Simon Brown.

It is not my purpose to force you to agree or believe with what's on my websites, but rather to share my research.
As the record goes. I'm Just a soul who's intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood. I am Simon Brown. Amen.

Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! Matthew 11:15.
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
SON of God?
1 John 5:5.

Dear friends, just to remind you, as I am a human being, I am capable of making mistakes. If you believe I am wrong, don't let it go, but please be kind and let me know. Thank you.

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Friday, 26 August 2016

Jesus Was A Unitarian Monotheist Says: Sir, Anthony Buzzard, biblical scholar, Unitarian Christian theologian.

Jesus Was A Unitarian Monotheist Says: Sir, Anthony Buzzard, biblical scholar, Unitarian Christian theologian.

It should be noted that?  

“11,000 of the various occurrences of the words for God (elohim, adonai, YAHWEH, ὁ θεός) in the whole Bible never once mean a Trinity.

SO when the Bible says  GOD, it never means a Trinity.

Yes, indeed GOD in the New Testament (ὁ θεός) means the Father of Jesus 1300 time.

Jesus is referred to as “god” twice for sure, others are called God or gods, including, angels, and even glorified members of the Church.

In a Messianic sense as quoting Psalm 45:74. In John 20:28, Thomas finally saw what he could not see in John 14:11, that God is seen in Jesus.

Jesus was a Unitarian  monotheist, agreeing with the Jew in Mark 12:29 and telling us that life in the age to come.

Salvation, is based on coming to know God, as the ONLY ONE who IS TRUE GOD. John 17:3).

By Sir Anthony Farquhar Buzzard, 3rd Baronet, ARCM (b. 28 June 1935), is a biblical scholar, unitarian Christian theologian, author and professor on the faculty of Atlanta Bible College.
Restoration Fellowship.


”No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus, or preached by the earliest Christians, or consciously held by any writer in the NT” 
(A.T. Hanson, The Image of the Invisible God).

It should be noted that?  
I Simon Brown is in agreement with Anthony Buzzard on Jesus being a unitarian.
I am NOT in agreement with anyone who believes Jesus (the word) DID NOT exist before Mary.

The Preeminence of Christ
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:15 - 20. English Standard Version

PLEASE PRAY WITH ME?
To The ONE TRUE Father GOD through your begotten SON Jesus we ask you to break down Satan’s strongholds and to open the eyes of those who do not know the truth of your living word. Amen.

 Simon Brown.
http://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.co.uk/
Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! Matthew 11:15.
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the SON of God?
1 John 5:5.

Join our friendly debate by watching the video and having your say.

Saturday, 20 August 2016

Join us as we visit The Westminster Abbey and see Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin's grave and look at The missing link.

Westminster-Abbey.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AWestminster-Abbey.JPG

By Σπάρτακος (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

In this weeks article:
Our trip to Westminster Abbey
Sir Isaac Newton’s grave.
Charles Darwin’s grave.
My Short explanation on the missing link.
Are Atheist Professors clever?
Short description of Westminster Abbey.
My short debate with Trinitarian Reverend Mark Laine Smith, a Duty Chaplin at Westminster Abbey where my wife Emma discovered contradictions in the TRINITY faith.


A while back we went to Sir Isaac Newton’s home and town, followed by a trip last week to the famous Westminster Abbey in central London where my wife Emma and I decided to finish off following Sir Isaac Newton to his resting place.
 Sir Isaac Newton’s memorial above his grave.
 Sir Isaac Newton’s memorial above his grave.
Photos by
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/picture-gallery

Our main interest was to visit Sir Isaac Newton’s grave 
 Sir Isaac Newton’s memorial above his grave. Photos by http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/picture-gallery
 Sir Isaac Newton’s memorial above his grave.
Photos by
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/picture-gallery

And as we were there we looked for the main promoter of evolution who is Charles Darwin.

I am so excited to report to you this amazing find my wife made which became more interesting then seeing Sir Isaac Newton’s grave.
Because we met a Reverend Mark who was working in the Westminster Abbey who talks to the visitors there, so I talked to him about his Trinity faith and while Emma was listening she made a new discovery about the Trinity faith.

Please read on, as I will do my best to explain what Emma discovered shortly.
First I would like to share our photos and take you on a trip to experience one of the most popular tourist sites in London, the famous Westminster Abbey.

Now the big problem is photos are prohibited in the Abbey which is a real shame, and I was nearly kicked out of the Abbey for taking these photos of me below standing on the head of Sir Isaac Newton’s grave and Charles Darwin's.
Simon Brown at Sir Isaac Newton's grave.
Photo of Simon Brown at Sir Isaac Newton's grave. 
Sir Isaac Newton is actually buried only 3 foot down from my foot I am told. 
Sir Isaac Newton's grave.



And what is interesting is only 18 feet away there lays a person who was completely the opposite in faith; the famous Charles Darwin also buried 3 feet under my feet.
Photo of Simon Brown at Charles Darwin's grave.
Photo of Simon Brown at Charles Darwin's grave. 

How very interesting to see one of history’s greatest genius, English physicist and mathematician Sir Isaac Newton who believed in creation by God, described in his own day as a "natural philosopher" who is widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. 
Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. Reff: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.




Yet it’s puzzling to understand why most of the world’s population refuse to believe Sir Isaac Newton, when he was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, but prefer to believe Charles Darwin who’s only degree was in theology.
He believed our first parents were ape’s which is still today an unproven theory because of the missing link between man and ape still happens to be missing.

Apparently Charles Darwin was a liar when he was a schoolboy who invented gratuitous fibs to his schoolmates and boasted that he could change the colour of flowers by watering them with certain coloured fluids. Ref. THE DARWIN PAPERS.



The missing link.
Atheist scientist even admit and confess the missing link between man and ape is still missing and yet cannot understand a very simple fact, that the link between human and ape revealing transition never existed in the beginning, which is why they cannot find it, yet they are still desperately looking for an impossible, invisible theory to prove their unproven faith, and ignore and refuse to believe the Palaeontologist ''who do not believe in God'' who have proven there is NO evidence for evolution and the evolution theories are not correct.

Are Atheist Professors clever?
How can certain atheist today like Professor Brian Cox be that clever if people like him cannot even work out a simple fact that NO living creature has ever been proved to jump from one species to another.
The fossil record clearly proves the Trilobites have NO ancestors, revealing NO transition, NO transformation, NO adaptation, NO changeover to other organisms or creatures.
The Cambrian explosion in the fossil record. Ancient trilobites fossils in stone. 07-08-13 ©Zheka-Boss. Copyright ©2014 iStockphoto LP.
The Cambrian explosion in the fossil record. Ancient trilobites fossils in stone. 07-08-13 ©Zheka-Boss. Copyright ©2014 iStockphoto LP. 
We in fact do NOT see any organisms or creatures changing from one state or condition to another called Evolution. All confirmed as a time capsule in the fossil record.
The Cambrian Explosion proved and confirmed by the fossil record that the single-celled organisms have no evidence of changing.
Because it suddenly went from a single-celled organisms and leaped into a full-blown arthropod with a complete body and highly complicated eyes and organs called a Trilobite.
If the theory of evolution was correct, we could do the same action and concept as numbers, count and start them from 1 to 100. Just as 100 numbers. In every number as it counts up we would see a minor change. Until we see every living creature has transformed into every living arthropod, insect, and animal living today or discovered in the fossil record.

But the evolutionist are still in a state of desperation trying many ways to deceive people from believing it was a mastermind GOD who created every living creature, who have gone to the extreme to fool the world into thinking we are animals, by gluing human skulls to chimpanzee jaws, to painting pig's teeth so they look old and then gluing it to a human skull, and even gluing two fossils together to make us believe birds came from dinosaurs. 
Photo. A nonsense: Chris Stringer holds a reconstruction of Piltdown Man's skull HOAX.
Photo. A nonsense: Chris Stringer holds a reconstruction of Piltdown Man's skull HOAX.

Piltdown Man: A hoaxer still pursued. By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News. 
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News



12-13 © allanswart. Copyright ©2014 iStockphoto LP.
There are more chances of PIGS learning to fly then the chance of EVOLUTION. And yet there are now millions of Christians who also believe in EVOLUTION. 
I wonder if these type of Christians who also believe in EVOLUTION believe GOD is an APE?




Richard Dawkins.
Then there are the atheist like Richard Dawkins who have discovered the unproven theory of evolution is a lucrative business which is just a good way of conning money out of sad people before some do their home work and discover what they were conned into believing was the missing link, is now the found link which turned out to be 100% animal or 100% human and is in fact not a found link but still the missing link and a GREAT FORGERY.

You are welcome to read more of my research: THE SO CALLED ''MISSING LINKS'' TO EVOLUTION. THAT FOOLED THE DUMB SCIENTIST. http://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-so-called-missing-links-to.html
Or watch my video below.



Short description of Westminster Abbey.
I would like to give you some back ground info about this incredible impressive 
Westminster Abbey.


