Satan's 2nd Biggest Lie

'Jesus is God'
The Trinity is the central doctrine of today’s Christian church. It
claims that God exists in three ‘persons’, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. It is a lie. Its advocators don’t know what they are talking
about, they can’t teach it with any semblance of rationality, and their
understanding of it is non-existent—in scripture and in logic.

As an example of the statement I just made, let’s take a look at

a few quotes from respected theologians; quotes that express beliefs
common and essential to the Trinitarian faith. See if you can
understand what they’re talking about! These excerpts are taken
from the New Bible Dictionary, and would be accepted by nearly any
seminary trained scholar or pastor:

The doctrine (of the Trinity) is stated by saying that God is One in his
essential being, but that in his being there are three Persons, yet so
as not to form separate and distinct individuals.

The Son is called the ‘only begotten’ perhaps to suggest uniqueness

rather than derivation.

Before there had been any created being, there was self-revelation
within the Trinity, the Father revealing to the Son, the Father and the
Son revealing to the Spirit, and the Spirit communicating that
revelation within the Being of God.

(Taken from “New Bible Dictionary – 2nd Edition” by Tyndale)

In your own mind, decide whether or not the above doctrine

qualifies as the ‘knowledge’ which Paul speaks of to Timothy in the
next passage.

1 Timothy 6:20 (NKJV)

20 O Timothy! Avoid the idle babblings and contradictions of
what some falsely call knowledge,

Was the previous definition for some attributes of the Trinity an

idle babbling? Were there contradictions? Let me re-write the
captions taken from the New Bible Dictionary, giving the English
dictionary (all definitions taken from dictionary.com) definitions for a
few of the words they use, in order to make their incoherent babble a
little more understandable. You will find that what they have done is
used a lot of words that most people do not understand the meanings
of, and contradicted themselves time and time again, in order to
explain an unexplainable truth.

1
The doctrine is stated by saying that God is One in his essential
(fundamental or necessary) being (that which exists in any
form), (Thus we conclude that God’s fundamental, or most
basic, existence is guided by the fact that He is One. This is
quite Biblically supported, as even Jesus Christ calls it the
‘greatest of all commandments’ in Mark 12:29)

but that in his being (existence) there are three Persons

(composites [or sets] of characteristics that make up an
individual personality), yet so as not to form separate and distinct
individuals.

(Thus we conclude that God, while in His basic state of

existence is One, within that One existence are three sets of
characteristics that make up 3 individuals, however God’s
existence does not actually form any distinct individuals--I’d
like to mention at this point that God is not the author of
confusion; 1 Corinthians 14:33)

The Son is called the ‘only (unique) begotten (existence caused

by a source)’ perhaps to suggest uniqueness (being the only one
of its kind) rather than derivation (to obtain or receive from a
source)

(You see, in coming to the conclusion that ‘only begotten’

suggests uniqueness, not derivation, they only produce an
answer for the ‘only’ part of ‘only begotten’. They forget the
‘begotten’ part, which in no way suggests uniqueness.
However, the very word that they claim ‘begotten’ does not
represent, derivation, has a nearly identical meaning to
‘begotten’. However, if they keep the meaning of ‘begotten’
as is, then Jesus can’t be God, because he wouldn’t be
eternal. What the writers are inherently claiming, in order
that their faith may not be wrong, is that God is extremely
unskilled in His use of vocabulary--I’d say about a third grade
level, as He uses words which contain meanings that He
obviously does not want to get across.)

Before there had been any created being, there was self (I’m not
going to define ‘self’, because it’s so obvious)-revelation (to
make known something concealed or secret) within the Trinity,
the Father revealing to the Son, the Father and the Son revealing to
the Spirit, and the Spirit communicating that revelation within the
Being of God (What in the world does that even mean? The
‘Being of God’? If the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit have
already received the revelation from each other, what part of
God is left to receive more?).
(Taken from “New Bible Dictionary – 2nd Edition” by Tyndale)

2
(Thus in recap, we understand that God exists fundamentally
as One, but as three persons with individual characteristics,
but not as three individuals, in a state where He does not
understand the meaning of the words He created, and has
found a way in which to reveal secret and unknown things to
Himself between those three persons which are not individual
from one another. And He knows everything. Oh, I get it let’s
worship Him!)

As if this were not enough confusion and non-Biblical babble,

there is more! Take a look at a number of quotes, all from the
beginning of titled sections, in the New Bible Dictionary explaining
exactly how it is that we came to the ‘wonderful and beautiful’
revelation of the Trinity. Remember that the person who writes these
things actually believes in themyou won’t think so as you read.

The word ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible, and though used by
Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a
place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th
century. It is, however, the distinctive and all-comprehensive
doctrine of the Christian faith. (I’m not sure I see his logic…)

Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any

formulation (to express in systematic terms or concepts) of it
can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of
God, implicit (implied or understood, though not directly
expressed) in the Old Testament and explicit (fully and clearly
expressed, leaving nothing implied) in the New Testament.
(Let me get this straight; it is not expressed using concepts in
any way in the Bible, but it IS fully and clearly expressed. I
have a question; how can you fully and clearly express
something without using concepts? Only God can! In case
you didn’t get that, I’m being sarcastic. God created
concepts for a reason; so he could express things!)

Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the

Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has
constructed the doctrine. (Just because alphabet soup has all
the letters, this does not mean we should attempt to read our
soup. The fact of the matter is that the Bible contains the
‘elements’ to preach mass genocide, but unless the
‘elements’ are taken in the ‘formula’ that God uses, they are
void.)

The necessity to formulate the doctrine was thrust upon the

church by forces from without <the church>. (Pg. 1222,
Formulation, “New Bible Dictionary”)

I’d like to end my defense of the fact that the Trinity is self-
contradicting, senseless, and insulting to God by use of its own

3
advocators on this note: If you believe in the Trinity, you don’t
understand what you believe (understanding something means that
you can express that thing using intelligible concepts; not simply
claim you understand it, but can’t explain it. This is why we have
tests in school—in order to prove understanding). Jesus told us to
‘know the truth’, and he also told us to ‘worship in truth’. If you can’t
understand God, you cannot adequately worship Him.

I do not presume to write an exhaustive proof of the falsities

contained in this belief, but I will mention enough to inspire quite a bit
of doubt in the average church attendee. I also suggest two books on
the subject that will prove exceedingly enlightening to anyone wishing
to learn more on this in particular:

One God
The Unfinished Reformation,
Robert Carden
Grace Christian Fellowship
1701 Quincy Ave - Suite 17
Naperville, IL 60540
(630) 983-5577

One God & One Lord

Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith, 685 pages
Mark H. Graeser, John A. Lynn, John W. Schoenheit
Available through Christian Educational Services
2144 East 52 Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46205
1-888-255-6189
www.CESOnline.org

The first book, One God, is decently short and easy to read, and
explains in immaculate terms the fact that Jesus Christ is not, and
cannot, be God Almighty Himself. A couple of days are all it will take
to gain an accurate understanding of God’s Word through this book,
assuming you have been brought up in the lie. One God & One Lord,
on the other hand, rivals the size of the largest college texts. It is far
more detailed, gives scriptural accuracy in the Trinity struggle, defines
a clear relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father, and
could be used as ‘Logic 151’ in many universities. Extensive
references and studies are plentiful, and will turn the eye of even the
most accomplished Biblical Scholar. This book, though, is not for the
feint of heart, and will take quite a commitment to finish.

Even though you may be coming to this book with a previous

belief in the Trinity, I am going to use the same tactic of discovering
Satan’s lie for this one as for the previous lie. The mal-effects of the
false doctrine will be outlined at the end of the section, for further
understanding. As we have previously learned, step one in the lying
process is to quote God, and skew the meaning. The Bible is very

4
large (one of the longest books known to man), and as such Satan has
been able to use more than simply one misquote of it. I will go over
two of those verses, the two that are probably used most commonly
in ‘proving’ this false doctrine, and if questions of other verses linger,
please feel free to explore either of the two books aforementioned.
The two verses that we will take a look at are:

John 8:58 (NKJV)

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham
was, I AM.”

John 10:30 (NKJV)

30 “I and my Father are one.”

The current English Bible translations, along with nearly every

doctrinal school and scholar, would claim that Christ was indeed
making a ‘divine claim’ to the Pharisees who were seeking to kill him
in both these verses. In many Bible translations, the phrase in 8:58 is
rendered ‘I AM’ (all caps), making elusions to Exodus chapter 3, where
God tells Moses that His name is ‘I AM’ (In the original Greek
manuscripts, everything is in capital letters, hence any differential in
capitalization is strictly a choice of the translators—they have
translated this verse in all caps to imply the meaning they wish it to
have).

I have heard, on many occasions, people claiming that this

statement is identical to the statement in Exodus as translated in the
Septuagint (Sept-a-jent: the Greek translation of Hebrew Old
Testament). Keep in mind, as we study these two verses, that the
Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew, and the English
translations are not the inspired word of God, they are a person’s
interpretation of the inspired word of God, and thus these
interpretations can be wrong.

In the following paragraphs, the possibilities of what Christ was

intending to say to his accusers will be made evident – even to the
extent that Jesus making a divine claim in no way fits either scenario.

Taking a situation in context is absolutely necessary when

determining intent. Context is defined as the ‘situation in which the
event occurs’. Why is it important to understand the situation as a
whole? Because the same set of words in on instance could imply a
totally different meaning in another. For example, if I were to say ‘I
walked into a bar yesterday’, the words by themselves could imply
two completely separate meanings. One would be a quite painful
experience, whereas the other would simply be stating my entrance
into a building. Only context can determine the actual intent of my
words.

5
 This is as true today as it was two thousand years ago, during
the time around Christ’s birth. The phrase ‘Before Abraham was, I
am’ is vague at best, and grammatically incorrect at worst. Thus, a
further examination of the discussion at hand (the context) is
completely necessary, along with examining the interpretation of the
Greek words into English. All avenues simply must be exhausted
when looking for a non-confusing answer. Not only this, but once all
avenues are discovered, the scenario which best fits the context of
the situation must be taken. Beyond that, the decided
interpretation must also fit with the Bible as a whole.

All too many times, Christians have put on blinders concerning

the doctrine of the Trinity, and thus can only see in one direction. Any
verse that has an inkling of resemblance to the ever popular doctrine
is used as evidence to support it, many times completely ignoring the
context of the verse itself.

