) and the Third Person (a Spirit)! These early Catholic fathers rejected polytheism (many gods), but since they accepted the Platonic triad of Philo, they were forced to compromise the unity of God. God could no longer be an absolute unity, but he must perforce be a relative unity. This is a weakness of the Trinity doctrine, since it can no longer honestly uphold the absolute unity of God (the monarchy). There must be a relative unity that will allow within it the combination of three distinct, separate elements, or what the trinitarians call subsistences. And Wolfson tells us that the Catholic fathers were constantly aware of a consciousness of opposition to the Jewish conception of the absolute unity of God. This awareness, says Wolfson, is noticeable throughout everything the Fathers say in support of the

Trinity. This is why we maintain that THE TRINITY TEACHING IS REACTIONARY IN ITS ESSENCE RATHER THAN BEING A POSITIVE DOCTRINE. THE ORIGIN OF THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1.26 Genesis 1.26 also seems to have played a role, through its interpretation, in the origin of the Trinity. Irenaeus interpreted Genesis 1.26 to indicate a plurality of divine Persons in the Godhead:
For with Him were present the Logos (Word) and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks saying, Let us make man after our image and likeness.

Where had such a novel interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures come? Certainly, as we have seen, no Jew would normally make much an interpretation. None of the apostles did. But it is very likely that it can be traced to a Jew named Philo of Alexandria, who had written concerning Genesis 1.26:
When scripture says that God made man in the image of God, it means he made him in the image of the second God, who is the Logos. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the Most High One and Father of the universe.

The Logos trinitarian doctrine, in spite of all denials, and subsequent dogmatic tinkering by theologians, postulates Christ in the role of the second God. Today, the terminology has been slightly altered to state, second Person. Martin Werner wrote that every significant theologian of the church, in the pre-Nicene period, has actually represented a subordinationist Christology. Of course, he means every significant Catholic theologian, since no apostolic theologian would every downgrade Christ to the status of the second Person. Origen (185-254 AD), although he is condemned by the Catholic church as a heretic, is acknowledged as one of the most renowned Catholic fathers (except for perhaps Augustine). Adolf Harnack wrote that, by the beginning of the fourth century, the theology of the apologists had triumphed, and all thinkers stood under the influence of Origen. And Rufus Jones says of Origen, he made a thorough study of Plato and Numenius, and was in all his thinking profoundly influenced by the contemporary neo-platonic movement. Henry Chadwick also wrote, Origen admires Plato and Numenius, and say Numenius was familiar with the scriptures...he calls him Numenius the Pythagorean, who expounded Plato with great skill and maintained the Pythagorean doctrines. And Bell says that Origen was influenced by the gnosticism of Egypt, and that he followed Philos allegorical method in biblical exegesis. In Origens work, Against Celsus, who apparently protested the Catholic fathers use of the Greek Logos, called the Logos the second God in three places. Origen, in his interpretation of John 1.1, presaged the Watchtower Society, by stating that ho theos (the God) belonged to God the Father only, while theos (a god) was a lesser title given to the Son. Jean Danielou attributes this interpretation of Origens to Philos

earlier theology of the Logos. And as Bell remarked, Origen regarded the divinity of Christ as inferior to the Fathers. But to highlight the contradictory nature of trinitarian theology, Origens greatest contribution to trinitarian theology might have been his teaching on the eternal generation of the Son. This, in spite of the fact, that Origen was a subordinationist. His teaching contained what F. Baur called the germs of both the Arian and the Athanasian doctrines. Origen wrote in his Commentary On Johns Gospel that We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three essences or substances. That this is tritheistic almost no one would deny. Almost all of these Catholic fathers were forced to attempt to refute the contemporary oneness theology which was still quite prevalent. THE CATHOLIC FATHERS IDENTIFIED THE CHRISTIAN LOGOS WITH THE PAGAN LOGOS It is incorrect to assume that these Catholic fathers did not identify the Christian Logos with the pagan Logos. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) wrote:
They who have lived in company with the Logos are Christians, even if they were accounted atheists. And such among the Greeks, were Socrates and Heraclitus.

It is clear from this statement that Justin considered the pagan Logos and the Christian Logos to be the same Logos. No matter that Socrates and Heraclitus were pagans-they lived in company with the Logos (the same Logos that Justin was putting forth). SUMMARY Deuteronomy 6.4 states, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. When asked by a scribe, Which is the first commandment of all? (Mark 12.28). And Jesus answered and said, The first of all commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Mark 12.29). The oneness of God is the most important commandment of all. There is only one Lord (Ephesians 4.5). Jesus told the Jews, I am from above, and I am not of this world (John 8.23). And he said, I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins (John 8.24). The only one from above, who is not of this world, and who is able to save us, is God Almighty Himself. I would not trust a second divine Person or a second God to save me. 1 Timothy 3.16 tells us that God was manifest in the flesh, and 2 Corinthians 5.19 says that God was in Christ. Jesus could have identified God as a Trinity, but instead Jesus identified God as a Spirit (John 4.24). Nowhere in the Bible is the word Trinity used. This is not comparable to the use of the word rapture. Nowhere in the Bible is the word rapture used (the word means to be caught up in an ectasy, an adequate description of the event), but the description of the rapture is clear in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-17 and in 1 Corinthians 15.51,52. But the Trinity is not described in the Bible. Nowhere are the building blocks of the doctrine found. You cannot find the terms three Persons, Three-

in-One, the eternal Son. It is not possible to show the existence of even a second divine Person. All the differences pointed out between the Father and the Son only point to the sphere of the incarnation. A trinitarian cannot find one scripture that shows a difference between the Father and the Son, which does not relate to the incarnation. In other words, he cannot relate differences within the sphere of the Godhead. All differences are within the sphere of the incarnation itself. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (Neptune, NJ: Loizeau Bros, 1959) 2. Veronica Ions, Indian Mythology (London: Pam Hamlyn Ltd, 1967) 3. Arthur Wainwright, The Trinity In The New Testament (London: SPCK, 1962) 4. Morris Jastrow, Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria (New York: G.P. Putnams Son, n.d.) 5. Franz Cumont, The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (Chicago: The Open Court Pub., n.d.) 6. J. Jacklin, Clement Huart, Henri Maspero et al, Asiatic Mythology (New York: Thom. Crowell Co, 1932) 7. Donald A. Mackenzie, Egyptian Myth and Legend (London: Gresham Pub, n.d.) 8. Morris Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions (New York: Chas. Scribners Sons, 1914) 9. William B. Chalfant, Ancient Champions of Oneness, 1979 10. Frederick Woodbridge, The Son of Apollo (NY: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1929) 11. Max Fisher, What The Great Philosophers Thought About God (Los Angeles: Univ. Book Pub., 1958) 12. Lewis R. Farnell, Greece and Babylon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911) 13. Grant Showerman, The Great Mother of The Gods (Madison, WI: Bulletin of The Univ. of Wisconsin No. 43, 1901) 14. Samuel Fales Dunlap, The Ghevers of Hebron (NY: J.W. Bouton, 1898) 15. Horatio W. Dresser, A History of Ancient and Medieval Philosopher (NY: Thom. Crowell, 1926) 16. Granville C. Henry Jr., Logos: Mathematics and Christian Theology (Lewisburg: Bucknell Univ., 1976) 17. Virgin Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1960) 18. John Cordner, The Philosophic Origin and Historic Progress of The Doctrine of The Trinity 19. Alvan Lamson, The Chruch of The First Three Centuries (Boson: Walker, Wise and Co., 1860)

20. H. Chadwick, in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967) 21. Henry Malter, Hastings Encyclopedia of Ethics and Religion (ix, p.873). 22. Philip Carrington, Christian Apologetics in The Second Century (London: SPCK, 1921) 23. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (NY: Vintage Books, 1981) 24. Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (Washington: New Republic, 1977) 25. James Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909) 26. Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of The Church Fathers (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1964) 27. H.A. Kennedy, Philos Contribution To Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919) 28. Friedrich Ueberweg, History of Philosophy (NY: Chas. Scribners Sons, 1908) 29. Charles Merivale, The Conversion of The Northern Nations (NY: D. Appleton & Co) 30. E.G. Weltin, The Ancient Popes (Westminister, MD: Newman Press, 1968) 31. God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1977) 32. Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957) 33. Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (London: Williams & Norgate, 1905) 34. Rufus Jones, The Churchs Debt To Heretics (London: James Clark & Co, 1924) 35. Harold Idris Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt (NY: Philosophical Library, 1953) 36. Jean Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before The Council of Nicea (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1973) 37. K.R. Hagenbach, A History of Christian Doctrine (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1883) 38. Henry Milman, History of Latin Christianity (NY: A.C. Armstrong, 1899) Most of the ancient writers can be found translated in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868), or later editions.

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA

IN THE EARLY FOURTH CENTURY a great controversy erupted in Alexandria, Egypt, between Arius, a presbyter (local minister), and Alexander, his bishop, over the deity of Jesus Christ. Alexandria was a major center of Greek culture and philosophy, which heavily influenced both sides of the debate. The controversy spread rapidly and threatened the unity of the institutional church. Although Alexander excommunicated Arius, Arius received support from some influential people, including Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia. When Constantine succeeded in becoming sole emperor of Rome in A.D. 324, he publicly embraced Christianity. Politically, he saw Christianity as an effective tool of

unifying his domain and therefore viewed the Arian controversy as a significant threat to his goal. To solve the problem, in 325 he convened the first ecumenical council of Christendom since Bible days, paying for the delegates to come to the town of Nicea, near the imperial residence. The central issue at the Council of Nicea was the identity of Jesus Christ in relation to the Godhead. The main questions were, Is Jesus truly God? and Are the Father and the Son of the same essence? The council was not strictly a debate over modalism (a form of Oneness belief) versus trinitarianism, although modalism was a factor. As things turned out historically, it was more of a debate as to how to define the second person of the trinity. Some of the participants were basically modalistic or Oneness in their thinking. In fact, one prominent member of the victorious party, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, vigorously promoted a form of modalism after the council, and another, Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, was later condemned for modalism. Moreover, many of the average participants, who may not have really understood the theological dispute, could have had predominantly Oneness concepts. The catalyst for the controversy, however, was the doctrine of Arius. Essentially, he took to an extreme position of the subordinationism doctrine taught by the Greek Apologists (second-century writers who defended Christianity) and the early trinitarians (third century). They held that Jesus was a second divine person subordinate to the Father. For support, the Arians particularly appealed to the early trinitarian writer Origen. Arius said there is one God, not a trinity, and that Jesus is not truly God but, in effect, a demigod. He is a created being of greater rank than humans but not equal to the Father. The Arian position is equivalent to that of Jehovah's Witnesses today. At the Council of Nicea the leading spokesman against Arius was Athanasius, a young archdeacon from Alexandria who later succeeded Alexander as bishop. He taught that there are three persons in one God and that these three persons are coequal, coeternal, and coessential (or consubstantial, of the same substance). The debate centered on the Father and the Son; neither side spoke definitively about the Holy Spirit. Primarily, the Arians attacked the deity of Jesus while Athanasius defended it, saying that Jesus is equal to the Father in every way yet a second person. Three factions developed at the council: a minority of Arians, a minority of Athanasians, and a majority who did not fully understand the issues involved but who wanted peace. In general, this third group took an intermediate position, but it is difficult to characterize them as a whole. Historians sometimes call many in this group Origenists or SemiArians. The majority did not necessarily embrace the complete trinitarian doctrine of Athanasius, but they eventually voted with him in defense of Christ's deity and against the Arian view. Athanasius considered all who opposed Arianism to be on his side, and some of his strongest supporters at this time were, or turned out to be, modalists. The creed that the Council of Nicea passed clearly rejected Arianism, but it did not definitely establish trinitarianism or reject modalism. Athanasius used four lines of reasoning to uphold the deity of Christ:

(1) The Scriptures teach it. (2) The church has always worshipped Jesus. (3) To be our Savior, Jesus has to be God. (4) He is the Logos (Word), and based on philosophical considerations, the Logos has to be God. He argued that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. It is easy to see how Athanasius' position could appeal to a Oneness believer. Faced with a choice between Arius and Athanasius on the deity of Jesus Christ, Oneness believers would choose the latter. In fact, the Arians objected that the doctrine of Athanasius sounded too much like that of Sabellius, a prominent modalist of the third century. When the council convened, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia offered an Arian creed, which the assembled bishops immediately rejected. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea proposed a compromise creed that satisfied almost everyone, but Athanasius and his group objected because it was ambiguous and did not resolve the issue. Wanting the widest agreement possible, Constantine pressed for inclusion of the word homoousios ("same essence") to describe the Father and the Son. His personal advisor, Bishop Hosius of Cordova, probably gave him this suggestion. In the end, persuaded by the oratory of Athanasius and heeding the bidding of the emperor, the council agreed to use the word homoousios, affirming that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father. The emperor pronounced the resulting creed to be divinely inspired, promulgated it as the law of the land, and insisted that every bishop at the council sign it or be deposed and exiled. Only Arius and two bishops refused to sign the creed, and they were exiled. Eusebius of Nicomedia and two other bishops did not sign the attached condemnatory clause and were removed from office. Some of the signers had strong reservations, however, and some, such as Eusebius of Caesarea, promptly began interpreting it contrary to its intent. The creed formulated by the Council of Nicea, which is not the so-called Nicene Creed used today, affirmed belief in "one God, the Father almighty... and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten; that is, of the essence [ousia of the Father, God of God, light of light, very [true] God of very [true] God, begotten not made, being of one substance [homoousiosl with the Father ... and in the Holy Ghost." This terminology is compatible with both Oneness and trinitarian thinking, although the clause "God of God" may erroneously imply a distinction of persons. Athanasius believed one divine person was begotten from another divine person, but a Oneness believer could use the same words to mean the one God came in flesh and therefore God who dwelt in Jesus is the same as God before the Incarnation. The original creed directly refutes Arianism by saying that Jesus is of one substance with the Father. To the creed itself was appended a clause pronouncing an anathema (curse) upon various Arian statements. One of these can be seen as incompatible with modern Oneness terminology, for it denounces the view that there was a time when the Son was not, and Oneness theology says the role of the Son began with the Incarnation. The purpose of the clause was not to refute modalism, however, but the Arian idea that the divine nature of Christ had a beginning.

Ironically, another portion of the anathema clause contradicts modern trinitarianism terminology, as well as that of Origen, for it denounces the view that the Father and Son are of a different hypostasis. As used here and in Hebrews 1:3, hypostasis basically means "substance," but trinitarians later began using it to mean "person" and affirming that indeed the Son was a different hypostasis from the Father. In summary, the Nicene Council was a clear rejection of Arianism but not a clear rejection of modalism. From a historical perspective, it was the first official step in the establishment of trinitarianism, but at the time that was by no means clear. From the trinitarian perspective of Athanasius, it vindicated the coequality and coessence of two divine persons, the Father and the Son, but some of his most vocal supporters did not accept the distinction of persons and some of his most vocal critics saw it as an endorsement of Sabellianism. To put the Council of Nicea in historical perspective, briefly here are the major steps in the development of trinitarianism. About 150 the Greek Apologists, beginning with Justin, defined the Word to be the Son, described the Word/Son as a second divine being begotten by God the Father at a point in time before creation, and said that the Word was subordinate to God. A threefold baptismal formula was introduced, along with some vague notions of threeness in relation to God. About 210 Tertullian introduced the term trinity and formulated the concept of one God in three persons. In his trinity, the Father alone is eternal, and He is superior to the other two persons. About 215-30 Origen likewise promoted trinitarianism, contributing the key doctrines of the eternal Son and the eternal generation of the Son. He thereby prepared the way to elevate the status of the second person, although he himself still taught that the Father was superior to the other two persons. Under the influence of Athanasius, the Council of Nicea in 325 rejected Arianism. It declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance, making them equal. The Council of Constantinople in 381 followed the doctrine of Athanasius and the three theologians of Cappadocia. It clarified the status of the Holy Spirit and placed all three persons on an equal footing. The Nicene Creed used today reflects the theology established here. Based in part on the theology of Augustine and produced sometime in the fifth to eighth centuries, the Athanasian Creed put in definitive form the doctrine of the victors of Nicea and Constantinople. It declared the coequality, coeternity, and consubstantiality of the three persons. Over two hundred years passed from the first teaching of a plurality of divine persons (two) (c. 150) to the full acceptance of the doctrine of the trinity (381). About one hundred years passed from the introduction of trinitarianism (c. 200) to the time it became dominant (e. 300), and almost another century before it reached its definitive form and received official acceptance (381). Yet a third century passed before all significant political threats to it ended with the conversion of the victorious barbarians from Arianism to trinitarianism (496).

WHY DID JESUS PRAY IF HE WAS GOD?

The question has been asked, "If the Lord Jesus Christ was God, why did he pray to the Father?" We teach by the word of God that there is ONE GOD, the creator of the heavens and the earth and all mankind, manifest to mankind as Father (Creator), Son (Saviour), and the Holy Spirit (Indwelling spirit). We believe and teach that there is but ONE GOD with three manifestations. "For there are three that bear record" in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE" (I Jn. 5:7). It does not say that they agree or work as one but that they are ONE. The Name of the ONE TRUE GOD is Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19, Acts 2:38). Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Ghost. Now in asking the question, "Why did Jesus pray to the Father?" the Trinitarians try to prove that there is more than one in the Godhead. In this question they see Jesus, the Son, the second person, praying to the Father, the final person in the Godhead. Briefly let me bring in at this point the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was the result of the Council of Nicea which was called by Constantine , the first Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. This council was called to settle the question of the Godhead , and the result was the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly the doctrine is: "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God." "And yet they are not three Gods but one God," but "these three persons, being truly distinct one from another." Also in this "trinity" of persons the son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal pro- cession from the Father and the Son, yet not withstanding they differ as to origin, the persons are co-eternal and co-equal, all alike are uncreated and omnipotent." This doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The Word of God plainly teaches THREE MANIFESTATIONS OF ONE GOD, not three persons or Gods. Nowhere in the Word of God can you find these words, "Trinity", "three persons", or "Holy Three." These are terms used by men to turn the hearts of men from the truth of God and who He is. Basically the doctrine of the Trinity has not changed since the council of Nicea. When we say that Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD and beside Him there is no other the Trinitarian will ask this question, "Why did Jesus pray to the Father? They often say, "If Jesus is God then He prayed to himself." I will do my best to answer these questions. First, let me ask the Trinitarian a question. Their doctrine states that the Father and the Son are two persons and that they are separate and distinct one from the other, yet they are coeternal and co-equal. In simple language this means that the Father has no more power than the Son and likewise the Son has no more power than the Father. The Father was not before the Son or the Son was not before the Father. Now the question I will ask is this: "If the Father and Son are co-equal , why did the Son pray to the Father?" You pray to someone because you need help, If the Son is co-equal, with the Father he had no need to pray to Him for help because he has just as much power and might. Please think, Mr. Trinitarian, before you ask such a question. It is accepted everywhere that Jesus is the Son (Matt. 1:23-25). But let us prove that Jesus is the Father as well as the Son. "For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,

Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6) Some say we are foolish to call Jesus both Father and Son, but this scripture calls him Father and Son in the same verse. A child would be born, a son given, but he would be called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. Jesus declared that He and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30). He does not say they work as one or agree as one, but He plainly states that they ARE one. Philip asked Jesus to show the disciples the Father in John 14:7-10. Jesus told Philip, "Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not known me, Philip. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then shew us the Father?" Some will say then if Jesus is the Son and also the Father then He prayed to Himself. lt would not be unscriptural to say this. Before you go up in Holy Smoke let us look at the Word of God. There is nothing unscriptural about the statement for in Heb. 6:13 we find "when God made promise to Abraham because He could swear by no greater, He swore by himself?" Did not God swear by himself? In Eph. 5:25-27 we read where Jesus presents the church to himself. Let us look at it in its true light. God is a spirit and we know by the word of God that a spirit has not flesh and bone. He created all things. This makes him Father. This same God manifested himself to the world as a Son. "But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal: 4:4) The Son was made. "Wherefore when He cometh unto the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body has thou prepared me." God would come to redeem fallen man so He prepared a body in the virgin Mary and got into that body and came to us to be our Saviour. This manifestation of God in mankind was called the Son. Not another, but God himself manifested in flesh. (Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:22,23). This son was Emmanuel. "God with us." This was the child to be born and the Son to be given, yet He was the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6). The Son was the mystery of Godliness being revealed to mankind; God manifested in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). This was God becoming flesh and dwelling among us (John l:l,14). He prayed because as Son he took on himself the form of man and in taking on the form of man he took on himself a human nature (not a fallen nature!) Please read Phil. 2:5-8. In taking on this nature he could hunger, thirst, become tired, could cry, and could even die. But one of the principle characteristics of the human nature is that it must pray. There is something within all men that cries out for them to pray whether they do or not. So Christ in his humanity prayed unto the eternal Spirit. Now even as God took these human characteristics on himself when He came into this world, even so He laid them aside in His resurrection, and we no longer know Him after the flesh (II Cor. 5:16). Paul said we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. After His resurrection we know him as Thomas found Him, "My Lord, and my God" (Jn. 20:28). We know Him as John saw Him on the isle of Patmos, as the Almighty (Rev. 1:7,8). As the first and last (Rev. 1:17,18). If Jesus is the first and last there can be room for no other. We know Him now as King of Kings and LORD OF LORDS (Rev. 19:16).

THE GODHEAD: Part 1

Romans 1:20

* This explains the purpose for having a Godhead study. * The Godhead is without excuse and we must understand this in order to receive the full revelation of who God is. THREE BASIC THEORIES OF THE GODHEAD John 17:17 * Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth. We must let the Bible be the basis for all establishment of truth. WHO, WHAT, WHERE IS GOD? SPIRIT John 4:23-24 * God is a Spirit. When you see the term God, it is referring to a Spirit. Acts 7:48-49 * God is not a little figure or a person off in heaven somewhere. God is a Spirit that fills heaven and earth, because heaven is His throne and earth is His footstool. OMNIPRESENT (EVERYWHERE) Psalms 189:7-10 * God is a Spirit that is everywhere. You can not hide from God. * Where ever two or three are gathered together in His name there He is. Why? "He is everywhere." I Kings 8:27 * The Heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee. Why? He is everywhere. * A place or body can contain the fulness (or quality) of God, but can not contain all of the quantity of God. Deuteronomy 4:35 & 39 * Lord is God-there is none else beside Him. * The term Lord used in all capitals always refers to God or deity (the omnipresent Spirit). * Verse 39: Only one God that is in heaven above and the earth beneath. * One God or Spirit that is everywhere. Proverbs 15:3 * Eyes of the Lord are everywhere (omnipresent). You can not make God out to be a human or He would be all eyes according to this scripture; but it is simply saying that He is an omnipresent Spirit. Jeremiah 23:24 * Can not hide from the Lord. Fills heaven and earth. * If there is only one, where are the other three (refer to chart)? We are establishing the fact not the theory that there is only one God (not two or three) and He is a Spirit. INVISIBLE

St. John 1:18 * No man has seen God at any time. Some say Moses saw the hinder part of God. He saw the manifestation of God, but not the Spirit itself. God can manifest himself as anything, and you can see the manifestation (burning bush, dove, etc.) but you can not see the Spirit itself, because it is invisible and no man has ever seen it. John 5:37 * They had not seen his shape nor heard his voice. What they did see was the manifestation of God. Colossians 1:15 * Jesus is the image of the invisible God. He is all of God we will see and we will cover how this is later in the study. IMMORTAL (EVERLASTING, CAN NOT DIE) 1 Timothy 1:17 * Immortal, eternal, invisible, only wise God. Immortal means God (the Spirit) can never die. This is important to know so you can later understand about the crucifixion of Christ. I Timothy 6:14-16 * Jesus will show who is the only King of Kings and Lord of lords and He who only hath immortality. * He is also invisible. Since He is an invisible, omnipresent Spirit that fills the atoms of the universe just like a thick fog, so if the Spirit would become visible (even after we get to heaven) we would all be blind. He will never cease to be an omnipresent Spirit, so the only way we will ever see God is in the face of Jesus Christ (who is the visible image of the invisible God). Psalms 90:1-4 * We dwell in the presence of God, and he is from everlasting to everlasting. * Flesh is not eternal, but God is eternal. Luke 24:39 * Spirit does not have flesh and bones. God is not an old man up in heaven. He is an immortal, everlasting Spirit. Flesh gets old, a spirit does not. Ephesians 4:4-6 * One God and one Spirit (refer to chart). There is one God who is through all and in you all. That is why the Spirit in you is called the Holy Ghost or Christ in you. There are three offices of God, but not three Gods: (1) Father-Spirit as creator and ruler. (2) Son-flesh which spirit dwelt in, making him God. (3) Holy Ghost-Spirit of God as it deals with man. I am a father, son and husband, but I am not three persons and I only have one name. Mark 12:29-37

* First commandment: the Lord our God is One Lord. Spirit prophesying through David. God and man dwelling in Christ. If the scripture says there is one, who has the right to say there are three. * Jesus went on to quote Psalms 110:1 to the Jews and asked them how was the messiah going to be David's son and David's Lord. The (flesh) that was born of Mary was of the lineage of David according to the promises God had made to Abraham, as recorded in the first chapter of Luke and Matthew- (Lineage is recorded all the way to Mary and Joseph with David and his sons included.) The God that David prayed to was the same God that dwelt inside that human body, making Jesus both David's Lord and his son. Look at the words Lord - the first is all capitals and the second is not. It lets us know that this is the Spirit speaking about the flesh. * Right hand of God will be covered later but it refers to the power of God. Spirit set up flesh and gave him all power. * The Son did not exist from the beginning, except in the plan of God, but Jesus was from the beginning. How? The term son refers to the flesh of God but the Name Jesus includes both flesh and Spirit, and the Spirit of God that was in Jesus did exist in the beginning. We must realize this to understand how the terms are applied in scripture. I Timothy 3:16 * God (deity) was manifest in the flesh. * God was seen of angels. When did the angels see God? When the flesh was born in Bethlehem. When will we see God? When we get to heaven and see the glorified body of Jesus. * Flesh could not do anything without the Spirit that dwelt in it because Jesus said the Words he spoke was not him, but the father dwelling in him was doing the work. II Corinthians 5:19 * God in Christ. Reconciling the world back to himself. Why? There was no other God to reconcile him to. That is why He said He would swear by Himself, because there was no other God up there to swear by. There is only one God (Spirit). John 3:34-35 * Spirit in Christ given without measure. If He was co-equal God He would not have to be given anything, but He was a man who had to have the Spirit of God in Him to be able to do the works of God. Matthew 1:18-25 * Verses 18-20: Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost making Jesus the son of the Holy Ghost. So unless the Holy Ghost and the Father are the same Spirit instead of Coequal persons then Jesus would be the son of the Holy Ghost instead of the son of the Father or else He would have two fathers. We realize from this, that they are only offices of the one Spirit of God, and the Spirit is called the Holy Ghost here because it is dealing with man. * Verse 21: His name shall be called Jesus which means Jehovah has become our salvation. An angel named him, not Joseph, because it was prophesied in the Old

Testament that the Lord would give him a new name. Keep this in mind because we will cover it later in the study. * Verse 23: Jesus was God (Spirit) with us. He was God manifest in the flesh. COMPARING SCRIPTURES OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS Scriptural comparisons concerning the prophecies about Jehovah of the Old Testament being fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament (proving they are the same). Isaiah 43:3, 10-15, 25 * Verse 3: Lord thy God is the Holy one (not 2 or 3), and the Saviour. * Verse 10-15: There was no God formed before Him, nor after him. Yet the doctrine of the Trinity indicates that the son proceeded out from the father in eternity before the world was. According to this scripture that would not be possible. * There is no Saviour other than this one God that is speaking in these scriptures, so when the Saviour comes to the world it will be this one God of the Old Testament. * Called our redeemer, Holy One, Saviour, Creator, King which are terms that are applied to Jesus in the New Testament. * Verse 25: It is the one God that will blot out or remove our sins. Isaiah 44:6, 8, 24 * Verse 6: He is the Lord, King, Redeemer, the First and the Last and beside Him there is no God. * Verse 8: If there is another God, He does not know about it. * Verse 24: He is the God that made all things, created the heavens and earth alone, by Himself, and there was no other God with Him. Isaiah 45:5, 6, 15, 18 * All these scriptures simply reemphasize the fact that there is only one God that is the Saviour and Creator and there is no other God besides Him. Isaiah 45:21-24 * He is the only God and Saviour there is and unto Him every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. Philippians 2:9-1 1 * The name of Jesus is above every name and at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah. It proves that Jesus is the one God of the Old Testament. JESUS AS THE FATHER Isaiah 9:6-7 * The son to be born is referred to as the mighty God and the everlasting Father, which proves again that Jesus is the one God of the Old Testament that came in human flesh to redeem man from his sin by the death of the flesh on calvary. This also makes Him our Saviour and Redeemer which fulfills the other prophecies concerning the one true God of the Old Testament. John 3:13

* Jesus was on earth talking to Nicodemus, yet He said He was in heaven also. This proves He is man and yet God that is everywhere according to the deity that lives in His flesh. Not a separate person, but the same one Spirit of an omnipresent God. I Corinthians 8:4-6 * There is but one God, the Father (term father as pertaining to God always refer to the omnipresent Spirit) and one Lord Jesus Christ. (Use this in referring to the next scripture.) II Corinthians 3:17 * The Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit, when compared with the previous scripture, this proves that Jesus is the same one God as the Father (Spirit). John 10:30 * Jesus said, "I and my Father are one". How are they one? When Spirit was put in flesh they became one person. He was fully God and fully man in one person. This statement caused the Jews to try to stone Him because they could not accept Him as the one God of the Old Testament, which eventually resulted in their being cut off and God turning to the Gentiles to take out a people for His name's sake. John 14:5-10 * Jesus told the disciples from henceforth you know the Father and have seen Him. Since the Father is an invisible Spirit that no man can see, the only way they could see Him was in the face of Jesus Christ. He proves this on His next point. * Philip asked to see the Father and it would satisfy him. Jesus seemed surprised that He had been so long with Philip and he still had not recognized that He was the Father. He let Philip know that when you see Jesus you have seen the Father. (The body of Jesus Christ is the only visible part of the Father you can see.) * He revealed that it was the Father (Spirit) that was in Him who was doing the works of the Spirit. John 8:24, 27 * Jesus was speaking of the Father in all of these verses and He let them know they would die in their sins if they did not believe that He was the Father. Why? Because they would never be baptized in His name for the remission of sins as commanded by the apostles. Colossians 1:14-20 * Verse 14: We have redemption through His blood (this lets us know these scriptures are referring to Jesus Christ). * Verse 15: Image of the invisible God. Jesus is the only physical part of God we will ever see and He is also the perfect image of God Spiritually because He is God in flesh. * Verses 16-20: Jesus is the creator of all things, which means He has to be the one creator that Isaiah prophesied about which also said there was no other God beside Him. * He reconciled all things to himself, because there is no other God to reconcile it to. (Flesh reconciled all things to the Spirit.)