I was told there is 30300 famous bodies berried there. 
Westminster Abbey is literally a luxurious indoor graveyard for the famous.
The-tomb-of-Elizabeth
The-tomb-of-Elizabeth
Photo by
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/picture-gallery

Here’s some info from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Please meet me again shortly where I will explain what my wife Emma discovered and how.

Westminster Abbey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Westminster Abbey, formally titled the Collegiate Church of St Peter at Westminster, is a large, mainly Gothic abbey church in the City of Westminster, London, just to the west of the Palace of Westminster. It is one of the United Kingdom's most notable religious buildings and the traditional place of coronation and burial site for English and, later, British monarchs. Between 1540 and 1556 the abbey had the status of a cathedral. Since 1560, however, the building is no longer an abbey nor a cathedral, having instead the status of a Church of England "Royal Peculiar"—a church responsible directly to the sovereign. The building itself is the original abbey church.
According to a tradition first reported by Sulcard in about 1080, a church was founded at the site (then known as Thorn Ey (Thorn Island)) in the 7th century, at the time of Mellitus, a Bishop of London. Construction of the present church began in 1245, on the orders of King Henry III.[4]
Since 1066, when Harold Godwinson and William the Conqueror were crowned, the coronations of English and British monarchs have been held there.[5][6] There have been at least 16 royal weddings at the abbey since 1100. Two were of reigning monarchs (Henry I and Richard II), although, before 1919, there had been none for some 500 years.[7]


Last weeks article: Why do most Trinitarians believe all the church Fathers believed in the TRINITY?

Last week I did my best to demonstrate how an old Trinitarian friend made claims about the Trinity faith by saying all the church fathers believed in the 
Trinity to which they say to justify what they believe.
But I pointed out when researched properly this turned out to be completely false.
If you missed the article please click here.


This week I am writing about what happen at Westminster Abbey which turned out to be an amazing testimony we were both not expecting that caused my wife Emma to start believing my research on the doctrine of Trinity.


Now it is not a cheap day out to visit Westminster Abbey with just under a 2 hour drive if the traffic is good from our home and if you are lucky to find a park in central London it will cost £13 for just 2 hours and then £20 each for admission into the Abbey.


However my wife is disabled and phoned the Abbey to find out if there were any disabled parking. We were delighted to hear a member of the Abbey say admission for her was free, and it was very unusual but in her case they would let us park in a VIP car park at the Abbey.
When we arrived at the gates they had a VIP entrance card waiting for us so we could park.
As we entered the Westminster Abbey I handed over my £20 entrance fee, to then hear them saying I could also go in for free. 
Was GOD looking down on us?


When Emma my wife and I started looking around in this incredible Westminster Abbey, I lost her, then after a while, when I found her she was talking to a Priest-vicar who we were not expecting to meet and talk too who was such a delightful man who was a Trinitarian, Reverend Mark Laine Smith, a Duty Chaplin at Westminster Abbey.


My short debate with Trinitarian Reverend Mark Laine Smith, a Duty Chaplin at Westminster Abbey.
I then started asking Reverend Mark Laine Smith, what he believed which ended up as a debate on the Trinity.
I asked him did he believe the Trinity doctrine, which is ONE GOD who are THREE persons?


He said NO. 
I said but I am confused because if you go on the many Trinity websites they all say the same and make this point very clear which is the foundations of their Trinity faith that the doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons.


As my wife was listening to the conversation, he then told me not to go on Trinity websites and not to believe what Trinity websites teach.


I said to him, and then what do you believe if you are a Trinitarian who believes in the Trinity?
He said He believes in ONE GOD who is ONE person, which are Father, son and Holy Spirit.
And NOT in ONE GOD who is THREE persons as the Trinity doctrine defines who are Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


What I heard him say shocked me so much I wondered if I needed to inspect my ears to see if they were blocked up with wax, which could be causing me to hear incorrectly.


So I repeated what he said to me back to him, when he then confirmed my ears were not blocked but working very well.


I said to him, so you do not believe what the Trinity teaches that the doctrine of the Trinity defines GOD as ONE GOD as three consubstantial persons. 
He said NO, he believes all THREE are ONE GOD and ONE person.


Before we continue lets have a look to confirm and check if the Trinity doctrine does teach ONE GOD who is THREE persons as the Trinity doctrine defines.


Here is a Trinitarian web site.
What is the doctrine of the Trinity?
What does it Mean That God is a Trinity?
The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) EACH PERSON IS FULLY GOD, (3) there is only one God

.
Now lets have a look at a non-biased site like wikipedia.org.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold") defines God as three consubstantial persons or hypostases-the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit-as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three persons are DISTINCT, yet are one " Substance, essence or nature".
As we can see the main sites above make this very clear: The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons.


As Emma was listing, she than finally remembered what I have been saying right from the beginning of my research, that Trinitarians often contradict people of their own faith.


Emma finally discovered I was right, that the Trinity faith is full of black holes and contradictions who cannot agree on what they believe who contradict people of their own faith and often do not even understand what they believe.


I said to Mark why do you claim to follow Jesus and yet make Him the ONE TRUE GOD when He Himself said His Father GOD was the only ONE TRUE GOD and excluded Himself from being the ONE TRUE GOD, in John 17:3?
Mark told me that He believed Jesus did not even know Himself who He was.
That’s another new Trinitarian doctrine I have never heard.


I then asked Mark, ok please tell me did Jesus always exist?
He said yes of course.
I then said why do you Trinitarians always ignore what Colossians 1:15 teaches? Saying: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
I said: This one scripture proves Jesus was BORN FIRST and before all creation, which alone proves the Trinity false.
He then went silent.


My last question to Mark.
Have you ever done any research on your Trinity faith to see where the Trinity was established from and read about the fact that the Trinity was not a doctrine until 300 years after Christ where the first Trinitarians did not destroy paganism, but instead adopted it at the: First Council of Nicaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Nicene_Creed
This brought our debate to an end, as Mark was offended and suddenly vanished.



Thus says the LORD: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD. 
 Jeremiah 17:5

At this point I made a new discovery, discovering THREE new Trinitarian doctrines.
I. Jesus did not know Himself who He was, according to Mark.
2. The first time ever I discovered a Trinitarian who does not believe what the Trinity doctrine teachers that GOD is NOT three PERSONS, but instead the THREE persons are ONE person and ONE GOD.

3. Mark told me I am NOT to believe what other Trinitarians teach but to believe him who is a Trinitarian who does not believe what the Trinity teachers teach.
We are always learning.

What I already knew.
1. Before I met Mark I already believed to not believe what ANY Trinitarians believe and teach. But I have never heard Trinitarians confess this themselves.

2. Before I met Mark I already new from my long research that this is often the case and the evidence that Trinitarians contradict each other.
A tree is known by it's fruit said Jesus. As a faith is known by his works.

Conclusion.
In last weeks article, I hopefully pointed out how certain Trinitarian teachers do not research their faith properly to discover if the foundations of their Trinity faith is rock solid.

This week I have pointed out how the Trinitarians contradict their own faith and cannot agree on what they believe, and often do not understand what they believe.

And yet we are also told by Trinitarians they are filled with the Holy Spirit who teaches them the truth, and yet Trinitarian Mark who has been to university most of his life training and teaching on the Trinity states not to believe other Trinitarians because they do not teach and know the truth of the Trinity.

As we see here, this again is a perfect example revealing how very easy it is to understand Trinitarians do not agree or understand with what they themselves believe and understand who clearly contradict each other.

If you are planning to go to Westminster Abbey, ask for Reverend Mark Laine Smith.
It is interesting to know that within our debate I asked Mark did he read the research by Sir Isaac Newton as you walk over his grave countless times daily? He told me he was not aware of Sir Isaac Newton teachings on the Trinity where he believed it was a great hoax by the first Trinitarians in the fourth century.
And as I had pointed this out to him he promised me he would read the research by Sir Isaac Newton on the Trinity.
So if you find Reverend Mark Lane Smith, at Westminster Abbey? Please do ask him, did you read the research by Sir Isaac Newton on the Trinity that you promised Simon Brown you would do?
Please let me know what he says to you.

I am absolutely flabbergasted to how and why millions of Trinitarians believe and follow the Trinity doctoring and very clearly demonstrate by their own confession how they cannot agree on what they believe, neither understand what they believe, neither can they prove what they believe, which is why the Trinity faith are forced to say: THE TRINITY IS A MYSTERY, to justify their false doctrine.



I wonder who’s worse?
1. Atheist who say GOD does not exist?
2. Or Trinitarians who believe in a Trinity GOD that does not exist?

Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
 Psalm 146:3


Please may I leave you with some quotes from Newton on the Trinity. 
Sir Isaac Newton And Albert Einstein Faith in God.
Portrait of Isaac Newton (1642-1727). /Photographer http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/art/portrait.html. Artist Sir Godfrey Kneller (1646–1723)

Click on image above to read about Sir Isaac Newton And Albert Einstein Faith in God.
Was one of history’s greatest scientists, Sir Isaac Newton correct in saying; Trinitarians were mistaken and misguided in its true interpretation of Christianity?