The most obvious case of this is John 10:30, where Christ

claims, ‘I and my Father are one’. This verse can, if interpreted in one
manner, support part of the Trinitarian doctrine, which is that the
Father is God, and the son is God, and they are one God. This verse is
used as proof by nearly all Trinitarian sympathizers, but the context
of the situation, not to mention some later words from our Lord
Jesus, contradict this personal interpretation of John 10:30 mightily.
Let’s take a look at the context of this claim in order to establish a
concrete meaning on Christ’s part. (The next passage is not a direct
quote, it’s written to establish context. Represented here is John
10:24-38.)

The Jews say to Jesus, ‘If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.’

Jesus replies, ‘I already told you, and you don’t believe me. These
mighty works that you see me do in my Father’s name, they tell you
who I am – but you still don’t believe because you aren’t of my sheep
– but I already told you all this. My sheep hear my voice, and I know
all of them, and they follow me. I give my sheep eternal life, and they
won’t die; nor will anyone take them out of my hand. My Father, who
gave them to me, is greater than all; and no one has the power to
take them from my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’

After he said this, all the Jews decided to stone him. Jesus, knowing
that he didn’t do anything wrong, asked the obvious question, ‘All I’ve
shown you are good works which came from my Father. So for which
of those things are you stoning me exactly?’

The Jews answered, ‘We don’t stone you because of your good works,
but because of your blasphemy, because you, being a man, make
yourself God (or ‘a god’)’

6
So Jesus answered back, ‘Doesn’t it say in your law I said, “You are
gods”? If God called them gods, to whom His word came (and the
scripture can’t be wrong), why do you say that I’m blaspheming
because I say that I’m the son of God? If I don’t do the work of my
Father, then don’t believe me! But if I do, even though you still don’t
believe me, at least believe the work, so that you’ll know and believe
that the Father is in me, and I in him.’

Then they tried to grab him, but he got away.

The first thing that jumps out when looking at these passages
is, if Christ were claiming to be God almighty, and this is the reason
that the Jews were going to stone him, Christ’s refute does not
match the accusation!

This would be like some one accusing me of stealing a cookie,

and then me replying, “Oh yeah, well I didn’t even touch the ice
cream!” My defense, which protects me from being found guilty of
ice cream theft, does not help at all with my cookie dilemma. Since
Jesus is not stupid, there is no chance that he would say something
like this. In order for you to understand why it is that Christ’s defense
doesn’t match the crime, I have to teach you a bit about Greek—it will
get confusing if you don’t already know it, so read slow and
understand as much as you can.

How do we know that his defense doesn’t fit the crime? Well,
during Christ’s time period, and truthfully throughout all time,
mankind has always sought to make gods out of men. Take for
instance the legacy of the Roman Caesar (who was considered to be a
living god), or Acts 14, when Paul and Barnabas came to Lystra,
healed a lame man, and were immediately proclaimed by the locals to
be Zeus and Hermes come down as men. This story is part of our
focus, as we learn a valuable truth from it.

In the Biblical account of Paul and Barnabas being called ‘gods’,

the Greek word for ‘gods’ used in is the same one that’s used for
THE one true God earlier in John, that word being theos. That means
that this Greek word may either mean the Ancient of Days (THE God)
or a lesser god (not that there are any, but people believe there are,
thus a word is needed). This is not a hard concept to understand, as
there are many English words that have multiple meanings.

We can also note that in general the method of distinguishing

between the Ancient of Days and a lesser god is to omit or include a
little Greek word called ‘the article’. This word usually doesn’t even
need to be translated into English, but it is necessary in
understanding sentence meanings in the Greek language.

Noticing whether or not ‘the article’ is present is especially

important when translating conversations where a clear distinction

7
needs to be made between ‘THE God’ and ‘a god’, because the same
word is used for both—I will call this the ‘article theme’.

When translating, one must recognize whether the ‘article

theme’ is present in the context, or not. There are exceptions to this
trend, but there are usually reasons for the exceptions. I bring this
fact up, though, due to the Greek wording used by Christ and the
Pharisees during their dispute. The article theme is blatantly present
in their conversation.

Now that you know about theos and the ‘article theme’, you can
understand better how it is that Christ’s refute of the Jews’ accusation
toward him does not apply if they are accusing him of claiming to be
the Ancient of Days. Let’s take a look at the Old Testament scripture
he quotes to combat their accusation:

Psalm 82:1 (NKJV)

1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the
gods (Hebrew ‘elohim’)

Psalm 82:6 (NKJV)

6 I (God) said, “You are gods (Hebrew ‘elohim’), and all of you are
children of the Most High.”

Now, just as theos is the Greek word that can be translated as

‘God’ or ‘a god’, we see that elohim is the Hebrew word that serves
the same two functions. That is, referring to the Ancient of Days, or
referring to mini gods (In English, this would be equivalent to ‘mighty
men’ or ‘false gods’, and not gods deserving of worship). It may even
be translated as ‘mighty ones’, or ‘judges’.

In this Psalm, the one that Jesus uses to refute the Jews’ claims
against him, elohim is obviously not referring to the Ancient of Days
(the one true God), since He calls the ‘children of the Most High’
by the name elohim.

This is dually confirmed by Jesus Christ in verse 35, who refers

to those who were called gods (in the Greek, theous, without the
article) as people ‘to whom the word of God (tou [article] theou)
came’. Thus we have it confirmed that the Hebrew word elohim
serves the same functions as the Greek word theos. We also see that
Jesus Christ didn’t use the article when speaking of the ‘mini Gods’,
but he did use the article when speaking of the one true God1[1].