Colossians 2:8-12 * Paul warned against philosophy, vain deceit, tradition of men and rudiments of the world. * Verses 9-10: The fulness of the Godhead bodily is in Jesus Christ. The body of Jesus does not contain all of the quantity of God, but all of the fulness of the quality of God. The body of Jesus is God's headquarters. * Ye are complete in Him, because He is the head of all principality and power. * Verses 11-12: Old Testament circumcision was a cutting away of flesh made with hands, which was a type of New Testament circumcision made without hands which is the putting away of the sins of the flesh by baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ (for the remission of sins). Matthew 28:17-20 * All power in heaven and earth was given to Jesus. If He was a co-equal God, then why would He have to be given anything; but, humanity had to receive power from deity. This is the father setting the son up on the throne as prophesied. * Baptize in the Name (singular) of the Father (not in the Father, but the name of the Father). Jesus said I come in my Father's name. The name of the Father is Jesus. * Name of the Son-She shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Son. * Name of the Holy Ghost-He promised to send the Holy Ghost in his name. The name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus. * Since Spirit (Father, Holy Ghost) and flesh (son) are in the same person of Jesus, the name of the Father, son and Holy Ghost is Jesus. if the apostles use the name Jesus in baptism, then we will know that this is the correct meaning and fulfillment of this scripture. Acts 2:38 * The Apostles (who had received direct revelation from Jesus) baptized in the Name of Jesus for the remission of sin. Acts 10:48 * The first gentile saved was commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord. He had just preached to them that they could receive remission of sins through his name. Acts 4:10-12 * Jesus is the only name under heaven given among men that will save you. Where was the name given in the plan of salvation? Baptism for the remission of sins. That is why Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins". I John 5:5-8 * There are three that bear record in heaven. He bears record of three offices or manifestations, but it does not say that there are three separate persons in existence, because that would contradict the other scriptures on the Godhead. These three witnesses are one. The three earth bearing witnesses (blood, water and Spirit) are said to agree in

one, not are one. I John 5:13 * You can have eternal life through believing in the name of the Son of God. I John 5:20 * Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life. Jeremiah 10:10 * The Lord (Jehovah) of the Old Testament is stated as being the true God. Since there is only one God, the Jesus of the New Testament must be the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Zechariah 12:1 * The one Lord that created heaven and earth is doing the speaking in these chapters. Zechariah 12:9-10 * They will look upon me whom they pierced? Who was it that was pierced on Calvary? Jesus. This proves again that Jesus was the One Lord of Israel. Zechariah 13:6-9 * This speaks of a time when the God of the Old Testament will return to the Jews and they will ask Him about the wounds in His hands. Who had the nail prints in his hands? Jesus. * He will destroy two thirds of Israel, but He will spare the third part when they recognize Him and call upon His name. (The name of the one with the nail prints.) He will then answer and say it is my people and they shall say "the Lord is my God". (Jesus is our God.) * If He refuses to spare the Jews who have not recognized who He is, what makes us believe He will spare the gentiles who refuse to recognize Him as the one God of heaven and earth. Zechariah 14:1-5, 9 * The Lord's feet will touch the Mount of Olives. The feet of Jesus are the only feet God has, because a Spirit does not have flesh and bone. * Lord God will come and all of His saints with Him. * Verse 9: He will be King over the whole earth, there will be one Lord and His name one. The whole world will recognize that Jesus is the one true and living God. Acts 1:9-12 * Jesus left from the top of the Mount of Olives and an angel told the apostles He would return in like manner. So this also confirms that Jesus will be the God whose feet touch the mount of Olives. I Thessalonians 3:11-13 * This states that Jesus is the one coming with His saints (fulfilling the prophesy of Zach. 14:5) proving again that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. NAME OF THE ONE COMING BACK

Revelation 19:11-16 * He had a name written no man knew, but He Himself. He was called The Word of God. We will find out the name of the word in our next scripture reading. * He is also THE KING OF KINGS and THE LORD OF LORDS. John 1:14 * Word was made flesh. Everyone realizes this scripture is saying Jesus is called the Word. Matthew 1:21 * Thou shalt call His name Jesus. (The name Jesus means Jehovah has become our salvation.) Isaiah 62:2 * The gentiles would see His righteousness and kings would see His glory and He shall be called by a new name which the Lord shall name. That is why Joseph did not name Him but God sent an angel to name Him. The new name is Jesus (Jehovah Saviour). This is confirmed in the next scriptures. Matthew 12:18-21 * He is showing here that Jesus is fulfilling the prophesy of Isaiah when he wrote "In His name shall the gentiles trust". Acts 9:5 & 15 * The Lord said His name was Jesus. * Verse 15: Paul was sent to bear His name before gentiles and kings. (The fulfillment of Isaiah 62:2.) Revelation 2:17 * He will give a new name who no man except He that has received it. Galatians 3:27 * We receive the name of Jesus when we are baptized in His name. That is why the ones who have received it know His name, because you will not be baptized in His name if you do not believe He is the one true God. Revelation 14:1 * They have his Father's name written in their foreheads. Revelation 3:12 * He will write upon him the name of God. The name of the city is revealed, but the name of God is not revealed except to say it will be His new name. Now, we realize from scripture that the new name is Jesus and remember the name in the foreheads was also the name of the Father, proving that the Father's new name is Jesus. He robed Himself in flesh and became a son which made Him Jehovah Saviour or Jesus. * He is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption and the Holy Ghost in His dealings with man; but, His name is Jesus.

THE GODHEAD: Part 2

THE KING, THE FIRST AND THE LAST Isaiah 44:6 * The LORD is the King and the first and the last, and besides Him there is no God. Revelation 1:4, 8, 11, 17, 18 * Verses 4, 8, 11: Jesus is called the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and last, the one which is, which was and which is to come, the Almighty. Jesus is the Almighty God. * Verses 17, 18: The first and the last is the one which was dead but is alive forevermore, and has the keys of hell and death. This has to be Jesus because the flesh is all that could die. Zechariah 9:9 * Israel's King will come to them riding on the colt of a donkey. We see this fulfilled in the next verses. Matthew 21:2-9 * Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah in these verses. Proving He is the one King of Israel. Matthew 2:2 * Jesus was born King of the Jews. I Timothy 6:14-16 * Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. PROPHESY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, FULFILLED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Isaiah 35:1-6 * He prophesied that God (remember Isaiah's other prophesies about there only being one God) would come and save them and they would see the glory of the Lord. * When this God comes the blind would see, the deaf would hear, the lame would walk and the dumb would talk. *Isaiah 42:5-8 * When He comes He will be a light to the gentiles, bring prisoners from the prison house and His glory He will not give to another. Isaiah 48:11-13

* He will not give His glory to another. * I am He; I am the first and the last. * The creator is doing the speaking. Isaiah 40:3-5 * The voice crying in the wilderness would prepare the way for God, and His glory would be revealed. Matthew 3:1-3 * John the Baptist was the one who was the voice in the wilderness who came to prepare the way of the Lord. (The one God of the Old Testament.) Matthew 3:10-13 * He will baptize with the Holy Ghost. * Then cometh Jesus. He was the Lord that John was preparing the way for. Luke 7:20-23 * John sent word from prison to ask Jesus if He was the one who was to come. Jesus simply answered him reminding him of the fulfillment of prophesy. The blind see, the lame walk, deaf hear, and the gospel is preached. John 1:14 * This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:5, the glory of the Lord was revealed in Jesus Christ. Remember, He will not give His glory to another. Malachi 1:6, 11, 14 * This talks of a time when the priest would despise his name and not realize it. It would be during a time when his name would be great among the gentiles and the heathen and incense (prayer) would be offered in his name. This has to be speaking of the times of Jesus Christ. Because that is when this prophesy to the gentiles was fulfilled. Malachi 2:1, 2, 10 * He will place a curse on the priest because they did not give glory to his name nor lay it to their heart. * Verse 10: We all have one father and were created by one God and those who were not obeying this were profaning the covenant (that the Lord our God is one Lord) of our fathers. * This proves God does care if we understand who He is and that we must lay it to heart to love and teach that truth. THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE GODHEAD LAMB-FLESH; GOD-SPIRIT (Comment: We realize there are some scriptures that seem to indicate that

God could be a trinity, unless you take the rest of the scriptures on that subject and compare them. The purpose of this part of the study is to answer these contentions scripturally.) Revelation 5:1-7, 13; 7:10 * Some read this and say there are two up in heaven because the lamb took the book from him that was on the throne. * Remember, Revelation is wrote in symbolic form and simply showing the purposes of his plan for coming in flesh to redeem man. Remember, that the Lamb is the flesh but God is a Spirit that is on the throne and can not die. The Lamb is called Root of David (flesh) which was slain. Revelation 5:9-10 * Flesh died; humanity died, so that is why he was able to open the book. He had been tempted in all points but without sin, yet He gave His life a ransom for others to redeem them by His blood. I Timothy 2:5 * There is one God (Spirit) and one mediator between God and man, the man (flesh, lamb) Christ Jesus. Revelation the fifth chapter is showing this taking place in symbolic form. II Corinthians 5:17-19 * This is more literal fulfillment of what is symbolized in Revelation chapter 5. Hebrews 7:24-25 * The man (flesh, lamb) is able to make intercession to the Spirit (God on the throne in Revelation) for us. Revelation 7:17 * The Lamb here is in the midst of the throne which simply reveals you can not divide him from the Godhead because the Spirit set him up in this place of power and is God's headquarters. The Father (Spirit) and son (flesh, lamb) became one person in Jesus Christ making him God. LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE Genesis 1:26-27; 3:22 * Many people contend from these scriptures that God is three persons or a trinity. * I contend that God was counseling with His own will in the presence of His angels and by His prophetic wisdom spoke of things that be not as though they were. * From this one scripture it would be impossible to tell which is correct, so we must search other scriptures that will allow the word of God to flow in perfect harmony.

* I contend that for God to be speaking to a trinity of persons or Gods would contradict the first commandment that the Lord our God is one Lord. * Some even contend that the word Elohim translated Lord here is a plural term, but even the Jewish scholars say it means plural in attributes and not number of persons. * The next scriptures will reveal which of these points is correct. Genesis 11:6-7 * God always used angels to carry out His biddings, so I feel He was speaking to His angels here. (See next scripture also.) Genesis 3:22-24 * He placed cherubims at the entrance to the garden. The angels knew the difference between good and evil because Satan and one-third of the angels had already been cast out. Job 38:4, 7 * God is speaking of the time of creation. The angels were there because He said the sons of God (angels) shouted for joy. So I contend God was speaking to His ministering Spirits (angels) who were with Him at creation. Ephesians 1:11, 1:4-11 * He works everything after the council of His own will. * Verses 4-11: We were even predestinated according to the good pleasure of His will, which He has purposed in Himself. This says He counseled with His own will not other gods or persons, yet He spoke in the presence of His angels. (Example-Boss on job counseling with himself in the presence of his men, but he is the one in authority.) Romans 4:17 * God counseled with His own will in the presence of His angels and spoke of things that be not as though they were. John 1:1-3 * Word was God. (Word = Logos = thought, plan, concept; Deity expressed.) * The son coming was in the plan from the beginning. Isaiah 46:9-10 * He is God, there is none like Him. He declares the end from the beginning and His council will stand. Revelation 13:8 * Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. He

was slain in the plan of God, but not fulfilled until almost 2,000 years ago. I Peter 1:19-21 * He was foreordained before the foundation of the world (in the plan of God), but manifest in these last times for us. Romans 5:14 * Adam was made in the figure (image) of Him that was to come (Jesus Christ). Romans 8:29 * He was foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. (The image that was in His plan and the image Adam was made in.) Colossians 1:15 * Jesus is the image of the invisible God. I Corinthians 15:45-47 * The man Adam was a living soul, but the second Adam (Jesus) was a quickening Spirit. * The first man was of the earth, earthly; the second man (Jesus) was the Lord from heaven. Galations 4:4 * When the fullness of time was come (according to the plan), He sent forth His Son. How? made of a woman, made under the law dispensation. II Timothy 1:9-10 * Grace was given to us in Jesus Christ before the world began (in the plan), but was manifest (put into action) by the appearing of Jesus Christ. I Peter 1:2 * We are the elect according to the foreknowledge of God. THE WISDOM OF GOD Proverbs 8:22-30 * Some feel this is the Son speaking here, but to see who is speaking, lets look at two verses that tell who is speaking. Proverbs 8:1, 12, 9:1 * The Wisdom of God is speaking. Remember, God counseled with His own will, made a plan from the beginning and spoke of things that be not as though they were. The son only existed in the wisdom and plan of God, until He was born at Bethlehem. 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 * Christ is the power of God and the Wisdom of God. He was made from

the Wisdom and by the power of God. He is the wisdom and power of God, because it is God that lives in the flesh. I Corinthians 2:7-8 * He was the wisdom of God in a mystery, ordained before the world, and if the princes of this world had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. God did not die, but the fleshly body died; the Spirit in Him was the Lord of Glory. RIGHT HAND OF GOD Acts 7:55-56 * Stephen did not say he saw two people but the glory of God and Jesus on the right hand. He was not speaking of geographical location (how do you get on one side of a Spirit that is everywhere?) but right hand is a Jewish term that speaks of being in a place of power and authority. He saw Jesus in His exalted position that was prophesied in the scripture. The next scripture will make this clear. * Right hand is also a place of acceptance with God. Example: At the judgement, sheep (saints) on the right hand (place of acceptance), goats (sinners) on the left hand (Place of rejection by God) Mark 14:62 * He shall be sitting on the right hand of power (not a person). This is describing His exalted position at His return as Lord of lords and King of kings. Colossians 1:19 * It pleased the Father (Spirit) that in Him should all the fullness dwell. Matthew 28:18 * All power in heaven and in earth was given to Jesus. Exodus 15:6-8, 12-13 * Human terminology is often used in the Bible to describe a Spiritual truth. Here we have two more examples of this. * It says the right hand of God has dashed thy enemy to pieces. A big right hand did not come down and start smashing the enemy, but the enemy was destroyed by the power of God. * By the blast of thy nostrils, the waters stood up. A big nose did not come out of heaven and blow on the water, but the power of God made the waters divide. * Verses 12-13: The enemy was swallowed by the power of God and he has guided Israel in "thy strength" unto a holy habitation. * Psalms 20:6, 21:8 * Verse 6: This speaks of the strength of His right hand letting us know it is a symbol of power.

* Verse 8: Right hand here speaks of the power and ability of God to find and judge all things. Psalms 118:14-16 * These scriptures speak of the strength of God and that the right hand of the Lord is exalted and does valiantly; which again means it is an exalted place of power with God. Habakkuk 2:16 * Here the cup of the Lord's right hand speaks of the powerful wrath of God. Isaiah 48:13 * Here the right hand symbolizes the power of creation. Isaiah 63:12 * Right hand here symbolizes the power of God working through Moses to lead the children of Israel from Egypt. Luke 11:20 * The finger of God here symbolizes the power of God to cast out devils. If you try to make it literal, you would have Jesus reaching up into heaven, grabbing a big finger, reaching inside people with it and casting out devils. So remember, you can not make God a human, He is an omnipresent Spirit. WHO WAS JESUS PRAYING TO? Matthew 27:46 * Humanity (the fleshly man that was about to die) was crying out to divinity (Spirit of God which can never die). If God had not allowed that body to die, He could never have been killed. Matthew 26:39-42 * This is another example of the humanity praying to the Spirit. The will of the flesh was to live, but the son (flesh) knew it was the will of God (Father, Spirit) to die for the redemption of lost souls. If He was a coequal God, why would He pray to another God, when He would already have the power to do anything Himself. Hebrews 5:7-10 * In the days of His flesh, offered He prayers to God (Spirit). He was a high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 7:1-3 * Melchisedec was King of righteousness, King of peace, had no father nor mother, no beginning of days nor ending of days; so he had to have been God manifest in the flesh as a type of Jesus that was to come. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. BAPTISM OF JESUS

Matthew 3:16-17 * Some feel that this means God is three persons, but let us examine what we actually have here. We have the body of Jesus (flesh), the Spirit manifesting itself in the form of a dove (God is not really a bird), and the voice of God that speaks. This does not indicate more than one God at all and we will see the purpose for this explained in the book of John. Acts 2:33 * God (Spirit) exalted the Son (flesh) and anointed Him with His Spirit (Holy Ghost). If He was a co-equal God this would not have been necessary. Acts 1:2 * Spirit of God in Jesus was called the Holy Ghost when it impowered Him to speak to the apostles. John 1:32-34 * The Spirit manifesting itself in the form of a dove was a sign to John that this definitely was the one who would baptize with the Holy Ghost, so there had to be a visible manifestation of the Spirit that John could see. II Corinthians 13:14 * Grace, love and communion are not three different gods; but functions of the offices of the one true God. THE END COMES I Corinthians 15:24-28 * This speaks of a time when the office of the Sonship (mediator, intercessor) will end and He will be known not as son, but as the Almighty God; and, God will be all in all. John 17:4-5 * Jesus here is wanting to be glorified with the same glory He had in the beginning. He was the Supreme Lord and ruler who was all in all, unlimited by a fleshly body and sonship office. He is praying to someday have that same glory when His work as the son is finished. He will become this during His eternal reign. He will be one Lord and His name one. Acts 2:21 -39 * Peter brings out how Jesus was the fulfillment of a foreordained plan of God that was prophesied in the scriptures, then he tells what that plan was. (Acts 2:38-39) Acts 4:10-12 * There is no other name that will save you. We must believe the Lord our God is one Lord and His name is Jesus. Then we must receive that name

in water baptism for the remission of our sins.

THEORIES OF THE INCARNATION

WENDTS THEORY OF ETHICAL UNION
Hans Wendt, in his The Teaching Of Jesus, proposes a theory, which is very reminiscent of the ancient adoptianist teaching. According to Wendt, the relation between Christ and God was an ethical, filial relation only. His theory is that there is a spiritual union only between Jesus and God the Father. It is difficult for Wendt to believe that there could be a union of two natures, the human and divine, in one person. Wendts theory is not a theory of the incarnation at all, but rather as R.J. Cooke, a Methodist writer, says (The Incarnation And Recent Criticism, New York: Eaton and Mains, 1907), a substitute for it of some kind of a divine inhabitation.

TWO CONSCIOUSNESSES IN ONE PERSON?

As Cooke notes, this theory supposes that there must necessarily be two consciousnesses in the one person, if there are two natures, the divine nature and the human nature. We are then faced with one person having what Cooke calls a double consciousness. Is this contradictory? Cookes own idea is that there was never an independent personality of the human Jesus apart from what he says is the Logos. There was never solely and only a human Jesus, but always a God-human being. But this is an awkward type of phraseology,since it sounds somewhat like the demigod (half-god and half-man) terminology of pagan mythology. Moreover, taken to its ultimate, it seems to compromise the genuine humanity of Jesus. And to this characterization, Cooke seems to assent, since he continues to say of the Lord:
A being not wholly and only God nor wholly and only man, but a union of the two natures in one God-man. The self-consciousness of Jesus always is that he is one, and not two. He knows himself to be a divine-human personality.

In Cookes opinion, our ignorance of how two consciousnesses could be in one person- without there being two persons- does not render such an apparent contradiction an utter impossibility. He notes that two Egos, each being conscious of itself, and living apart from one another, could never be conceived as being one consciousness. On the other hand, two Egos, having such a common ground that neither is conscious of itself as being distinct from the other, without also being conscious at the same time of the other, could be possible. A human analogy would be the ability of the mind (the subject) to be conscious of both the subject (ones own self) and an object simultaneously. This human analogy, however, fails since it does not even demonstrate two consciousnesses. Cooke, who apparently is an Athanasian trinitarian, speaks of another German theologian, Beyschlag, who is toying with a form of adoptianism,

in that he sees Jesus simply as a God-filled man, who was not born of a virgin, but who, before his birth, was in the mind of the Father as simply a pre-existing idea. Beyschlag taught that:
with all the sublimity and uniqueness of his consciousness of Sonship Jesus felt and confessed that he was a man in Gods presence. He repeatedly calls God his Lord, and acknowledges the universal human obligation of praying to him, expressions which cannot possibly be harmonized with a consciousness of being God himself. -New Theology

Notice that this German author is using the term Sonship, which, the oneness reader will see, is not, after all, solely a product of oneness theology. Beyschlag rejects the pre-existence of Christ as a separate divine Person, but he does so at the expense of the divinity of Christ and the truth of the virgin birth. He calls the ideas of the eternal Son (and, in essence, the Trinity) trinitarian notions of the fourth and fifth centuries, which are certainly unknown to the New Testament. Moreover, Beyschlag does not seem to have accounted for the times when Jesus spoke as God, commanding the elements and raising the dead, etc. Nor when he identified himself with the Father. But the only way to explain the unique qualities and person of Jesus Christ is to return to a genuine faith in the virgin birth. Only God could adequately reveal God. As John wrote of Jesus, after he had ascended into Heaven:
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. -John 1:18

The man Jesus is the Image of the invisible God (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossian 1:15, and Hebrews 1:3). He is more than just an adopted Son, and more than just a God-filled man.

THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS

Much discussion has ensued concerning the extent of Jesus consciousness, not only of His deity (from His humanity side), but of when He became aware of His deity, as a human being. And to what extent he was able to operate in both spheres of human and divine consciousness. Did a dual-consciousness operate simultaneously? Was the divine superimposed over the human? Horace M. Du Bose (The Consciousness of Jesus, New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917) believes that the consciousness of Jesus:
is the identification of the life of that harmonious personality resulting from the unity of Godhood and manhood, whereof is one Christ...the explication of humanity and the manifestation of divinity.

And DuBose notes that Tokens of the human are abundant and sympathetic; tokens of the divine are signal and overmastering. There is no dissonance, incongruity...confusion of ideas in the reported words or thoughts of Jesus. The consciousness of Jesus developed normally. And he says:
To the human side of his life the divine side was uncovered as his human powers ripened; but at each stage the exercise of those powers was full and the unity of the consciousness complete.

A CONSCIOUSNESS GROUNDED IN TWO NATURES

And, DuBose adds, here was a consciousness grounded in two natures, yet expressed through an indivisible personality. He continues this synergistic approach by saying:
To its capacity, the human consciousness could no more escape knowledge of the divine identity than could the divine escape its impinging human complement.

A COALESCENCE OF GODHOOD AND HUMANITY

Du Bose does not seem to be affected by the pagan demi-god influence since he writes:
In this union there was a coalescence, but not an identification, of Godhood and humanity.

But, nonetheless, Du Bose suffers from the confusion generated by the trinitarian church councils. For him, Jesus is the Son, very God of very God...who came down and was incarnate and was made man. The Nicean theology. He rejects the idea of the incarnation of God the Father, and assigns the incarnation to a second divine Person in the Godhead.

AN EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS?
But when he returns to his examination of the consciousness of Jesus, he is plain enough. He reflects upon a noticed expansion in the consciousness of Jesus:
The last earthly experiences of Jesus, notably the passion, the ordeals before Pilate, and the long agony of the crucifixion, perfected his consciousness as to its compass, both in emotion and thought, of the elements of the absolute. Three antecedent events show the manner of this process while under way. These were the baptism, the temptation, and the transfiguration. At the baptism of Jesus the consciousness of Messiahship may be said to have been perfected, the subjective maturity being verified by the words and signs of Paternal recognition. In the struggles of the temptation the knowledge of sufficiency was subjectively confirmed, while in the transfiguration the whole Personality stood self-revealed, the diaphanous body not only testifying its subserviency to the Messianic consciousness, but rising to its office of participation therein.

And Du Bose goes one step further in this evolution of consciousness by examining it in the light of the resurrection. The remarks by the apostles concerning the resurrection show:
how fully the divine consciousness had been attained by, and was expressed in the risen Christ, and how boundless had become the mastery of his powers.

But Du Boses review of this expansion of consciousness, in which Jesus declares that all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18), is colored by his trinitarian thinking. He sees the full revealing of divinity in Christ after the resurection as the uncovering of the divine nature which was his by inheritance. But he fails to see God the Father. To him, it is rather a Father passing His divine nature on to a Son. Jesus is God only by virtue of his virgin birth. He is not God because he has always been God the Father, but rather his divine nature has been bequeathed to him by another divine Person. He is placed in a subordinate position even in the Godhead.

SIGNS OF GODHEAD HIDDEN IN FLESHLY UNMATURITY

Melito of Sardis, in his writings (see Melito of Sardis, On The Pascha, and Fragments, tr. Stuart G. Hall, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979),

c.160 AD, wrote that Christ proved his manhood in the thirty seasons before the baptism, when, because of fleshly unmaturity, he hid the signs of his Godhead. Notice that the word unmaturity is purposely used, and not the word immaturity. Christ proved his Godhead through the signs in the three years after baptism.

GODHEAD MANIFESTED AFTER BAPTISM?

In this manner, concluded Melito, Christ assured us of his two essences (tas duo autou ousias). After his baptism, Christ manifested the Godhead...hidden in flesh, and assured the world of it. As George Park Fisher notes (History of Christian Doctrine, New York: Scribners Sons, 1896), Melito early recognized the two natures in Christ, perfect God and perfect man. Concerning these two natures, which somehow were the fountain of consciousness in Jesus Christ, David Bernard (Oneness of God, Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983), has written:
the two natures (divine and human) were not actually separated in him. ith our finite minds, we can make only a distinction and not a separation in the two natures that blended perfectly in him.

However, some separation has to exist for the purpose of the Lords genuine humanity. How could he die without a separate genuine human nature? Bernard does see a distinction between God and the Son (Oneness and Trinity AD 100-300, Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1991):
There is a real distinction between God and the Son-not a distinction of two divine persons, but a distinction between the eternal Spirit of God and the authentic human being in whom God was fully incarnate.

WORD IS THOUGHT, PLAN, REASON BEFORE INCARNATION

Jesus, according to Bernard, was both God and man at the same time, and sometimes He spoke or acted from the human viewpoint and sometimes from the divine viewpoint. The Lord, as Father, sometimes spoke from His divine self-awareness. Then, as Son, He sometimes spoke from His human self-awareness. The Word, according to Bernard, was Gods self-revelation, selfexpression, or self-disclosure. Before the incarnation, the Word was the thought, plan, reason, or mind of God. Not a separate divine Person. The Word pertained to God, much as a man and his word. When it is time for the incarnation, Bernard notes:
In the fulness of time, God put flesh on the Word; He revealed Himself in flesh. In the person of Jesus Christ, the Word was made flesh...the eternal Word was revealed in the begotten Son.

I might add that this explains away much of the trinitarian theory of a pre-existent separate divine Person. For example, when Paul, in Colossians 1:15,16 states that all things were created by the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of every creature, he is actually giving glory to what God did in the beginning through the spoken Word. This is before the Word was later made flesh in the womb of the virgin. Then the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:3) states that it is the Son by whom also he made the worlds. Again, we know that the writer means that God created the heavens and the earth earlier by his spoken word, and we clearly see this in Genesis 1:3, as well as in Psalms 33:6-9. We

know that the Word was later made flesh in the womb of the virgin. These passages do not mean that the man Christ Jesus, the Image of God, the firstborn of every new creature, pre-existed (except as God). We understand that the Word was made flesh, and that this is when the only begotten Son came into existence.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

The virgin birth, of course, is a critical doctrine in reference to the unique status of Jesus. Without the virgin birth, the sinless humanity of Christ is put into question (in other words, he still would have received the sin nature of Adam with two human parents). This is the error of true adoptianism. Lukes Gospel, therefore, plays a vital role in the establishment of the virgin birth, as, of course, does Matthew. Mark makes no reference to it.

ONLY-BEGOTTEN
John makes oblique references to the virgin birth by using the phrase the only-begotten of the Father, and the Word was made fleshalthough he does not mention the role of Mary. It is important, in the case of John, to realize that a modern-day linguistic assault has been made upon the translation of monogenes, only-begotten, by modern trinitarian writers. Liddell and Scotts Dictionary (1889) simply translates monogenes as only-begotten. But Vines Dictionary (1996, q.v.), after dutifully listing monogenes as only-begotten, devotes several paragraphs attempting to destroy the simple translation of only-begotten, which we find in the King James Version of the Bible. In Vines, the purpose of attempting to do away with the translation of only-begotten becomes clear. We are made to understand that monogenes, when it refers to Jesus, must be understood differently:
We can only rightly understand the term the only begotten when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship.

And then the writer quotes Moule, making it quite clear that monogenes, in his opinion, cannot possibly be related to the virgin birth:
The begetting is not an event in time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not after the Father.

And, in his interpretation of John 3:16, the intent of the writer in Vines is further revealed. This statement, he notes, must not be taken to mean that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation. Why not? Obviously we have here a theologically biased interpretation, and not a purely linguistic interpretation. The theology of the Logos teaching of a pre-existent Son, born before the ages, wrests the clear meaning of the scripture that Jesus, born of a virgin, is thereby the onlybegotten Son of God. It is true that he will later be begotten from the dead, becoming the firstborn among many brethern. But he alone is the only-begotten from a virgin, the incarnated God, or God manifest in the flesh. To translate monogenes as simply only (as in John 1:18, New

International Version; and John 3:16, The New English Bible) is simply a theological decision. God has many sons. The angels are declared to be his sons. Adam is called the son of God. To do away with the term only-begotten is indirectly an attack upon the virgin birth. The meaning of only-begotten, in this case, is generally understood to mean that the only man born of a virgin, with God as his Father, is Jesus Christ. It refers to the virgin birth, plain and simple. All of Gods children are unique. Therefore, the term unique is not acceptable, and is a far cry from the simple meaning of monogenes. Only one has ever been (and ever will be) begotten by God of a virgin-Jesus Christ.

JEWISH ROOTS OF LUKE?

Luke was possibly written as early as 63 AD, while Paul was still alive. Marcion made an attack upon the virgin birth by omitting from his text of Luke the first three chapters (c.140 AD). But R.J. Cooke (q.v.) notes that Luke obviously made use of far older Aramaic documents, dating back many years prior to the date of his gospel. He notes that this is the opinion of such scholars as Sanday, Weiss, Godet, and many other New Testament critics. Weiss declares that:
the Hebraistic diction of these documents presents such a striking contrast to the classical Greek of the preface (of Luke) that the use of a written source can hardly be denied.

Gunkel, says Cooke, is of the opinion that Luke is drawn from a translation of a Hebrew(Aramaic) original, which he refers to as a genuine document of a very primitive Jewish-Christian type (q.v.). And Godet notes that in the use of these early documents Luke faithfully preserved their Aramaic coloring (q.v.). According to Cooke, C.A. Briggs (North American Review, June, 1906), felt the Aramaic narratives, from which Luke drew, were dated prior to the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD), during the lifetimes of James and Jude, the half-brothers of Christ (q.v.). Cooke speculates that the information could have even originally come from the lips of Mary herself. And Cooke (q.v.) argues convincingly that Paul had either copies of both Matthew and Luke in his possession, or at least a common Aramaic source that each used. Paul accepted the virgin birth, as a review of his epistles will demonstrate (e.g., Galatians 4:4, and his acceptance of the sinless nature of Christ). G.C. Morgan (The Gospel According To Luke, New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1931), taking a cue from an interpretation of Paul in Colossians 4:1014, believes that Luke was a Gentile and not a Jew. But this is a tenuous interpretation at best, attempting to interpret what Paul actually did not say. Moreover, to say that Luke has a Gentile name and therefore cannot be a Jew, is of doubtful importance. Mark, the author of the gospel,was a Jew. Romans 3:1,2 states that the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews. It would be strange, but perhaps not impossible, that God entrusted a book of the Bible to a Gentile in view of Pauls statement. It would be the only one of the 66 books of the Bible written by a Gentile, if this is the case.