Here is Newton's list:-
1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
10. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
11. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

Saturday, 13 August 2016

Why do most Trinitarians believe all the church Fathers believed in the TRINITY?

Why do most Trinitarians believe all the church Fathers believed in the TRINITY?

Please read on as I approach the title of this subject.
Scriptures by English Standard Version. 
I love debating people because discussing a certain subject as I do on the Trinity helps me to understand what and why people believe, why and what they believe by examining peoples opposing arguments they put forward which in return exercises your knowledge of the Bible by exchanging of views which determines who is right or wrong.
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
1 Peter 3:15-16
There is nothing more enjoyable and rewarding then testifying the truth of Christ.
"Therefore, everyone who acknowledges me before people I, too, will acknowledge before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10:32        
Open minded seekers.
There are people who have open minds and hearts who are searching and seeking out the truth, who ask sincere questions who are not decided and on the fence, but are humble, praying to GOD for the truth, who are willing to accept the Biblical facts even if they were wrong, who are often the genuine ones who become saved.
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 14:11
For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Matthew 7:8
People who will not debate.
There are those who refuse to debate, because they are frightened to be proved wrong. They disappear as quickly as lighting, because they do not want to be proved wrong and sadly never learn if they were wrong or right and discover the truth when wrong.
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.
The easy debates.
Then there are those who do not agree with me, but who are willing to debate with me to prove me wrong by putting forward their evidence by sending scriptures, which when examined turns out to be mistranslated, or misunderstood or taken out of context, who never believe what ever biblical facts I present because their minds and hearts are closed.
Jesus talked about them here:
For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' Matthew 13:15
English Standard Version
The Trinitarians who say God proves their faith.
Then there are the Trinitarians who say to me they know they are in the right faith because of the many blessings they receive from GOD, which they claim is proof of their faith.
Yet I often find they own a small home with a massive mortgage and drive around in an old banger and tell me I am in a cult, and yet we have a deluxe sumptuous home that is mostly owned and drive around in a new luxurious vehicle.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! Isaiah 5:21
Then there are the Trinitarians who tell me they know they are in the right faith because they have healed a person which proves they have a relationship with the true God.
Yet you also hear about them praying for friends or family who never get healed and often end up dying from a disease and they seem to ignore the fact Jesus said many would do good deeds and perform miracles but He will still say to some of them: I DON'T KNOW YOU.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' Matthew 7.:21 -23.
Hard-core debaters.
Then there are many Trinitarians who call themselves Bible scholars and teachers, because they have received much education but have sadly been misled or deceived by false teachers or prophets, and their own biased minds have caused them to be sloppy on their research, causing them to turn away from the true commandments of GOD.
"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." Mark 6 - 8. 

First Council of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea

This is precisely what Trinitarians have done. They sadly follow a man made doctrine as we see above created by the first Trinitarians who established the Trinity as a doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea nearly 300 years after Christ. Which causes the Trinity faith to break GOD'S most important doctrine daily. Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12:29.
When I remind Trinitarians about the terrible true fact that the Trinity they follow was not a doctrine until nearly 300 years after Christ, they always give the same excuse, as you will shortly read below.
Trinitarians always tell me the first church fathers all believed in the trinity to justify the massive gap from the time of Jesus until the time the Trinity was made into a doctrine, to prove and promote their faith of the Trinity, which I will shortly demonstrate.

And they like to make a point by saying the first Trinitarians were inspired men of GOD, but at the same time go silent to the fact that the Christians who would not believe and follow the Trinity were burned alive.
I am still looking for a teaching by Jesus saying we are to kill people who do not believe in the Trinity.
Or we must believe in the Trinity to be saved.
Or we must believe Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD to be saved.
The only scriptures I can find are countless scriptures that teach we must believe Jesus is the SON of GOD to be saved, and that GOD is GOD alone and there is NO other GOD BESIDE Him or with Him, which clearly teach nothing about ONE GOD being THREE persons.
"See now that I myself am he! THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME. Deuteronomy 32:39
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is NO OTHER; I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE LIKE ME. Isaiah 46:9
Hard-core debaters refuse to be proved wrong when presented with real facts because PRIDE has set in, which then blinds them from the truth.
One's pride will bring him low, but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor. Proverbs 29:23 
These type of Hard-core debaters will often say to me who am I? And can I read Greek?
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 1 Corinthians 3:18

Because they are often Bible Scholars who have studied Greek.
I often remind them about one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, Sir Isaac Newton who was also a Bible scholar who did not just study Greek but also Hebrew, and was not just a scientist but was a highly influential physicist, astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, alchemist, theologian, and biographer.
Dr. Thomas G. Barnes said in his book "Newton was perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of his age."
Book "Science and Biblical Faith" 1993.
But because Newton believed the first Trinitarians were the false corrupt leaders, who burned other Christians alive for not believing in the Trinity, the Hard-core debaters are not willing to admit and accept Newton's research which proved the Trinity false and to be a deception by their first spiritual Trinitarian fathers.
Those who prove themselves wrong.
In most debates I often discover people who I am debating prove themselves wrong by their own confession, by the simple fact when people cannot answer simple questions.
This is the same in a court of law. Both sides of the case is presented, when one side of the party cannot answer or present the evidence they go silent or come up with unreliable facts which turns out to be false information losing the case.
Please read on, because in this article I would like to demonstrate to you how very easy it is to establish the truth which in return determines if we are right or wrong in a world full of immense, vast and huge deception.
My recent debate with a Trinitarian.
Last week I was debating a nice Christian friend and teacher from Brisbane, Australia who I met back in 2011, who has done some amazing research and has dedicated his life to help people understand the many false doctrines in many churches today.
In fact I agree with his teachings on the false ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED doctrine which is still taught in many churches today, adding his videos to my You Tube Channel.
As I agreed with most of his teachings I decided to send him an email asking him his views on the Trinity.
After receiving his replies, I was shocked to learn not only did he believe in the Trinity but also for someone who has done so much great research on many false doctrines in the many churches today, from his replies he revealed he had done hardly any research or his research was sloppy on the truth of the Trinity.
In fact this is very sadly the same old story with nearly all Trinitarians I have debated with. They all believe what they were taught as I did at one time and they have never researched to seek out the truth of the Trinity to discover if the foundations of their faith is rock solid and sound.
He sent me an email saying:
A quote - "The early Christian writer, Tertullian, coined the word "Trinity" around the year A.D. 200. Although he coined a new word, Tertullian introduced no new teachings about the Trinity. Rather, he explained and defended what the entire church had believed from the time of the apostles up through his day. "
And then finished of by saying:
There is plenty more evidence that the church has always believed in the Trinity.
So we read above my Australian Bible teacher believes the church has always believed in the Trinity.
I asked him where did he read that from? Because if he had done his research he would have read this is NOT the case and would have discovered the opposite.
Oddly enough just the day before I received an email from a friend and Bible scholar saying:
Constantine" He was an emperor!
Sure he did get mixed up in the Trinity debates.
Justin Marty was not a Trinitarian nor was Tertullian who said that the Father was not always the Father (Ad Hemogenesm, 3)
Jesus was a unitarian and that is the only thing which matters for those who claim to be following him MK 12:29/.
in hope,
Anthony.
I already knew this, but he confirmed what I believed. If Constantine was mixed up in the Trinity debates, then surly that is proof the many Christians and churches at that time certainly did not all agree.
A simple search on the Internet reveals a simple fact, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not an official doctrine until the fourth century.
And the arguments and debates regarding the nature of God the Father and the Son, continued for well over 300 years after Christ was dead, buried and gone after being raised from the dead by ALMIGHTY GOD.
As I stated in a previous article, HERE.
The first ever Trinitarians where very busy arguing and debating the nature of God the Father and the Son, and posed people to believe in the Trinity, and the ones who would not believe and follow the Trinity were exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames while all persons found possessing them were to be executed.
So it is very easy to determine what my Trinitarian friend said was truly incorrect by saying:There is plenty more evidence that the church has always believed in the Trinity.
To add to the Trinity deception and dishonesty, more worms have popped out of the can revealing more forgeries.
Most of the Christian Fathers letters like the Ignatius letters have also been forged to make people believe the first Christian Fathers believed and supported the Trinity. See the links below to a Trinity web site admitting these Ignatius letters as forgeries.
My friend and Bible scholar then sent me another email saying:
But of course the simple issue is that God= the Father 1300 times in the NT!
GOD in the Bible (1300 occs of words for God YHVH Elohim, theos) never means a Triune God
Ask your friends to give you one!
And Jesus said that the Great Command is that God is one Person, one LORD. It was the church fathers, celibate monks who took us into madness.
Break that one Great Command , and there is trouble.
John 17:3 is very easy, but people must repent of tradition!
Keep up the good work,
Anthony.
Now do you see how debating with people proves what people do not know and what you do know, which proves why and how so many believe in false information, which in return proves most Trinitarians have not done their home work, or very little or have been very sloppy in their research and instead have believed what they were taught, which is why they remain deceived.
My Christian friend and teacher from Australia states on his sites:
You tube Description: There is nothing more important than your eternal destiny.
About his Blog: The salvation of your soul is the most important issue in your life.
And yet Jesus taught the opposite to what my friend above believes and teaches, by saying LIFE ETERNAL does NOT come by believing in the Trinity and that the ONE TRUE GOD is THREE persons, but comes by believing His GOD is a SINGLE being who is the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD as we see when Jesus prayed to His Father by saying:
And this is ETERNAL LIFE, that they know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3. English Standard Version.
Jesus Himself even went further to make a point of us knowing this is a commandment to believe there is one TRUE GOD and NOT THREE by saying:
Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.Mark 12:29
Hear therefore, O Israel, and be careful to do them, that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is ONE.
 Deuteronomy 6:3 - 4.
There we clearly see: The LORD our God, the LORD is ONE.
And yet Trinitarians say, teach and believe the opposite to what GOD taught, and instead teach GOD is THREE persons and not ONE person.
Did GOD and His SON ever say or teach: The LORD our God, the LORD is (THREE)?
If GOD and His SON did say they were ONE GOD as THREE BEINGS, we would then know they were indeed ONE GOD as THREE BEINGS and not ONE GOD as ONE BEING as GOD has said.
Now we do know for sure Jesus said: I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE. Which most Trinitarians say and believe John10:30 proves Jesus meant He and the Father are ONE GOD.
But Trinitarians who use John10:30 to prove Jesus is the one and same person as the ONE TRUE GOD, fail to understand a simple fact, that when a man and a woman join in marriage and marry, they become ONE, and are NEVER the same person, and are always 2 separate people, who can be divided.
Trinitarians also fail to point out Jesus prayed to His Father GOD asking that He and His disciples become ONE.
John 17:11.
Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE.
John 17:20.
"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, JUST AS YOU, FATHER, ARE IN ME, AND I IN YOU, that they also may be in us,
There we see Jesus did not mean His disciples are GOD and are ONE person, as Jesus prayed they all become ONE meaning complete agreement, harmony and substance.
I hope in this article you can see how this is a perfect example of a sincere Christian friend who is a Bible teacher who revealed by his own research and confession his own Trinity faith has no sound or true facts.
Even today children are told Father Christmas comes down the chimney with presents. At least when these children are told the truth they humble themselves and accept the truth. These children should teach Trinitarian Bible scholars how to swallow PRIDE and become humble.
I also hope this true story will help you understand the accuracy of Jesus teachings to why Jesus said the PATH was NARROW, and most would be DECEIVED and only a FEW would make it into His Kingdom to come, because so many would simply refuse to believe Jesus who spoke the truth of His Father GOD was the only ONE TRUE GOD, but instead Trinitarians follow mans teachings at the First Council of Nicaea nearly 300 years later after Christ in AD 325, which helps us to now understand why do most Trinitarians believe all the church Fathers believed in the TRINITY?
You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; BESIDES HIM THERE IS NO OTHER.
 Deuteronomy 4:35
May I leave you with an article by:
c/o Shawn Mark Miller Nazarene Saints Publishing © Copyright. 1998. All Rights Reserved.