Essentially, Christ’s argument is that their own scriptures call

men gods, thus it is not necessarily blasphemy to call a man a god in

1[1] Jesus didn’t actually speak Greek (at least most of the time—he may have known
how), but we must take the Greek grammar as absolutely accurate in describing what he
meant, because the Apostles were God inspired when they wrote these accounts.

8
this sense. However, we are taught that the Jews did not think he was
making himself a god in this sense; we are taught that the Jews
wanted to stone him for making himself out to be the Ancient of Days;
THE God.

Why would Christ use an argument that didn’t even defend the
case made against him? The obvious answer to this is that it DID
defend the case against him. The Jews were not claiming that he was
making himself out to be THE God; they were claiming that he was
making himself out to be a god. Does their grammar in the Greek
back this up? Absolutely!

When the Jews claim that Christ makes himself out to be ‘God’,
there is no article, whereas every time ‘THE God’ is mentioned
during this conversation, the article is included, thus making it safe
to assume that the article theme is active. A better translation of
verse 33 would be, ‘You, being a man, make yourself a god’. Why is
it not translated in this manner? Those darn doctrinal blinders!

So if Christ wasn’t claiming that he was the Ancient of Days by

saying ‘I and the Father are one’, what was he claiming? Well, the
next obvious question to ask would be ‘Christ and the Father are one
what?’ The most foolish thing a person could do is immediately
interpret this ‘oneness’ as ‘one substance’ or ‘one God’. Why? Well,
if we take a look at what Jesus says a little later on in John, we are
enlightened as to why.

John 17:20, 21, 22 (NKJV)

20 I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in
me through their word;
21 that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in
you (recognize that wording from Jesus’ little speech to the
Pharisees earlier?); that they may be one in us, that the world
may believe that you sent me.
22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them, THAT they
may be one just as we are one…

Not only does Christ use the same wording in saying ‘as you,
Father, are in me, and I in you;’ as he does in chapter 10 verse 38
(that the Father is in me, and I in Him), but he also claims that he
wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. It seems undeniable
that Christ is speaking of the same subject here as he is back in
chapter 10. Notice, if you will, that he claims that we should be one IN
THEM.

I certainly am not God, nor are any of my Christian brothers and

sisters around the world. Thus being one with Christ and with God, in
the same way that Christ and the Father are one, must not be
referring to one God, or one in substance.

9
 The most obvious clue we have as to what Christ means by this
statement comes in verse 22, where he states, “And the glory which
you gave me I have given them, THAT (hina, better translated here
as ‘in order that’) they may be one just as we are one” Christ tells us
exactly what he means when he says ‘one’, he means one in GLORY!
His Father gave him glory so that they could be one in glory, and
Christ gave us that glory, so that we could be one in glory with them.

Thus we have a wonderful interpretation for Christ’s meaning in

these instances, and not only that, but we have averted a potential
problem in making ourselves equal with God. This is one of the
stumbling blocks that Mormons have, and one of the main
combinations of verses that they use to prove to Christians that we
will all be gods of our own worlds once we get to heaven! If Jesus and
God being ‘one’ means they are one God, and we as saints are
supposed to be ‘one’ with them, just as Christ and the Father are
‘one’, then it is logical to conclude that we are to be God as well.
Thank the Lord that this is not the case! Let’s take a final look at
every piece of evidence for the interpretation of these verses:

1.
Because of the lack of the article in front of theon in chapter 10
verse 33, Grammatically speaking, it makes more sense that the Jews
were saying Christ claimed to be ‘a god’, not ‘THE God’.

2.
Christ sites a verse from the Old Testament in his defense, and
this verse obviously defends against the supposed blasphemy of men
being called gods, not men being called THE God. This defense would
have been irrelevant if the accusations were such that he was
claiming to be THE God. It is not possible that Christ would have used
an argument that didn’t even concern his situation.

3.
Later in John, the same wording expresses what is necessarily
the same idea, only we (God’s chosen ones) are included in this
‘oneness’. We, however, are not going to be God with Him. Thus,
that interpretation must be incorrect.
4.
In the same part of John, Christ tells us specifically that this
‘oneness’ is one in glory. You can’t ask for a much clearer explanation
than that!

The true intent of Christ in this tenth chapter of John now seems
quite evident. The wrong intent has all surfaced because we as
Christians wear blinders to the true interpretations of verses, by
jumping to conclusions that are false in order to support beliefs that
they may not support, and following the enemy down the exact path
that he wishes. If we have proof for our core belief, let that proof not

10
be fabricated or accepted simply on the basis that the core belief
itself is true.

We will now delve into John 8:58, the ‘I AM’ statement. This one
is a bit more involved, but the basics of Greek that we learned in the
last explanation will help. Here is the context of what went on during
the eighth chapter of John, verses 47-59 (Again, not an exact quote):

Jesus has just finished telling that they Jews are not of God. They
retort with, ‘Oh yeah? Well isn’t it true that you are a Samaritan and
have a demon?’

He is obviously not a Samaritan, so he doesn’t even bother with that

question, and replies, ‘I don’t have a demon, but at least I honor my
Father, and you dishonor me. I don’t seek my own glory; there is One
who seeks and judges. Truthfully, if you keep my word, you shall
never see death.’