VIRGIN BIRTH ESSENTIAL TO THE INCARNATION

Without the virgin birth, it is difficult to imagine the incarnation. As Cooke notes, every birth, by ordinary generation, is the coming into this life of a new personality. Christ cannot have been born of ordinary human parents, because the conclusion would then be that the eternally existing Logos (Word) first came into personal being by such human means. Cooke notes the difficulty in assuming that the ego or self of the pre-existing Logos united with the ego or self of the human child, which was born of two human parents. This would be a form of adoptianism.

A CONJUNCTION OF PERSONALITIES?
He rejects this, since we shall have two egos in two persons, which, he declares is a mere conjunction of personalities and is not an incarnation at all. There is, says Cooke (q.v.), a union (henosis) of two natures in Christ, though not a conjunction (synatheia), as Nestorius declared (q.v.). And this union (henosis) must also be distinguished from krasis or sygchysis, a mere blending of natures. Sygchysis means a mixing together, a blending, while krasis likewise means a mixing, a blending, but with the added element of a compounding (composed of, or resulting from the union of separate elements, ingredients, or parts). Of course, this is consilar theology, stemming from trinitarianism.

UNION DISTINGUISHED FROM INDWELLING

Furthermore, notes Cooke, this union (henosis) must also be distinguished from enoikesis (from enoikeo, to dwell, to inhabit), an indwelling of God in the human nature (q.v.). Hebrews 2:14 states that, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. And Hebrews 2:16 is even more explicit, he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. God, then, in the incarnation, became a partaker (to take a part of, or share, to have some of the qualities or attributes of something)of flesh and blood, of the seed of Abraham. It was more than just a mere indwelling. This has to qualify John 1:14, flesh. God, through his Word, a sinless human being, who was partaker of flesh and blood, Abraham. This is why the word The manner of partaking, and mysterious. the Word (Logos) was made (or became) did more than just inhabit, or dwell in, virgin born, he actually became a and took upon himself the seed of union (henosis) is being put forward. the degree of union is what is

TWO DISTINCT NATURES

And this union is so powerful and so unique, that the man Jesus, retained his own genuine humanity, while actually being the Mighty God himself, manifest in the flesh, with two distinct natures, human and divine. The human nature was not divine, and the divine nature was not human. There is a real, simultaneous existence of God the Father, in heaven, demonstrated alongside the existence of the man Jesus, on earth, since

a genuine relationship is shown between the man and his God. This relationship is a fact of the gospels. Nevertheless, the incarnation is also revealed more fully in the progressive revelation of the Mighty God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19). Jesus is confirmed by the Father as the Messiah at the baptism, his anointing (as the Christ or Messiah) is confirmed in his successful endurance of the wilderness temptation, when he returns in the power of the Spirit. His deity is seen in the transfiguration. And it is even more fully declared in his glory following the triumphant resurrection (Thomas acknowledges him as my Lord and my God in John 20:28). Jesus identifies himself as God in a number of ways. In John 10:30, he speaks of his identity, or oneness, with the Father. In John 14:7-9, he reveals himself as the Father manifest in the flesh. The relationship of the Son and the Father demonstrate the genuine humanity of the Son, and the need of all humanity for God the Father, while, at the same time, the works of Jesus demonstrate the reality of the incarnation, and that the Deity is indeed resident in the man Jesus. At no time, does the relationship of the Father and the Son ever demonstrate the existence of two divine Persons. This is, in part, because of the reality of the existing incarnation, and the genuine humanity of Christ. But we do not have simply one nature talking to another nature. This is too simplistic. We have a genuine human being talking to his God and to his Father. This is only possible due to the mystery of the incarnation. Only the omnipotence and the omnipresence of Almighty God could bring about such a logicdefying, seeming contretemps. But no one should say that the conversations of the Father and the Son were rigged,or that ventrilloquism was involved. But then again, no separate divinity was imparted additionally to the man Jesus. The divinity of Jesus Christ is indeed the divinity of God the Father. The virgin birth did not bring about the production, or the revelation, of another divine Person. Nor did another divine Person, other than God the Father, come from heaven to rescue mankind. It is true that the Father sent his Word from heaven, which was made flesh, and dwelt (tented) among us (John 1:14). John says, we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father (vs 14). He is speaking of the virgin born man here, and not of a second divine Person from heaven. But John 1:14 must be understood in the light of Hebrews 2:14 and 2:16. The phrase the word was made (or became) flesh cannot fully be understood without interpreting the statements that he (God) became a partaker of flesh and blood, and that he took on him the seed of Abraham. To become a partaker of flesh and blood, and to take on the seed of Abraham implies more than simply the word was made flesh. It expands upon that thought, and it clarifies the need for the idea of some kind of a sacred union. It is more than just saying that God spoke a human being into existence, and then He (God) entered into that body. It is not saying that God Himself was made flesh either. He became a partaker of flesh and blood. He took upon himself the seed of Abraham.

THE EMPTYING (KENOSIS)

THEORY
Philippians 2:5-9 reads:
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.

The first interpretation of this passage hinges upon Christ, being in the form of God (morphe theou). The verb used for being is the present participle hyparcho, existing. Vines Dictionary insists, without evidence, that this always means to pre-exist (Vines Complete Expository Dictionary, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Pub., 1996). However, other Lexicons, such as Liddell and Scotts, do not say this. Concerning the noun morphe (that is, morphe theou, the form of God), Vines again insists that this use of morphe is the nature or essence actually subsisting in the individual, and is retained as long as the individual exists. It cannot be in the abstract. But yet we are told that the noun morphe (used by Paul in the next verse as morphe doulou, the form of a servant) must have the same sense:
It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that form (morphe) must therefore have the same sense in both.

But this cannot be true, if, as Vines states, that morphe theou cannot be used in an abstract sense - especially since morphe doulou (the form of a servant) can indeed be construed in an abstract sense. Why then cannot morphe theou? Thus, it would seem clear that the apostle Paul is not declaring any pre-existent equality of Christ with God, with Christ being in the form of God alongside of God the Father before the ages. Rather, Paul is speaking of conditions prevailing during the incarnation (in the days of his flesh). Jesus, as the Image of God (the Son of God), being in the form of God, on earth, did not think it robbery to be equal with God. We have further confirmation of this interpretation in John 5:18. We remember that man was made in the image, or likeness, of God (Genesis 1:26). In John 5:18, the apostle John informs us that Jesus said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. In other words, in Philippians 2:6, Paul is not speaking of some pre-existent, separate divine Person, but rather he is speaking of the man Christ Jesus, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God. This is the way in which John explains the phrase equal with God. It has to do with the incarnation, and not with the internal workings of the divine Godhead. The phrase that has been controversial is heauton ekenosen, made himself of no reputation (Philippians 2:7), from whence the kenosis theory, he emptied himself. Whereas the King James Version translation leaves this activity of the Lords (made himself of no reputation)within the sphere of the incarnation, or, rather, in the earthly life of the savior, others have lighted upon the translation he emptied himself, and have involved the meaning of the phrase in the actual process of the incarnation

itself. The strength of the phrase he emptied himself also seems to hang upon the subsequent translation, was made in the likeness of men (en homoiomati anthropon genomenos). The literal translation of the phrase was made in the likeness of men is in the likeness of men having become, which would seem to take away from the force of the involvement of the phrase he made himself of no reputation with the actual process of the incarnation itself. Rather this would represent a conscious action by the Lord after he was on earth. Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death. All of these decisions were made by the man Jesus on earth, who, after all, was God manifest in the flesh. This would make it seem likely that the phrase he emptied himself has nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the incarnation itself, but rather the Greek phrase heauton ekenosen would make more sense as either he drained himself, or even, made himself of no reputation (or account). That all of this passage refers to the man Christ Jesus is confirmed in Philippians 2:9, where Paul, with his famous wherefore, states: God also hath highly exalted him....

THEORIES OF THE KENOSIS

This phrase he emptied himself, or the kenosis theory, has spawned untold pages of speculation by theologians as to what God did, and how it was done. One German theologian, Meyer, according to R.J. Cooke (q.v.) wrote:
What the divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was the form of God; the divine glory, as a form of existence; but not his equality with God, which constituted and was essential to his nature. This he retained, and to this belonged essentially and necessarily the divine consciousness, and in the incarnation consequently the divine-human self-consciousness.

First of all, not everyone agrees that the Logos was incarnated. The Bible states that the Word (Logos) was made flesh (John 1:14). It is God (the Father) who was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). It is God (the Father) who was in Christ. The Logos did not lay aside the form of God. God is a Spirit. A spirit does not have a form in its natural state. The equality with God, as we have seen from the apostle John, refers to the sphere of the incarnation, and not to the sphere of the divine Godhead itself. This excludes a co-equal divine Person, and would exclude the incarnation of a co-equal divine Person. And then another theologian, Ellicott, states:
Of what did he empty himself? Not exactly of the morphe theou...but of that which he had in that form, that Godlike majesty and visible glory which he had from all eternity.

Obviously, this author is leaning upon a misinterpretation of John 17:5. In the high priestly prayer of the man Jesus, he requests that the Father glorify him with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Ellicott is undoubtedly supposing that there are two divine Persons here (Father and Son). One divine Person emptied himself of his glory (and Godlike majesty) in the process of the incarnation, and now he is supposedly praying to the other co-equal, co-eternal divine Person

(the Father) to give him back his pre-existent glory!

THE PRAYER OF A HUMAN BEING

But this is not the case. Jesus is praying as a human being in John 17:5. He did not have any pre-existent glory, which he divested himself of, because, as a human being, he did not exist before the world was, except in the mind of God the Father. Furthermore, he is asking the Father to glorify thou me with thine own self. If Jesus were indeed the second divine Member of the Godhead, he should not be asking the first divine Member (the Father) to re-glorify him with his (the Fathers) own (divine) self, since surely, preexisting co-eternally and co-equally, he would have equal glory. Since he supposedly, as Ellicott presumes, possessed equal Godlike majesty and visible glory from all eternity. The actual truth is that Jesus, as God the Father, did possess Godmajesty (not just God-like majesty), and had visible glory from all eternity. But the glory was not given to the resurrected Christ until he came out of the grave. It was only in the mind of God the Father before the ages. Just as the crucifixion was in the mind of the Father. Alford, following Ellicott in misinterpreting John 17:5, states incorrectly that:
He emptied himself of the morphe theou-not his essential glory, but its manifested possession...the glory which he had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5) and which he resumed at his glorification. He ceased while in this state of examination to reflect the glory which he had with the Father.

This does some damage to the trinitarian model, and, of course, misinterprets Paul. Notice that Jesus, as the divine second Person (even before he emptied himself supposedly) only reflects the glory (as the lesser moon does that of the sun) that he had with the Father before the ages. This is certainly not co-equality among the members of the Trinity! Furthermore, Alford says that Jesus emptied himself of the form of God (morphe theou). We have already shown that Jesus claimed equality with God on earth. The scripture explicitly states making himself equal with God (John 5:18). This would seem to be a contradiction of my Father is greater than I(John 14:28). But this need not be so, if we examine the context. Also, we remember that Jesus has both a divine and a human nature.

MORE ON KENOSIS
G. Vance Smith (The Bible And Its Theology, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1892) examines some of the theories of kenosis with a jaundiced eye. In a reference to Mark 13:32, in which the Son declares that he-at least in his then present human state-does not know the day or the hour of his return, Smith quotes bishop OBrien as commenting:
All things the Omniscient Father knows...doubtless were known to the Son when He was in the form of God. But it appears that when He became man, and dwelt among us, of this infinite knowledge, He only possessed as much as was imparted to Him.

Smith believes that OBrien here is actually, implicitly thinking of two Gods! Because he definitely conveys the idea of two (divine) minds. One mind possessed all knowledge, while the other, during a

particular interval of his existence only receives, as Smith notes, what the former (mind)...imparts to him. Yet, Smith continues, these writers profess to be monotheists, and to believe in the existence of only one God (q.v.). This type of thinking was common in the pagan world. The Greek god Apollo served the human shepherd Admetus for nine years, and kept his deity in abeyance. And this is exactly the terminology that bishop OBrien uses of Christ, according to Smith, when he writes, His (Christs) infinite attributes and powers seem...to have been in abeyance, so to speak (q.v.). And Smith also believes that a grave injustice has been done to the translation of morphe theou (the form of God) in Philippians 2:6 by insisting, as J.B. Lightfoot, that the phrase actually means essential nature. Smith holds that the phrase refers to outward condition and circumstances only (q.v.). The term morphe cannot refer to essential nature, because the Lord is said to have also taken upon himself the form of a servant (morphe doulou). Surely, this does not mean the essential nature of a servant. If so, was his essential nature changed at the resurrection? Morphe is used in one other place in the New Testament (Mark 16:12), where the resurrected Christ appears in another form to his followers. Obviously, it is not used in the sense of essential nature in this passage either. It is clear that the phrase form of God has nothing to do with Christ as a separate divine Person. It refers only to the sphere of the incarnation. J.B. Lightfoot (in Cooke, q.v.) states that Jesus divested himself, not of his divine nature, for this was impossible, but of the glories, the prerogatives, of deity. This seems to be the prevailing view today. Gwynn (in Cooke, q.v.) taught that he did not lay aside the essence of his Godhead, but that which is relative to finite perceptions, its outward manifestations. Some are perplexed that Paul does not define exactly what the Lord supposedly emptied himself of. Cooke believes there could be a definite genitive following the verb ekenosen, but there is not. Some speculate that a phrase such as his equality with God would be more appropriate than the phrase the form of God. But all of this hinges upon the proper translation of heaton ekenosen! Some of these theories of kenosis have erred so far from reality that they actually, in essence, deny the incarnation. Godet (again, Cooke, q.v.), for example, held that the Son, laid aside the attributes of deity and became man. The Son, he says, even allowed his personal consciousness as the eternal Son to be extinguished, retaining (in the incarnation) only his inalienable personality (his Ego). He became absolutely unconscious of his divinity(q.v.). This, Cooke rightly discerns, is not an incarnation at all, but it is rather a metamorphosis of God into man. God becomes man. God turns into man. Schmieder (Cooke, q.v.) says, The Son of God became man. Hoffman wrote (Cooke, q.v.) that the Logos did not cease to be God. He remained who he was, though he...ceased to be what he was. The danger these ideas bring forth are stemming from the incorrect theory of a pre-existent separate divine Person (the Logos), who is

eternal alongside God the Father.

THE VIEW OF JOHN KNOX ON KENOSIS

John Knox (The Humanity And Divinity Of Christ, Cambridge: University Press, 1967), who views adoptianism as the first phase of the development of Christian theology-a view which he takes from such passages as Acts 2:36, and other passages in Acts and Hebrews-holds that the second phase of this development was the view that a preexistent divine being emptied himself, and became a man. Knox wants morphe in Philippians 2:5-11 to mean nature, even though we have seen this is not a valid translation, according to recognized dictionaries. But it fits the trinitarian theology of kenosis. And where Paul writes that Christ was made in the likeness (homoiomati) of men (vs. 7), and being found in fashion (schema)as a man, Knox feels this is almost docetic(like teaching that Christ only appeared to be a genuine human). As Knox admits, homoiomati could, however, simply mean that Christ was a man like other men. But the word schema (fashion), he says, is hard to reconcile with a belief in a full and unqualified humanity (q.v.). He stops short of attributing docetism to the apostle Paul! He even questions whether this passage is an interpolation! Nevertheless, schema, in Liddell and Scotts Dictionary (q.v.) has a first meaning of form, shape, outward appearance, the figure, person. It need not throw doubt upon the genuine humanity of the Lord. It has lesser shades of meaning, but Pauls other teaching on Christ should direct the interpretation of these meanings. An explanation of how Paul viewed homoiomati can be seen in Romans 8:2, where he wrote that God sent his own Son in the likeness (homoiomati) of sinful flesh. Here, he is using likeness-not to cast doubt on the genuine humanity of Christ- but rather to differentiate between the sinful nature of all of the other children of Adam and the pure human nature of Christ. Christ aged in his human body. He was able to die. Yet he had no sinful nature. Knox admits that the theory of kenosis is inextricably attached to the doctrine of trinitarian Logos supporters. When I write Logos supporters, I am referring to those who believe that the Logos is actually a separate, distinct Person from God the Father (i.e., trinitarians in most cases). He writes concerning this group of scholars:
In our own period a number of distinguished theologians, holding firmly and strongly to the belief that Jesus was pre-existent as the Logos, but being most eager to maintain the truth and importance of his manhood, have seized on the word kenosis to explain how this could be.

The problem, as Knox sees it, is the kenosis has to be so qualified with reservations and exceptions as not to be kenosis at all (q.v.). He explains some of the difficulties:
The divine being does not fully surrender his divine nature (as, of course, in reality he could not): he gives up some its attributes, but keeps others; or, according to an alternative explanation, he surrenders the actuality of deity but retains the potentiality of it, thus continuing to possess as a man a latent, one might almost say, a suppressed, divinity.

Thus, according to Knox, the critics of the theory of kenosis point to what he calls the depotentiation of deity. A divinity that is hidden or, as he stated, suppressed in Christ.

For Knox, the orthodox trinitarian view of Chalcedon is difficult to understand. A Christ with two natures, both belonging to Jesus, one Person. Knox admits that this hinges on understanding what the ancient trinitarians meant by the term person. But he questions: how can two natures (each presumably involving consciousness and will) belong to one person inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably(q.v.)? Knoxs conclusion: of no normal human being could such things be truly said (q.v.). He lends some support to those theologians who are attempting to find ways to harmonize divinity and humanity in such a way that they can virtually identify humanity with divinity. H.R. Mackintosh wrote, ...all that is divine in Christ is human, and all that is human, divine. This almost sounds New Age-to blend humanity and divinity in such a way that the distinctions are blurred. Leonard Hodgson portrayed Christ as truly human whereas the rest of us are in process of becoming such. Jesus alone, in his view, is fully and truly man. According to Hodgson, then, the only genuine humanity is the divine humanity of the incarnate Lord (in q.v.). Again, an attempt to blur the differences between the divine and human nature. Also, there is the Son of Mary, and then again there is the glorified Christ.There is the Son of man, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death Hebrews 2:9). It is disturbing to attempt to explain the incarnation by redefining the natures of humanity and divinity, so that one may merge them through such a definition. Knox argues, there is no way of distinguishing Jesus humanity from ours which does not deny the reality of his manhood. But Knox has already pointed out that he has difficulty accepting the sinless nature of Christ (through the virgin birth), since he seems to feel that to accept the fact that Jesus was sinless would detract from his genuine humanity! For Knox, it seems, the theories of kenosis are generally abridging the humanity of Christ by introducing his pre-existence, which, in his opinion, distinguishes his humanity from ours. But then, Knox declares, kenosis is excluded; we are restricted to adoptionism and docetism:
We can have the humanity without the pre-existence and we can have the preexistence without the humanity. There is absolutely no way of having both.

But adoptionism (the theory that Jesus was selected from men born of human parents to become the Messiah) and docetism (the theory that Jesus was not truly human) were rejected by the church long ago. What remains is the incarnation and not necessarily the kenosis theory. Knoxs dilemma is really that he must maintain the doctrine of the Trinity. He states that any doctrine of the incarnation must presuppose the Trinity. He does qualify this with, or, at any rate, some complexity (if that can be the word) in God. And he writes:
In no serious theology, ancient or modern, has the Pre-existent Christ been identified with God, simply and absolutely. In the very earliest period, as we have seen, the pre-existing being was pictured as the Son of Man or possibly sometimes as an angelic being of the highest order...But never (sic) was he

identified with God in any simple or exhaustive sense. It must needs be so because God (understood in this unitary way) could not become incarnate and still be God.

Thus, Knox preemptorily excludes the oneness position concerning the incarnation. God could not become incarnate and still be God. Thus is the mystery of the incarnation swept aside, it almost seems, because it is supposedly impossible for it to occur. Since ancient Ebionites and dynamic monarchians are all erroneously lumped together as adoptionists, their views of the incarnation are not apparently considered. What about the modalistic monarchians, with their pneumatic Christology? They would seem to be more likely to embrace some kind of a kenotic theory. When we conclude an examination of these theories of kenosis, however, we perceive that they are almost all connected to the trinitarian theory rather than to a simple of view of the incarnation. There would be no kenosis theory without the doctrine of the Trinity.

THE INCARNATION IN THE COUNCILS

There are seven Catholic ecumenical church councils, which, all but one, dealt, in one way or another, with teachings about the nature of Jesus. They are: (1) Nicea 325 AD, (2) Constantinople I 381 AD, (3) Ephesus 431 AD, (4) Chalcedon 451 AD,(5) Constantinople II 553 AD, (6) Constantinople III 680 AD, and (7) Nicea II,787 AD.

THE CREED OF THE NICENE COUNCIL (325 AD)

Of course, the primary purpose of the Council of to define the incarnation. The Catholic bishops, Alexandria and Athanasius, were anxious to show, Arius and his followers, that Christ was of one (homoousios) with the Father. Nicea (325 AD) was not who were allied with against the views of substance

Christ was identified as the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, and of the substance of the Father. He was called God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, and begotten, not made. Concerning the incarnation, the creed simply states, Who for us men and for our salvation came down (from heaven) and was incarnate and was made man. Anathemas were pronounced upon all who would say there was a time when the Son was not, or that before He was begotten He was not. That He was made of things that were not, or that He is of a difference substance or essence from the Father, or that He is a creature, or subject to change or conversion. No mention is made of the kenotic theory; however, the pneumatic Christology (a heavenly being who comes down from heaven) is mentioned, as is the incarnation, and was made man. The pre-existent Christ, a separate divine Person, is the being who becomes incarnate, and was made man. One small statement is given to the Holy Ghost, And (we believe) in the Holy Ghost. The deity of the Holy Ghost is not mentioned. The virgin birth is not mentioned, although it could be implied in the

term Son of God, but rather the emphasis seems to be upon a preBethlehemic birth and not the virgin birth. In a diocesan epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339 AD), presumed to have been part of a draft of the Nicene credal statement, he added, firstborn of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time. But again there is no mention of the virgin birth.

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381 AD)

The Creed of Constantinople adds the words begotten of his Father before all worlds. When it speaks of the incarnation, it states, was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Thus, the role of the virgin in the incarnation is clearly enunciated, while the preexistent begetting...before all (ages) is still held. The role of the Holy Ghost is expanded, and He is titled the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father. And, the Holy Ghost, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified. The Holy Ghost is also He who spake by the prophets. Baptism for the remission of sins is acknowledged. This is contrary to the teaching of most Protestant groups today, who reject baptism for the remission of sins. In doing so, they apparently reject the authority of the ecumenical council (and the word of God, in this case). Epiphanius(315-403 AD), bishop of Salamis, adds this on the incarnation:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, that is to say was conceived perfectly through the Holy Ghost of the holy ever-virgin Mary, and was made man, that is to say a perfect man, receiving a soul, and body, and intellect, and all that made up a man, but taking flesh to himself into one holy entity...was perfectly made man, for the Word was made flesh; neither did he experience any change, nor did he convert his divine nature into the nature of man, but united it to his one holy perfection and divinity. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, not two (The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 15, Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Pub, 1983).

Apollinaris of Laodicea (310-390 AD), a contemporary of Epiphanius, held a somewhat different view of the incarnation. He was accused of maintaining the deity of Christ at the expense of Christs humanity. J.W.C. Wand says it was he who instituted the kenotic theory (The Four Great Heresies, London: Mowbray, 1967). He said that Christ had only one nature. For this he was condemned at the Council of Constantinople (381 AD). It was Rufus Jones observation (The Churchs Debt To Heretics, London: James Clarke Ltd, 1924) that nobody could deal profoundly with the problem of Christs nature without being regarded a heretic from one side or the other. This is probably still true today! Philip Schaff (The Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.) says that Apollinaris had a fear of teaching a double personality for Christ, and therefore he fell into the error of a partial denial of his true humanity. Adopting the trichotomy of Plato (body, soul, spirit), as in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Galatians 5:17, Apollinaris attributed to Christ a human body (soma),and a human soul (psyche), but not a rational spirit (pneuma, nous, or psychelogike). In the place of the rational spirit he put the divine Logos.

In what Schaff calls opposition to the idea of a mere connection of the Logos with the man Jesus (as in Nestorianism), Apollinaris wished to secure an organic unity of the true incarnation. But he sought this at the expense of what Schaff calls the most important constituent of man. Schaff says Apollinaris reached a theos sarkophoros, a God-bearing flesh. Nestorius, Schaff states, had an anthropos theophoros, a God-bearing man, instead of what Schaff says ought to be the proper theandrotos (God-man). This, of course, is the trinitarian idea of the God-man, which borders on the pagan demigod (half-god and half-man). Apollinaris appealed to John 1:14, the Word was made flesh (flesh, as he argued, not spirit). And 1 Timothy 3:16, God was manifest in the flesh. But Gregory Nazianzen (329-390 AD) countered that the term flesh was used to actually mean the whole human nature. By having the Logos (which Apollinaris, as all trinitarians, held to be the second divine Person in the Godhead) assume the place of the human nous (what he called the rational spirit), he was able to establish so close a connection of the Logos with human flesh that all of the attributes (divine and human) were interchangeable and the two merged in one nature in Christ (q.v.). Christ, according to Apollinaris, was neither whole man nor God, but a mixture (mixis) of God and man. A mixing or a mingling. This type of thinking is only possible if one holds a second divine Person to have been incarnated. On the other hand, Apollinaris called the orthodox view of a union of full humanity with a full divinity in one person (two wholes in one whole) an absurdity (q.v.). He called the result of this construction anthropotheos (man-God), and put it in the same category of the mythical Minotaur (half bull and half man). Schaff says that Apollinaris idea of the Christ was that of the union of the Logos with a truncated human nature. Arianism had also put the Logos in the place of the human spirit; however, Apollinaris stood for the unchangeableness of the Logos (in the incarnation), while the Arians did not. Ralph Woodhall (The Theology of The Incarnation, Notre Dame, IN: Fides Pub., 1968) notes that Apollinaris held that the mind of the Logos replaced the human mind of Christ in order to safeguard Christs sinless nature. It is Schaffs opinion that the modern theologians, who initiated the current theory of kenoticism, Gess and Ebrard, were Apollinarians. Gess taught that:
The only difference between the Logos and a human soul was, that he became human by voluntary kenosis, while an ordinary human soul derives its existence from a creative act. And Ebrard (Christliche Dogmatik, in q.v.) held: That a genuine human soul was in Jesus is self evident, otherwise, he would not have been a real human being.

But Ebrar seems to have questioned whether the indwelling Logos took the place of the human soul at the incarnation, or whether the indwelling Logos was in some way, alongside a special human soul in Jesus.

Albrecht Ritschl called the whole kenotic theory Shameless Socinianism. Aloys Dirksen (Elementary Patrology, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1959) stated that Apollinarianism paved the way for monophysitism, the teaching that Christ possesses only one nature.

THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431 AD)

This council was convened to discuss the matter of Nestorius (c.381-451 AD), the charismatic Persian bishop of Constantinople, who, according to Dirksen (q.v.), reduced the incarnation to a mere moral union between a human being and the second Person of the Trinity. Nestorius reportedly held Jesus to be a mere human being in whom the Son of God was present as in a house (q.v.). While Nestorius reportedly held that Christ was morally one person, he believed that in reality there were two persons, and that a strict distinction had to be made between the two (persons). He therefore held that Mary was not theotokos (the mother of God), but rather only the mother of the man Jesus. It was not the Son of God(the Logos), referring to the second divine Person who redeemed man, but rather the man Jesus, who died. Nestorius was eventually thrown out of his bishopric, and later died in exile in the country of Egypt. There are only fragments of Nestorius writings remaining, but the Epistle of Cyril To Nestorius (Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.) gives us an idea of the Nestorian teaching, and the orthodox teaching on the incarnation, during this period. Cyril (d.444 AD),bishop of Alexandria, chaired the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), and was vehemently opposed to Nestorius. Briefly, this is what Cyril held considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man (a reference to the Council of Nicea): Cyril held that the nature of the Word was not changed when made flesh, nor was the Word (Logos) converted into a whole man, consisting of soul and body. Rather, Cyril said, the Word personally united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, and did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man. He (the Logos) was not called a man because He was willing or pleased to be so called, and He (the Logos) was not called a man on account of taking to Himself a person, but rather He (the Logos) was called a man because two natures were brought together in a true union. Yet there is one Christ, one Son. But Cyril held, as the orthodox position, that the difference of the (two) natures is not taken away by the union. The divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable (indescribable) and inexpressible union. Concerning the- for lack of a less crude term - mechanics of the incarnation itself, Cyril held that the union was made in the womb (of the virgin) itself. He (the Logos) was not first born a common man of the holy virgin, and then the Word (the Logos) came down and entered into him. The Logos (Word) did not suffer on the cross, but rather that which had become His own body suffered in this way. He (the Logos) who is

in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body. Cyril, then, has descended two steps from the older patripassians, who were accused of having the Father suffer. Now, Cyril would have a second divine Person (the Logos) unable to suffer, but His fleshly body could suffer. If the Logos was unable to suffer, then why the furor over another co-equal member of the Trinity (the Father) suffering? Actually, the early trinitarians maintained that the Father could not suffer, but the Logos could. To reject this union, according to Cyril, is to hold to two Sons. He said, We must not divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Nor did he hold a union of two persons, since the scripture did not say that the Word (Logos) united to himself the person of man, but that he was made flesh (John 1:14). But Cyril qualifies the Word was made flesh (perhaps thinking of Hebrews 2), and says that it can mean nothing else than he partook of flesh and blood like to us. And he presages the kenotic theory, stating:
he (the Logos) made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was (Epistle To Nestorius, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.)

This certainly sounds like the kenotic theory, although Cyril makes no reference to Philippians 2. Admittedly, there does not seem to be any divesting or emptying, as in the modern kenotic theory. The Logos, in the incarnation, did not cast off his existence as God. He remained what he was. However, in a subsequent epistle, The Twelve Anathemas, to Nestorius, Cyril does use the phrase katheis heauton eis kenosen, or made himself of no reputation (an obvious reference to Philippians 2:7), and he connects this exactly with the moment of the incarnation, taking flesh of the holy virgin, and having made it (the flesh) his own from the womb, he subjected himself to birth for us. In another place, he humbled himself to a voluntary abasement for us. There is no apparent emptying, however, since Cyril affirms that he (the Logos) remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. Cyril rejected saying that his (Christs) flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, or that the ineffable nature of the Word (Logos) of God was laid aside for the nature of the flesh:
For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his virgin mother, he (the Logos) filled all creation as God, and was a fellowruler with him who begat him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits (Twelve Anathemas, in Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.).