The title of this work, De Trinitatis erroribus, is taken from the work by Spanish theologian Michael Servetus who was burned to death on the morning of October 27, 1553, in part for writing this book against the doctrine of the Trinity. The Spanish physician's death was approved by John Calvin. Perhaps the greatest argument against the doctrine of the Trinity was the martyrdom of the discoverer of the circulatory system. For truth cannot beget the horrors of persecution. (It was Athanasias who slapped Arius!)...

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS --  WERE THEY TRINITARIAN?

 Introduction.

When was the doctrine of the Trinity first developed? When we ask this question we have in mind the doctrinal idea that God is a plurality of three co-equal and co-eternal persons of the same substance who form a Godhead. Though reputable scholars and commentaries state the Trinity is no where to be found in the Bible, other Trinitarians not only insist the doctrine is present in the Bible, but also that the "apostolic fathers" in the first and second centuries taught the Trinity. Is this true? Can we find the idea of the plurality of God in three persons? You will have to judge this.
We provide the "apostolic fathers" and some ante-Nicene scholars and commentaries from their works. We believe these did not teach the Trinity but rather were henotheists who believed in one Absolute (Supreme) God, the Father and Creator, while still holding that others are called God or gods, including the Son, angels, and even glorified members of the Church.
Who was the first to use the word "Trinity"? Some credit Theophilus of Antioch (c180 AD). He writes: " ... the Trinity ... of God, and Hs Word, and His Wisdom." Though the word occurs here it is clear this is not the modern Trinity for the Holy Spirit is omitted.
Tertullian (215 AD) is the one generally credited with using the word Trinity in the context of God, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Against Praxeas 2) However, he does not deduce a Trinity like the modern notion, for he writes: " ... in a Trinity. Placed in order, the Three are the Father, Son and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in Being, but in form; not in power, but in kind. ... Because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account."
Origen (225 AD) also uses the word Trinity (Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1). However, this well-known scholar is henotheistic for he declares the Son "a second God." Also, he is not clear on whether the Holy Spirit is a person or a force. For Origen describes the Son as "servant of the Father in the creation of all things." And, the Spirit in this manner: "But in (the case of the Spirit) it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, or also as a Son of God or not."
Most of these scholars were either enamored with the Greek philosophers or had been disciples and teachers of Plato. Though two of these Christian scholars of the later First and early Second centuries use the word Trinity they were not the first to do so in a theological context. Both Plato and Aristotle use Trinitarian ideas, the later actually using the word Trinity. Consider the following commentaries.
Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
The History of Christianity, by Peter Eckler: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians, (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."
From Eusebius, PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL, Vol 2, pages 535-537)
Plato (Epistle to Dionysus) -- "I must explain it to you then in riddles, that if the tablet suffer any harm in the remote parts of sea or land, the reader may learn nothing. For the matter is thus: Around the King of the Universe are all things, and all are for His sake, and that is the cause of all things beautiful: and around the Second are the secondary things, and around the Third the tertiary. ... These statements are referred, by those who attempt to explain Plato, to the First God, and to the Second Cause, and thirdly to the Soul of the Universe, defining it also as a third God. ... (Eusebius) This is what Plotinus says. 'This is the reason also of Plato's TRINITIES: for he says that around the King of all are all the primaries, and around the second the secondaries, and around the third the TERTIARIES.' And Numenius highly commending Plato's doctrines in his treatise OF THE GOOD gives his own interpretation of the Second Cause as follows: 'The First God being in Himself, is simple, because, being united throughout with Himself, He can never be divided. God however the Second and the Third is one."
Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book I, 1 -- "For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the trinity [Greek trias; English = "trinity"]. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods."
With this foundation and introduction let us consider the major apostolic fathers.
WAS BARNABAS A TRINITARIAN?
There is a work referenced by Clement of Alexandria and Lightfoot describes The Epistle of Barnabas, "(It) stands alone in the literature of the early Church." (page 133) Some believe it to be the work of Paul's early missionary companion though the work is "not regarded(ed) as final and authoritative." The date assigned to it is between 70-79 AD.
Let anyone who wishes to read it try and find a Trinitarian doctrine in it. Though an imaginative mind might find a triune formula in the opening section where "God" and "the Spirit" and "the Lord" are mentioned in different sentences, the Trinity is missing.
There is a often referenced phrase which has been cited by Trinitarians. It is found in section 5. However, the phrase seems to backfire. Indeed, compared to another verse in Barnabas it may be asserted this author as henotheistic in his theology. Note what the writer says, quoting Genesis 1.26: "If the Lord [Jesus - editor] endured to suffer for our souls, though He was Lord of the whole world, unto whom God [Yahweh - editor] said from the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness,'how then did he endure to suffer at the hand of men?" Here he has two persons: one, God, that is Yahweh the Creator, the Father of our Lord; and, second, "the Lord of the whole world." Later this "Lord" is identified as "the Son" when Genesis 1.26 is referenced again. (section 6)
At the end of his epistle Barnabas makes the phrase, "And may God, who is Lord of the whole world, give you wisdom." It may be Barnabas gives the title "Lord of the whole world" to both God and the Son. However, if this concluding designation be applied to the Son then we would have two Gods, for the earlier phrase could then read: "He was God and Lord of the whole world, unto whom God said ... " This would be two Gods by reasonable reckoning. Thus Barnabas was henotheistic in his theology. We also note the Spirit is extremely rare in the letter.
WAS HERMAS A TRINITARIAN?
Lightfoot writes that The Shepherd of Hermas "is entitled in the most ancient notices." Some give the work an early date around the year 80, others place in the middle of the Second Century.
It would take considerable "mischeivousness" to create some triune formula in this work. The designations "God," "Lord," and "Holy Spirit" occur often though not in anything approaching the Trinity. 
Hermas makes one point clear in The First Mandate: "First of all, believe that God is One, even He Who created all things and set them in order, and brought all things from non-existence into being." It may be argued this bringing everything out of non-existence would include the Son. At any rate, Hermas has God as One, not a plural of three. Otherwise, he may have written, "Believe that God is One, even They who created." Or, he may have written, "Believe God is Three."
In Mandate The Eleventh some interesting phrases are made. Hermas mentions "the angel of the prophetic spirit" in the context of the Holy Spirit. Another ,may infer the Pneuma is a power and not a person: "This then is the greatness of the power as touching the Pneuma of the deity of the Lord." 
There is another obscure phrase in S. 5. vii (Lightfoot, page 207): "God ... created the people, and delivered them over to His Son. ... (who) is Himself Lord of the people, having received all power from His Father. ... The Holy Pre-existent Spirit, Which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit." Hermas seems to make clear God the Father is the Creator, and the Pneuma which He used in creation came to dwell within the Son and the Son's flesh was obedient to the indwelling Pneuma.
The verses most often referenced by Trinitarians are those in S. 9.x, 12 (Lightfoot, page 229): "The Son of God is older than all His [God's - editor] creation, so that He became the Father's adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient." We note Hermas says of the Son he was "adviser" and "is ancient" not eternal. This term "adviser" may be drawn from Proverbs 8.22, 30 which reads in the Jewish Tanakh: "The LORD created me at the beginning of His course, as the first of His works of old. ... I was with Him as a confident."
Is Hermas an henotheist, believing in One Absolute God while agreeing the Son is also a God? It is possible judging from S. 9. xxiii, 23 (Lightfoot, page 236): "If God and our Lord, Who ruleth over all things and hath the authority over all His creation ... " This may be "God and our Lord" as two persons. Or, it may be a rare case where Hermas applies the designation "God" also to the Son who has been given authority over creation. Thus, there would be two Gods.
WAS SAINT IGNATIUS A TRINITARIAN?
Various Trinitarian scholars have pointed to the epistles of Ignatius as evidence of the Trinity. Some claim the Trinity doctrine was stated by early Church writers long before the Fourth Century. On the other hand, still others expecting a higher christology, point to various phrases in these early letters as evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was viewed as God. Or, that Ignatius was not henotheistic, that is believing in more than one God though holding God the Father as Absolute God. What does an examination of these epistles show? Do they point to the Trinity -- that is the doctrine that God is the plurality of three persons?