This seems very absurd to them, ‘Now we know you have a demon!
Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and you say that if we keep your
word we won’t die? Are you greater than Abraham, who is dead, or
the prophets who are dead? Just who do you make yourself out to
be?’

Jesus answered, ‘If I honor myself, my honor is nothing. It is my

Father who honors me, of whom you say that He’s your God. Yet, you
haven’t known Him, but I know him. And if I say that I don’t know
him, then I’ll be a liar like you! But I do know Him and keep His word.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was
glad.’

The Jews reply, ‘You aren’t even fifty yet, and you’ve seen Abraham?’

Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham

was, I am.’

Then they tried to stone him, but he got away again.

Verse 58 says, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham

was, I am.’ The theologians and scholars would have us think one of
two things about Christ’s intent in this verse.

1.
Christ was implying that before Abraham existed, he
existed. This would, for the most part, prove that Jesus Christ
is indeed a person of the Ancient of Days.

The main problem with this interpretation is the grammar. You

see, if one wished to claim that he existed before something or
someone, he would have to use the past tense of the verb ‘to exist’.

11
Jesus Christ, in the Greek, said ‘ego eimi’. This is not the past tense
of the verb ‘to exist’. In fact, it’s not even the past tense of any
verb. This phrase contains the present tense of the verb ‘to be’. If
Christ was attempting to claim that he existed before Abraham by
using a verb in the present tense, he would be very bad at grammar.
It would be much like me stating, “Before I was in a car accident, I
drive my car.” You see, I sound like a two year old.

He couldn’t have been bad at grammar, as many people called

him ‘Rabbi’, or ‘teacher’, thus this is not the meaning he intended by
using the present tense of the verb ‘to be’, or eimi in Greek.

The biblical scholars who believe that Christ was claiming ‘he
existed before Abraham did’ often ignore the fact that the word
translated as ‘Abraham was’ is not a form of ‘eimi’ at all. This means
that the two words (Abraham was, and I am), because they are
different words, obviously serve a different function and meaning in
the sentence. If Christ was attempting to claim that he existed before
Abraham, he would have needed to use the same word supplied for
‘Abraham was’. He didn’t say it that way, so he didn’t mean it that
way. Thus, there is no way that Christ is trying to say ‘he existed
before Abraham’.

2.
Others would have you think that Christ is making a
direct reference to the name of God given in Exodus, ‘I AM’,
and claiming this name for himself. In essence, Christ would
be saying, ‘Before Abraham even existed, I am God, the One
who IS.’

They claim that the wording is the same, thus we can make a
strong connection. Well, there are a few problems with that theory.
First of all, the exact wording of the Hebrew story translated into
Greek, or vice versa, cannot truly be determined. Assuming that the
Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) is
wholly accurate in the way God intended it, which most certainly may
be, the wording that God gives as His name in Exodus IS NOT the
same wording Christ uses in John.

Grammatically speaking, the verb ‘eimi’ always requires a

predicate. The predicate is the ‘what?’ of to be. To find it, when you
come across a form of ‘to be’, simply ask yourself ‘to be what?’ If the
‘what?’ is not explicitly stated, it may be implied by the context of the
sentence. A good example of this is in John 9:9, when a man Christ
healed is talking to the Pharisees.

John 9:8-9 (NKJV)

8 Therefore (because Jesus healed him) the neighbors and those who
previously had seen that he was blind said, “Is not this he who sat
and begged?”

12
9 Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I
am <he> (ego eimi).”

The <he> is not in the Greek, so the man basically said ‘I am’.
He quite obviously wasn’t saying, ‘I exist.’, because that would make
no sense at all. The predicate he, in this case referring to ‘the blind
man who was healed’, was inserted by translators. This is perfectly
legal, and sometimes quite necessary for comprehension. This same
phrase, ego eimi, is used in Exodus chapter three, but not in the way
most would have you think. Let’s take a look at that verse so that we
can understand the grammar applied.

Exodus 3:14 (Septuagint)

Oops, that’s Greek. Here is the English version.

Exodus 3:14 (NKJV)

14 And God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ And He said, ‘Thus you
shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’

God does call himself by the name ‘I AM’, but what is the Greek
source of that English translation? In the following verse, I have put
these things

[…]

around ego eimi, so you can see it (remember that this is the verb
Christ used in John). I have also put these things

<…>

around the Greek words ho on. The phrase ho on is used in

Revelation to describe God (He who is, and He who was etc.). It can
be rendered as ‘I am’, but is probably more accurately rendered as
‘the one who exists’. The English translations for those words appear
under the Greek.

     [       
and said God to Moses I am I AM and said
       
Him say to the sons Israel I AM has sent me

Notice that ho on (the words in bold) is what God uses as His

name. It now becomes evident that God DID NOT say ‘ego eimi’ in
reference to His name, He said ‘ho on’. The ‘eimi’ present is simply
acting as a verb which connects the predicate to the subject it’s
describing.

In this case ho on (He who exists) is describing God (or ego, I).
Thus, the eimi links the two; to say that ‘eimi’ somehow connects

13
Exodus with John is foolhardy. Christ in no way makes any allusion or
hint at his name somehow being ho on, ‘the one who is’.

Beyond that, if Jesus was simply trying to describe himself in

any old manner, ‘ego eimi’ would most certainly be the way to do it,
as that’s the verb that means ‘I am’. The fact that Jesus leaves out
the predicate after saying ‘ego eimi’ means less than nothing,
because not only did God supply the predicate for Himself in Exodus,
it was also common practice to simply leave it out; this is proven by
the fact that others are quoted in the Bible as using the exact same
phraseology (Take for instance John 9:9, where the blind man Jesus
healed uses it).