Other than the small reference to subjected himself to birth, there is seemingly no thought here of divesting or emptying in Cyril. The Logos remains God (as the second divine Person), a fellow-ruler with God the Father, and filled all creation as God, even while incarnated. Apparently, Nestorius, on the other hand, taught that the Word (Logos) dwelt in the man Jesus, who was born of the virgin, and considered Christ to be a God-bearing man, with the Logos dwelling in Him in some way similar (although much more intimate) to the Spirit dwelling in the saints.

Nestorius preferred the word synatheias (conjunction) rather than the term union(henosen). Cyril disagreed with thinking of Christ as being double (i.e., having a double personality, or being two persons), because he (God) has joined them in an indivisible union. He said, we transfer the human and the divine to the same person. Nestorius was of the school of the Antiochenes (Antioch), who emphasized the genuine humanity of Christ. He apparently had problems with the teaching that the Logos united human flesh to Himself. In his view, this type of union still denigrated the pure humanity of the Son, even though it did not go as far as Apollinarianism. Having the Logos as a second divine Person, distinct from the Father, it was possible for the orthodox to not involve the Father in the incarnation, and to continue to ascribe what I would call the reservations of divinity to Him. Since the scripture said the Word was made flesh, they were perhaps forward to push too far the union of the divine and the human. Nestorius seems to have attempted to avoid this, but did so apparently at the expense of the unity of the Father and the Son (in the incarnation). Nestorius reputedly taught that God indwelt a man with a human personality of his own distinct from the personality of the indwelling God, and that God assumed to himself human nature, that is a human body and a human soul, but without human personality (Henry Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.). He seems to have held a separate human person along with a divine person. Nestorius also seems to have held that Christ was one with the Word by participation in dignity (William Bright, Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.). The man Jesus was a partaker of divine power (Ibid). I note that this, coming out of Antioch, harkens back to the accusations against the dynamic monarchian, Paul of Samosata, who was bishop of Antioch in the third century. Jesus,according to Nestorius, in the sense of being a partaker of divine power, was more than a mere man, and was therefore adored together with the Logos (Word). Nestorius is reported to have said at the Council of Ephesus, I can never allow that a child of three months old was God. This type of thinking, again, is reminiscent of the old Ebionite and dynamic monarchian teaching that the moment of the incarnation was not at conception or birth, but rather later at the baptism, or even at the resurrection. Obviously, though, Nestorius was a trinitarian, and held that it was the Logos (second divine Person), who was incarnated, and not God the Father. Nestorius old instructor, Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428 AD), of the school of Antioch, had stated, Mary bare Jesus, not the Word (Logos)...the Word was and remained omnipresent, although from the beginning he dwelt in Jesus in a peculiar manner (q.v.). And that, she bare a man, in whom the union with the Word (Logos) was begun, but was still so little completed, that he was not yet called the Son of God. This also is reminiscent of the charges made against Paul of Samosata, that the Word dwelt in Jesus in a peculiar manner. It is easy to see the influence of Theodore upon Nestorius. While we remember that both of these men believed in the incarnation of the second divine Person, their approach to the incarnation reminds one of

that of the Ebionites in the first and second centuries. They seemed to have believed that there was not a union in the womb (to the degree professed by the orthodox), but that there was a relative union of the Father and Son, which, it appears, they actually believed came later (at the baptism?). Theodore of Mopsuestia (and Nestorius, following him) taught that The two natures united together make only one person, as man and wife are only one flesh. There was a distinct Logos (second divine Person), perfect and complete, and so also his person. And the nature and person of the man as perfect and complete. Theodore concluded, If, on the other hand, we have regard to the union (synatheia, connection), we say it is (only) one person. Two persons, but they were one in unity. Theodore uses the term synatheia for union rather than henosen. This is said to express only an external connection, a fixing together (q.v.). He writes, The Logos dwells in the man assumed as in a temple. In other words, the divine person and the human person outwardly seem to be only one person (Christ), but inwardly they remain essentially two persons (q.v.). The orthodox, on the other hand, went to the other extreme, denying the working of the Holy Spirit within the man Jesus:
If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema (Twelve Anathemas Against Nestorius, q.v.).

Jesus professed to cast out devils by the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28), and He also said, the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works (John 14:10). If we are to logically follow the argument of the orthodox, then we must identify the Holy Spirit as the Father, and then again the Logos as the Holy Spirit (as the apostle Paul did). In a letter to bishop John of Antioch,following the Council of Ephesus, Cyril called the incarnation an unmixed union, in which God the Word was incarnate and became man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her (Mary) with himself (The Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.). He repeats his theory of the kenosis:
God the Word (Logos) came down from above and from heaven. He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was called the Son of Man, yet remaining what he was, that is to say God. (q.v.)

Cyril denies having said that a krasis (mingling or mixture) took place between the Word (Logos) and flesh. We find that Cyrils letter to bishop John of Antioch (433 AD) restored some peace among the Catholics because Cyril agreed that the union in Christ was a union of natures, thus clearing himself from charges of Apollinarianism (Christology of The Later Fathers, Vol. 3, ed. Edward Hardy, Philadelphia: Westminister Press, n.d.).

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

The Council of Chalcedon was convened to settle a dispute brought about by an abbot at Constantinople, Eutyches, who claimed that there were two natures in Christ before the union, but only one afterward. These two natures were in divine foreknowledge of the incarnation...but only

one nature (after the incarnation actually took place), apparently a result of some sort of a mixture of human and divine (Christology of The Later Fathers, Vol. 3, q.v.). According to bishop Leo of Rome (episcopate 440-461 AD), Eutyches held that the flesh of him whom the virgin conceived was not of the nature of her that conceived him (The Letter of Leo To Flavian, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.). But Leo maintained, it was the Holy Ghost who gave fecundity (fertility) to the virgin, but it was from a body that a real body was derived (q.v.). The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us that is, in that flesh which he assumed from a human being, and which he animated with the spirit of rational life (q.v.). Leo adds, the inviolable nature (i.e., divine) was united to the passible (i.e., human) (q.v.). Christ was whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. And Leo noted:
By ours we mean what the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore; for of that which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a trace in the Savior; and the fact that he took on himself a share of our infirmities did not make him a partaker of our transgressions.

And Leo does not seem to see much of a problem with interpreting Philippians 2:5-11 to apply it to the mechanics of the incarnation itself:
He assumed the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that emptying of himself, whereby the Invisible made himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power. Accordingly, the same who, remaining in the form of God, made man, was made man in the form of a servant.(q.v.)

But Leo, while preserving the dignity of the Divinity, nevertheless insists upon following the Logos doctrine and assigning the duty of salvation to another divine Person other than God the Father:
the Son of God, descending from his seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. (q.v.)

Leo held that the properties of the divine and human nature remained in Jesus without causing a division (q.v.). Eutyches, however, held that the Son had a new mixed nature. Leo rightly responded that this type of nature denied the efficacy of the cross. Leo either paraphrases 1 John 4:2,3, or else quotes from a different ancient version:
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which dissolveth Jesus is not of God, and this is Antichrist (q.v.).

But Eutyches is accused of not believing that Christ had a genuine human body. He believed that the union (of humanity and deity) produced only one nature. He did believe that this mixed nature was capable of suffering. Leo stated that Eutyches said that the pre-existent Son, already before the incarnation, possessed both human and divine natures

(apparently, as stated, in the divine foreknowledge of God).

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II (553 AD)

At the Council of Constantinople II (553 AD), a posthumous attack was made upon the Antiochene Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius. Many of the accusations made by the Council of Constantinople II are said to have been fabrications or interpolations of Theodores writings. Among other things he was accused of teaching that the Logos was one person and Christ was another person. He was said to have taught that Christ became better by the progress in good works, As a mere man, Jesus was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And he obtained by his baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and became worthy of Sonship (q.v.). That the incarnated Christ was worshipped only out of regard for God the Word, just as one worships the image of the emperor (q.v.). Also, Theodore is accused by the Council of stating that the union of God the Word with Christ was like to that which...exists between a man and his wife (q.v.). Another blasphemy which Theodore was accused of was that he said that when the resurrected Jesus breathed upon his disciples and said Receive the Holy Ghost (John 20:22), that he breathed upon them only as a sign (q.v.). Theodore seems correct, since the apostles did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). As the bishop of Rome, Vigilius (d.554 AD), wrote (Theodore) did not believe that Christ was God (q.v.). Again, this is the strain of theology seen in the school of Antioch, which strongly emphasized the genuine humanity of Christ. It is possible, however, that the Council was attempting to tarbrush Theodore of Mopsuestia with the heresy of Paul of Samosata.

THE SECOND COUNCIL OF NICEA (787 AD)

This Catholic Ecumenical Council was called by the Emperor, with the acknowledgment and the approval of the bishop of Rome, and was attended by 350 bishops. Therefore, it is called an ecumenical council. It did not concern itself with the theology of the incarnation, but rather with reversing the effects of the so-called mock synod of Constantinople (754 AD), which outlawed images and pictures in churches or in worship. The council of 787 AD decreed that it was alright to salute, or to honor images and pictures, but worship was reserved for God alone. The upheaval created in the Byzantine empire by this issue is scarcely imaginable. Following the mock synod of 754 AD, which anathematized images and pictures, the Emperor Copronymus began to persecute those Catholics who were in favor of the images. He singled out the more noted monks and required them to comply with the decrees of the synod (q.v.). Copronymus forced monks to appear in the hippodrome at Constantinople, hand in hand with harlots, while the populace spat at them (q.v.). Monasteries were destroyed, turned into barracks, with the property going into the hands of the state.

One of Copronymuss governors, Lachonodraco, collected a number of monks onto a broad plain, dressed them in white, presented them with wives, and forced them to choose between marriage and loss of sight. The imperial police stormed the churches, and destroyed those images and pictures which had not been secured (q.v.). It was only the death of the Emperor Copronymus in 775 AD, which saved those Catholic clergy who believed in the use of images and pictures from being extirpated. Under the Empress Irene, the use of images and pictures was gradually revived. The Second Council of Nicea in 787 AD confirmed the orthodoxy of this position.

A SUMMARY OF THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The Catholic church took the position that there was a genuine and ineffable hypostatic union of the human nature and divine nature in one Person, Christ. It was the second divine Person (the Logos), who was incarnated. The Logos took flesh unto himself. The Word was not converted into flesh, but rather he (the Word) united the flesh to his divinity. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost through the virgin Mary, and was made perfect man, with a human soul, a human body, and a human intellect. The Catholics rejected the Apollinarian concept that the human nature and the divine nature were mixed in Christ. They held to the distinctness of the human and divine natures, even though there was what they called a hypostatic union (hypostatic, in this instance, seeming to refer to the term being).There were not two beings, but rather one being. They rejected the Nestorian concept of two persons, and a mere conjunction of natures rather than a union. This union did not take place after the conception in the womb, but was part and parcel of the conception itself. In other words, the Logos did not unite himself to a ready-made human being, but rather took unto himself flesh during the process of the ineffable and inconceivable union during the conception itself. These Catholic fathers, then, apparently considered that the phrase the Word was made flesh (or became flesh) to mean that Mary supplied the flesh in the ineffable union of the two natures. The two natures remained distinct in one person. There was no confusion or mixing of the two natures. There was not a resultant one nature as Eutyches had incorrectly taught. They also rejected the monothelite (one will) teaching concerning Christ. Christ has two wills (human and divine), which were in complete harmony, since Christ subjected his human will to the divine in all things.

THE INCARNATION IN THE ANCIENT FATHERS

WHAT EUSEBIUS, THE OFFICIAL CATHOLIC CHURCH HISTORIAN, THOUGHT We have seen some of the theories concerning the incarnation in the Catholic fathers, since we have examined the seven Catholic Ecumenical Councils. There are other writings,however, in which we can examine incarnational views in both Apostolic and Catholic fathers. Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339 AD), for example, one of the prime movers in the Council of Nicea (325 AD), was of the Arian persuasion. In his sermon celebrating the 30th year of the Emperor Constantines reign, he made Arian references concerning the Logos:

the Supreme God...is unbegotten, above and beyond all creation, ineffable, inaccessible, unapproachable...dwelling in the light which none can enter... (creation is) infinitely far removed from his unbegotten essence, (but) the Almighty God (has) interposed ...an intermediate Power between himself and them, even the divine omnipotence of his only-begotten Word (Logos) (The Oration of Eusebius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. l, Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans, 1986).

Eusebius considered the pre-existent Word (Logos), which he personified, to have been begotten of the Father. He used the terms logos endiathetos (the word internalized or thought) and logos prophorikos (the word externalized or speech), as the early Catholic fathers had done. The Word, however, is more than just divine speech. The Word is a separate personal being, subsisting alongside with the Father, and proceeds from his Fathers deity and kingdom (q.v.). He also wrote, however, that:
(The Word) showed them God in human form...he performed all his works through the medium of that body which he had assumed for the sake of those who else were incapable of apprehending his divine nature. In all this he was the servant of his Fathers will, himself remaining still the same as when with the Father; unchanged in essence, unimpaired in nature, unfettered by the trammels of mortal flesh, nor hindered by his abode in a human body from being elsewhere present.

In this passage, Eusebius is apparently referring to the theory of kenosis, without, however, quoting from Philippians 2:5-11. Notice that the incarnation does not change Christs essence or impair his nature. He is not fettered by his flesh, and his omnipresence is not hindered by the incarnation. His views on the incarnation, of course, are flawed in that he accepted the theory of the incarnation of a second divine Person. Aloys Dirksen (q.v.) states that Eusebius was an Origenist, and that he regarded the Holy Ghost as a creature, and considered the Son as inferior to the Father. He was even ex-communicated at one council (Antioch, 325 AD) for Arianism. He wrote in a letter to Euphration the words, Since the Son is himself God, but not true God. This would put him in the Arian camp. But the matter is very confused, since he seems to have been on both sides of the fence during his life. Socrates Scholasticus (c.380-450 AD), in his Eccleisiastical History (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, q.v.), defends Eusbeius from the accusations of Arianism.

THE EARLIER FATHERS

Athenagoras of Athens, one of the earliest known trinitarians, reportedly wrote The Epistle To Diognetus (c.130 AD). In this epistle, Athenagoras displayed early the Logos doctrine. God the Father sent the Word (Logos), who was the Creator and Fashioner of all things from Heaven. God the Father formed in his mind a great and unspeakable conception, which he communicated to his Son alone (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdman, 1987). While Athenagoras does not mention the specifics of the incarnation, it is obvious that he believes in the Logos doctrine, and that he believed it was the Son that was incarnated, and not God the Father.

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

Ignatius of Antioch (c.30-115 AD), a reputed disciple of the apostle John and the apostle Peter, held the high monarchian view of the incarnation. He did not teach that a second divine Person had become incarnated, but rather that it was God the Father himself. In his Ephesians 18, Ignatius wrote:
For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment (dispensation) of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by his passion, he might purify the water (q.v.).

Notice that Ignatius identifies the one conceived in the womb by Mary...by the Holy Ghost as our God Jesus Christ. Moreover, Jesus is of the seed of David. He obviously held Jesus to be sinless, since the Savior was baptized that he might purify the water by his passion (crucifixion), and not because he himself needed baptism. In Ephesians 19, Ignatius writes of the incarnation, God himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. He also seems to hold two natures in Christ (human and divine), since he writes, Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God (Ephesians 20, q.v.). In his epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 6, Ignatius writes, Jesus Christ, who was the Father before the beginning of time (the ages). In Wakess translation (from the text of Vossius), it is who was the Father, thus identifying Jesus as the pre-existent Father. However, there are other texts which have who was with the Father. It seems, however, that Ignatius knew nothing of the Logos doctrine of a second divine Person becoming incarnated. Later, in Magnesians (7), Ignatius speaks of one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with one, and has gone to one. This undoubtedly speaks of the man Jesus (the Word made flesh). It does not speak of another heavenly being sent down from Heaven by the Father, since we do not see this teaching elsewhere in Ignatius. Ignatius does not use the phrase eternal Son (as the later trinitarians were to do). He does, however, use the phrase eternal Word (Magnesians 8). Ignatius did not observe the sabbath (Magnesians 9), but rather observed what he called the Lords day (see Revelation 1:10). He calls Jesus our only Master (Magnesians 9). He also seems to have believed that Matthew 27:52 indicated the resurrection of Old Testament prophets. He apparently also believed that Jesus had gone in the Spirit and preached to those in Sheol (1 Peter 3:19), as he says in Philadelphians 5. In Magnesians 15, Ignatius identifies the Holy Spirit as Jesus Christ. And in the epistle to the Trallians, he speaks of Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink (Trallians 9). Ignatius wrote that Jesus raised himself from the grave in Smyrnaens 2 (see also the Gospel of John 2:19). Moreover, he believed in a genuine resurrection of the body, as he writes, For I know that after his resurrection also he was still possessed of flesh (in the flesh), quoting Luke 24:39, in Smyrnaeans 3.

And, after his resurrection, writes Ignatius, he did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually he was united to the Father (Smyrnaeans 3). In conclusion, it can be said that Ignatius seems to have believed in the incarnation, with Jesus having two natures, human and divine. He seems to have believed that the incarnation itself took place in the womb of the virgin at conception.

THE SPURIOUS EPISTLE OF BARNABAS

This epistle is estimated to have been written as early as 100 AD, and perhaps as late as 150 AD (A. Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, q.v.). The epistle shows little respect for Judaism, and contains numerous inaccuracies with respect to Mosaic enactments and observances, and cannot be ascribed to Barnabas, the great companion to the apostle Paul. The writer speaks as a Gentile. Most likely, this epistle would have a much later date, since it shows trinitarian doctrine, and does not even appear to represent the simple style of the early half of the second century. For example, in chapter 5, it speaks of Christ as a second divine Person:
He being Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, Let us make man after our image and after our likeness. (q.v.)

This, of course, is a trinitarian interpretation of Genesis 1:26. The incarnation is ascribed not to God the Father, but rather to the Son of God, who came in the flesh (chapter 5, q.v.). The epistle contains fantastic notions about animals, affirming that the hyena is able to change its sex from male to female! The weasel conceives by the mouth! Also, Barnabas seems to quote from the first century Gospel of The Egyptians:
And when shall these things be accomplished? And the Lord saith, When a tree shall be bent down, and again arise, and when blood shall flow out of (the) wood. (q.v.)

The Gospel of the Egyptians is probably out of the first half of the second century. Clement of Alexandria knew of it. This familiarity with this Gospel-assuming it is the same Gospel- may actually place this writer in the area of north Africa (Alexandria?).

JUSTIN MARTYR AND THE INCARNATION

Justin Martyr (c.114-165 AD), was apparently the son of a Roman and a Samaritan mother. He was born in Neapolis (Nablus) in Samaria. He studied in Athens, becoming a philosopher. He was converted to Catholic Christianity about 133 AD. He died a martyr in Rome 165 AD. Justin claimed to have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Dialogue With Trypho 29, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, q.v.). He was baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, using a type of an early trinitarian formula, which contained the name of Jesus Christ. In his First Apology (c.140 AD), he asserted that it was the Word (Logos) which was incarnated:

the Logos himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ...the Son who came forth from him (God the Father)...and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to him. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. l, q.v.)

Like Philo, Justin seems to have identified the pre-existent Logos as an archangel. Jesus is also called Angel in chapter 43, and in Dialogue With Trypho 34. Interestingly, Justin uses the phrase prophetic Spirit for the Holy Spirit. While this may have just been a common name used in that period, it is noteworthy that it was a trademark of the Montanists to designate the Holy Spirit as the prophetic Spirit. Moreover, Justin was associated in Rome with Christians from Phrygia, the place of origin of the Montanists, during his last years alive. Justin held Jesus in the second place to God the Father, and the prophetic Spirit (Holy Spirit) in the third (q.v.). God the Father he calls the only unbegotten God. We might contrast this with the variant, the only begotten God in John 1:18. The Logos is the firstborn of God, produced without sexual union (q.v.). He was born in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation. He was born (also) of a virgin, the only proper Son who has been begotten of God. He became a man among men (q.v.). The Son took flesh and became man (q.v.). The power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive (q.v.). She conceived of the Holy Ghost. It is interesting that, in at least one place (perhaps early), Justin equates the Holy Spirit with the Word (q.v.). This was common in the first half of the second century until the Montanist emphasis upon the Holy Spirit as the third person. Justin, in his Second Apology, continues to insist that God the Father has no name:
But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name he be called, he has as his elder the person who gives him the name...his Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with him and was begotten before the works, when at first he created and arranged all things by him (the Word)... (q.v.)

This, of course, is in direct opposition to the scriptures of the Old Testament (e.g., see Exodus 3:13,14). The Logos, as Justin seems to teach, was begotten before the works (of creation). He was a strong subordinationist, whose doctrine subsequent trinitarians have unsuccessfully tried to disavow, even though it is part and parcel of the trinitarian model. Justin says:
For next to God, we worship and love the Word (Logos) who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also he became man for our sakes...(q.v.).

And, in chapter 45 (The Dialogue With Trypho, q.v.), he refers to Christ and the incarnation:
Christ, Son of God, who was before the morning star and the moon, and submitted to become incarnate, and ... born of this virgin of the family of David... (q.v.).

Much is made by Justin on a variant reading in the Psalms, which says before the morning star I have begotten thee (Psalms 110:3).

The Son, in Justins view, was begotten of the Father by an act of will (before the ages) (q.v.). This is obviously contrary to the biblical account of the birth of the Lord Jesus, which describes the virgin birth and not some nebulous pre-existent birth.

IRENAEUS AND THE INCARNATION

Irenaeus of Lyons (120-202 AD), one of the respected earlier Catholic fathers, wrote extensively. In his Against Heresies (I.ix.3) he identifies Christ as the Word of the Father, and the one who descended (as)..the same also who ascended. And he states:
He...the only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men...(q.v.).

And, to counter docetism, Irenaeus says that the Saviors flesh was that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the dust. And it is this (flesh) that John declared the Word of God became. In his statement of a creed, Irenaeus (q.v., I.x.1) says, Christ Jesus, who became incarnate for our salvation. Thus, we see that he also holds to a Logos interpretation of a second divine Person becoming incarnate. In another place, Irenaeus writes, the Word of God became flesh and suffered (I.x.3). Irenaeus quotes copiously from the gospels. He mentions that Matthew wrote a gospel for the Hebrews, in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. After their departure (we assume in the AD 60s), Irenaeus reports that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote another gospel from the words of Peter. This would place the Gospel of the Hebrews by Matthew earlier than the gospel of Mark. Then Irenaeus mentions Lukes gospel. The last gospel was written by John in Ephesus (III.1.1). Irenaeus is quite insistent that the church of Rome was founded and organized by both Peter and Paul (III.3.2). Concerning the incarnation, Irenaeus writes, Jesus Christ, the Son of God...condescended to be born of the virgin. Irenaeus writes that the Word...did also take upon Him flesh, and was anointed by the Spirit from the Father (III.ix.3). In a passage in Against Heresies (III.xvi.6), Irenaeus seems to affirm his belief in a union of divinity and humanity in the incarnation:
(He) who is truly God... His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Fathers pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord.

And this incarnation, according to Irenaeus, fulfilled all the conditions of the human nature (III.xvii.4). During the incarnation, Irenaeus says this about the Word (since he believes that it was the Word or Logos which was incarnate): the Word (remained) quiescent. He exlains that this quiescence was so that the man Jesus might be tempted, might suffer death. But in the resurrection, the human nature...(was) swallowed up in the divine (nature). And Irenaeus is careful to assert that flesh was taken from the virgin in the incarnation, when he says, Those...who allege that He took nothing from the virgin do greatly err (III.xxii.1). He maintained

that God (which He maintains is the Word in this instance) received the substance of flesh from a human being (that is, from Mary)(q.v.). And Irenaeus asked the question, Why did He come down into her, if he were to take nothing of her? (III.xxii.2). Again, in Against Heresies (IV.xxxiii.11), Irenaeus speaks of the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, declaring that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man. The Son, according to Irenaeus, was pre-existing as a separate person, assisting the Father:
...the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing (what is made)...(IV.xxxviii.3).

In this particular triad, we notice that the Father is the brains of the operation (planning...giving His commands), while the Son actually performs the work. The Holy Spirit also has a function. He is a nourisher and an increaser. In Book V (V.i.1) Irenaeus describes the incarnation in this manner, our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. What other person, Irenaeus asks, knew the mind of the Lord (and now we know why the translator uses the word master to translate the Latin dominus rather than Lord-since he would be forced to write that only the Lord could know the mind of the Lord!).Then the thought of two divine persons would be destroyed! We could go on examining the early Catholic fathers only to see that the idea of the Logos doctrine was implanted in the first quarter of the second century. While, for some time, these Catholic theologians struggled with the doctrine of co-equality and co-eternality, by the early third century, they had established the triunity of God, and some had elevated the Holy Spirit to the status of full deity.

THE THIRD PERSON-TERTULLIAN AND THE MONTANISTS

Tertullian (145-220 AD) is called the founder of Latin (Catholic) Christianity by A.C. Coxe (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, q.v.). While this may be true in part, it is a great deception in the sense that Tertullian formulated his views on the Godhead and the incarnation after he became a follower of Montanus, who was not considered orthodox by the Catholics, although a great deal of apologetical writing has spruced up the image of Montanus somewhat in the twentieth century, since it is apparent that he held a trinitarian viewpoint on the Godhead. Tertullian was an attorney. He did not become a Christian until he was about 40 years old (185 AD). Some scholars acknowledge that he probably became a Montanist before 200 AD. It cannot have been too many years later. It is not known whether he was a trinitarian before he became a Montanist or not. Therefore, then, it is unlikely that Tertullian ever was indeed a Catholic! And yet he is heralded as a Catholic father, one of the great architects of the Trinity. Tertullian was a native of the African city of Carthage, the son of a proconsular centurion. He was apparently educated in Rome. Jerome, in his Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, wrote this about Tertullian:
After remaining a presbyter of the church until he had had attained the middle

age of life, Tertullian was, by the envy and contumelious treatment of the Roman clergy, driven to embrace the opinions of Montanus...

Unfortunately, we do not have the view of the Roman clergy concerning what happened. It is rather doubtful that a man of Tertullians apparent intelligence and social position was driven to embrace the opinions of Montanus. The envy and contumelious treatment reportedly received at the hands of the Roman district has not been confirmed in history. The truth of the matter is that the Roman church leadership during this time period (180-225 AD)was monarchian or oneness. Bishop Victor, the Roman bishop who was in office 189-198 AD, seems to have infuriated Tertullian because he recalled recognition of the Montanists in Asia minor, who had usurped authority in a number of churches in that province. Tertullian would not have been any more fond of bishop Zephyrinus (198217 AD), the successor to bishop Victor, because Zephyrinus had no sympathy for those who worshipped two or three gods, as in the case of Hippolytus, another trinitarian, and Tertullian. And Tertullian seems also to have despised bishop Callistus (217-222 AD). Moreover, Jerome, who relates how badly the Roman ministry treated Tertullian, thus driving him into Montanism, had little sympathy for the Roman prelates himself, dismissing bishop Victors writings (which have been either lost or conveniently destroyed), as being mediocre (R.B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria, Vol. l, London: Williams & Norgate, 1914). Jerome tells us that this Roman bishop wrote treatises on the question of Easter (Christian Passover) and other matters (italics mine). It is my opinion that these writings of Victor on other matters were monarchian or oneness, and would be very damaging to Catholic claims were they to be discovered. As J.Estlin Carpenter says, Tertullian...was led to formulate his views on the Trinity and the Person of Christ in controversy with Praxeas (The Early Phases of Christianity, London: Knickerbocker Press, 1916). Praxeas (Busybody) was a very well-known minister, who was influential with bishop Victor of Rome. Praxeas was a modalistic monarchian (oneness). In his argument with Praxeas, Tertullian was led to adopt gnostic emanation concepts in constructing the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, he appropriated the gnostic term probole (emanation) as a designation describing the divine Son, begotten of God the Father. Tertullian knew that he had adopted a gnostic concept, and he was reproved for it by his modalist opponents (Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, Boston: Beacon Press, 1957). Concerning the incarnation, Tertullian did not believe that it was God the Father who was incarnated. He wrote in reference to John 1.1, There is one who was, and another with whom He was (Alvan Lamson, The Church of The First Three Centuries, Boston: Walker, Wise & Co., 1860). Friedrich Ueberweg believes that Tertullian was converted to Montanism c.197 AD (History of Philosophy, Vol. l, NY: Scribners Sons, 1909). This date may be a little early, however. R.S. Franks admits that Tertullian wrote against Praxeas, the modalist,

AFTER Tertullian had become a Montanist (The Doctrine of The Trinity, London: Duckworth & Co., 1953). Other modern trinitarian scholars, such as the noted Jaroslav Pelikan (The Finality of Jesus Christ In An Age of Universal History, Richmond: John Knox Press, 1966), realized how damaging to Catholic orthodoxy it was to have a Montanist Tertullian known as one of the great architects of the Catholic Trinity, have attempted to mitigate the uncontrovertible evidence of Tertullians Against Praxeas by unsuccessfully claiming that Tertullian was an orthodox Catholic when he held his trinitarian views. But R.S. Franks admits that no one has exercised more influence on the actual shape taken by the doctrine of the Trinity than Tertullian, except only Origen (q.v.). And Franks added, Tertullian has greatly influenced the doctrine of the incarnation (q.v.). Franks maintained that Tertullian taught that the distinct existence of the Spirit began when the exalted Christ poured out the gift which He had received from the Father. And Tertullian called the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the third name in the Godhead (Against Praxeas, c.213 AD). And Tertullian wrote, The Spirit is third from the Father and the Son, as the fruit from the stem is third from the root. The monarchia is preserved since there is no separation. H.J. Carpenter well notes that:
...the popular faith, concerned for its firmly held belief in the unity (oneness) of God and the deity of Christ, might well recoil in deep suspicion from Tertullians doctrine of extended divine substance and subordinate Sonship, and feel better satisfied with the simpler modalist statement.

Tertullian was well aware that he was fighting against the orthodox view of oneness (the monarchy) in his day. He projects his guilt in the question: how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith? (Against Praxeas 4.1). He perversely argued that the oneness teachers were trying to destroy the truth by defending it (Against Praxeas 1). Praxeas had fabricated a heresy out of (the) doctrine of unity (oneness) (q.v.). Tertullian admits that the Roman ministers said that those, who were attacking the oneness of God were preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God (Against Praxeas 3). This was the issue, then, during the period of 189-222 AD in Rome: the oneness of God versus two gods and three gods. The phrase two gods referred to those trinitarians (Catholics) who had not yet accepted the separate Person of the Holy Spirit (and probably still identified the Logos or Son and the Holy Spirit), and the phrase three gods referred to the trinitarian Montanists such as Tertullian, who were promoting the Holy Spirit as the third Person. Tertullian acknowledged that most Christians did not share his trinitarian views:
The simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One)... (Against Praxeas 3).