First, who was Ignatius? He was a Christian bishop of Antioch who wrote near the beginning of the Second Century. He may have been martyred between 98-117 AD and therefore may have known John. His epistles are referenced or quoted by ancients such as Polycarp (a disciple of John) and later in the Fourth Century, Eusebius. This bishop's letters never made their way into the Church canon of inspired epistles, such as Paul or Peter. There may be serious question whether these epistles of Ignatius have not been emended or edited by later writers. There are some words and phrases alien to early Christianity which raise suspicion that some of the works have been manipulated or added to by later church writers. These will be noted as we proceed.
Before examining these epistles of Ignatius we wish to offer the statement that we believe in the divinity or deity of the glorified Jesus Christ. We believe the pre-existent Jesus as the Word or Logos was also a god (John 1.1) just as the angels are called by David (Psalms 8.5 - elohim; Hebrews 2.8, 9 - angels). We believe Jesus was "less than god(s) [elohim]" during those "days of his flesh." So, our theological position may be called henotheistic; that is, we believe there is only one Absolute God the Father while his Son may be called "god" as are the angels. To us it is a matter of degrees in the consideration of such words like elohim or theos. (1 Corinthians 8.4-6; 2 Corinthians 4.4) What was the uninspired view of Ignatius?
Did Ignatius use triune formulas? A "triune formula" -- often used to prove the Trinity -- is a phrase which includes three things or three persons. The answer to this question is yes. There is one surprising Trinitarian formulation which seems alien to early Christian. In To the Ephesians, section 7, there is a trinity of God, the Son, and Mary. Or, in section 18, the trinity of Jesus, Mary and the Holy Ghost. [These citations are from J. B. Lightfoot The Apostolic Fathers, pages 65, 67] (Compare also To the Trallians, section 9 [Jesus, Mary, the Father])
These mentions of Mary, the mother of our Lord, make us immediately suspicious of Catholic editing. Never do the inspired epistles of Paul or Peter ever mention Mary. Even in the Gospels the mother of the Nazarene receives a minimal role with no indication she was even a disciple of her own son. When she does make her appearance it is in a context of doubt and criticism of Jesus. 
There is another triune formula in To the Trallians, section 12: " ... unto the honour of the Father [and to the honour] of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles." One could easily make a Trinitarian construct of this, including Father, Jesus, and the Apostles.
Are there other classic triune formulas? Yes. Just as in a few verses of Matthew and Paul, Ignatius mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one breath. The first is in Ephesians, section 9: " ... a building of God the Father, being hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and using for a rope the Holy Spirit." (Lightfoot, page 65) Here the true architect is the Father, while the Son is only an instrument, an engine, and the holy spirit is only a rope. This seems to fall far short of the Nicene Creed and later Trinitarian formulations.
Another occurs in To the Manesians, section 13: " ... in the Son and Father and in the Spirit." (Lightfoot, page 72) Of course, it is clear, this triune formulation falls far short of defining a single God who is the plurality of three, even as do those triune formulas found in Matthew 28.19 and 2 Corinthians 13.14. Triune formulas, so-called, may be constructed of other verses in the inspired epistles which are completely contrary to the Trinitarian view. For example, note 1 Timothy 5.21, "I solemnly charge you before The God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels." One bent on insisting on a triune formula here would construct a divine pantheon of gods including the holy spirit.
Another occurs in To the Romans, section 8, "I speak the truth --- Jesus Christ, the unerring mouth in whom the Father hath spoken truly. Entreat ye for me, that I may attain [through the Holy Spirit]." The later phrase in brackets may be an addition. However, Jesus Christ is the "mouth" of the Father, that is the Word, as John 1.1 has it. Nothing in these sentences confirm the Trinity as it is defined today. There is here no plural God of three persons.
Dual formulas missing the holy spirit. Though we do find triune formulas, dual formulas appear much more often. These include only the Father and Jesus Christ. After the manner of Paul, who includes only the two -- Father and Son -- in his salutations, Ignatius does the same. In all of his letters, Ignatius omits the spirit in his salutation. For example, consider To the Magnesians: " ..through the grace of God the Father in Christ Jesus ... greeting in God the Father and in Jesus Christ." (Lightfoot, page 69)
There are many more dual formulations than triune ones where the holy spirit is missing. Not including the salutations of all seven letters, these dual formulations -- only the Father and the Son -- occur over a dozen times. These dual formulations make a clear distinction between God and Jesus. Consider Ephesians, section3: " ...that ye run in harmony with the mind of God: for Jesus also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ." It seems clear, without forcing this through a Trinitarian filter, that there is the "mind of God" -- who is the Father - and there is the "mind of Jesus Christ." The two are not compounded or confused, no more than Paul does when using similar language in 1 Corinthians 2.16, "For 'who has come to know the mind of the Lord [Yahweh]' ... but we do have the mind of Christ."
There is another dual formula in Magnesians, section 13: "Be obedient to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father ... and as the Apostles were to Christ." Ignatius comparison of Christ's obedience was of the apostles to him. Clearly, the Son is subordinate to the Father and not co-equal with Him.
There are dozens of these cases where only God and Jesus, or God the Father and Jesus Christ which seem to make strong distinctions between the two without ever inferring they are part of a plurality of three in a Godhead.
Is Jesus called "God" by Ignatius?
The straightforward answer to this is Yes. The phrase "Jesus Christ our God" (Ep, sal; Rom, sal, 3; Sym, 1), "For our God, Jesus," (Ep, 19), and, "in our God Jesus Christ." (Poly, 8)
Do we fault this phraseology? No. The reason for this is because the pre-existent and glorified Christ as the Word was identified with the word theos. (John 1.1; 20.28) It is possible, though scholars disagree, Paul may have used such a construct in Romans 9.5 and Titus 2.13. We agree with those scholars who do not see these as Paul calling Jesus God. (See notes else where in De Trinitatis Erroribus) We challenge any Trinitarian to supply such a phrase in the Gospels.
Though agreeing the term "god" (elohim; theos) can be applied to the Son, even as it is of angels, any fair person would admit the phrase "our God Jesus Christ" goes beyond the inspired epistles which do not do this. Even if we were to accept the Trinitarian grammar of Romans 9.5 and Titus 2.13, this would mean in all the inspired epistles this terminology is only used twice.
On this subject of theos (or, god) we note Ignatius never applies it to the Spirit.
Is Ignatius henotheistic?
That is, does Ignatius seem to believe in more than one God -- in two Gods? It is admitted he clearly addresses Jesus as such. Does he address another as God separate from Jesus? There are those dual formulas (Ep, 21) of God the Father and Jesus Christ which would affirm the Father is a God. In addition there are other phrases which would argue Ignatius believes in two Gods. Consider Magnesians, section 8: " ... there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son." If Jesus is also "God" then there are two Gods in the writings of Ignatius.
This idea occurs again in Trallians, section 1: " ... who by the will of God and of Jesus Christ." If Jesus is a god to Ignatius, then there are two here in this verse. This type of phrase occurs again in Philadelphians, section 3: " ... of God and of Jesus Christ." (Lightfoot, page 79) If we paraphrase this later phrase and add Ignatius other phrase we would have the construct: " ... of God and of Jesus Christ our God." Or, "of God and our God Jesus Christ." (Poly, 8) That would be clearly two gods by any fair estimate.
Other phrases in Ignatius.
There are other phrases in the epistles of Ignatius which Trinitarians point to as evidence of a higher christology. Though none of these could by any stretch of the imagination confirm that Ignatius was a Trinitarians they are worthy of commentary.
1. God's blood. There are several phrases which infer Christ's blood is God's blood. Consider Ephesians, section 1, "the blood of God"; Smyrnaeans, section 6, "they believe not in the blood of Christ [who is God] ... " Viewing the glorified Christ through the henotheistic filter -- rather than the Trinitarian filter -- as God of a sort less than the Absolute God, one could understand this unique phrase without drawing the conclusion that Jesus was The Absolute God himself.
This thought of God giving His own life contradicts the prophet Habbakuk 1.12 where it is stated God cannot die. Trinitarians will point to Acts 20.28 which some translations render as though it was God's own blood which purchased the Church. However, scholars are divided on this rendering, some preferring, "the blood of His Own [Son]." (See commentaries elsewhere in De Trinitatis Erroribus.)
2. Jesus resurrected himself. Ignatius writes in Smyrnaeans, section 2: "He raised Himself truly." (Lightfoot, page 82) This is a phrase which appears nowhere in all of Paul's own epistles. The idea is lacking from all other epistles in the sacred canon. These all teach that God the Father raised the Lord Jesus from death. (Ac 3.15; 4.10; 5.30; 10.40; 13.30, 37; Ro 4.24, 25; 6.4, 9; 7.4; 8.11, 24; 10.9; 1 Co 6.14; 15.4, 15; 2 Co 4.14; Ga 1.1; Ep 1.20; 2.12; 1 Th 1.10; 1 Pe 1.21)