Theologians, by stating that Christ is making a divine claim

here, misrepresent what God truly said in Exodus. The only way that
Christ could have possibly been making a divine claim would be if he
said, ‘ego eimi ho on’, or ‘I am the One Who Exists’. This is not the
case, and as such this interpretation should be thrown out.

Christ says ‘ego eimi’ on many other occasions, and most of

those are generally not taken as divine claims. Why not? Because
they always have an implied predicate that is painfully obvious. Take,
for example, John 8:28.

John 8:28 (NKJV)

28 Then Jesus said to them, ‘When you lift up the Son of Man, then
you will know that I am (ego eimi) <he>, and that I do nothing of
myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things.’

Many translators put the word he in this verse after ‘ego eimi’,
because the implied predicate is ‘Son of Man’. Christ was saying that
when they kill him, they’ll know that he’s the Messiah, because the
name ‘Son of Man’ is a Messianic title in the Old Testament. They
know this, and translate the verse accordingly. However, belief in
Christ’s divinity has caused countless Christians to jump to a false
interpretation in the very same chapter, with the very same verb.
Why would Christ change the meaning of the words he speaks later
on in the same conversation?

So what is Jesus actually saying in John 8:58? Well, we know

that he said ego eimi, and that he left out the predicate, therefore it
must be implied. The only problem is, with the current translation of
the Greek words, it’s not implied. Can we find the implied ‘I am
what’ within the context of the conversation? Before we do, some
other points need to be made.

The Jewish people DID NOT BELIEVE that their Yahweh (another
name for God, the Ancient of Days) was a man. The thought would
never have crossed their minds, even for a second. Why not? The
Jewish Torah is actually the first five books of the Christian Old

14
Testament. They did not have the New Testament to go on, and thus
they would have followed only the Torah and the books of the
Prophets. Here is a verse from the Old Testament which proves quite
solidly that Yahweh is not a man:

Numbers 23:19 (NKJV)

19 God is not a man, that He should tell a lie, nor a son of man,
that He should repent.

For a man to claim such a thing would be utterly ridiculous to

them, and we see, by the reactions of the Jews in the present time to
‘the Trinity doctrine’, it still is utterly ridiculous to them.

We also know that nobody claimed that Jesus was God before
his death and resurrection, because in Matthew 16:13 Christ asks his
disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” They
replied, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah
or one of the prophets.” Certainly, if word was going around that he
was God Almighty in the flesh, it would have been mentioned here.

It is also good to note that the Jews DID NOT BELIEVE their
Messiah would be God Himself. They believed, and still do believe, he
would be a man, of the seed of David, of the seed of Abraham.

According to the Jews, Abraham is the father of all – and the

father is always greater than the son. (According to Hebrew tradition,
the father would always bless the son before his death, thus making
the son the new head of house.) This meant that no man was greater
than Abraham, because he was the father of all! That is, except for
the Messiah. He would be greater than Abraham, because God will
have exalted him as a High Priest above all—according to the order of
Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4).

Since we know that the Jews didn’t think Jesus was God, what
does their question to him (‘Are you greater than our father Abraham?
Who do you make yourself out to be?’) truly ask? They must be
asking him whether or not he is claiming to be the Christ!

Other Scripture supports this tendency, as determining whether

or not Jesus was the Messiah held their top priority. Remember John
10:24 (If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.), and at his trial in Mark
14:61 (Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed?). This was their
main concern—in fact, they never even ask him once if he was God in
the flesh.

Well, the Jews asked Jesus, ‘who do you make yourself out to
be’, and he said, ‘I’m not making myself to be anything, my Father in
heaven is.’ The Pharisees asked him a loaded question, but a hard
one to catch. A loaded question would be one like, ‘hey Steve, have
you stopped beating your wife yet?’ No matter how Steve answers,

15
he’s in trouble. The Jews asked him another loaded question just
before this, but that one was more obvious. (Do we say rightly you are
a Samaritan with a demon?)

Why is ‘who do you make yourself out to be?’ a loaded

question? According to Hebrew law, a High Priest could not exalt
himself to that position – God had to do it. The Messiah was to be the
High Priest of the Everlasting Kingdom. Therefore, if a man claiming
to be the Messiah was exalting himself, this man could not have been
the Messiah.

They were trying to catch him off guard. Christ notices the
loaded question, though, and first refutes it. (He does this by saying
he’s not honoring himself, but God is. This is in harmony with
Hebrews 5:5 which states, “So also Christ did not exalt himself, but it
was Him who said, ‘this day I have begotten you’.”) He then moves
on to make an indirect claim that he is indeed greater than Abraham.
He does this in verse 56, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my
day, and he saw it and was glad’. Why would Christ say it this way?
What was the day that Abraham saw, and rejoiced for?

Hebrews 11:13 (NKJV)

13 These all (speaking of Abraham, Sarah, and some other men of
God) died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen
them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed
that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

The promise of God that all Hebrews looked forward to was that
of the Messiah, and what he would accomplish. Abraham was
assured by God that the Messiah would come from his seed, and he
believed God and was glad. Thus the point that Christ makes to the
Pharisees in saying ‘Abraham saw my day, and was glad,’ is that he is
the Messiah, and thus he is preferred above Abraham. He was
answering their question back from verse 53, except first he made
sure that they knew he wasn’t exalting HIMSELF as they accused him,
because if he did that, he couldn’t possibly be the High Priest, as the
Messiah had to be.