The reaction of the common Christian upon hearing Tertullians ideas of the Trinity was to be startled. The doctrine of the Trinity denied the incarnation of God the Father,

proposing instead, that another divine Person (existing eternally alongside of God the Father), had come down to earth and was incarnated. Instead of using the title of Son of God exclusively for the child born of Mary, they manufactured a separate divine Person from God the Father, which they identified as the Word, pre-existing in a filial relationship to God the Father. By doing this, they refuted the incarnation of God the Father. Once they had established a second divine Person, whom they identified as the Son, the next step was to manufacture a third divine Person, the Holy Spirit. The development of the Holy Spirit as a the third divine Person in the Godhead was undertaken by Tertullian after he became a Montanist. It was the Montanists who exalted the place of the Holy Spirit in their New Prophecy. Tertullian, before he became a Montanist, does not seem to reflect strong trinitarian views. For example, in his Prescription Against Heretics, which most assign to his pre-Montanist days, we do not find solid trinitarian views. Tertullian quotes from the rule of faith as follows:
...there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen in diverse manners by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ (xii).

While this view seems to indicate the pre-existence of the Son in the Old Testament, it is not clear since Tertullian uses the phrase under the name of God. The antecedent of that which was made flesh in the womb of the virgin is the Word and not the Son. Certainly, this creed is not blatantly trinitarian in the sense in which we see in Against Praxeas. A more fully developed trinitarian doctrine would not normally identify the one only God as the Creator without distinguishing the two divine Persons. The Montanists believed they were upholding the third divine Person, the Holy Spirit, which they called the prophetic Spirit. Montanus (130-170 AD) appeared in Ardaban in Phyrgia c.156 AD. Jerome says that he was formerly a eunuch priest, while others say he was a former priest of Cybele or Apollo. He was converted to Christianity, and, as a new convert, began to prophesy in a kind of an ecstatic trance, and, Eusebius says, to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the church, which had been handed down by tradition (Eccleisiastical History, V.XVI.7). Eusebius says that Montanus also involved two female prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla (who died c.179 AD). The Montanists were expelled from the churches c.177 AD, with church councils in Asia minor held against them. What is unusual is that they seemed to have received much sympathy from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (who openly became a Montanist around the turn of the century). These men are the so-called architects of the Trinity. Montanus himself never claimed to be the Paraclete (Holy Spirit), but he prophesied so often apparently in the first person voice that many were deceived into thinking so.

He reportedly said, I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete (Jules LeBreton & Jacques Zeiller, The History of The Christian Church, Vol. III, London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1942). In another trinitarian sounding phrase he said, For God brought forth the Logos (Word) as a root brings forth a tree, and a spring a river, and the sun a ray (A History of Christianity, ed. Ray Petry, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1962). Archibald Robertson agrees that Montanism contributed indirectly to bishop Polycarps death in c.156 AD. The Montanists apparently stirred up the city of Smyrna against the Christians, and this involved the old bishop of Smyrna (Archibald Robertson, The Origins of Christianity, NY: International Pub., 1962).

SUMMARY
It can be seen that many theories abound concerning the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some of then are rather far-fetched. They delve into areas that are seemingly beyond the ken of mere mortal man. THE INCARNATION IS IDENTIFIED IN SCRIPTURE AS A MYSTERY The apostle Paul identified the incarnation as a mystery:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. -1 Timothy 3.16

Paul nowhere says great is the mystery of the Trinity. Jesus, in John 4.24, identifies God as a Spirit (not a Trinity). But Paul says great is the mystery of godliness. This mystery of godliness is the incarnation, since Paul follows with the expression of the incarnation that God was manifest in the flesh. We may not know all of the details of the incarnation, but we do know a few things that are given to us. Deuteronomy 29.29 states:
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

We may not be permitted to understand many of the details concerning the incarnation. As we have seen in this study, there is much speculation. No subject has brought forth more error than this subject. But there are many things given to us in the word of God concerning the incarnation.

GOD WAS IN CHRIST

1. 2 Corinthians 5.19, To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2. Matthew 3.17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. We can know, then, that God the Father was in the man Christ Jesus, and that He claimed this man as His beloved Son. This in itself is amazing that the Almighty God, who is omnipresent, could signify that He was dwelling in, that He was in Christ.

THE WORD WAS MADE (OR BECAME) FLESH

1. John 1.14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 2. Hebrews 2.14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. 3. Hebrews 2.16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. HIS HUMAN CREDENTIALS ARE IMPECCABLE AND HE IS FOREVER RELATED TO THE JEWS And we also know that God partook of flesh and blood in the incarnation. In fact, God took upon Himself the particular seed of Abraham. He did not just, in a general way, become a member of the human race by means of the incarnation, but he precisely entered into a particular blood line, the seed of Abraham. This has forever set apart the blood line from other blood lines. While the ancestry of Jesus Christ is traced by Luke all the way back to Adam, making Jesus a descendant of the first Adam, the writer of Hebrews tells us that the blood line was further restricted to the seed of Abraham. We later learn that our Lord sprang out of Judah (Hebrews 7.14). And we know that He was also of the seed of David (Romans 1.3). THE METHOD OF HIS INCARNATION IS RELATED TO HIS METHOD OF CREATION BY THE WORD We know that creation was by means of the word of God. For example, Genesis 1.3 states, And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Psalms 33.6 says By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33.9 further elaborates this, For he spake, and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast. Therefore, we see that creation was accomplished by the spoken word of God. It was not done by a second divine creative Agent or Person. God merely spoke in some powerful divine way and things came into existence. Genesis 1.1 is very simple, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. There is no divine committee of persons. Isaiah 44.24 certifies that only one divine Individual created all things:
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. -Isaiah 44.24

And this one Creator, who stretched forth the heavens alone, and who spread abroad the earth by (himself), states explicitly that there are no other divine Individuals or Persons besides Himself:
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me; I girded thee, though thou hast not known me. -Isaiah 45.5

John, the apostle, harkens back to this idea of a single divine Person

creating by the use of His word in John 1.1-3:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

We have already seen that God created all things by His spoken word and not by the activity of a separate divine Person called the Word. In fact, John identifies the Word as God Himself. This identity should not by violated by attempting to make the Word someone separate from God the Father. No one would dare to attempt to make the word of a mere human a separate person from that individual. The early Jewish Christians would not hear of giving a separate personal identity to the Word. Thus, the incarnation is actually the creative power of God in action, just as His creative power worked in the beginning. He spoke the baby in the womb of Mary into existence. He Himself partook of flesh and blood through His creative power. John wrote in John 1.14, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Luke 1.35 states, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. This again is reminiscent of the creation in Genesis 1.3, which says, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep. This is the same combination that we see in the beginning: (1) the Spirit of God, and (2) the speaking of the Word in creation. John 1.14, as we saw, declares that it was the only begotten of the Father, which is the Word...made flesh. He is identifying the term only begotten (monogenes) with the flesh and blood baby that was born of Mary. It is not some pre-existent separate divine Person from God the Father that is termed the only begotten, but rather the baby born of Mary, since there was no begetting until the Word was made flesh. When we come to John 1.18, No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him, we are talking about the man Jesus, who ascended into heaven with John as a witness, after His resurrection. John is affirming that God Himself is an invisible Spirit. The only begotten Son, who was made of a woman, made under the law when the fulness of the time was come (Galatians 4.4), died at Calvary and rose from the dead. But now, John writes, He (this glorified human being), is in the bosom of the Father. He has ascended into heaven. It is he, John says, who hath declared (revealed) the Father. John is not saying that the only begotten Son was eternally in the bosom of the Father, but rather he is saying, I saw him ascend up into heaven. I know that He, just as He said that Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham is in the bosom of the Father. Thus, the incarnation is not a Son manifested in the Son, but rather is the Father manifested in the flesh (as the Son). When we say the Word was made flesh, we are not saying that God was made flesh. Rather we are saying that God was manifest in the flesh through the mystery of the union that was effected (that is, the incarnation).

CHRIST WAS GOD

1. John 20.28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 2. Acts 2.36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 3. Romans 9.5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. 4. Titus 2.13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. 5. Revelation 1.8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. The apostles never understood or taught that the person or being of God could be differentiated into three divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The writer of Hebrews tells us that Jesus is the express image of his (Gods) person (being or hypostasis). In other words, Jesus is not a separate, distinct being (person or hypostasis) from God the Father, but rather the man Jesus is actually express image of the invisible God. That is, He is God manifest in the flesh. When an individual looks in a mirror, the image that they see is not another person! All of God that we shall ever see is Jesus Christ. He is the one seated upon the throne in heaven. He will hold out his nail-scarred hands to us (the only man-made thing in heaven). Many theologians and scholars have attempted to understand who Jesus is, but we can have a revelation of His oneness, the mighty God in Christ. Matthew 11.27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Only God really knows the Son. Only the Son Son is able to reveal the Father to us. And to God through Jesus Christ. He is the way. flesh so that we might have fellowship with we see God in the flesh. knows His Father, but the so it is. We can only come God was manifest in the Him. When we look at Jesus

It is God manifest in the flesh (Jesus) who died for us and shed His blood. That is why we need to have faith in Him alone (Jesus). There is no salvation outside of His name. We need to fully repent of our sins (metanoia), a complete about face and change in the direction of our lives toward God and not away from Him). Then we need to be baptized by immersion in the saving name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Finally, in order to truly live for God the way He wants, we need to expect and to receive the baptism (the infilling) of the glorious Holy Ghost, with the initial sign or evidence of speaking in tongues, as the early Christians did in the Book of Acts. It is only in the book of Acts that we see actual instances of people being saved. We do not see one example of anyone being saved in the epistles. We dont see an example of anyone being saved in the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), since the church had not yet been founded on the day of Pentecost. The thief on the cross was still until the Old Covenant. He needed faith in God, repentance, and a blood sacrifice. He turned to Jesus in faith, and repented there on the cross. His blood sacrifice (Jesus) was hanging next to him. Had the

thief been alive on the day of Pentecost, then he would have had to obey Acts 2.38. I have often been asked why was the thief saved and he wasnt even baptized. My answer is the above. I also ask another question back: how do you know the thief was not baptized? Do you have his entire lifes history available? Perhaps John the baptist had baptized him! Anyway, it doesnt matter because the thief was not in the church age. Everyone in the church age must be baptized in Jesus Name in order to partake of the New Covenant by faith.

"THE MYSTERY OF GOD"

For our text let us read Colossians 2:2, 3, 8-10; "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. . .Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power." I Corinthians 2:7, 8 says, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Paul said again, in I Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." I want to call your attention to a statement that Jesus made in Matthew 13:10, 11, "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why bleakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." In Matthew 11:27 Jesus said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." We have that illustrated in John 14:6-9: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus said unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" God has been known as a God of revelation. No man will ever know God, unless God reveals Himself to him. Jesus said in the Scripture already referred to in Matthew 11:27, "Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Remember that when the disciples asked Jesus the question, "Why speakest thou unto them in parables?" He said, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 13:11). Now turn back to the text in Colossians 2:2-3, "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." God is such a mystery. Jesus Christ was the mystery of God revealed to reconcile the world unto Himself. We read in John 1:1, where the writer begins like this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Somebody said, "Well, that's the Word; the Word was the Son." All right, let us read it that way: "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God." But that doesn't change the meaning of God's Word at all. The Word was God. "The same was in the beginning with God." Then we read in the 14th verse, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." In Galatians 4:4 we read, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." II Corinthians 5:19, reads: "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the

world unto himself." That is our Lord Jesus Christ; He was both human and divine. I want to give a few statements that will make us to recognize the mystery of God. As a man, He was born in humility; but as God, He was worshipped by men and angels. As a man, He was tempted in all points as we are; but as God, He defeated every power of the devil. As a man, He sat down on a mountain and spake unto the people; but as God, He brought peace and comfort to every troubled life. As a man, He taught the people; but as God, He forgave their sins. As a man He grew weary; but as God, He claimed to have all power in heaven and in earth. (That must be the Almighty, the only Omnipotent.) As a man, He walked the paths of men; but as God, He walked upon the waves of the sea. As a man, He slept on a pillow in the hinder part of a ship; but as God, He rebuked the wind and the sea, and they obeyed Him. As a man, He hungered; but as God, bread grew and multiplied in His hands. As a man, He wept at the tomb of Lazarus; but as God, He called him from the dead. As a man, He talked with the blind and lame; but as God, He opened their eyes and made their feet to walk. As a man, men scorned Him; but as God, the devils obeyed Him. As a man, He suffered and died; but as God, He arose from the dead. As a man, they laid Him in a tomb; but as God, He came forth conquering. As a man, He was mocked as He hung on the cross; but as God, the whole universe trembled when He cried, "It is finished." As a man, men rejected Him; but as God, He opened the way to the Holiest of holies, when the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. As a man, He sat at meat with His disciples; but as God, He vanished out of their sight. He appeared to be a man to men; but He proved to be the God of the Scriptures, fulfilling His word. As the Son of man, He was visible; but He was the image of the invisible God. As a Son, He was known to the world; but through the Spirit, He was revealed to His chosen as Lord of all. As the Son of man, He came into the world; but as God He ascended to heaven, to come to earth again, as King of kings and Lord of lords. The natural mind places Him as the second person; but the Spirit of God reveals Him as the first and the last. Notice Ephesians 1:20, 21: "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places [the right hand denotes position or power], Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come." And we turn to Philippians 2:9-11, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name [and the highest name that God could give would be His own name]: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Then we turn to Colossians 1:15-19, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence; For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." Tradition seeks to prove Him a distinct person from God the Father; but He Himself said, "I and my Father are one."

Modern theology sees Him only as a son; but the Apostle Thomas proclaimed him, "My Lord and my God." Men have adored Him only as Christ, the anointed one; but angels adored Him as both Christ and the Lord Jehovah. Peter declared that He was both Lord (Jehovah) and Christ (the anointed one). He was a lion, and yet He was a lamb. He was a star, and He was the sun. He was the sacrifice, and also the great high priest. He was the door of the sheepfold, yet He was the shepherd. He was the root and the offspring of David. Finally, let us notice Paul's admonition in Colossians 2:8-13: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (May I pause here between the ninth and tenth verses to say that tradition and history, and the records in your encyclopedias, and church history, prove that in the third and fourth centuries, the fathers of Roman Catholicism gave the world the doctrine of the trinity, which is a tradition of men, and not a Scriptural truth.) Let us begin reading now in the tenth verse: "And ye are complete in him [not in them], which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses."

A Critique of Teklemarians Bible Writers Theology

Introductory Note: This book by Reverend Teklemariam Gezahagne came to my notice when I received a copy in the mail. I had read Reverend Teklemariams first work, The Identity of Jesus Christ,some years ago. I was impressed with Reverend Teklemariams zeal and love for the Lord Jesus Christ. I was also impressed with his knowledge of the scriptures. One is overawed by the tremendous accomplishments of this man of God in the past reports of the great revival coming out of the ancient land of Ethiopia. Psalms 68.31 says, Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God. What a great role Brother Teklemariam Gezahagne has played in the fulfilling of that scripture! A Synopsis Of The Book, Bible Writers Theology: This book contains ten chapters, covering the following areas of study: I. The Necessity of Biblical Theology; 2. Existence of God; 3. Bibliology; 4. The Oneness of God; 5. Angrhopology-The Origin of Man; 6. Angelology; 7. Christology; 8. Soteriology; 9. Ecclesiology-The Church, and 10. Eschatology. The scope of the book, then, is very broad, and represents a tremendous amount of study, and is sprinkled with hundreds of scriptures, and other quotations and references. In this review, it is my intention to concentrate in basically only two areas: Christology and The Oneness of God. It is impossible to do justice in reviewing such a large study without narrowing the scope of the inquiry. A Look At The Christology and The Oneness of God: It was Rufus Jones (The Churchs Debt To Heretics, 1924) observation that no one could deal profoundly with the problem of Christs nature without being regarded a

heretic from one side or the other. This is something to be seriously considered. We are indeed told in the scriptures that God...manifest in the flesh is a great mystery (1 Timothy 3.16). Anyone who tackles this great mystery of God-manifest-in-the-flesh risks being misunderstood. It is my belief that some of what Brother Teklemariam has written is going to be misunderstood and misconstrued. For my part, I sincerely wish to avoid misconstruing what this talented man of God has said in my review of his book. If I have done so in this review, I offer my deepest apologies, and wish for the record to be set straight forthwith. Brother Teklemariams approach has left the strong impression that he does not consider the Lords humanity to be genuine-at least in the sense that Jesus was a full fledged member of the Adamic race. Without a doubt, he has rejected the teaching that Mary contributed anything to the incarnation, and that Jesus is biologically descended from Adam, Abraham, and David through Mary. What is the evidence that Brother Teklemaiam does not apparently accept the genuine humanity of the Lord? We will examine some of the statements made in Bible Writers Theology to demonstrate why we might come to such a conclusion. The View of Teklemariam Has Similarities To the Christological Model of Apollinaris: Philip Schaff (The Seven Ecumenical Councils) stated that the ancient trinitarian teacher, Apollinaris of Laodicea (310-390 AD), had a fear of teaching a double personality for Christ, and so he fell into the error of a partial denial of His true humanity. While Apollinaris was a trinitarian, and therefore espoused the incarnation of a second divine Person, his error concerning the humanity of Christ is uncannily mirrored in the Christology of Brother Teklemariam. Schaff notes that Apollinaris wished to secure an organic unity of the true incarnation. He did this, however, according to Schaff, at the expense of the most important constituent of man. Apollinaris attributed to the man Jesus a human body (soma), and a human soul (psyche), but he believed that Christ did not have a human spirit. Rather, Apollinaris said that the divine Logos replaced the human spirit (pneuma) in Christ. It was Schaffs view that Apollinaris, in his Christology, approached the idea of a theos sarkophorus (a God-bearing flesh). The Antiochenes, such as Nestorius (c.381-451 AD), who was a little later, held to an anthropos theophorus (a God-bearing man). Unfortunately, Nestorius, saddled with the trinitarian view, also held to the incarnation of a second divine Person instead of God the Father. But the Christological model of Apollinaris bears some similarities to that of Brother Teklemariam. We will see why. BOTH APOLLINARIS AND BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM RESTRICT THE USE OF THE WORD FLESH IN JOHN 1.14: Apollinaris appealed to John 1.14, which states that the Word was made flesh. He argued that the Bible did not say that the Word was made spirit. By this argument, Apollinaris was contending that the man Jesus did not have a human spirit, since the scripture did not specifically say that the Word was made spirit, but rather the Word was made flesh (sarx). Both the Greek sarx and the Hebrew basar (or besar ) can mean either the substance of the body (flesh) or man and mankind (e.g., all flesh, or no flesh).

David said in Psalms 56.4, ...I will not fear what flesh can do unto me. In Daniel 2.11, the Chaldeans are reported to have answered king Nebuchadnezzar, ...there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh (basar). Jesus used the word flesh (sarx) in the same manner in Matthew 24.22, And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh (sarx) be saved.... It is obvious in John 1.14 that flesh can refer to the entire man rather than just the substance of the body. Those trinitarians who opposed the view of Apollinaris in the fourth century were quick to point out that he was restricting the use of the term sarx in John 1.14 in order to deprive the Jesus of his Christological model of a human spirit. But if we take away the human spirit from Jesus we also take away His humanity. One cannot be a genuine human being without possessing a human spirit. BOTH APOLLINARIS AND TEKLEMARIAM BELIEVE THEY ARE DEFENDING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST BY DENYING HIS GENUINE HUMANITY: Apollinaris thought he was defending the divinity of Christ by excluding an integral part of genuine humanity from Him. And it is noteworthy that Brother Teklemariam feels the same way. In his Bible Writers Theology, Brother Teklemariam states: However, according to the human reasoning of some, Jesus is an ordinary man of earthly flesh and blood with His own independent human spirit. Considering such an explanation, the oneness of God would actually be two persons: the Father, who has an independent personality, and Christ, with His own independent personality (q.v., p.120). Yet, nowhere does the Bible teach that Christ is a separate divine or a separate human person from the person of God the Father. And if Christ can have flesh and blood, why can He not also have a human spirit and a human soul? Christ is said to be the express image of his (God the Fathers) person (Hebrews 1.3). The Greek word for person is normally prosopon, but in this scripture the word used is hypostasis, which basically means being, underlying reality ,or subsistence, etc.). In two other passages (2 Corinthians 4.4, Colossians 1.15), Christ is referred to as the image of (the invisible) God. Jesus Christ is God Himself manifest in the flesh (which is a genuine human being). The man Christ Jesus, as the Image of the invisible God, is no more a separate person than ones image in a mirror would be a separate person from that individual. This is the mystery of the incarnation. In the words of Brother Teklemariam above, the words an ordinary man describe the position, as he would have it, of those who hold that Jesus possessed a genuine human spirit, which, according to Brother Teklemariam, would be His own independent human spirit. It is not necessary, however, to conclude that Jesus was simply an ordinary man of earthly flesh and blood from the fact that He had a genuine human spirit. No ordinary man has ever been born sinless of a virgin. No ordinary man has ever been God Himself manifest in the flesh. Therefore, it is an erroneous conclusion that since

Christ had a genuine human spirit, then He must be therefore be an ordinary man. THE WORD INDEPENDENT MUST BE CAREFULLY QUALIFIED IN DESCRIBING THE MAN JESUS: The word independent, in describing the man Jesus, must be carefully qualified. Brother Teklemariam seems to indicate that it makes Jesus a separate person from God the Father. But it is evident, for example, that Jesus possessed a human will, since He yielded that will (thelema) in the Garden of Gethsemane to the Spirit (God the Father). He said, ...nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done (Luke 22.42). His human will was ever yielded to the will of the Spirit, but Luke 22.42 is evidence that he indeed possessed a human will. The independence of the man Jesus is seen by virtue of His genuine humanity, but His humanity is completely subservient to, and submitted to, the Spirit. Yet for any genuine sacrifice to be acceptable to God, the victim, like Isaac, had to be willing. Jesus said of His human life, No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself...This commandment have I received of my Father (John 10.18). Jesus said, ...I do always those things that please him (the Father) (John 8.29). But 11 verses later, Jesus said to the Jews, But now ye seek to kill me, a man (anthropos) that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God... (John 8.40). The Greek word anthropos means a male human being or a man. Jesus was a genuine member of the human family. Although His flesh was holy (Luke 1.35), He did not possess divine flesh during the days of His flesh. Else how could he have been a proper sacrifice? Brother Teklemariam says, The Bible says, God was manifested in the flesh. It does not say God was manifested in an independent man (q.v., p.121). Again, this statement is very reminiscent of the position of Apollinaris ,which was that John 1.14 means flesh to be the substance of the body and not a whole man. This is a key point. Brother Teklemariam has misinterpreted John 1.14 to mean only the substance of the body, in a very restricted use of the word flesh (sarx). But God spoke a complete human baby into existence in the womb of Mary. There Are Similarities To the Arian Viewpoint of A Separate Pre-Existent WordImage In Teklemariams View of The Word (Logos): In Brother Teklemariams work, Bible Writers Theology (p.105), he writes: The Word of God that came from heaven became flesh leaving His richness. His glorious existence within the Father, and being the Word of life, was changed to be man for the sake of us all. Not only did he become man, but He was born in poor circumstances and lived a poor life... (q.v.). BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM SEEMS TO HOLD THAT THE WORD HAD A PERSONAL, PRE-EXISTENT SUBSISTENCE WITH THE FATHER, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A FORM OF ARIANISM: The phrase His glorious existence within the Father, and being the Word of life indicates that Brother Teklemariam seems to believe that the Word had an a personal, pre-existent subsistence with the Father, since He says, His glorious existence within the Father. This seems to uphold the incorrect trinitarian interpretation of John 17.5.

Then he says, being the Word of life, was changed to be a man (q.v.), indicating that a separate Person was actually changed to be a man in the process of the incarnation. It is true, in other places, Brother Teklemariam denies that he believes, or holds, the Word to be a separate Person from the Father. Unfortunately his terminology is, at the least, confusing. There are other examples of this type of an Arian-like viewpoint of a pre-existent personal Word-Image: This scripture (John 17.3) openly declares to us that there is only one true God and His Son, the Word that became flesh, being the express image of His person (John 1.14; Hebrews 1.2,3). The Bible clearly teaches us that the Word of God which was from the beginning with God was made flesh. Through the incarnation, the Father became Emmanuel. God is now, spirit, blood and flesh, or we can say, He is now God-man (Matthew 1.20-23; Luke 1.34.35; 1 Timothy 3.16). Personally, I am not comfortable with the term God-man (theandrotos), since it has a trinitarian sound to it (although I know that many teachers use it in the correct sense in their interpretation of the incarnation), but it has the flavor of a mixing of humanity and divinity that seems to disrespect the divinity of the Lord, and the inviolability of the Spirit. God-man would be like half-God and half-man, which is an unacceptable concept in describing the incarnation. Brother Teklemariam comes close to Arianizing, when he says, God from the beginning has His own Word as His invisible image (q.v., p.123). He identifies a personified being (pre-existing, as he would declare, however, as God the Father, but nevertheless still differentiated from God the Father). In my opinion, this differentiation could lead to misunderstandings about the strict monotheism in the word of God. This is how the Logos became the fulcrum upon which the trinitarian teaching was launched. Teklemariam maintains that this Word-Image (the Word of God) walked in the garden in the cool of the day (q.v.). Moses, according to Brother Teklemariam, thought that God was known only by His voice (Deut. 4.12-23) (q.v.). Brother Teklemariam then quotes Hebrews 1.2,3 in support of this Word-Image, ...by whom also He made the worlds. He is assuming that the Word was made an Image (preexistent) before the Word was made flesh. This is fraught with dangerous overtones in the sense that it smacks of Arianism by considering a pre-existent Word-Image, since Arius taught that Christ existed before the ages as a Creator, a second god, if you please. Now, Brother Teklemariam would obviously reject any suggestion of such thinking or such conclusions, but the idea of a pre-existing Word-Image leads to such thinking willy-nilly. This thinking appears repeatedly in Bible Writers Theology: In Philippians 2.5-9, the Apostle Paul was not speaking about God the Father nor yet about the so-called God the Son. In writing to the church at Philippi, he revealed that the Word that became

flesh was equal to (the same as) the Father before it became flesh. He was the Word of God from eternity (Micah 5.2-4), but when the Word of God (the offspring of God) was made flesh in the womb of Mary and was born as the Son of God, only then did God become Immanuel. (q.v.) THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF PHILIPPIANS 2.5-9 DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A PRE-EXISTENT PERSONALIZED WORD EQUAL WITH GOD THE FATHER: I might say, that a proper interpretation of Philippians 2.5-9 will demonstrate that Paul was not expressing a kenotic theory at all (i.e., some divine Person emptying himself of His divine prerogatives up in heaven and coming down in an incarnation), but rather Paul was actually revealing the depth of the humility of God almighty already manifest in the flesh. PHILIPPIANS 2.5-9 COVERS THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH- NOT SOME PREEXISTENT PERIOD OF GLORY Paul starts off (verse 5) by stating, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. This is speaking of the incarnate state. Paul is considering the days of his flesh. He is not speaking of some second divine Person up in heaven getting ready to become incarnated! It is Christ, born of Mary already, that had the mind of God. Philippians 2.6 then becomes a little clearer. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Here, then, the phrase, morphe theou, cannot be speaking of some pre-existent condition, but refers to the actual incarnated state itself. John 5.18 is the only scripture which seems to explain this passage. John reports in John 5.18 that the Jews were angry with the man Jesus, because he had not only broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Equality with God can only be predicated of the actual incarnation state. Jesus, the Image of God, born of the virgin, was in the form of God (morphe theou). Vines Dictionary (p.205) makes much of the fact that the Greek word isos is in the neuter plural and should be translated on an equality with God. However, the context of the entire passage should override the idiosyncratic grammar of one word. Philippians 2.7, in the context of being within the sphere of the incarnation itself (and not from a pre-existent heavenly sphere) is easily understood. But made himself of no reputation. He emptied Himself here upon the earth for our sakes. Took upon him the form of a servant. Isnt it odd that those who espouse the kenotic theory wish to make the word morphe (form) in verse 6 to have higher meanings than the very same word morphe in verse 7? W.E. Vine (q.v., p.251) waxes eloquent concerning the noun morphe in Philippians 2.6, quoting Gifford as saying: Thus in the passage before us morphe theou is the divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ...for the interpretation of the form of God it is sufficient to say that...it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is

inseparable from them (sic), since they (sic) could have no actual existence without it...it does not include in itself anything accidental or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty... One can readily see that no such claims are made for the very same noun (morphe) used in the very next verse 7 (morphen doulou). Nor are any such claims concerning the broad, original meanings of the noun morphe made about its use concerning Christ in Mark 16.12, where the risen Christ appears to His disciples in another form (en hetera morphe). It is clear the word has no such esoteric meanings as nature and essence. This extreme divergence of application seems only appropriate if one accepts the kenotic theory of a separate, pre-existent divine Being, emptying Himself of His divine prerogatives in Heaven, and then coming down into the sphere of the incarnation as a human being. On the other hand, if Paul is only speaking of what Christ did for us within the sphere of the incarnation, then this passage makes sense. Then we realize the truth that God never laid aside any divine prerogatives in heaven, although He purposely exercised them in a limited sense in the incarnate state. He continued to be God, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If, verse 5, this mind...which was also in Christ Jesus (a reference to His humanity by placing the title of Christ first) immediately places us in the sphere of the incarnation, then, verse 6, of course, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, is likewise speaking of the condition of the incarnation, as we see from John 5.18. It follows then, that such phrases as made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, are all within the sphere of the incarnation (not a transition from the heavenly sphere to the sphere of the incarnation). THE JESUS IN PHILIPPIANS 2.5-9 IS EXALTED BY GOD AND IS THEREFORE THE MAN CHRIST JESUS: We know that such phrases as the death of the cross refer to the incarnation state. And then verse 9 makes sense when it says, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. The glorification of the man Christ Jesus attests to His humanity and to the sphere of the incarnation. It has no reference to any heavenly emptying, but rather He emptied Himself out right here on earth for our sakes. He gave everything that He had for us. It is the humanity of Christ (the man Christ Jesus) that is exalted. Therefore, Brother Teklemariams statement concerning Philippians 2.5-9, he (Paul) revealed that the Word that became flesh was equal to (the same as) the Father before it became flesh simply follows the defunct kenotic theory, with the variation that he interprets equal to to mean the same as. However, as one can see, if you give any credence to a pre-incarnational emptying of a divine Being, who is equal to God, then you give life to the possibility of a second divine Person. This is the trinitarian error. But God manifest in the flesh would not think it robbery to be equal with God. For anyone else at all to think so would be the same as the rebellion of Lucifer. The only place where we can see that God manifested Himself in another nature is the incarnation. This is the only place where equality would not be thought to robbery. Hebrew 2.16

states, For verily he took not on (him the nature of) angels; but he took on (him) the seed of Abraham. BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM INCORRECTLY SEEMS TO CALL THE WORD THE OFFSPRING OF GOD. THISCOULD BE MISINTERPRETED AS BEING AN ARIAN TEACHING: In the above quote by Brother Teklemariam, he stated also, when the Word of God (the offspring of God) was made flesh in the womb of Mary. It seems from the context of his remarks that Teklemariam actually means that the baby born of Mary is the offspring of God (in other words, the actual incarnation);however, he states, when the Word of God (the offspring of God) in such a way that one could interpret this phrase to mean a preexistent Word, which was the offspring of God. This would unfortunately comport with the teaching of the second century trinitarian apologists such as Justin, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus. HE PLAINLY HOLDS TO A PRE-EXISTENT WORD-IMAGE: Brother Teklemariam gets even plainer concerning his view of a pre-existent WordImage. He states: Let us remember that from eternity, the Word of God was the invisible image and form of God. From everlasting, God has Word and Spirit (breath of life) in His nature. Furthermore, whenever God acts, He breathes Spirit and emanates Word (Psalm 33.5,6) (q.v., p.127). This is plain. Brother Teklemariam understands the Word to be the invisible image and form of God from eternity. He does not understand only the visible man Christ as the Image of the invisible God, but rather the pre-existent Word is the invisible image and form of God from eternity. This goes beyond the scriptures. This has the taste of Arianism. It is very close to formulating a second divine Person (while insisting that the Word is God). This teaching makes an invisible image which later became visible (at the incarnation). Brother Teklemariam states, When the invisible person of God was made flesh, He became a Son but still remained the God of Israel (q.v., p.117). And, Before the great God was made flesh, he was the angel person of God, not Son. An angel person of God? In this manner, Brother Teklemariam comes extremely close to making another pre-existent divine Person contrary to the strict monotheism of the Bible. THIS IDEA OF A PRE-EXISTENT PERSONIFIED WORD-IMAGE ALSO CAUSES A MISINTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1 AND 2: This pre-existent Word-Image produces a philosophical misunderstanding (Genesis 1.26,27) of how man was created in the image and likeness of God. The dangerous thing about this theory of a pre-existing image is that -when carried to a full conclusion- it is the actual ground and basis or the seed of the trinity theory. Trinitarians, following such teachers as Philo, postulated the Logos (Word) as the image of God, but the New Testament teaches that the man Jesus is the visible Image of the invisible God (2 Corinthians 4.4, Colossians 1.15, and Hebrews 1.2,3). Jesus said, he that seen me hath seen the Father (John 14.9). Brother Teklemariam seems to believe there is a difference in the creation of man in