Ignatius also states that it was God the Father who resurrected Jesus. For example, Romans, section 9 states: "His Father having raised Him." And, Smyrnaeans, section 6, " ... and which the Father of His goodness raised up."
It is possible Ignatius draws his phrase from a metaphor used by the Nazarene in John 2.19. This text is sometimes used in an effort to prove Jesus is God Himself because they assert that here the Nazarene foretells he will resurrect himself. The text reads: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' (RSV) The misunderstand his statement and this becomes a source of accusation years later. John himself explains in verse 21: 'But he was speaking of the temple of his body.' No where else is this parabolic phrase of the Nazarene used to indicate Jesus would raise or resurrect himself.
Is it fair that the Nazarene's phrase in John 2.19 is couched in parabolic or metaphorical language? He uses the Temple (naos) illustrative of his body. In what way could he mean metamorphically that "he would raise his body in three days"? The Beloved Apostle is to be unique in recording the answer to this in later verses. Compare John 10.15, 18: 'And I lay down my life for the sheep. ... No one takes (my life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay (my life) down, and I have power to take (my life) up again. I have received this command from my Father.' (RSV) Here the subject is the "life" of the Son. Though he can lay it down and take it up again, he can do this only as he is given authority from the Father. By his own course of integrity and self-sacrifice, the Nazarene may of his own free will give up his body or life for the sake of the sheep. By this obedient course, he, in affect, takes up his own life again, just as the Father promised. (Is ch 53; Ph 2.5-9)
It would be our conviction, if this phrase of Ignatius really dates from the early Second Century, that he is using the same metaphor in the same sense the Nazarene used it.
3. Is the Son ungenerated, impalpable, and impassible? Ignatius writes to the Ephesians, section 7: "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man ... first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord." And, again, in Polycarp, section 3: "Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible, who suffered for our sake." (Lightfoot, pages 65, 87) [NOTE: other versions of Ignatius add several other phrases, but these are not found in Lightfoot.]
This language is unique to a degree to Ignatius and cannot be found in the inspired canon. For example, no inspired writer speaks of the Son as "ungenerate." He is everywhere spoken of as "begotten." (John 1.14, 18. Compare also Proverbs 8.22-30) We suspect this word "ungenerate" to be a later addition by a post-Nicene Trinitarian.
It is difficult to understand if Ignatius means by "impalpable" (untouchable; not perceptible to the touch) the human or heavenly Jesus, for John writes: "Our own hands felt (the Word)." (1 John 1.1) Likewise, Impassable describes the Christ as someone whom none can pass. This is obscure and open to several interpretations.
The phrase "God in man" is also no where found in the inspired canon. No Bible writers described Jesus as "God in man," "God in the flesh," of "God-man." Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3.16, according to the KJV, "God was manifest in the flesh." However, other scholars prefer either the word "who" or "he" inferring Jesus. (See notes elsewhere)
Was Ignatius a Trinitarian? One Trinitarian wrote on the Internet: "There are cult groups who deny the Trinity and state that the doctrine was not mentioned until the 4th Century. ... The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea."
If we take the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by later creeds and understand the teaching as that of a plural God in three persons, then we must state that Ignatius does not teach such. Though he forms a few triune formulas, these do not approach a Trinity doctrine. Some of his triune formulas include Mary or the Apostles. We have also see that dual formulas excluding the holy spirit appear much more often. Also, when Ignatius has opportunity to include the Spirit he omits it. The bishop seems to us to believe in two Gods -- the Father and the Son, but never includes the holy spirit in such a designation. We would, indeed, classify him as a henotheist.
Was Ignatius an apostate? There is much of Ignatius' language which is alien to the inspired epistles. Particularly the several mentions of Mary -- something never done by Paul or even Peter -- raises the suspicion someone has added to Ignatius much later when mariolatry become much more prominent in the Catholic Church. Lightfoot suspects the text when he writes: " ... the epistle of Polycarp is closely connected with the Long Recension of the Ignatian Epistles. This fact, if it had stood by itself, would have thrown some discredit on the integrity of the text. It might have been suspected that the same hand which interpolated the Ignatian Epistles had tampered with this (Polycarp epistle) also." (page 93)
Additionally, Ignatius' strong emphasis on the bishophry seems alien to anything like it to be found in John or Paul. Ignatius' language sounds strong Catholic which would indicate either later editing during a period when the Trinity, Mary worship, and the power of the Catholic Church were gaining greater strength.
If Ignatius was a contemporary of the Apostle John, and if the views expressed in Ignatius' epistles are viewed along a strongly Trinitarian bent, then could the Bishop of Antioch fit those descriptions given by Paul and John? Paul warns: "The apostasy is already at work." (2 Thessalonians 2.1-9) And, John, thirty years later, writes, "Little children, it is the last hour and already many antichrists have come." (1 John chs 2, 4) Thus, the language of Ignatius, alien to that language of John and Paul, may indicate this inworking apostasy.
Regardless, it would be our determination that Ignatius does not declare a Trinity doctrine which holds to only one God with three co-substantial persons. Rather he declares the Father is a God and the Son is a God, thus he believes in a henotheistic view.
WAS POLYCARP A TRINITARIAN?
Who was Polycarp?
Polycarp was born about 69 C.E. in Asia Minor, at Smyrna (the modern-day Turkish city of Izmir). Polycarp was noted for generosity, self-denial, kindly treatment of others, and diligent study of the Scriptures. In time he became a presbyter in the ecclesia in Smyrna.
Irenaeus records Polycarp "was not only instructed by apostles, and had intercourse with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed for Asia by apostles, in the church that is in Smyrna an overseer." 
On February 23, 155 the Roman proconsul tested Polycarp: "Take the oath and I release you; revile Christ." Polycarp answered: "Eighty-six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who has saved me?" He was then martyred.
Polycarp wrote a brief epistle to the Philippian ecclesia. He was a contemporary of Ignatius who was martyred before Polycarp. We are interested in Polycarp's view of God and His relationship with the Son. Some Trinitarians argue Polycarp was a Trinitarian. We wonder if this is true. Did Polycarp teach God was a plurality of three persons?
Polycarp was a henotheist.
Polycarp mentions the Spirit only once in section 5, never indicating it was a person or in anyway connected in a Trinitarian manner to God and Jesus. Indeed, after Paul's manner, the Holy Spirit is missing in Polycarp's greeting: " ... from God Almighty and Jesus Christ our Saviour." Here it is clear there are two persons, distinct from one another and apparently no co-equal: God Almighty and Jesus.
In section 1, Polycarp mentions " ... chosen of God and our Lord" and a bit later, " ... the will of God through Jesus Christ." Clearly there is a God and a Lord here. Here Jesus is not confused with God. Similar phrases occur in section 3 -- "God and Christ"; section 5 -- "God and Christ" twice.
Unlike Ignatius who infers Christ raised himself (see above), Polycarp several times states that God the Father raised Jesus from death. (sec1, 2, 9, 12)
Does Polycarp call Jesus "God"? Apparently so. In section 12, he writes: " .. who believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and His Father that raised Him from the dead." (Lightfoot, page 99) If this phrase be correct, then Polycarp believed in two Gods: God the Father, the God of our Lord; and, the Lord Jesus himself, also a God. Thus, Polycarp was a henotheist, believing in one Absolute God, but understanding others may be called "God."
Polycarp makes it clear that Jesus Christ has a God, for he writes, after Paul's own manner in Ephesians 1.3, 17: "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High-priest Himself, the [Son of] God Jesus Christ build you up in faith and truth ... " In other words, "the God of ... our Lord." Thus, we have one God here that of Jesus himself. (Lightfoot, page 99)
There may be another version of these verses of Polycarp. One version expands on this by saying: "O Lord God almighty ... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever." (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040)
This disagreement raises immediate suspicion. The former version omits the "Holy Spirit" and thus any Trinitarian formula. The later version also changes the phrase which would indicate the Father is the God of the Lord Jesus. With two versions presented we must approach them with caution.
Was Polycarp a Trinitarian?
Despite the later phrase above which mentions God Almighty, Jesus the High-priest, and the Holy Spirit, it is clear there is one God Almighty and Jesus is the high priest of such, just as Aaron was to Yahweh. Polycarp states nothing which would indicate the Holy Spirit was a person. Nor does he in any way indicate there is a plurality of three in one God.