Hebrews 5:4, 5 (NKJV)

4 And no man takes this honor unto himself, but he that is called
of God, as [was] Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made high priest; but He
who said unto him, “you are my Son, today have I begotten you”.

The Pharisees, however, wanted to get a more absolute

admission out of him. They basically said, ‘what are you talking
about?’ by saying, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and you’ve seen
Abraham?’ They must have known that the only person who
Abraham ‘saw the day of’ in the future was the Messiah, so they

16
played dumb in order to get a confession out of him. Christ simply
obliged.

The Greek word for ‘Abraham was’ is the one that implies our
missing predicate for ego eimi. How is this so? It is the word
genesthai, from the word ginomai. It can be translated as ‘to exist’,
but as we have already established that this would not fit because the
grammar (Christ is in present tense, Abraham is in past tense – If
Jesus wanted to say he existed before Abraham, he was using very
bad grammar) and the context (Jesus is not talking about his
existence, he’s talking about whether or not he’s greater than
Abraham), we should look for another translation.

There are a few cases in the New Testament when this word is
translated as ‘to be preferred’ (even in English, if you are ‘before’
something, it can mean you are greater than, preferred, or in a higher
rank than that thing). Seeing as that is the exact context in which
Christ is speaking (he is answering the question ‘are you greater than
Abraham?’ after all), let’s see how that translation fits.

John 8:58 (NKJV + Grammar/Context translation)

58 Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham
was preferred, I am <preferred>.’

And here we have a perfectly in-context and grammatically

legal translation that makes far more sense than any we have been
presented with. The ‘preferred’ serves as the predicate required by
‘ego eimi’, and Christ comes straight out and says, ‘Yeah, I’m
preferred before Abraham was.’ Then they try to stone him. Does it
make sense that they would attempt to kill him for claiming to be the
Messiah? Absolutely! In fact, they DID kill him for this. John 19:7
says, “The Jews answered him, ‘we have a law, and according to our
law he ought to die, because he made himself the son of God.’”.
Thus, they killed him for claiming to be the Christ, the only begotten
son of God. (Luke 1:35 lends us proof that in no way is ‘being God’ a
requirement for ‘being the son of God’. Trinitarians would have you
believe that this is so, but it simply is not.)

As has become evident, steps one and two in the lying process
are now complete; Satan has taken the infallible Word of God, and
confused its meaning—thus exposing our weakness in truth and
knowledge. Does the belief that surfaces from this twisting of verses,
the doctrine of Christ’s divinity (upon which doctrine the Trinity itself
is absolutely dependant), contradict any of God’s other statutes?
Assuming that the doctrine of Christ’s divinity is in fact true, let us
examine the contradictions in God’s word that this creates
(remember, any contradictions in God’s word are completely
unacceptable!):

Numbers 23:19 (NKJV)

17
19 God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He
should repent

VS.

Acts 2:22 (NKJV)

22 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested
by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through
him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—

Matthew 16:13 (NKJV)

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

The doctrine of Christ’s divinity gives rise to extreme

discrepancies in God’s Word, even to the extent of attempting to
claim one thing is true, and then claim that the opposite is true as
well. This is a logical fallacy: ‘A’ and ‘not A’ cannot possibly be true at
the same time. Let’s look at what these three verses say under a
logical light bulb.

The way logic works is actually pretty simple. You take two or
more premises (facts), and draw a conclusion from those facts. As
you will see, Trinitarian Doctrine defies logic completely, thus
rendering the Word of God logically fallible. The variable ‘A’ will
represent the relation between the two parties (Jesus and God), and
‘man’. This is simply to make the logical comparison easier.

Trinitarian Logic Error:

Premise 1: God is NOT a man (Numbers 23:19) = not A
Premise 2: Jesus Christ IS a man (Acts 2:22) = A
Conclusion: Jesus Christ IS God = A is not A

This conclusion would be rendered as ‘false’ according to logical

thinking. As it is God who gave us logic, and thinking all together
(Hebrews 5:14 “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age,
those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern
both good and evil.” The author is speaking of discerning scripture in
this context), I suggest a re-evaluation needs to be done by anyone
believing Jesus Christ IS God. Here are some more contradictions that
the Trinity Doctrine gives rise to in God’s Word:

1 Timothy 2:5 (NKJV)

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus,

If we believe Jesus Christ is the one God, then that means there
would be only two subjects spoken of in the above verse: God and
men. This fact is shown by numbering the subjects (1) and (2) in the
below verse.

18
1 Timothy 2:5 (NKJV)
5 For there is one God (1), and one mediator (1) between God (1)
and men (2), the man Christ Jesus (1),

The word ‘between’, though, requires that there must be at

least three subjects. How could Jesus Christ BE the one God, and
also BE the one mediator BETWEEN the one God and men? Paul
mimics my concern in the book of Galatians, chapter 3 verse 20,
“Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” A
mediator is of two parties—if Jesus Christ were God, and God is one,
then there is only one party to be mediated; men. Thus we
understand by the verse in Timothy that Jesus Christ cannot be God,
as Paul would not have contradicted two of his own writings. The
mediator between God and men used to be the Law, and now it’s
Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (NKJV)

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things, and through whom we live.