Genesis 1.27 and the making of man in Genesis 2.7. He writes: Genesis 1.27 clearly teaches us that God created the future spiritual Adam in His spiritual image (Tselem) by predestination (Romans 8.29,30; Eph. 1.4-11). Accordingly, in Genesis 2.7 we see God creating the outer man from the dust of the ground in His likeness (Demuth), which is not the same as image in the Hebrew translation. Tselem speaks of the spiritual likeness while Demuth speaks of the appearance likeness. Demuth or likeness limits man from the divine nature. (q.v., p.135) However, this interpretation is not borne out in the scripture. If Genesis 1.27 refers to the future spiritual Adam, assuming that Brother Teklemariam means the new creation of those who have received the New Birth through predestination, then why does Genesis 1.27 say that they (male and female) were created in his own image? These very same creatures God tells to Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (fill) the earth, and subdue it (Genesis 1.28). Is it not true that the same man and woman created in Genesis 1.27 are described in Genesis 2.7, and in Genesis 2.22? 1 Thessalonians 5.23 tells us that man consists of spirit, soul, and body. Both the outer man (the tabernacle, as Peter says) and the inner man (as Paul says) are created in the image of God. In other words, the entire man. God is a Spirit (John 4.24), but God knew that one day He would appear in the flesh (God manifest in the flesh), the man Christ Jesus. The first Adam was a type and a shadow of the Great Adam, who was to come, Jesus Christ. THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTS FLESH: Brother Teklemariam is very adamant about his belief that the flesh of Jesus Christ was in no way derived from the virgin Mary: If Christ is the same with the Father, we dare not say that the Son of God was the flesh of Mary, for it was the Word of God that was active in creation. Can we say that the Word that became flesh is the Father? (q.v., p.124). It is apparent from Brother Teklemariams work that he systematically goes about to negate all traces of the Lords genuine humanity. His efforts center around a few theories which he upholds: (1) Christ derived nothing from the virgin Mary. She is apparently only a surrogate mother or an incubator. In fact, according to Brother Teklemariam, Christ did not even consider her to be His mother.(2) Christ is not the seed of David nor the seed of Abraham-all such references to seed (starting with the prophecy in Genesis 3.15) are merely figurative (q.v., p.108), and (3) Christ has never been (even in the days of His flesh) a little lower than the angels. IS THE VIRGIN MARY DRY GROUND? Isaiah 53.2 states, For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground. Brother Teklemariam says that since Mary is described as dry ground, that means that she is biologically dry ground, out of which seed by itself cannot produce life (q.v., p.136). But it is not possible to show any apostle or New Testament writer who compared the youthful, pure teenage virgin Mary to dry ground. It is far more likely that the dry

ground represented Judaism, which had not heard from God for 400 silent years. Gabriel told Mary, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women (Luke 1.28). The angel told Mary, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son (Luke 1.31). When the pregnant Mary came into the presence of Elizabeth, this woman was filled with the Holy Ghost, and said to Mary, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Luke 1.42). This is not a Catholic saying, but this is the word of God. Should we say the fruit of dry ground. Even if we were to call this young teenager dry ground, could we say that the root out of dry ground took nothing from the ground in which it grew up? Elizabeth calls Jesus the fruit of thy (Marys) womb. This is under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. According to Brother Teklemariam, Mary represents the church, which by itself cannot produce life. And he states, Mary is a type of the church; she is representative of the body of Christ by giving birth to Christ (q.v.). However, it is more likely that Mary is a type of Israel, since Christ Himself gave birth to the New Testament church, of which Mary became a part. Revelation 12.5, for example,shows that it is Israel which gives birth to the Man-child. If the Man-child represents Jesus, who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron, and who has been caught up to God and to His throne (Acts 1.11), then the church did not produce Jesus! Jesus is the Founder of the church. WHAT KIND OF FLESH DID JESUS HAVE? Brother Teklemariam states, No one can prove the biological relationship of Christ with Marys flesh and blood (q.v., p. 123). In another place, he affirms, God will not mingle his holy divine nature with sinful humanity (q.v., p. 129). But I am reminded of a scripture which says, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (Acts 10.15). And I do not mean to imply by this that there was any mingling of the two natures. He partook of flesh and blood, and He took upon him the seed of Abraham. He did not mingle the two natures. And so the very purpose of the incarnation is brought into question. We must therefore ask if the biological link to Mary is broken, and if God did not really enter into the human family (there being no biological link) to become a genuine sacrifice, then we do not really have a proper substitute for Adam. A divine man, then, gave His life on the cross. It was indeed, after all, as the docetists of the second century affirmed-Jesus was not a genuine human being? If Jesus is not genuinely human, then we are faced with docetism, a doctrine that eventually leads to the conclusion that Jesus did not really suffer and die (as other human beings). THE BABY BORN OF MARY IS CALLED A HOLY THING IN THE SCRIPTURES, INDICATING A GENUINE HUMAN BEING: Let us examine Luke 1.35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall oveshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing (hagion) which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Brother Teklemariam translates this passage differently by saying, therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born shall be called the Son of God. However, the Greek text of

Stephens (1550 AD) uses the noun hagion, which is in the neuter gender, and must be translated holy thing (as we see in the King James Version). What is the significant difference? Hagion lends itself to the humanity of Christ. Moreover, the word holy can be used of a human being or the phrase Holy One can also be used either of a human being or of the Spirit. However it was not the Spirit that was born of the teenage virgin, but rather a genuine human being. That is why the angel qualifies the word hagion, and says that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Mary did not give birth to the Word, but Mary gave birth to a human being. It is that human being which is called by the angel the Son of God. ANCIENT CATHOLIC WRITERS STRUGGLED ALSO OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE INCARNATION: Trinitarian Catholic writers struggled for several centuries to explain the incarnation. Of course, they never departed from their fatal, initial error of incorrectly assuming that another (second) divine Person was actually incarnated in the man Jesus. Epiphanius (315-403 AD), bishop of Salamis, had this to say about the incarnation: (He)...was made man, that is to say a perfect man, receiving a soul, and body and intellect, and all that made up a man, but taking flesh unto himself into one holy entity...was perfectly made man,for the Word was made flesh; neither did He experience any change, nor did he convert His divine nature into the nature of man, but united it to His one holy perfection and divinity. (The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. Eerdmans, 1983) Notice that Epiphanius is not allowing the Word to be used in the sense of God speaking the baby into existence in the womb of the virgin, but rather he is using the Word in the sense of a pre-existent divine Person, who unites the nature of man to His one holy perfection and divinity. With Brother Teklemariams doctrine, however, there is this difference: the Word is considered as a divine Person, but rather than uniting the nature of man to His one holy perfection and divinity, the Word seems to somehow be changed or converted into holy flesh, without any contribution from the virgin. Nestorius (381-451 AD), another early Catholic theologian, who was the bishop of Constantinople,did not see a real concrete union of the two natures in Christ. To him, there was only a moral union between the Word and the human. He considered Jesus to be a mere human being in whom the Son of God was present as in a house. There was a synatheia (conjunction) of the two natures, but not a real henosis (union). An enoikesis (indwelling) of the man Jesus by the Word. While Nestorius believed that Christ was morally one Person, he believed that in reality there were two persons, and that a strict distinction had to be made between the two (persons). Nestorius believed therefore that Mary was not theotokos (the mother of God), but only the mother of the man Jesus. It was not the Son of God (whom he held to be the second divine Person), or the Logos (Word), who died on the cross, but rather the man Jesus. Nestorius great opponent, the Catholic bishop Cyril of Alexander (d.444 AD), rejected the idea that the Word united a (human) person to Himself, but that (instead) the Word was made flesh. But unlike Bro. Teklemariam, he holds that Hebrews 2.14 (which states

that God also partook of flesh and blood) means that there was a real union of the two natures in the virgin Mary at the moment of the incarnation. Brother Teklemariam would apparently reply that the Word was actually made (divine) flesh, and that Hebrews 2.14 only refers in general to the partaking of flesh and blood. It does not, he would apparently argue, mean that the Lord actually partook of the specific flesh and blood of the virgin, but rather only generally partook of flesh and blood by becoming flesh (John 1.14). Cyril, however, said that to reject the union of the two natures would produce two Sons (since trinitarians uphold a pre-existent divine Son also). There would be a Son, begotten from eternity, and then a human Son, born of Mary. Since there are two genuine natures (unique deity and genuine humanity) involved, there must be a genuine union of the two natures. Both sides rejected a krasis (mixing) of the two natures. One side asserted that a true incarnation (enfleshment) could not have taken place without a real henosis (a mysterious union of the two natures), while the other side said a henosis was out of the question (although they allowed a moral henosis or union), and that only a synatheia (conjunction) could have taken place, and this would permit an enoikesis or an indwelling of the Son of God (the second divine Person) in the man Jesus, as a man dwells in a house. Cyril believed this union of the Logos (the Word) and the human being took place in the womb of the virgin at conception. He wrote, He was not first born a common man of the holy virgin, and then the Logos (the Word) came down and entered into Him. While Cyril believed in a indescribable union of the Logos (Word) with the flesh in the womb of the virgin, Nestorius believed that such a union would denigrate the pure humanity of Christ. He believed that the Logos (the Word), which he incorrectly held to be the second divine Person of some Trinity, indwelt the man Jesus, and that a loose union (which he preferred to call a conjunction) developed so that the two could be seen as one Person. The Logos assumed the flesh, but the man retained his own human personality. This was the teaching of the school of Antioch, heavily influenced by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and, even earlier, to some degree, by Paul of Samosata. And so the trinitarians struggled with the mechanics of the incarnation. Cyril, when confronted by the charge of mixing (advocating a krasis of the Word and the flesh), retracted his position, and explained that he meant a union of natures in Christ. By doing this, he cleared himself from charges of Apollinarianism. EUTYCHES, LIKE BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM, CLAIMED THAT THE FLESH CONCEIVED BY THE VIRGIN WAS NOT OF HER NATURE: In the fifth century, an abbot in Constantinople caused such a stir that a council was convened at Chalcedon in 451 AD. The abbot, Eutyches, claimed that the flesh which the virgin conceived was not of her nature. A position, that in some aspects, is not different from that of Brother Teklemariam. Bishop Leo of Rome countered this position by stating: It was the Holy Ghost which gave fecundity (fertility) to the virgin...It was from a body that a real body was derived...the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...in that flesh which He assumed from a human being, and which He animated with the spirit of

rational life...He united the inviolable nature (divine) to the passible (human)...(He was) whole in what was His (the divine nature), whole in what was ours (human nature) (Letter To Flavian, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.). Eutyches was condemned also because he held that the Son pre-existed with both divine and human natures before the incarnation (apparently in the divine foreknowledge of God), but he insisted that the Son later had only one nature, and that the flesh born of the virgin was not of Marys nature. The Catholics, on the other hand, maintained that Christ received human nature from Mary, and divine nature because He was the second divine Person in the Trinity, and yet did not confuse the two natures in the incarnation, although the natures were united. Brother Teklemariam also effectively denies the genuine human nature of Christ when he states: Christ was not a partaker of Marys nature or blood. We must remember that Christ came to change her and all believers into His nature, not He to be changed to their nature (q.v., p.137). He then lists four scriptures, which I wish to examine so that we might be fair to his argument. The scriptures listed in support of the above statement are:(1) Ephesians 5.30; (2) 2 Peter 1.1-4; (3) Romans 9.4,5; and (4) 1 Corinthians 15.39-50: BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM APPARENTLY CONFUSES THE POSTRESURRECTION (GLORIFIED) FLESH OF CHRIST WITH HIS PRERESURRECTION MORTAL FLESH: (1) Ephesians 5.30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. This, of course, is referring to the glorified Christ (after the resurrection), and so has little reference to the days of his flesh; (2) 2 Peter 1.1-4, obviously referring to verse 4, where it reads, partakers of the divine nature. Again, this is referring to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the divine nature, of course, is that of Christ who is God. Divine nature refers to His divinity, and does not in any way take away from His genuine humanity; (3) Romans 9.4,5, speaks of the Israelites, of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. This passage has nothing to do with the type of flesh that Christ possessed in the incarnation (the days of hisflesh), and (4) 1 Corinthians 15.39-50. ALL FLESH IS NOT THE SAME FLESH-BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM WANTS TO USE THIS TO SHOWTHAT CHRIST HAD DIVINE FLESH (EVEN IN HIS MORTAL STATE): This passage seems to be central to Brother Teklemariams thinking about Christs humanity. The initial thought by Paul is all flesh is not the same flesh. Paul contrasts celestial bodies and terrestial bodies. The conclusion by Brother Teklemariam seems to be that Christ did not have genuine human flesh (as a part of the human family through the incarnation). But again, Paul brings up pre-resurrection flesh and post-resurrection flesh. This is a point that Brother Teklemariam seems to miss. The man Jesus was glorified in the resurrection. It is almost as if Brother Teklemariam wants to believe that there was no difference in the pre-resurrection mortal body of Jesus and the glorified, post-resurrection body. These four passages which he uses for proof of his contention that Christ was not a partaker of Marys nature (in other words, He did not have a genuine

human nature) are not really appropriate, since they do not prove his point at all. Brother Teklemariam states that the Word became genuine heavenly Man in the womb of Mary (q.v., p.137). I might add that a genuine heavenly Man could not die, but a genuine mortal man could. This unfortunately has a taste-a very strong taste-of docetism, the gnostic teaching that Jesus was not really mortal flesh like we are. BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM ATTACKS THE VALIDITY AND THE INSPIRATION OF LUKE BY REJECTING THE GENEALOGY OF LUKE (AND BY IMPLICATION THAT OF MATTHEW): I do not think this was his intent, but Brother Teklemariam attacks the inspiration of the scriptures and the veracity of Luke when he states that it is clear that to Luke, the long genealogy connecting Christ to Adam, was no more than prevailing Jewish tradition of his day (q.v., p.139). Why would Luke give the genealogy connecting Christ to Adam if he did not feel that this was important? Moreover, why would he mention it at all if he did not believe it was true? Brother Teklemariams reason for rejecting this seems to be twofold: (1) Luke uses the phrase as was supposed in Luke 3.23, Jesus...being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (etc.). But Luke is not casting doubt upon the genealogy by using the phrase as was supposed. Luke is recognizing the virgin birth, but acknowledging that the Jews considered (or at least legally recognized) Jesus to be the son of Joseph. This does nothing to detract from the validity of the genealogy. When this genealogy is compared with the genealogy of Matthew in Matthew 1.1-16, it is found that two genealogies are given. The first one is through Josephs ancestry in the Gospel of Matthew (we see in Matthew 1.16 that Jacob is the father of Joseph, and that Matthews descent from King David is through Solomon, while we see in Luke 3.23 that Joseph is said to be the son of Heli or Eli, and that this line of descent from King David is through Davids son Nathan). It is probable, then, that the second genealogy given by Luke is that of the other legal parent of Jesus, which is Mary. Brother Teklemariams second reason for rejecting the genealogies of Jesus is they are, in his words, no more than prevailing Jewish tradition of (Lukes) day. But Luke is inspired scripture. To reject the genealogies simply because one believes they are prevailing Jewish tradition and not inspired of God is dangerous. All scripture is inspired of God. Why reject the genealogies? Let me give you a real reason: the genealogies demonstrate clearly that Jesus was a bonafide member of the Adamic family (born without a sin nature and also the Son of God). If one is call into question the status of Jesus as a true descendant of Adam, then one has to call the genealogies into question. Matthew by tracing the line of Joseph through Solomon to David is clearly establishing the right of Jesus as a legal adopted son of Joseph to the throne of David. Luke, on the other hand, by giving the genealogy of Mary is establishing a blood line to David, Abraham, and finally, Adam. TEKLEMARIAM STATES THAT THE TERM SEED AS IT APPLIES TO JESUS IS USED IN A FIGURATIVE SENSE:

In order to disavow the true humanity of Christ (as a member of the Adamic race, albeit without the fallen nature), it is necessary for Brother Teklemariam to remove any biological descent of Christ from Adam, Abraham, or David. He must explain away the plain terminology of the scriptures which speak of Jesus as the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3.16,17; Hebrews 2.16), and also as the Son of David (Acts 2.30, etc.). First, Brother Teklemariam interprets Galatians 3.15,16 to mean that since the Gentiles, who were not Abrahams biological seed, but rather a promised seed, then Jesus Himself is not Abrahams biological seed, but is rather merely a promised seed. PAUL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT JESUS IS THE BIOLOGICAL SEED OF ABRAHAM: The fallacy of this argument is evident for several reasons: (1) Isaac, although a promised seed, was nevertheless a biological seed; (2) Pauls reason for the access of the Gentiles into the status of the promised seed is because of the righteousness of Jesus, a biological seed of Abraham, who inherited the promises made to Abraham and his seed. It is well to remember that Jesus was a circumcised Jew (although some Gentiles tend to forget that). Paul is reasoning that Jesus was the biological seed of Abraham to whom the promise was made (Galatians 3.19). Paul said, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (Gal. 3.16). Isaac was the child of promise, and God told Abraham, he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir (Genesis 15.4). It was not good enough for one born in my house (Gen. 15.3). It had to be someone who would come out of Abrahams own bowels. When the blood line is destroyed, then the entire fabric of the promises of God are ripped apart. That is why the scripture says, For verily he took not on (him the nature of) angels; but he took on (him) the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2.16). The first phrase of this scripture in the Greek does not use the noun nature (phusis), but the translators frankly used this noun because they knew that the noun seed (sperma) was used in apposition in the connective clause,and they did not wish to say the seed of angels. The author is trying to demonstrate that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, and that He was descended directly from Abraham, as to His humanity. This passage (Hebrews 2.16) plainly states that He (God) took on Him the seed of Abraham. That is inescapable. It does not say that He stood in as the seed of Abraham. It does not say that He manifested Himself vicariously as the seed of Abraham. It plainly and unequivocally states that He took on him the seed of Abraham. Hebrews 2.14, two verses above, says that, Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.... He partook of the same flesh and blood (obviously cleansed and purified in uniting it unto Himself in the incarnation). The word seed can be used in a general sense as offspring or issue (see Matthew 22.24). Vines Dictionary (q.v.) tells us that the unique word for likewise in the above passage is paraplesios, which expresses the true humanity of Christ in partaking of flesh and blood. BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM REJECTS THE FACT THAT JESUS IS THE

BIOLOGICAL SON OF DAVID: He writes, David is not the natural father or the biological father of Christ (q.v., p.181). And what is Brother Teklemariams reasoning for this statement denying any biological linkage to King David? Christ is the root of David meaning the creator of David and the Savior of David (q.v.). Nevertheless, Brother Teklemariam continues, Jesus...was born from the line of David to fulfill the promise in 1 Chronicles 28.4 (q.v., p.182). This is a contradiction: if the man Jesus is not descended biologically from King David then He cannot be born from the line of David. Brother Teklemariam needs to clarify this seeming contradiction. The apostle Peter, under the anointing of the Holy Ghost, is quite clear that the man Jesus is indeed descended biologically from King David. Quoting from Psalms 132.11, Peter declares on the Day of Pentecost: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne. -Acts 2.30 It cannot get much plainer than that. Jesus is called the Son of David because He is of the fruit of (Davids) loins, according to the flesh. Thus, while Jesus had the legal right to the throne of David (which is an earthly throne), according to His humanity through His step-father Matthew, He would raised up to sit on Davids throne because He was of the fruit of (Davids) loins. How would He be of the fruit of (Davids) loins if not through Mary? BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM ALSO REJECTS THE PLAIN MEANING OF HEBREWS 2.9, INSISTING THAT THE WORD ELOHIM OUGHT TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR ANGELS: Since Hebrews 2.9 is referring to Psalms 8.5, Brother Teklemariam uses the Hebrew word there, elohim (literally, gods), which is translated as angels. He maintains that Jesus was never lower than the angels. He states, the Word of God was made a little lower than Elohim to be the Lamb of God...(see Hebrew Bible Psalms 8.5) (q.v., p.141). Unfortunately, the translation of Psalms 8.5 seems to be much in dispute. For example, the Revised Standard Version has it, For thou hast made him but little lower than God, with a footnote, stating or angels, Hebrew elohim. The William F. Beck American Translation says, You make him do without God for a littlewhile, with a footnote stating Conjectural. The Hebrew may be a musical notation. And the New American Bible (a Catholic version) say, You have made him a little less than the angels. In a lengthy footnote, the NAB states, In Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for God, or the gods; hence, some translate, a little less than godlike...But the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to the heavenly spirits. We know also that the word elohim is also used of judges, etc. The witch of Endor, when she saw the shade of Samuel ascending up out of the earth (1 Samuel 28.13), referred to gods (elohim). But the real deciding factor on the interpretation of this must come from the New

Testament. The writer of Hebrews is quite clear in Hebrews 2.9 that he is referring to angels, since he has consistently been comparing the superior qualities of Jesus to angels. However, when it comes to the days of His flesh (the incarnation), the writer is insistent that the man Jesus was made a lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death. Why would Brother Teklemariam take the obscure interpretation of Psalms 8.5 and attempt to refute the clear meaning of Hebrews 2.9? Because the writer of Hebrews is stressing the genuine humanity of Christ. To be made a little lower than the angels is to be made a genuine human being. While on earth in the flesh, Jesus demonstrated His need of angels when He was ministered to by them following His 40 day fast and temptation by Satan (Matthew 4.11). Also, the man Jesus told His followers as He was being arrested, Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 26.53). But He was made, as the writer of Hebrews says, a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM STRUGGLES WITH GALATIANS 4.4: This very simple passage, But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, becomes a difficult explanation for Brother Teklemariam. He becomes mired up in attempting to explain made under the law. Does this mean, he asks, that the Son was made out of a part of the law? With this very poor logic, he then turns on the phrase, made of a woman. It is obvious here that we should understand that Jesus was born during the period or dispensation, which we call the Law. His birth was accomplished during that period. He was made under the law, or according to the law, so that He could be a lawful Redeemer (a lamb without spot or blemish). He was circumcised the eighth day, etc. After attempting to topple many other references to the genuine humanity of Christ (some coming from Paul himself), Brother Teklemariam dismisses Galatians 4.4 with a statement that it is not biblical to build faith upon one witness of a scripture (q.v., p.183). He admits that Jesus was born during the time when the Law of Moses was in effect, and he says, He was also without doubt, born of Mary (q.v.). But he nevertheless insists that Jesus cannot be the son of the curse of the Law. Jesus cannot be of the sin of the woman, quoting Psalms 51.5, and Job 25.4-6. None of this, course, would matter if God cleansed that which He took from the woman. Brother Teklemariam seems to forget that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and that the power of the Highest came upon her. The angel told her, therefore, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1.35). God is able to cleanse and to sanctify. Mary was living a holy and a sanctified life. She was a pure virgin. Let us give some credit to the grace and power of God to do as He pleases. Finally, the discussion always goes to the verb ginomai. I am not a Greek scholar, but I suspect the reason why the translators chose the English verb made is the fact that they

had John 1.14 in mind, where the same verb ginomai was used. In John 1.14 it seems imperative that it be translated was made flesh. It would be awkward to say that the Word was born flesh (but many of the revised versions translate became flesh in John 1.14 and translate ginomai in Galatians 4.4 born of a woman). Vines Dictionary (q.v.) gives the preferred translation as to become, but notes that ginomai is sometimes translated by the passive voice of the verb to make, thus tacitly endorsing the translation of Galatians 4.4 as it is in the authorized version (KJV). He does recognize the translation of ginomai (born) in the revised versions for Galatians 4.4. Made of a woman is systematically congruent with made flesh in John 1.14. A BRIEF SUMMARY: Teklemariam Gezahagne, while he is an excellent writer and a fine scholar, ought to reexamine his treatment of the humanity of Christ and the Oneness of God. The Lord possesses two natures: His eternal divinity, which shall be justly and gloriously exalted above everything in creation, and His genuine humanity, which He assumed for our salvation. The writer of Hebrews, perhaps more than others unless we include the book of Acts, exulted in His great mercy that He has bestowed upon us through the incarnation. He wrote: Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Hebrews 1.9). The fellows of this passage are fellow members of the human race. He became one of us that we might be like Him. What Brother Teklemariam has done in this tremendous study (and I do not wish to take away from the value of it) is to exalt the divinity of Christ at the expense of His genuine humanity. If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty (God the Father), then He is not able to save us (but He is and He is!). On the other hand, if Jesus of Nazareth is not the true Son of Mary, and a genuine human being, descended from David and Abraham, then He cannot be our Redeemer and our sacrifice for sins. To deny His wonderful divinity (as God the Father) is to rob Him of His rightful glory. On the other hand, to deny His genuine humanity is to rob us of our blood sacrifice, who hung in our place on the old rugged cross. If He is not one of us, then we do not have a true Mediator. 1 Timothy 2.5 states, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man (anthropos) Christ Jesus. If He was not true anthropos and true God, then our faith is in vain. But it is not in vain, because He stood in my place. It is my humble prayer that Elder Teklemariam will look again at the scriptures clearly identifying the genuine humanity of our Savior, Jesus Christ. What is so glorious and thrilling is that He walked among us, a genuine man among men. The seed of the woman bruised the head of the serpent. It was a promise made to Adam and Eve, our ancestral parents, that one day one of us would face the devil and overcome him at Calvary. God did not tell Adam and Eve that it would be He Himself who robed Himself in flesh by means of the incarnation. But imagine their joy and their surprise when they

found out who it was! The same One who walked with them in the Garden, knelt in the Garden thousands of years later, and said, Not my will but thine be done. Such a marvelous book written by Brother Teklemariam, but I hope he will consider revising it to give credence to the genuine humanity of Christ.

THE DUAL NATURE

QUESTION- In the New Testament Jesus said He had been with the Father; He prayed to the Father; His Father spoke at His baptism. I believe Jesus is God, but I can't understand these things. ANSWER It is important to realize that Jesus spoke from two distinct standpoints. In His divine nature He was the Father, the eternal Spirit, who dwelt in the body of flesh called the Son which He had created through the virgin's womb. In His human nature He was the "Son of Man", the human tavernacle for the Everlasting Father to dwell in among men. Thus it could be said as was prophesied by Isaiah, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given . . . and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6). So you see the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father was identified in the child that was born at Bethlehem, and the Son that was given at Calvary. In Rev. 22:16 Jesus declared that He was both the "root" (Father) and "offspring" (Son) of David. He is BOTH the Father and the Son, both divinity and humanity, in ONE PERSON! Therefore He could speak from both standpoints. As the Mighty God He was the Water of Life; as Son of Man He cried, "I thirst". As the Mighty God He said, "I will give you rest"; as Son of Man He was weary. As the Mighty God He cast out devils; as Son of Man He was tempted of the devil. When this is understood is becomes easy to grasp the reason why Jesus Prayed. When God took flesh upon himself and became a man as we are, He voluntarily limited Himself to no more of the powers of divinity than is available to us. "He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren (that is, those who are His brethren through the New Birth)" Heb. 2:16,17. When Jesus died on the cross, the Father did not die, for deity cannot die. It was the tabernacle of God, the flesh or Son in whom the Father dwelt which had been created through the virgin's womb (Gal. 4:4) that died. It was this flesh or Son that was with the Father (also the Father was IN the Son-John 14:10). It was this flesh or Son that prayed to the Father (He was the example for us, and we pray to God although He dwells IN us also in the Holy Ghost). This revelation delivers us from the manifest absurdity of the trinity' doctrine which would have us believe that one of a trio of divine persons prayed to another one of the divine persons; one God Praying to, another God! If Jesus were a separate God from the Father, why didn't He avail Himself of His own divinity to help Him, instead of calling on another God's divine power? How wonderful is the truth! Jesus prayed because He was calling on His own divine

nature, the Father. Thus Scripture harmonizes, and the truth sets us free from the traditions of men.
CHRIST DELIVERING UP THE KINGDOM TO THE FATHER This first Scripture reads as follows: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all " (I Corinthians 15:24-28). This entire passage is dealing with the very first statement in verse 24, "Then cometh the end...." The end of what? Let us notice just what is in question. Verses 20-23 reveal that the plan of redemption is the question, the means by which God provided to save man from his fallen state, and the sentence of death that passed upon all mankind in Adam. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all remain alive" (verse 22). In John 1:1-3, we find that God, the Word in the very beginning, finally became flesh (verse 14), in order to redeem man. John said His glory was the glory of the only begotten of the Father. Paul said, "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." In other words, God the eternal Spirit, (for God is a Spirit, who is invisible) revealed and manifested Himself in flesh. He became visible in the body of flesh, which He Himself had begotten. In the man Christ Jesus, we find the mediator between God and fallen mankind (I Timothy 2:5). God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself (II Corinthians 5:19). "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death...." (Colossians 1:20-22). The second passage in our subject is Revelation 4:2 and 3, "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald." Then we read in Revelation 5:6, 7: "And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne." In the Book of Revelation, the lamb is a symbolic picture of God's plan of redemption. When John turned to see the Lion of the tribe of Judah, a symbol of the King of kings and Lord of lords, he saw a lamb as it has been slain, a symbol of redemption. John never saw two persons; he saw Jesus as both Lord and Saviour. Jesus

said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). So when the mystery of God shall be finished (Revelation 10:7): God's dealing with men on earth, then the need of a Mediator shall be no more, and we shall see Him as He is-the one that sits upon the throne (Revelation 4:2, 3; 5:1, 6, 7; 19:4); "the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the ending; He that liveth and was dead, but is now alive for evermore; the Lord, which is, which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:17, 18, 8). We shall be complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power(Colossians 2:9, 10; 1:19). Throughout eternity we shall behold the "exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us [in redeeming us] through Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:7). We shall see the glorified body of Jesus, revealing the glory of the eternal God, as He sits upon the throne. The God who sits on the throne and is worshipped in Revelation 19:4 is the same one mentioned in Revelation 21:5, who shall be their God and wipe away all tears (See verses 3 and 4). And He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end in verse 6 and chapter 22:13. He then tells us that His name is Jesus, in Revelation 22:16. His throne is called the throne of God and of the Lamb in verse 3. We shall see His (not their) face; and serve Him (not them). In conclusion, let us notice the last of the references in question: I Corinthians 15:28, ". . .that God may be all in all." We find in Colossians 1:15 that the glorified body of Jesus is the very image of the invisible God, and that by Jesus ". . .were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence (Colossians 1:16-18). This is the fulfillment of the words, ". . .that God may be all and in all."