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS -- TRINITARIAN?
Lightfoot lists an epistle of unknown authorship, though some connect it to Justin Martyr. It is dated around the middle of the Second Century. How does this letter deal with the subject of God and His Son?
We note the Holy Spirit is missing from the letter. Also missing is any triune formulations. The writer is henotheistic as a consideration will show. In section 7 it reads: "But truly the Almighty Creator of the Universe, the Invisible God Himself from heaven planted among men the truth ... by sending to mankind ... the very Artificer and Creator of the Universe Himself, by Whom He made the heavens. ... Him he sent unto them. ... He has sent Him, as a king might send his son who is a king. he sent Him, as sending God." There are, thus, two Gods in his language. He omits mentioned the Holy Spirit completely. The language echoes Proverbs 8.22-30 where such a helpful Artificer is mentioned as a Master-worker.
In section 8, the letter reads: "For God, the Master and Creator of the Universe, Who made all things and arranged them in order ... He alone is good. And having conceived a great and unutterable scheme He communicated it to His Son alone." It seems clear the conception of creation originates in this God who is the Master and Creator and His Son only learns of it by communication.
This "Word" is described in section 11: "For which cause He sent forth the Word, that he might appear unto the world. ... This Word, Who was from the beginning, Who appeared as new and yet was proved to be old." Note, not eternal, but only "old."
That the writer is henotheistic is shown where he is not embarrassed to say in section 10: "Whoever by supplying to those that are in want possessions which he received from God becomes a God to those who receive from him." So, he uses theos as to a charitable person.
WAS IRENAEUS A TRINITARIAN?
Who was Irenaeus?
Catholic Online Saints: "The writings of St. Irenaeus entitle him to a high place among the fathers of the Church. ... He was probably born about the year 125. ... In the year 177, Irenaeus was sent to Rome. ... He returned to Lyons (France) to (become bishop). ... He produced a treatise in five books in which he sets forth fully the inner doctrines of the various sects, and afterwards constrast them with the teaching of the Apostles and the text of the Holy Scripture. ... It is believed (he died) in the year 202."
Did Irenaeus teach God was the plurality of three persons?
It may be stated with great certainty that he did not. Indeed, he no where comes close to the Trinity Creed of Constantine. Though what might be called triune formulas including Father, Son, and Holy Spirit occur, generally the dual formula of God and Jesus appears most often, omitting the Spirit.
For example, consider: " ... in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Heresies, BK I, III, 6.13) Note the spirit is absent. Note also, it is only the Father here who is declared to be God. " ... there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth ... and one Christ the Son of God." (Heresies, BK III, I, 2) Again the spirit is missing and the Creator is called God, not the Son. " .. believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God." (Heresies, BK III, IV, 2 (3)) Here it is shown the One God created everything "by means of" his Son. Again the spirit is absent from the dual formula.
In Heresies chapters V and VI Irenaeus begins to discuss this term God and Lord and shows it has degrees or qualifications. It should be understood that the main of his argumentation has been against Gnostics who assert there is another God above the Father and Creator. It is in this context one must understand some of the things he writes. For example, consider: "Neither did His disciples make mention of any other God, or term any other Lord, except Him, who was truly the God and Lord of all." (III, V, 1.8)
Chapter VI, 1 Irenaeus writes: "Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God, nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation." 
Irenaeus then cites Psalm 110.1 which mentions two Lords, explaining: "Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father [LORD = Yahweh] addressing the Son. ... Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son is truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord." (III, VI, 1.4)
He continues, using the same argument as Justin Martyr, and later Eusebius, in the use of Genesis 19.24 to prove two Lords. He writes: "For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites." He infers tat the angel of Yahweh who had spoken with Abraham was the pre-existent Son.
Now, in this same section, he passes on to the term "God." Quoting Psalm 45.6, 7, Irenaeus argues there are two Gods: "For the Spirit designates both of them by the name, of God --- both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is the Father." He does this again, using verses quoted by the Nazarene himself (John 10.30-36), that is Psalm 82.1: "'God [Father] stood in the congregation [Greek LXX = synagogue] of the gods, He [Son] judges among the gods [the Church].' He here refers to the Father and the Son, and ... the Church."
Again, Irenaeus quotes Deuteronomy 10.17 with a most interesting application: "'The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.' (3) Who is meant by God? .... the Son. ... But of what gods does he speak? ... To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the 'adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.'" Clearly, here Irenaeus is henotheistic in his theology. For, he calls God the Father, as well as the Son, as well as the members of the Church.
In VI, 3 he explains this: "When, however, the Scripture terms them gods which are no gods, it does not ,as I have already remarked, declare them as gods in every sense, but with a certain addition and signification." This is earlier explained in Book II, chapter I, 3: "But then that which is greater is also stronger, and in a greater degree Lord; and that which is greater, and stronger, and in a greater degree Lord -- must be God." He does something similar in this book when he comments on John 14.20: "We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For 'the Father,' says He, 'is greater than I.' The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge." (Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8)
Again, explaining the degrees or qualifications to the term God, Irenaeus quotes 1 Corinthians 8.5, 6 regarding "many gods" he writes: "And Moses himself, being a man of God, was indeed given as a god before Pharaoh." (See Exodus 7.1, 2) Often Irenaeus qualifies his term by referring to the "Supreme God." He makes it quite clear that it is only the Father who is Creator. 
However, he shows the Son was an agent in this Creation when he writes: "For that all things ... created by Him who is God over all, through His Word." Then quoting John 1.3 he continues, "Whom, therefore did He command? The Word, no doubt, 'by whom,' he says, 'the heavens were established.' ... So that he indeed who made all things can along, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord." We note the holy spirit is not included in this declaration, as if the spirit could be called God and Lord.
There is no question, Irenaeus believes God the Father is greater in knowledge than the Son, using Matthew 24.36 as proof.
Summary.
We may strongly affirm that Irenaeus teaches there is only one Supreme God, who is the Father and Creator and that "the Father Himself is alone called 'God'." (Heresies, Book II, XXVIII, 4) We may affirm Irenaeus no where teaches that God is a plurality of three persons; nor does he ever declare the holy spirit to be either a person or God. Irenaeus is henotheistic in his theology.
WAS JUSTIN MARTYR A TRINITARIAN?
Who was he?
Justin Martyr was born in Palestine around the year 100 AD and died in Rome around 165 AD. He is considered "one of the most important of the Greek philosopher-apologists in the early church." Among other works, he wrote an apology in appeal to Emperor Titus Caesar and the Roman Senate. He also responded to Trypho the Jew about Christian beliefs.
Was Justin Martyr a Trinitarian?
While many scholars agree the Trinity is not found in the Bible and was a doctrine developed partially in the Fourth Century, other Trinitarians insist Justin Martyr taught the Trinity doctrine. One citation in proof of this is his statement: "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit they then receive washing with water." (First Apology., LXI)
Though what are called "triune formulas" do occur occasionally in Justin Martyr's works, these fall far short -- just as those few in the Bible -- of the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine teaches one God who is the plurality of three persons. Does Justin Martyr teach this? We shall examine two of his works to see.
What did Justin Martyr teach about God and Christ?
Though so-called triune formulas are rare in his works, other "formulas" occur more often. For example, consider a tetra, or four-fold formula, in Apology VI: " ... but not with respect to the most true [1] God, the father ... and the [2] Son ... and good [3] angels ... and the prophetic [4] spirit, we worship and adore." Here Justin Martyr classifies four groups which are worshipped and adored by Christians: God, the Son, the angels, and the prophetic spirit. Note he adds the angels and puts them before what he calls the "prophetic spirit." 
Continuing in his work Apology (ch X), Justin Martyr paraphrases John 1.1 with the words: "... the Word, inasmuch as He is divine." This form is identical to modern translations like Goodspeed and Moffatt which translate the anarthrous theos as an adjective.
In chapter XIII, Justin Martyr writes: "We reseaonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all." Justin Martyr makes it clear to Caesar that Jesus is "second and the prophetic spirit "third." It is clear from this that neither Jesus or the spirit is being declared God, for here that designation belongs to the "eternal God, the Creator." We will see later that Justin Martyr is henotheistic in his theology.
In chapter XXI Justin Martyr writes: "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God was produced ... (in) nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." Again in chapter XXII, Justin Martyr writes: "Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy o be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God." Here Justin Martyr infers the Son is "angelic," something he goes on to do often.
In chapter LI Justin Martyr discusses "the majesty of Christ" and in so doing takes no advantage to describe Jesus as equal to God or of the same substance as God. Rather, Jesus is "the Son of man" who will return one day. In chapter LIII he declares Jesus "the first-born of the unbegotten God." He draws a clear distinction between the begotten Son and the unbegotten God.
Plato's Obligation to Moses.
In chapter LIX Justin Martyr accuses the great philosopher Plato of "borrowing" his theology from the Hebrew Moses. This is something Eusebius will take up more than a century later in his Preparation of the Gospel. In chapter LX Justin Martyr writes, "(Plato) borrowed in like manner from Moses (regarding the doctrine of the Cross). .. Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it be a placing crosswise, he said that the power nest to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe. And as to his speaking of a third, (Plato) did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, 'that the (Pneuma) of God moved over the waters.' (Genesis 1.2) For (Plato) gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, 'And the third around the third.'" Who can deny that Justin Martyr declares Plato has his own triune formula in misunderstanding?
Above Justin Martyr seems to agree with a "first God" and infers a second, though he falls short in declaring a third God, for he no where states the Pneuma is a person at all, but rather the "prophetic spirit."
In chapter LXI Justin Martyr uses a triune formula like Matthew 28.19 when he discusses baptism: "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit (pneuma), they then receive the washing with water." In this "formula" it is clear only one God is mentioned, the Father. No where does Justin Martyr define what could be called t modern Trinity, or somehow describes God as the plurality of three persons.
In chapter LXIII Justin Martyr describes how God appeared to Moses. First he quotes the "prophetic spirit" through Isaiah and the Son that the Jews did not know their "nameless God"; but, the Son did know the Father, just as the Father knew the Son. Then Justin Martyr writes: "Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And (the Son) is called Angel and Apostle." To prove this Justin Martyr quotes from Exodus 3.2, "'And the Angel of God spoke to Moses ... '", then continuing to explain: "But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels." It is clear Justin Martyr believes the "angel of God" in Exodus 3.2 was the Son of God as the pre-existent Word.
Is the Word "god"?
That Justin Martyr is henotheistic, that is, believing in one Absolute God, and yet affirming the Son and others are also called God, is shown in further in the same chapter mentioned above. He writes: "The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle. .. who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets."
Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew
Having explained teachings of Christianity to the Roman Caesar, we now turn to Justin Martyr's dialogue with the Jew Trypho. In the process of convincing the Jew of Christ's pre-existence as the Angel of God, Justin Martyr quotes various texts to prove Christ was "Lord of hosts" and a God in Psalm 45. He writes in chapter XXXVI and XXXVIII: "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts, and Jacob, in parable by he Holy Spirit." Trypho objects: "You seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."
As we have seen in early writings of Justin Martyr this "worship" is qualified as it is also applied to the angels. In his quote of Psalm 45 (44 LXX) Justin Martyr shows that there are two Gods: "Thine arrows are sharpened, O mighty One. ... Thy throne, O God, s for ever and ever. ... therefore, thy God hath anointed Thee." And, then the bride in the hymn is called to worship her husband: "The queen stood at Thy right hand ... because He is thy Lord, they shall worship Him also."
In chapter XLVIII, to the Jew's objection that it is foolish to think "this Christ existed as God before the ages" Justin Martyr continues to express his own convictions whether provable or not. He says: "This man is the Christ of God ... that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God .. (and) "that He pre-existed."
First Justin Martyr proves that Jesus was indeed the Christ by various prophecies, then in chapter LV Trypho demands: " ... show us that the Spirit of prophecy admits another God (be)sides the Maker of all things." Justin Martyr agrees to prove this and in chapter LVI he takes up the proposition: "God who appeared to Moses is distinguished from God the Father." Whether we agree with Justin Martyr or not, we see he is a henotheist, believing another is also called God.
Justin Martyr's argument is one used elsewhere by himself and others, including over a century later, Eusebius. Justin Martyr references Genesis chapters 18 and 19, "God appeared to (Abraham) under the oak in Mamre. ... (Abraham) saw and behold three men stood before him." Justin Martyr explains to Trypho: "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures of the truth of what I saw, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to them."
Justin Martyr continues using the Genesis account of Sodom and the angels who came to Lot. Typhro objects: "You have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham." Justin Martyr replies that his purpose was indeed to "have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel."
Undaunted Justin Martyr continues: "I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, -- numerically, I mean, not in will." Justin Martyr continues with Genesis 19.23 and two Lords and then another person present in the dialogue says: "It most therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham."
Justin Martyr continues using Psalm 110.1 with the mention of two "Lords." And, again Psalm 45.6, 7 and two Gods. Then Justin Martyr offers: "If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord, besides the Father of all things and His Christ, answer me; for I undertake to prove to you from Scriptures themselves, that He whom the Scripture calls Lord is not one of the two angels that went to Sodom, but he who was with them, and is called God, that appeared to Abraham."
Justin Martyr continues with the further account of Lot's escape from Sodom when he calls the rescuing angel "Lord." Justin Martyr concludes this: "And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of three, who is both God and Lord, and minister to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels?" 
In chapter LVIII Justin Martyr continues: "It is again written by Moses, my brethren, that He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things." Justin Martyr goes on in further chapters to expand on the same argument that there is another God is who called Angel, Apostle, and Lord.
In chapter LXII Justin Martyr uses Genesis 1.26 and the phrase, "Let us make," to prove "that [God] conversed with someone who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being." In following chapters this second "rational Being" is another God, the pre-existent Christ.
That Justin Martyr is clearly henotheistic in his theology, affirming that others are "gods" beside the Father and the Son, is shown in chapter CXXIV, or after quoting Psalm 82.1: "Let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming 'gods' and having power to become sons of the Highest. .. Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God.
In chapter CXXV Justin Martyr writes: "(Christ) ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten of all creatures." (Compare the KJV Colossians 1.15)
In chapter CXVI Justin Martyr further demonstrates Christ is an angel by alluding to Isaiah 9.6 in the Septuagint where Messiah is called "the Angel of great counsel."
Chapter CXXVII Justin Martyr writes about the Christ: "He existed before the world was made ... His Son, being God, and the Angel because he ministered to His will."
Chapter CXXIX has Justin Martyr quoting Proverbs 8.22 and applies the Wisdom to the Christ: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. ... He begets me before all the hills." He adds: "You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit."
Summary.
Does it not seem clear from Justin Martyr that he was a henotheist who believe in the Supreme God as the Father and Creator of all, though Christ be a second God, and the Church membership as well become "gods" To Justin Martyr the Holy Spirit is the "prophetic spirit." No where does Justin Martyr teach that The Absolute God is a plurality of three persons. He clearly does not teach a Trinity to either Caesar or the Jew.

Nazarene Saints Publishing © Copyright. 1998. All Rights Reserved. 
c/o Shawn Mark Miller
177 Riverside Ave
Newport Beach, California 92663 USA
email: shawn.miller@underfootinc.com


RELATED LINKS.
The forged letters of Ignatius. 
http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm  


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS -- WERE THEY TRINITARIAN? 
http://www.nazarene-friends.org/pubs/trinity/fathers.php 

SHOCKING_ Proverbs 8_ REFUTES Trinity and those who argue Jesus was ONLY an ordinary mortal man WRONG.
SHOCKING_ Proverbs 8_ REFUTES Trinity and those who argue Jesus was ONLY an ordinary mortal man WRONG.



Jesus in the Book of Enoch_ PROVES JESUS DIVINITY_ MERE MAN_ or GOD_ or NEITHER_ FIND OUT NOW.
Jesus in the Book of Enoch_ PROVES JESUS DIVINITY_ MERE MAN_ or GOD_ or NEITHER_ FIND OUT NOW.
Is Jesus GOD_
Is Jesus GOD_