THE TRUTH ABOUT WATER BAPTISM

With the Actual Quotation of the Original Text of Matthew 28:19 You have a right to know the truth about water baptism. What does the Bible say? What does history say? Do not take mere theories and ideas of men; learn the truth about this important subject. The following information is based on Biblical and historical proof that cannot be denied.

IS

WATER

BAPTISM

ESSENTIAL

TO

SALVATION?

Jesus commanded, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:15,16). This command of Christ is merely an extension of His own ministry through His disciples. "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples" (John 4:1,2). The words cited above show that making disciples and baptizing them went together. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

Paul said, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us (How?) by the WASHING of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5). On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached, "Repent, and be BAPTIZED everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS ..." (Acts 2:38). To the Gentiles Peter said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized ...? And he COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED ..." (Acts 10:47,48). "In the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by WATER. The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US " (I Peter 3:20,21). Baptism occupied a place of great importance in the Christian community of the first century and was regarded as essential to the new birth and to membership in the Kingdom of God (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1982 Edition, Vol. 1, p. 798). Water baptism is an act of obedience to the command of Christ, necessary for the remission of sins, and essential to the new birth. It is therefore definitely essential to salvation.

WHAT IS THE CORRECT MODE FOR WATER BAPTISM?

The word baptize is derived from the Greek word "baptizo" which means to dip, immerse, plunge or sink (Greek-English Lexicon). A careful study of the New Testament Church will prove that immersion was the original mode used for water baptism. Paul said, "We are BURIED with Him by baptism" (Rom. 6:4). When Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan River, He came straightway up out of the water (Mark 1:9,10). When Philip baptized the eunuch, both went down into the water and then came up out of it (Acts 8:36-39). The "Early Christians" practiced immersion (submerging a person in water) as the method of baptism (World Book Encyclopedia, 1987 Edition, Vol. B, p. 71,72). The original mode of baptism was by immersion of the entire body in water, but a wide accepted method since the 2nd century has been baptism by affusion (pouring water on the head employed by the Roman Catholic Church) (Encyclopedia International, 1982 Edition, Vol. 2, p. 378). It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion. The Didache (Christian writings around the second and third centuries) and Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage) are generally cited as the earliest evidence for the allowance of affusion instead of immersion. Baptism by sprinkling is admitted by the present discipline of the Roman Catholic Church (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1977 Edition, Vol. 2, p. 56,65). Nowhere will you find that the New Testament Church baptized by sprinkling or pouring.

They

baptized

by

immersion

of

the

entire

body

in

water.

WHAT IS THE CORRECT FORMULA FOR WATER BAPTISM?

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). Confusion has been left in the minds of many as to whether or not it is valid to use the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost for the baptismal formula and for the basis of the Trinity doctrine. A careful study of the original text, taken from ancient manuscripts and from the earliest historical writings, should dispel all doubt concerning the true baptismal formula. Note the following textual criticism: Elsewhere in the New Testament the triune formula is not used. Some scholars thus doubt the accuracy of the quotation in Matthew (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1987 Edition, Vol. 1, p. 877). Matthew 28:19 has been disputed on textual grounds. There is grave doubt whether they (the traditional words Father, Son and Holy Ghost) may be regarded as the actual words of Jesus (The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1980 Edition, Vol. 1, p. 35). All ancient manuscripts, which contain the original words of Jesus found in Matthew 28:19, were either lost or destroyed. We have no complete manuscript older than the year 400 (Hibbert Journal, F. C. Conybeare, 1902 Bound Edit., p. 108). In all still existing MSS (manuscripts which contain Matthew 28:19) the text is found in the traditional (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) form (Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics, Vol. 2, p. 380). In the only codices (manuscripts) which would be likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin MS., the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 108). To settle the question about the baptismal formula, we must turn to the earliest quotations of the original text. The noted Greek scholar Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 270-340), who lived in the greatest Christian library of his time, had access to much older MSS than currently exist, and also exegesis of Origen, of Clement, of Alexandria, of Pantaenus and of many other ancient works (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 104). Eusebius quoted from Matthew 28:19 many times in his writings, in which he clearly revealed that Jesus commissioned the apostles to use a singular name---"His Name." The following is an actual quotation taken from the ancient manuscripts of the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you" (Demonstratio Evangelica, by Eusebius, A.D. 300-336, col. 240, p. 136: English --- The Proof Of The Gospel, Translated by W. J. Ferrar, 1981 Edition, p. 152,159,179). In "The Proof Of The Gospel" Eusebius emphasized, "He (Jesus) did not bid them (Apostles) simply and indefinitely to make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of 'IN MY NAME' " (p. 157). Any other form of text he had never heard, and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nicaea. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age he used the common (traditional) reading (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 105). This of course reveals

that he was persuaded to replace the original text with the traditional wording. Other authors who had access to the original text also refer to the use of a singular name in the commission of Christ. The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the 3rd century dwelt at length on the power of the Name of Jesus invoked upon a man by baptism (De Rebaptismate 6,7: Dictionary Of The Bible, William Smith, Vol. I, p. 352). In Justin Martyr's writings between A.D. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as an echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars: "God hath not yet inflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the Name of His Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illumined by the Name of this Christ" (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258: Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 106). This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19 (The Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Vol. 2, p. 380). In Origen's works, as preserved in Greek, the first part of the verse (Matthew 28:19) is used three times, but his quotation always stops short at the words "the nations." That in itself suggests that this text has been censored, and that the words which followed "in My Name" struck out (Hibbert Journal, 1902, p. 105). In the 3rd century baptism in the Name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid. Ursinus, an African monk also asserted that baptism into the Name of Christ alone was valid (Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Vol. 3, p. 365,366). Dr. Swete, professor at Cambridge, wrote in his book on the Apostles creed (London, 1894) that the triple formula forms the framework of the so-called Apostles' creed. He pointed out that the baptismal creed is seen to rest on the baptismal words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Hibbert Journal, 1902, p. 102). Matthew 28:19 is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view of the institution of baptism by Christ. The objection made to the historical criticism is that the references to baptism in the Acts point to the earliest form as baptism "in the Name of the Lord" (The Encyclopedia Of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 2, p. 380). In the oldest sources it is stated that baptism takes place "in the Name of Jesus" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1937 Edition, Vol. 3, p. 82). For centuries the trinitarian formula for water baptism has been primarily based on the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19. With all the Scriptural and historical evidence now available, there remains absolutely no solid foundation to support the triune name baptism. The traditional wording of Matthew 28:19 cannot be used to support the trinitarian formula without clashing with Scriptural and historical evidence. It can only be used in

reference to three manifestations of one God and not three persons with a triune name. Which ever text you choose to use: the original or traditional; a singular name is required. Notice that Jesus said, "NAME" (singular). Father, Son and Holy Ghost are only titles or offices in which the one true God has manifested Himself --- This is not His proper Name! To repeat the titles and refuse to state the Name is failure to fulfill the commission of Christ. Therefore, to obey the commission, the NAME must be used. What is the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Name of Father --- Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's Name" (John 5:43). Name of Son --- "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His Name JESUS" (Matt. 1:21). (Also Luke 1:31.) Name of Holy Ghost --- Jesus said, "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY NAME, He shall teach you all things" (John 14:26). Emphatically the NAME IS JESUS! Zechariah prophesied, "... In that day (day of Salvation) shall there be ONE LORD, and HIS NAME ONE" (Zec. 14:9). "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord . . ." (Phi. 2:9-11). Paul declared the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in heaven and in earth is named (Eph. 3:14,15). A trinitarian name-mysticism in Matthew 28:19 is quite out of the question. The Greek words "eis to onoma" (in the name) seems rather to have been a technical term in Hellenistic commerce "to the account." In both cases the use of the phrase is understandable, since the account bears the name of the one who owns it, and in baptism the Name of Jesus is pronounced (Acts 22:16) (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Kittel, Vol. 1, p. 539,540). Luke also records the "Great Commission" of Christ, which agrees with the original text of Matthew 28:19. Then Jesus opened the understanding of the disciples to the Scriptures, and said, "... That repentance and REMISSION OF SINS should be preached IN HIS NAME among all nations beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:45-47). In obedience to the commission of Christ, Peter stood with the other apostles in Jerusalem and said, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). To question the words of Peter is to doubt the divine wisdom of God, for Jesus gave to Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:13-19). Certainly the apostles were authorities on the correct formula for water baptism. (Also see Eph. 2:20.) When Philip preached Christ in Samaria, they that believed were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16). To the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius in Caesarea, Peter said, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord (R.V., Weymouth, Vulgate-'Name of Jesus Christ')" (Acts 10:47, 48).

According to Paul's testimony, he was baptized, washing away his sins, calling on the Name of the Lord (R.V. --"His Name") (Acts 22:16). The believers in the church at Rome were baptized into Jesus Christ. Paul said, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism ..." (Rom. 6:3,4). To the church at Corinth Paul asked the question, "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul" (I Cor. 1:12-15)? This indicated that Jesus was crucified and they were baptized in His Name. The believers in the churches of Galatia were baptized into Christ. Paul said, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). Certain disciples at Ephesus were REBAPTIZED in the Name of the Lord Jesus, when they heard the preaching of the apostle Paul (Acts 19:4, 5). The believers in the church of Colosse were buried with Christ in baptism. Paul said, "Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with Him in baptism ..." (Col. 2:11,12). In agreement with the Scripture, history further proves that water baptism in the Name of Jesus was universally practiced by the New Testament Church for many years after Christ, and was changed by the Roman Catholic Church with the development of the Trinity. Examine the following additional historical proofs: The original form of words was "into the Name of Jesus Christ" or "the Lord Jesus." Baptism into the Trinity was a later development (Dictionary of the Bible by James Hastings, Thirteenth Edition, Vol. 1, p. 241: Revised Edition, Vol. 1, p. 88). The early church always baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity, afterward they were baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Canney Encyclopedia, p. 53). The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.). He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1977 Edition, Vol. 13, p. 1012). The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term persons (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity (Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol. 27, p. 69). Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. (World Book Encyclopedia, 1987 Edition, Vol. T. p. 363). (For Nicene Creed see Encyclopedia Americana, 1983 Edition, Vol. 20, p. 310.)

The triune and trinity formula was not used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was wide-spread . . . (Baptismal formula changed by the Roman Catholic Church). Now the formula of Rome is "I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Britannica Encyclopedia, Eleventh Edition, Vol. 3, p. 365,366). The Trinity doctrine. The Catholic Faith is this: We worship one in trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal --- the Majesty coeternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination (New International Encyclopedia, 1916 Edition, Vol. 22, p. 476,477). The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament (Encyclopedia International, 1982 Edition, Vol. 18, p. 226). No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the Epistles of the Apostles (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 396). Is this not sufficient proof? Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, will you find that the New Testament Church baptized using the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Honest hearts, receive the truth! It is of utmost importance that water baptism be applied in the Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is NONE OTHER NAME under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). '' Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For IN HIM DWELLETH ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are ... BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead" (Col. 2:8-12). Ye are WASHED, ye are sanctified, ye are justified IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS , and by the Spirit of our God (I Cor. 6:11). "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS" (Col. 3:17). There is only ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, AND ONE BAPTISM (Eph. 4:5). "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

THE TRUTH ABOUT ONE

GOD

From the "dark ages" of Christendom, brought about by the theories and ideas of men, utter confusion has been left in the minds of people concerning the truth about one God. Without the knowledge of the truth, which only comes to an honest heart by divine

revelation, many have misunderstand the manifestations of God, and have tried to form three Persons or Deities. Therefore, many are confused by a false, powerless, man-made doctrine called the "Trinity". Do not take mere theories and ideas of men; learn the truth about this important subject. "Hear, 0 Israel: the Lord our God is ONE LORD." Deut. 6:4. This commandment given to Israel is confirmed in the New Testament (Mark 12:29) and must be obeyed by all Christians today. "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." James 2:19. "God is a Spirit..." John 4:24. "No man hath seen God at anytime..." John 1:18. God, the invisible Spirit, has only revealed Himself to man by manifestations. Although there are many manifestations of God, the Scriptures teach that there are basically three offices or positions in which God has manifested Himself. God was manifested as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in emanation. GOD MANIFESTED AS THE FATHER IN CREATION "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1. No one else but God performed the miracle of creation. And God said, "Let us make man in our image..." Gen. 1:26. To use the word "us" and try to form other Gods in the creation, clashes not only with the Scriptures, but with common sense. The word God means Supreme Being, the eternal and infinite Spirit, Creator and Sovereign of the universe. There cannot be more than one Supreme Being. By no means was God talking or counseling with other Gods. He was counseling with His own will. Eph. 1:11. In the creation of man, God, the eternal Spirit, foresaw the image or the Son in which He would some day reveal Himself to man. The Son did not exist at the creation. "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Gal. 4:4. The San, who is the image of God, was made thousands of years after the creation. Also God spoke of things which be not as though they were. Ram. 4:17. "So Gad created man in HIS OWN IMAGE," Gen. 1:27. "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that hod not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come. Ram 5:14. God, referring to the Sonship, made Adam in the figure of Him that was to come. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. The Word cannot be separated from Gad. The term "Word" is derived from the Greek term "logis" which means "thought or plan". Gods thoughts are with Him, but they cannot be separated from Him. "The Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD." "All things were made by Him (Word); and without Him (Word) was not anything made that was made." John 1:3. "...The worlds were framed by the Word of God..." Heb. 11:3. So by His Word God created all things. "Thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it...I am the LORD; and there is NONE ELSE." Is. 45:18. "...I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF." Is. 44:24. ".. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Is. 44:8. "See now that I, even I, am He, and there is NO GOD WITH ME..." Deut. 32:39. "Have we not all ONE Father? Hath not ONE God created us" Mal. 2:10. GOD MANIFESTED AS THE SON IN REDEMPTION

A blood sacrifice without sin must be made for the redemption of man. Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Heb. 9:22. So by His plan (Word), God, the invisible Spirit, made Himself a body born of the virgin Mary, and dwelt among us. "And the Word (which was God) was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." John 1,14. This body was the only begotten Son or image of God. Paul said that the Son is the image (body) of the invisible God. Cal.1:13-15. The Sonship was planned from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8) and prophesied as early as Gen. 3:15. Hundreds of years later Isaiah prophesied," ...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel...which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US." Is. 7:14; Matt. 1:23. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty GOD, The everlasting FATHER, The Prince of Peace." Is. 9:6. To Joseph the angel said, "...thou shall call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sin.. and he called His name JESUS." Matt. 1:21-25. Fossets Bible Encyclopedia declares that Jesus means Jehovah-Salvation, or Jehovah is become Saviour. The name Jesus was not revealed until God made Himself a body. Until then He was called Jehovah. For example: Jehovah-Jireh - The Lord provides. Gen. 22:14. Jehovah-Rapha - The Lord that healeth. Exod. 15:26. Jehovah-Nissi - The Lord is our banner. Exod. 17:15. Jehavah-Sholom - The Lord our peace. Judges 6:24. Jehovah-Ra-ah - The Lord is my shepherd. Ps. 23. Jehovah-Tsidkenu - The Lord our righteousness. Jer. 23:6. Jehovah-Shammah - The Lord is present. Ezek. 48:35. When God made Himself a body to redeem man from sin, He then was called JESUS Jehovah-Salvation. The angel announced, "For unto you is born this day.. .0 Saviour, which is CHRIST THE LORD." Luke 2:11. Throughout the Old Testament God is also called the Lord. Compare the following: The Lord God is the Creator. Is. 42:5. The Lord Jesus is the Creator. John 1:3, 10. The Lord God said, "I am He." Is. 43:10. The Lord Jesus said, "I am He." John 8:24. The Lord God is the only Saviour. Is. 43:10, 11. The Lord Jesus is the Saviour. Titus 1:4. The Lord God shall reign forever. P5. 146:10. The Lord Jesus reign forever. Luke 1 :33. The Lord God is the King of Israel. Is. 43:15.

The Lord Jesus is the King of Israel. Matt. 27:37. The Lord God is the First and the Lost. Is. 44:6. The Lord Jesus is the First and the Last. Rev. 1:8. The Lord God is Almighty. Gen. 17:1. The Lord Jesus is Almighty. Rev. 1:8. There is only one Lord. Eph. 4:5. When Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus, he cried, "Who art thou, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I AM JESUS." Acts 9:5. Beyond a shadow of a doubt the Lord God Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament! Jesus confirmed that He was not a separate Person, but God manifested in the flesh. Jesus said unto Philip, ".. .He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.. .The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the father that DWELLETH IN ME, He doeth the works...Believe me that I am in the Father, and the FATHER IN ME..." John 14:9-11. Jesus simply stated, "I and My Father are ONE (not two)." John 10:30. Jesus emphasized the importance of His identity as He taught the people in the temple. He said, "...For if ye believe not that I AM HE, ye shall die in your sins.. .They understood not that He spake to them of the FATHER." John 8:24-27. When Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan River, the voice of God spoke, "This is my beloved Son, IN WHOM I am well pleased." Matt. 3:17. Notice, God said, "IN WHOM" - not with whom! "To wit, that GOD WAS IN CHRIST, reconciling the world unto Himself..." II Cor. 5:19. As Stephen was facing death, he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:55. The term "right hand" does not form a part of another Person or Deity. It is symbolic of the power and authority of God. Jesus said, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matt. 28:18. Paul said that Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. I Cor. 1:24. Note the following symbolical uses of the term "right hand" as correlated to power and authority: My right hand hath spanned the heavens. Is. 48:13. The Lord is at the right hand of the poor. Ps. 109:31. God led Israel by the right hand of Moses. Is. 63:12. The Lord was at Davids right hand. PS. 16:8. The question may be asked, "Is Jesus in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Jesus?" If the Godhead is in Jesus, there can only be one Person. The Bible clearly states, "For IN HIM (Christ) DWELLETH all the FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. And ye are COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITY AND POWER." Col. 2:9, 10. So there is only ONE PERSON in which the Godhead is manifested, because the GODHEAD IS IN JESUS! In Jesus Christ, two wills or natures are portrayed: a human will and a Divine will. He was man (flesh) and He was God (Spirit). As man He prayed in the garden of

Gethsemane, "O my Father.. not as I WILL, but as THOU WILT." Matt. 26:39. Also He cried out on the cross, "My God, my God. Why host thou forsaken me?" Matt. 27:46. Certainly these Scriptures do not imply that Jesus Christ is a separate Person or Deity with the Father. Far Deity does not pray to Deity! Futhermore, Deity cannot die! So as man, Jesus Christ prayed in His human nature to His Divine nature. Because, in His human nature, the flesh did not want to die, but He knew the will of the Spirit must be done. Also at Calvary He cried out in His human nature to His Divine nature; and when the Spirit left the body, He fulfilled His human role of death. As man, He was hungry, He slept, He became weary, He wept, He increased in wisdom and stature, He prayed, and He died. (See Matt. 4:2, Matt. 8:24, John 4:6, John 11,35, Luke 2:52, Matt. 26:39, Matt. 27:50.) As God, He healed the sick, He cast out devils, He raised the dead, He calmed the sea. He forgave sins, He answered prayer, and He arose from the grave. (See Matt. 4,23, Luke 8:35, John 11:43,44, Mark 4:39, Mark 2:5, John 14:14, John 2:19-21.) Jesus Christ said, "I can of mine own self (human nature) do nothing.. (John 5:30). ..but the FATHER that DWELLETH IN ME (Divine nature), HE doeth the works (John 14:10)." As man, He even expressed His limited knowledge (Mark 13:32); but as God, He knew all things (John 21:17). Compare the following titles which also portray the dual nature of Jesus Christ: DIVINE Everlasting Father - Is. 9:6 Chief Shepherd - I Pet. 5:4 King of Kings - Rev. 17,14 Lord God - John 20:28 The Almighty - Rev. 1:8 HUMAN Son of Man - Luke 9:22 Lamb - I Pet. 1:19 Servant - Phil. 2:7 High Priest - Heb. 2:17 Mediator - I Tim. 2:5 "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." I Tim. 3:16. How clearly brought out is this glorious truth that Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh. He became Spirit in body to bring redemption to man. GOD MANIFESTED AS THE HOLY GHOST IN EMANATION God, the eternal Spirit, is "Omni-present" - everywhere at the same time; therefore, His Substance fills the universe. The only way God can manifest Himself in the hearts of people today is by the process of emanation. To emanate is to issue forth from a source. As the Holy Spirit, God is issuing forth from His Substance to fill the hearts of people today.

The Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Father, for it is a part of His Substance. That which was conceived in the virgin Mary was of the Holy Ghost. Matt. 1:20. The truth becomes evident that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the Son. To try to separate the Father and the Holy Spirit and form two Persons, would give the Son two Fathers, which is impossible. Definitely the Father and the Holy Spirit would have to be the same Spirit. There is only ONE SPIRIT. Eph. 4:4. "For by ONE SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body..." 1 Cor. 12:13. The Bible proves that the ONE Spirit is the Holy Ghost. "This spake He (Jesus) of the SPIRIT, which they that believe on Him should receive: far the HOLY GHOST was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." John 7:39. The Bible proves that the ONE Spirit is the Father. "There is but ONE GOD, the FATHER..." I Cor. 8:6. "GOD (the Father) is a SPIRIT..." John 4:24. The Bible proves that the ONE Spirit is Jesus. There is ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST. I Cor. 8:6. "Now the LORD (Jesus) is that SPIRIT..." II Cor. 3:17. "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE." I John 5:7. By no means did Jesus teach that the Holy Ghost was another Person. Jesus said, "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things..." John 14:26. Again Jesus said, "...if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. John 16:7. Also John said, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." John 14:18. Compare John 14:26 with John 16:7; Jesus spoke of the Father and Himself as ONE. Compare John 14:26 with John 14:18. Jesus spoke of the Holy Ghost and Himself as ONE. If the Father and Jesus are one, and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one: then the Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are ONE. (Also compare the following Scriptures which show that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are ONE: Matt. 10:20, Mark 13:11, Luke 21:15.) A Trinitarion concept contends that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in holiness, love, glory, wisdom and eternal power; but, three in Person. No Scripture can be found to support such a concept. Note the following: His holiness (not their holiness) - Ps. 47:8 His love (not their love) - Ram. 5:8 My glory (not our glory) - Is. 42:8 The only wise God (not the wise three) - I Tim. 1:17 His eternal power (not their eternal power) - Rom. 1:20 The term persons (plural) used in reference to God does violence to the oneness of God. "I am the Lord.. .and my glory will I not give to another." Is. 42:8. The Bible proves that God is ONE IN PERSON. John declared, "...I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and ONE sat on the throne." Rev. 4:2. When the Holy Ghost came on the day of Pentecost, 120 disciples were filled and began to speak with tongues as the SPIRIT gave them utterance. Acts 2:4. Peter preached that the Holy Ghost was the Spirit of God. As he used the prophecy of Joel 2.28, he said, "It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of MY SPIRIT UPON ALL

FLESH..." Acts 2:17. Paul used the terms "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" as synonymous terms in reference to the Holy Spirit. He said, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the SPIRIT OF GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of His." Rom. 8:9. (Also see Col. 1 :27, Gal. 4:6.) There is ONE GOD and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and IN YOU ALL. Eph. 4:6. There is only ONE GOD manifested in the flesh and received in the hearts of believers today. History also proves that the truth about one God was universally preached by the New Testament Church for many years after Christ, until the development of the "Trinity" doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church. Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullians writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context. Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity. World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination. Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels" No record will you find that the New Testament Church ever believed or taught the doctrine of the Trinity. For the Scriptures prove that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are only manifestations (not three Persons) of the ONE GOD; and God is ONE IN PERSON. In Creation God was manifested as the Father (Invisible Spirit - John 1:18, 4:24); in redemption God was manifested as the Son (Spirit in body - Col. 1: 13-15, 2:9); and in emanation God was and is being manifested as the Holy Ghost (Spirit in believers - Acts 2:4, 17, Rom. 8:9, Eph~ 4:6). Honest hearts, receive the truth There is only ONE Supreme Being: the eternal and infinite Spirit, Creator and Sovereign of the universe, and Saviour of man. God said,

"...Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no Saviour." Is. 43:10-11, "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God and there is NONE ELSE." Is. 45:22, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY." Rev. 1:8." In that day shall there be ONE LORD, and His NAME ONE." Zec. 14:9. And every tongue shall confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD. Phil. 2:11.

The Truth About REPENTANCE

Modern religion, with its ever changing concepts, has left confusion in the minds of many people concerning true repentance. What does the Bible really say? Dont be satisfied with theories and ideas of men, when you can know the truth about this important subject. WHAT IS REPENTANCE? Repentance is a religious term that denotes a redirection of a persons mind, will and actions as indicated in the Greek word metanoia-a change of mind. Websters Third New International Dictionary. Repentance is both sorrow for sin and the act of turning away from it. Encyclopedia Americana, Edition 1983 Vol. 21, p.495. The turning from sin is emphatically a matter of conduct, but it is also a matter of the heart. Dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings, Vol, IV, p.225. Repentance in the ethico-religlous sense is turning away from sin and back to God. Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Edition 1962, Vol. IV, p.33. The nature of repentance is not only a turning from, but also a turning to. It will cause a person to stop a wrong action and begin a right one. IS REPENTANCE IMPORTANT TO SALVATION? Ezekial announced, "Thus sayeth the Lord God REPENT, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations." Eze. 14:6. John the Baptist preached, "REPENT YE: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mat. 3:2. God COMMANDETH all men everywhere to REPENT. Acts 17:30. "Except ye REPENT, ye shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:3. (Also 2 Peter 3:9.) Jesus commissioned, as He opened the understanding of His disciples to the Scripture, "That REPENTANCE and REMISSION of sins should be preached in His Name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." Luke 24:47. In response to the question, "What shall we do?" Peter said, as he fulfilled the Lords commission, "REPENT, and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:36.

Certainly true repentance is a command of God, and necessary for Divine forgiveness; therefore, it is definitely an important step in Gods wonderful plan of salvation for man.

HOW TO REPENT 1. Conviction Of Sin Before there can be true repentance, a sinner must have an understanding and acknowledgement that he is guilty of sin. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Rom. 5:12. (Also Rd. 3:23.) "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law (Gods Word)." 1 John 3:4. Therefore, it is against God (Ps. 51:4) and is punishable by death (Eze. 18:20). "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23. A transgressor is also guilty of the blood of Jesus Christ, because the Lord hath laid on Him (Jesus Christ) the iniquity of us all. Is. 53:6. Yet, in Jesus Christ we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Col. 1:14. But, unless a sinner repents he will stand condemned before God on judgement day, forever to be lost (Luke 13:3; Jude 15; Rev. 21:8). The knowledge of Gods Word will reveal sins in a persons life, which will bring conviction. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, they that heard Gods Word were pricked (convicted) in their heart. Acts 2:37. Also experiences of Gods chastisements add to conviction. God said in His Word, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." Rev. 3:19. Although conviction of sin brings an uncomfortable feeling of shame and guilt, when followed by true repentance, it will lead to great rejoicing! 2. Godly Sorrow Feelings of deep sorrow, regret and remorse over sin must accompany an individuals repentance. One should not sorrow for personal hardship brought on by sin, but rather remorse over the hurt he has caused a loving, forgiving God. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner ... For godly sorrow, worketh repentance to salvation . . . but the sorrow of the world worketh death." 2 Cor. 7:9.10. (Also Joel 2:12; Ps. 34:18.) 3. Will to Repent The prodigal son came to himself and said. "I WILL arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee." Luke 15:18. If a sinner is willing to repent, God is willing to forgive him of his sins. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Acts 3:19. 4. Plead for Mercy The first thing David said in his prayer of repentance was, "Have mercy upon me, O God,

according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions." Ps. 51:1. Divine forgiveness is not based upon the accumulated merits of man, but only on the love and mercy of God. ..... While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom. 5:8. "The publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." Luke 18:13. In approaching God, we must cast ourselves without reservation upon His mercy. 5. Confession to God "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." Pro. 28:13. A person must be honest; admit his sins; confess them openly to God: not to man. "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1. 6. Forsake all Sin Ezekiel said, "Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit." Eze. 18:31. Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery, "...Go, and SIN NO MORE." John 8:11. (Also 1 Thes. 5:22; 2 Cor. 6:14-17; 1 John 2:15-16; Titus 2:11-12.) Repentance is actually a crucifixion of ones sinful nature at an alter of self denial (Ro. 6:6; Mark 8:34). A sincere person must turn from all sin and begin a new life in Christ. Paul wrote, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid, How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Ro. 6:1,2. (Also 1 John 3:4-9.) 7. Ask God for Forgiveness After a sinner has surrendered all to God, he should simply ask God to forgive him for all his sins. The Bible said, "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto Him, Take away all iniquity (sin)." Ho. 14:2. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9. 8. Receive Gods Forgiveness To receive Gods forgiveness, you must forgive others. "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." Mat. 6:14. Also, you must forgive yourself and forget your sinful past. Paul said, "Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Phil. 3:13,14. When you have truly repented, accept Gods forgiveness and praise Him! "Though your sins be as scarlet, they SHALL BE WHITE AS SNOW; though they be like crimson, they SHALL BE AS WOOL" Is. 1:18. "For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy. Ps. 86:5. RESULTS OF REPENTANCE 1. Great Joy When the prodigal son repented, there was much rejoicing. Luke 15:23. Jesus said, "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Luke 15:7. There is great joy in knowing Gods wonderful forgiveness! When the Samaritans gave heed to Philips

preaching, there was great joy in that city. Acts 8:5-8. 2. New Birth Now that the old sinful man is dead through repentance, a believer is ready for the "new birth," which consists of the two elements, water and spirit. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of WATER and of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5. a. Water Baptism Of course, following a death there must be a burial. The old sinful man must be put away. "Therefore we are BURIED with Him (Jesus Christ) BY BAPTISM into death." Rom. 6:4. (Also Col. 2:12.) Repentance must be followed by water baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION OF SINS (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the Name of the Lord." Acts 22:16. b. Holy Spirit Baptism The Holy Spirit Baptism is typical of the resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:5; 8:11; Col. 2:12). This completes our "new birth and makes us new persons in Christ. Ezekiel prophesied about this glorious experience, "A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, . . . and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." Eze. 36:26,27. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, ALL THINGS ARE BECOME NEW." 2 Cor. 5:17. (Also Acts 1:8; Ro. 5:5; 8:9;14:17.) The Holy Spirit Baptism is promised to all who will obey the Word of God. (See Acts 2:4,38,39; 5:32.) Paul emphasized, "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 2 Cor. 7:1. "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have (received) of God, and ye are not your own?" 1 Cor. 6:19. "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 1 Cor. 3:17. "Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit." 1 Cor. 6:20. 3. Total Cleansing John said, "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John 1:7. (Also 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:5.) When God cleanses us from all sin we are totally clean. It is as though we had never committed a sin. "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us." Ps. 103:12. If you desire a new life in Christ, I urge you to repent of all your sins and experience the wonderful, powerful "new birth" of water and the Spirit! God is willing and waiting to change your life for the better, today! "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE." 2 Pet. 3:9.

Water Baptism
Does the Mode or Formula Really Make any Difference? Does it make any difference what the Bible says about water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ? Opinions are plentiful. Almost everyone has some idea to contribute when a discussion of Christian baptism arises. Some argue pro and some argue con on the questions of whether candidates should be sprinkled or immersed and whether they should be baptized in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or in the name of Jesus Christ. Quite a few have recently raised the question, "Does it really make any difference?' Our opinions are actually worthless; one person's idea is as good as another's. The only criterion in determining the truth is God's Word-the Bible. What does it have to say about the mode and formula for Christian baptism? The Importance of Baptism Christian baptism has its roots in Jewish practice during the pre-Christian era. Converts to Judaism were baptized to express their faith in Jehovah God. When John the Baptist came upon the scene to prepare the hearts of the Jews to receive their Messiah, he demanded repentance, confession of sin, and baptism in water. He declared, "I needed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11). Jesus Himself was baptized of Jon (Matthew 3:16). After this, He and His disciples baptized large numbers of believers (John 3:22;4:1-2). He included baptism as a vital part of the inauguration of a convert into the church He established (Mark 16:16). After His resurrection, He instructed His apostles to "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). Just before His ascension, He met with His apostles and "opened their understanding, that they might understand the scripture, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem' (Luke 24:45-47). Therefore, the responsibility of continuing His ministry, propagating the gospel, and establishing and extending the New Testament church fell upon the relatively few disciples. Having their understanding opened to the will of God regarding the plan of redemption, they were filled with the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost, which further enlightened their minds. When a curious multitude gathered to witness this historic event in Jerusalem, Peter preached a sermon that brought them under deep conviction for their sins. They asked the apostles, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter's answer was unmistakably plain: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Through the spiritual understanding that Peter had received, he was able to comprehend that the new birth consisted of water and Spirit baptism (John 3:5), that God had chosen the combination of the name and the water for remission of sins, and

that the Lord intended for His name to be called in the act of baptism. Likewise, Ananias instructed Paul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). The Mode of Baptism The form or mode of water baptism is undeniably immersion. The very term baptize has for is root the Greek word baptizo, which means "to dip, plunge, submerge, immerse." All scriptural incidents o f baptism support this position. Let us note these three: (John also was baptizing in Aenon because there was much water there" (John 3:23). When Jesus was baptized by John, He "went up straightway out of the water, and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). The Formula for Baptism The Bible gives us specific instructions of deep spiritual significance for the proper administration of water baptism, and God means for everyone to comply with them. The Apostle Paul commanded, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Colossians 3:17). Certainly this instruction applies to water baptism. The apostles knew the exact meaning of all the teaching of Jesus concerning baptism and carried them out explicitly. They understood that the singular name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost-the name that reveals the fulness of the Godhead-is Jesus. (See Matthew 1:21; John 5:43; 14:26; Colossians 2:9). On every occasion they used, or commanded the use of, the name of Jesus Christ in the baptismal formula. (See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16). It is significant that they plainly prescribed His name in the baptismal ceremony. The name Jesus identifies and validates the baptism just as the proper name signed to a check makes it valid. We cannot leave to mere chance or speculation the essentials of Christian baptism, but we must heed Acts 4:12: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." True, some denominations have traditionally sprinkled instead of immersing and have mistakenly substituted the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for the use of the actual name Jesus. But those who are sincere will value truth above tradition and will obey the teaching of the gospel. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"

Saving Faith
Is one saved by faith alone, or by faith and obedience? Someone who makes a thorough study of God's plan of salvation from sin will be convinced that salvation comes through faith. Paul made this plain by saying, "For by grace are ye saved, through faith: and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). But what is saving faith? Is man passive in regeneration, as some affirm? Does mentally believing in Jesus Christ, and doing nothing else, bring salvation?

Faith Makes Salvation Possible For an answer to the foregoing vital questions let us read John 1:12: "But as many as received him to them gave he power [literally, the privilege or right] to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." According to this verse believing on Christ makes it possible for a person to become a son of God. Such faith alone does not save him; rather it places salvation within his reach. Clearly, if he does not believe on the name of Jesus Christ or in the plan of salvation He has provided, he will not take the steps necessary to be saved. How Faith Saved Noah "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith" Hebrews 11:7). How believed, first of all, that a destructive flood was coming, though he had never seen such. He further believed that if he would be delivered. His faith, then, led him to meet God's conditions, and he was saved. In like manner, faith saves the sinner. Of course, he must first accept what Christ did for him at Calvary, for upon this expiatory sacrifice the whole plan of salvation is based. But the sinner's faith in what Christ did-his belief in the promise of salvation if and when he meets the terms of the gospel - leads him to obedience, and this obedient faith brings salvation. How a Jailer Was Saved Those who affirm that salvation comes through mental faith along, that the sinner need do nothing but accept Christ and what He did on Calvary, are prone to quote Paul's words to the Philippian jailer: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31). The implications is that all the jailer did to be saved was to believe on Jesus Christ. But proponents of this theory fail to quote verse 32, which reads, "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord." This "word" certainly included the doctrine of water baptism, for verse 33 states that the jailer and his family were baptized. And, since repentance is to precede water baptism, there is no doubt that they also repented. Then in verse 34, the jailer received an experience that caused him to rejoice. How them, did this jailer's faith bring him salvation? It did so by leading him to meet the conditions of the gospel. Faith and obedience worked together, and he was saved. Confession Must Accompany Faith Romans 10:9-10 says, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." The work unto is from the original eis, and means "for the purpose of." According to this passage, there is definite connection between confession and salvation. And confession is an act, over and above simple faith in the mind. Prayer Must Accompany Faith Continuing his teaching concerning salvation, Paul said, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13). Of course, a person can call upon the Lord form his heart, without physical effort. But the phrase "call upon," usually

implies the use of the voice, or vocal prayer. And any use of the voice in prater is an act, in addition to faith. To go further, we are taught in God's Word that a person receives the Holy Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:2, 14). But does this gift come through faith without any action? Some affirm that it does, giving as their reason that it is not proper to ask anyone for a gift already promised. But Christ's words disprove this idea. "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13). Faith and Obedience What part, then, does faith play in receiving salvation? A person must believe in Christ's sacrifice and in the availability of the gift of salvation. His faith must motivate him to obey the scriptural command to repent, be baptized in Jesus' name and receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). He must believe that if he will repent and ask in prayer then he will receive the Spirit. His faith leads to obedience and thence to receiving the Spirit and the fulness of salvation. There is no contradiction between Ephesians 2:8, which says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith," and James 2:24, which declares, "By works a man is justified, and not by faith only." The latter statement is certainly true when "works" means acts of obedience to the terms of the gospel. Only those who have "the obedience of faith" -those who obey the doctrine, obey the gospel, obey Christ-will be saved. (See Romans 6:17 10:16, 16:26; Hebrews 5:9). Saving faith leads a person to obey the gospel, and such obedient faith brings salvation. The Process of Salvation A. Definitions: 1. The OT concept. There are several aspects of "salvation" in OT thought. First, salvation implies that a person or nation is in great distress - perhaps related to danger from enemies or to suffering caused by some disaster. In such situations the sufferers do not have the ability to help themselves. Second, salvation involves a deliverer (a savior). This is a person who acts on behalf of the sufferers to deliver them from their distress. Third, the action of the deliverer effects a release from the circumstances that caused the suffering. Thus, salvation portrays movement - from distress to safety. 2. The NT concept. The core concept established in the OT is carried over into the NT. In fact, the Greek verb (to save) also implies rescue from some lifethreatening danger. In the NT, it is God or Jesus who acts to deliver believers from dangers that threaten not only their physical life but also their prospect of eternal life. 1 B. Salvation has many components: 1. saved by grace Rom. 3:23,24; Titus 2:11; Eph 2:5,8 2. saved by faith Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8; I Peter 1:9 3. saved by confession Rom. 10:10; I John 1:9; James 5:16

4. saved by repentance Luke 13:3; II Cor. 7:10; II Peter 3:9 5. saved by baptism Mark 16:16; John 3:5; I Peter 3:21 6. saved by the Holy Ghost John 3:5; Rom. 8:9; Eph. 1:13,14 7. saved by endurance II Tim. 2:10; James 1:12; Heb. 3:6 C. Salvation is a process: 1. we have been saved, "According to his mercy he saved us" (Titus 3:5), and "{God} has saved us and called us to a holy life" (2 Tim 1:9), 2. we are being saved, "For by grace are ye saved" (Eph 2:8), and "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phi 2:12), 3. we shall be saved, "much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Rom 5:10) and "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (I Tim 4:16). God only gives this final salvation if we continue in him (Rom 11:22; Col 1:23; I John 2:24,25). Ralph Reynolds gives this illustration: When were the children of Israel saved? At the night of the Passover after the blood was applied, while the death angel passed over, they were saved. Yet they were not yet saved. They were saved when they crossed the Red Sea and the armies of Pharaoh were destroyed. Yet they were not yet saved. They were saved when they were led by the cloud in the wilderness. Yet they were not yet saved. Many were never saved for they never entered the Promised Land. 2 D. God intends to see us through: Matt. 28:20; Ppns 1:6; Heb. 13:5; I Peter 1:5

Footnotes
1. Lawrence O. Richards, Zondervan Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985), 540, 541. 2. Ralph V. Reynolds, Cry of the Unborn (Hood River: Alpha Bible Publications, 1991), 97.

Is the Trinity a Tradition or is it "Sound Doctrine"?

The Apostle Paul admonished young Timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (1 Timothy 4:1)
The Greek word that was translated into English as "depart from" is aphistemi (Strong's G868) pronounced -fe'-sta-me meaning ... 1) to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to remove a) to excite to revolt 2) to stand off, to stand aloof a) to go away, to depart from anyone b) to desert, withdraw from one c) to fall away, become faithless d) to shun, flee from e) to cease to vex one f) to withdraw one's self from, to fall away g) to keep one's self from, absent one's self from

Some use this portion of Scripture to accuse those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, as opposed to the Holy Trinity, as being the ones who are being described above. However, what should be determined is who said and did what ... and when did they say and do it. First off, we know the "foot print followers" of our Lord Jesus Christ had it right! If anybody has ever had it right, they had it right. And, no where do we find where they were authorized to come up with anything other than what Jesus gave them. By the way, Jesus did NOT leave them with a bunch of pages with a lot of blanks on them, which would have to be filled out a couple centuries later, either. Therefore, what they embraced and taught was "first". Any thing other than that came along later, period! Bro. Paul being as bold and blunt as he was, put it this way ... But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9) Again, the Apostle Paul admonished Timothy, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:2-4 The Greek word that was translated into English as "endure" is anecho (Strong's G430) pronounced -ne'-kho meaning ... 1) to hold up 2) to hold one's self erect and firm 3) to sustain, to bear, to endure Many are taught, firmly believe and will adamantly defend a position, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes straight from the pages of the Bible, itself. When, in fact, the word "Holy" is the only part that can be found in the Bible. The word "Trinity" can't be found in a single solitary Scripture in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible. Neither did anyone in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible ever refer to God or the Godhead with these words, "One God in three persons", as multitudes do today. With such a widely accepted belief, and millions just going with the flow, the crowd has to be right, right? Well, let's see what Jesus had to say in Matthew 7:13-14 ... "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Folks, it's time for a "gut level" reality check. According to the greatest Teacher ever to walk upon Planet Earth, when it comes to spiritual matters ... THE CROWD IS WRONG! Not one single solitary person in the entire Bible ever used the following terms ... "One God in three persons", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) "The Holy Trinity" So, how and when did the doctrine of the Holy Trinity come into existence? And, why is it so widely accepted, today? Those two questions are certainly valid ones, and deserve serious examination and consideration. Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context. Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity. World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination. Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the

PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels" Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the word "rapture" is .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book". Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich" and "rapture", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, theories which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute for such. While the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God. However, the Bible does accurately describes God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. But, that is three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds and ... three "roles" in which God functions ... BUT NOT THREE PERSONS. NOWHERE can it be found in the Bible which says that is that there is one God "in three persons". That's an "add on" that people would do well to just leave off. I can very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and administrator. While I function in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wear a number of different hats, I am still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, I can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, my wife and my daughters, and I can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons I am or who is talking. English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim). **IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR. Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system. As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.

Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself. Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:23; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13. Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learn this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10. A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of Jesus. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:4448; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". And, besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. Nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides baptism, here are a couple other places, and direct "quotes", where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost .... Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. Not only does the Bible reveal baptism in the name of Jesus, but so does history ... Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)" Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'" Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development." Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ." The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus which still occurs even in the second and third centuries." Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'" Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed." Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd

century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid." My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself. John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

What Do You Mean Born Again?

The term Born Again is one of the most used phrases among present day religious people. Yet if asked the meaning of what the term Born Again means, most church members could not do it. The vital importance of this study is shown in that Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Here Jesus is saying that TO BE BORN AGAIN IS TO BE SAVED. Being born again is the plan of salvation that Jesus authored at Calvary. It is imperative that we understand what is required for us to be born again! All agree that when Jesus went to the cross, he brought in the means of salvation for everyone who will accept it. But what really happened at Calvary? What can it do for me? How do I accept what was done there in my own personal life?! Let us first consider what really happened at Calvary. There were three steps to the work of Christ to see that these three steps make up the act of being born again spoken of by Jesus. To die, to be buried, and to rise again So we see that Jesus through his death, burial, and resurrection bought for us the plan of being born again spoken of in John 3:3, whereby we receive salvation. The fact that Jesus purchased a plan of salvation for us is the greatest news the world has ever received. The thing we must understand is that not only was it necessary for Jesus to do something, but also it is absolutely essential for us to act upon what he did. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Ye MUST be born again" (John 3:7). Now the astonishing thing is that Nicodemus was a religious leader of his day; yet, he had no conception of what it meant to be born again! We find that the very same thing is true in the day in which we live. Many men who fill positions of spiritual leadership in our world have no real understanding of the "Born Again" experience. Nicodemus inquired of Jesus in John 3:4, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Nicodemus, you can't be born again of a woman. The second birth is a spiritual birth. Notice that Jesus said without being born again we cannot see or enter the kingdom of God. In other words, we cannot be saved. On the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the first message after Calvary, the men cried out, "What must we do?" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Here Peter

was giving to them the plan of salvation repentance,baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. If being born again is to be saved, Peter was evidently talking to them about being born again. Remember, there were three steps to Calvary The way to accept Calvary in our individual life is to accept the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We don't have to literally die, literally be buried, and literally rise again. Jesus was our substitute and did this for us. All we must do is accept what he did by spiritually dying, symbolically being buried, and spiritually rising again. We take on his death by repentance which is spiritual death. When a person truly repents, he dies out to his own will, renounces it forever, and vows to live from that time on according to the will of Jesus Christ. We take on his burial by baptism in water, by immersion into His name. Romans 6:4 says, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism". Baptism MUST be done by immersion; for something cannot be buried by sprinkling a little dirt on the top of it. That burial after a few days would certainly prove to be insufficient! Furthermore, EVERY baptism of which we have Biblical record was administered by immersion. That alone should determine our course of action on this matter. Finally, we partake of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Ghost. This is the new life that enables us to live as a Christian should. We see then that being born again means to spiritually die symbolically be buried. Thus, in plain language an individual must repent of his sins, be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ by immersion, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. IJohn 5:8 tells us, "And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." What is the one thing in which the spirit, water, and blood agree? Is it not the new birth? Blood covers our sins at repentance; the waters of baptism wash them away, thus making us clean for the spirit to come into our lives to dwell. When the Roman soldiers thrust the spear into Jesus' side after he died, the scripture tells us that there came forth blood and water (John 19:34). This was for cleansing of the nations. It takes blood and water to eradicate sin. Blood is the cleansing agent, and water is the flushing agent. When a jar is washed for canning, soap AND water are necessary to cleanse that jar so that it might be filled with good fruit. Likewise, blood and water are necessary to cleanse the human soul so that it may receive the spirit of Christ which is the Holy Ghost. This teaching was verified by Peter when he said, "Repent and be baptized FOR the REMISSION of SINS" (Acts 2:38). Repentance and baptism are both absolutely essential for the remission of sins! Paul taught that the three steps of Calvary was the gospel that we should preach. In I Corinthians 15:1-4 he tells us, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you, unless ye have BELIEVED IN VAIN. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ DIED for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was BURIED, and that he ROSE AGAIN the third day according to the scriptures:". Paul went on the say in II Thessalonians 1:7-8, "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. In flaming fire taking

vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul told us that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. How can we OBEY the death, burial, and resurrection as we have previously explained? Notice that the Lord Jesus is to appear "in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel." It is absolutely necessary for every human being to obey the gospel by being BORN AGAIN. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Ye MUST be BORN AGAIN" (John 3:7). Old Testament Speaks Of Born Again Plan Let us consider another Biblical lesson given to us concerning this subject. The Bible teaches us that the things of the Old Testament were types and shadows of the things to come. When the priests of the law ministered by offering sacrifices, there were three major steps to their duties. First they slew the animal to be offered on the brazen altar. The blood here was shed and caught in a container for use in the Holy Place. The flesh of the animal was to be consumed by fire. This teaches us of the first step of salvation sacrifice, and our sins are covered by the blood of Jesus. After the shedding of blood, the priests were ordered to wash at the laver and to cleanse themselves with water in preparation for entering the Holy Place. The laver, a round fountain-like structure, was overlaid in the bottom with a looking glass. When the priests bent over to wash, he was able to see himself so that he could be sure that he was clean. When an individual is baptized, he should examine himself to be sure that he is leaving the world behind once and for all. We see then that the second step of the tabernacle ministration plainly teaches us of water baptism. Blood and water cleansed them to prepare them for entry into the Holy Place, even as blood and water cleanses us in preparation of receiving the Holy One into our lives! After cleansing, the priest would then take the fire from off of the brazen altar and would enter through the veil into the Holy Place. The Holy Place had no doors or windows through which light could come. The only light to be provided here was to come from the golden candlesticks. These candlesticks consisted of seven wicks fed by oil from seven bowls. The wicks had to be lit with the fire brought by the priest from the brazen altar. The uniting at the candlesticks of the oil and fire to produce light is a perfect type of the Holy Ghost and fire promised to New Testament believers (Matthew 3:11). Without the light of the Holy Ghost, we could not see to live in the Holy Place which is where every Christian should live. God spoke of His great plan of redemption in the Old Testament in types and shadows; and then in the New Testament He spoke plainly to us so that we would have no doubt of His will! Once again we recall the words of 1 John 5:8, "There are three that bear witness in the earth, the SPIRIT, the WATER, and the BLOOD; and these three agree in one". This Old Testament lesson beautifully reaffirms to us the absolute necessity of the full Born Again plan in each life for salvation! Some Common Misconceptions Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:30-31 reads this way, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Many have taken this

scripture to teach that all that is required for salvation is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world; and from that point on, the individual is saved. It is definitely true that an individual must believe that Jesus is the Savior in order to be saved. However, Paul, who spoke these words in Acts 16, has some further teaching on the subject in Romans 10:13-15. Let's consider the text: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him OF WHOM they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" If we wanted to be absurd, we could take this thirteenth verse to teach that all an individual must do for salvation is to call out the name of Jesus one time and he has received salvation. Paul tells us they can't call on him in whom they have not believed. Furthermore, he said that they can't believe in him OF WHOM they have not heard. We cannot merely believe. We must believe SOMETHING about Christ. When Paul told the jailer in Acts 16 to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he went on to speak unto him the word of the Lord (verse 32). The word which Paul spake was apparently the GOSPEL; for the result in verse 33 was that the jailer and all his house were baptized at midnight. That's how essential baptism is for salvation. Paul took all these people out AT MIDNIGHT and baptized them! Some would object here by saying that we are saved by faith alone. It is true that we are saved by faith, but it is also true that true faith always produces action on the part of the believer. Let's study from James 2:14-22 to verify this point. "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or a sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works IS DEAD? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thus how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" When an individual believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, what do they believe about him? They believe the gospel, which is the death, burial, and resurrection (I Corinthians 15:14). James teaches us that faith without action is dead, or it is not really faith at all. When a sinner hears the true gospel and truly believes, he will obey the gospel. An individual obeys the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ by repentance, baptism, in Jesus' name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking with other tongues. (Write for our free booklet "Tongues - Devilish or Divine"). This is the salvation of Calvary! "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (or complete). If you are still having trouble conceding to this teaching because of the element of works involved, let's reason concerning one more point. Being born again is not considered by God to be a work. In Titus 3:5 we are taught, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost;". This scripture tells us that regeneration which is being born again is NOT a work of righteousness.

Concluding this matter, we will cite a familiar Biblical example. In the great revival at Samaria in Acts 8:5-23, a sorcerer named Simon heard the preaching of Philip. He believed and was baptized and continued with Philip beholding the signs and miracles which were done. Many people would say that because Simon believed, he was saved. Yet the Apostle Peter said of him in Acts 8:23, "For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." It is impossible for anyone in the bond of iniquity to be saved; for the scriptures tell us, "if the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:36). Simon believed and was baptized, but he had not received the Holy Ghost; therefore, he was not born again. We cannot be half-born and survive. The entire work of Calvary is necessary for our salvation.

The thief on the cross. Many have asked, "If an individual must repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost for salvation, how was the thief on the cross with Jesus saved?" (Luke 23:38-43). First of all, it was impossible for anyone to be born again at this time, for the born again plan was not yet complete. Jesus had not died, been buried, and risen again. God has always had a plan of salvation for each dispensation of time. In Noah's day the only way of salvation was to get in the ark. In Moses' day the only plan was the law. In the church dispensation, the only way to be saved is to be born again. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Ye MUST be Born Again." Conclusion May we point out as we conclude this study that we have been given the first church and the Apostles after which to pattern our teaching and practices. In each recorded account of conversions under the Apostles' ministries, the three steps of being born again are evident. In Acts 2:38, it was repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost. In Acts 8:12, Acts 10:44-48, and Acts 19:1-6, we find the born again experience taught and received. Why should we vary from this practice when we are to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone? Do not allow anything to turn you aside from this truth AGAIN. If you haven't as yet, you should do so TODAY!

There Is More To Being Saved Than Easy Believism

You cannot afford to make a mistake about Salvation. Your soul is too valuable, the lake of fire is too final and eternity is too long to be wrong. Satan's master plan is to make people believe they are saved when in reality they are still lost. His plan is sly, crafty and deceptive. His timing is just perfect. The name of his

counterfeit is called EASY BELIEVISM. Approximately ninety five percent of all Protestant churches now accept it and most evangelical tract companies print it as being gospel truth. It has swept upon our land at a time when the cry of the masses is, "We like it easy and comfortable". A person can become a millionaire overnight by inventing a gadget that will make a hard job easy or an easy job easier. You can see this principle revealed in the success of perma-press clothes, micro-wave ovens, electric door openers, automatic dishwashers and electric knives. Everyone is crying, "Make it easy brother". Satan designed his plan to include parts of the Bible which would add reverence and credibility to his counterfeit and at the same time twist the truths and change the words to produce a subtle half-truth which is more dangerous than an outright lie. only the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH will save a man or woman from sin. Is a person saved by simply and only believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior? Many churches now teach that a person is ready to meet the Lord in the second coming simply because they raised their hand and vocalized the phrase "I do now accept Christ as my personal Savior". This plan is simple, easy, soothing, mild, and effortless, but OH ... So FALSE! Ministers will be judged by God on the grounds of criminal negligence who allow their church members to continue in their sinful habits and at the same time believe they are gloriously saved. Saved from WHAT? There is more to being saved than EASY BELIEVISM -please notice Acts 16:31 very closely. And they said "... thou shalt be (future tense) saved..." The Apostle Paul used the future tense, shalt be, which places the act or event in the future. Notice, he did not say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou art saved", like so many do today. It takes more to being saved than saying "I believe". James 2:14 teaches that faith alone can not save. "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Can Faith Save Him?. James 2:20 declares, "Faith without works is dead". You do not have faith if you do not have works. Faith without works is dead. It can not save you if it is alone. Works are proof of faith. If works prove faith, then the absence of works prove unbelief. Yes, faith is necessary to be saved, but it takes more than just faith. Was Simon the Sorcerer saved in Acts 8:13 by easy believism? we quote "then Simon himself believed also..." the answer to this question is "NO" Simon was not saved by only believing. We know this to be a fact from Apostle Peter's stinging rebuke in Acts 8:2021. Listen to what he said,"... but Peter said unto him, thy money perish with thee, because thou has thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou has neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God". He believed but was still unsaved. Even Simon Peter himself believed and made a confession of faith in Matt. 16:16 "And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". Was Peter saved according to the New Testament plan of salvation by his confession of faith? The Bible teaches he was not. In Luke 22:32 Jesus revealed Peter's spiritual condition by saying, "... when thou art converted (future tense) strengthen thy brethren". Mark 14:71 lets us know Peter was still in an unconverted condition of lying and cursing. Revelation 21:8 teaches us that all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire. What about the thief on the cross? In Luke 23:43 we read, "And Jesus said unto him...

Today shalt thou be with me in paradise". How was the thief saved without obeying the New Birth Plan of Salvation? The answer is, the thief actually lived in the Old Testament dispensation and did not have access to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as we know it today. This is made clear in John 7:39, "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified". The Baptism of the Holy Ghost or the New Testament inheritance could not be given until the testator died. Hebrews 9:16-17. The thief was not saved according to the New Testament Plan of Salvation which is found in Acts 2:38. What about Romans 10:9? "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart... thou SHALT be saved". Again please notice that the Apostle uses the future tense. shalt be, placing salvation in the future. The Apostle Paul realized that no man can truly confess Christ without the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3 teaches, "No man can say Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost". Besides all of this, he is not addressing sinners, but a church of saved individuals. We know this because he addressed them as brethren in 1 Corinthians 12:1. Where the disciples saved under the New Testament Plan of Salvation in John 6:66-69 when they made their confession of faith? Let us read, "We believe and are sure, that thou art that Christ..." Easy Believism must answer "yes, they were saved here". Let us, however, notice what Jesus said to these same disciples in Matthew 18:1-3. At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus... and Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye (Disciples) be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven". If the disciples could not be saved by Easy Believism, then neither can you or I. Are the Devils saved? Easy Believism must answer in the affirmative. Why? Because James 2:19 teaches "The devils also believe..." Let us now examine the scripture to see if devils will be saved. Revelation 20:10 says, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire..." Also notice 2 Peter 2:4, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned,, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment". NO! Devils are not saved by only believing. Acts 10:1-6 records that Cornelius, the centurion, was a very religious and devout man; who feared God, gave much alms and played to God always. Was he saved by doing all of this? After doing all of this the angle spoke and told him to send for Peter in Acts 11:14 "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved". In Acts 26:27-29 we read that King Agrippa believed. "I know that thou believest..." King Agrippa still remained unsaved however. What is the New Testament Plan Of Salvation? Only Belief? Accept Christ? Join a Church? Pay dues every week? NO! Acts 2:38 is where the true plan is found. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". Repentance, Baptism in Jesus Name, and the experience of the Holy Ghost were the keys to the kingdom spoken about in Matthew 16:19. They are the fulfillment of the birth of the WATER and of the SPIRIT in John 3:5, and the resurrection power of the church as recorded in Romans 8:11. As there was a death, burial and resurrection in the life of Jesus; so repentance is our death to sin, Baptism in Jesus name is our burial, and receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is our resurrection (To walk in newness of life).

The church at Jerusalem believed this plan in Acts 2:38. The Church at Samaria believed in Repentance, Baptism in Jesus Name, and receiving of the Holy Ghost in Acts 8:12,16,22. The church at Caesarea also affirmed this truth in Acts 10:44-48. The church at Ephesus obeyed Paul's preaching and were baptized in Jesus Name and received the Holy Ghost, Acts 19:5-6. As you can see, believing in Jesus is necessary, but after they believed, these people in the book of Acts went on to REPENT; be BAPTIZED in JESUS NAME, and received the HOLY GHOST (Which comes with the evidence of SPEAKING IN TONGUES as the SPIRIT gives the utterance - Acts 2:4). Many today will say that you cannot be saved by works, therefore you are not saved by being baptized in water or being baptized in the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. I submit that they are SO WRONG. Baptism is something that is done to you. All that you have to do is to receive it. The same is true with receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by the speaking in tongues. It is a gift! It is done to you. All you must do is receive. Are you doing a work if someone gives you a gift? Absolutely not! If this is a work then the very act of accepting Jesus as your Savior or the repenting of your sins could also then be considered works. I would also tell you that there are many good men, charismatic men, even Godly men preaching the gospel. Many are led by the spirit of God, but not filled with the spirit of God. Rejecting the whole of God's truth because of self study, or theological or denominational beliefs. The most dangerous lie there is one that is wrapped in so much truth that you can't see the lie that will send you to hell. First, pray that God will reveal the truth to you regarding his plan for salvation. Then, study God's word for yourself. It there in black and white. Not a mystery, yet there is none so blind as them that will not see. You can disagree on many things in the bible, much of which we'll know by and by. But there can be no mistake in the plan of salvation. To be saved you must first believe, then repent (turn away from) of your sins, be baptized by submersion in water in the name of Jesus, be baptized in the holy spirit as evidenced by the speaking in other tongues. ETERNITY IS TOO LONG TO BE WRONG.