This verse says that the ‘one God’ is the ‘Father’, it also
mentions Jesus’ name in reference to a different personage; hence
Jesus Christ cannot be the ‘one God’.

John 14:28 (NKJV)

28 (Jesus talking) You have heard me say to you, ‘I am going away
and coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice because
I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for my Father is greater than I.

Trinitarian doctrine contradicts this verse entirely. One of their

premises is ‘The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-equal.’
(From the Athanasian Creed) Yet in this verse, Jesus Christ claims that
his Father (the one God) is greater than he is. Thus, not only does
Christ’s supposed Godliness contradict logic; it contradicts
mathematics as well. (Something cannot be both equal to and
greater than something else)

Did you know that using mathematical equations, we can plot

the positions of stars, constellations, and planets? Using math, we
can actually move the stars (on a computer program) back or forward
in time, so that we know the exact positions of them for any time
period! Did you know that God made those mathematical wonders?
Indeed, mathematics is a Godly science, if you will. I find it hard to
believe that the existence of God Himself defies the very things He
created2[2]!

2[2] On a side note, belief in the Trinity, and that God is incomprehensible, requires belief
in something else. If we partake in these doctrines, we must also believe that God

19
John 4:24 (NKJV)
24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit
and in truth.

VS.

Luke 24:39 (NKJV)

39 (Jesus talking) Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself.
Handle me and see for spirit does not have flesh and bones as
you see I have.

Trinitarian Logic Error:

Premise 1: God IS spirit. =A
Premise 2: Jesus IS NOT spirit. = not A
Conclusion: Jesus IS God. = not A IS A

Luke 18:18, 19 (NKJV)

18 Now a certain ruler asked him, saying, “Good teacher, what shall I
do to inherit eternal life?”
19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good
but one, that is, God.”

Jesus Christ asks a question and gives an answer in the form of

a rebuke to this man for calling him good; telling him that only God is
good. If this man can’t call Jesus ‘good’ because only God is ‘good’,
then Jesus cannot be God.

I have heard the contradiction that this verse brings up

explained away as, ‘Jesus was using a question to lead them to the
truth, that he is the one God’. However, they didn’t bother to look at
Christ’s tactics in asking questions (not to mention that the way this
rebuke is worded makes that explanation sound ridiculous).
Whenever Jesus asks a question in order to teach some one
something, he always lets them answer it first. If they are wrong, he
corrects them—if they are right, he congratulates them (John 8:10—
John 9:35—John 6:5).

However, whenever a question is asked, and Jesus answers

immediately, the question and answer serve as a rebuke (John 8:43—
John 5:44—John 3:10)

created us without the ability to understand who He is, and how He exists. This is
insane! God wants a relationship with us, and yet creates us so that we cannot even
understand Him? It also contradicts the Bible, which says that the things that are made
understand Him, even his eternal Godhead! Interesting that Trinitarians use the word
‘Godhead’ to describe the combination of the three persons of the Trinity, yet the Word
claims we are to understand it, is it not? (Romans 1:20, “being understood by the things
that are made, even His Godhead”)

20
 Here it seems quite obvious that Jesus Christ is giving the ‘ruler’
a mild rebuke for calling him good. He makes it quite clear that there
is ‘only one’ who is good, and that is God.

James 1:13 (NKJV)

13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for
God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt
anyone.

VS.

Hebrews 4:14, 15 (NKJV)

14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed
through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us hold fast our
confession.
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without
sin.

This contradiction in particular is quite the topic for discussion

amongst Trinitarians. They simply cannot seem to understand how it
was that the Evil One, Satan, managed to actually tempt their god in
the desert. The Bible, though, has no problem at all with Jesus being
tempted, because as Hebrews 5:2 says, he is ‘subject to weakness’
(NKJV), and that he had to suffer in order to be perfected, so that he
could aid us in our times of need.

Some will explain away all these contradictions by claiming

that they ‘accept them in faith’. Interestingly enough, they don’t
know what ‘faith’ is. Paul describes faith in Hebrews 11:1 as ‘the
evidence of things not seen’. Faith, essentially, believes in
something without seeing it. Accepting a stark Biblical
contradiction is not believing without seeing—it is seeing, then
choosing not to believe what you saw. This is the exact opposite
of faith.

The previously explained truth can be understood using the

wonder of modern checking. Suppose I call my bank, and ask the
teller if there is enough money in my account to write a certain check.
Suppose she tells me that there is, and I write the check. I have not
physically seen the number representing the amount of money I have
in my checking account; all I have is someone’s word for it—therefore
by writing the check, I am exercising faith in the teller’s word.

However, suppose I use the internet to do my check balancing. I

happen to see that the number the internet shows me for my
checking account balance is actually less than the amount of money I
wish to write out the check for. I can ignore the fact that my checking
balance contradicts the check amount all I want; I can even write

21
out the check and give it to someone! But eventually, doing so is
going to hurt me far more than simply not writing the check.

In the last instance, I did not believe by faith that my check

would go through; I ignored a direct contradiction that told me that
my check wouldn’t go through, and wrote it anyway. Do you now see
that we cannot ignore Biblical ‘bounced checks’ so to speak, and must
simply not write the check? We should instead write one that our
Biblical accounts do support.

It is quite solid, at this point, that the doctrine of Christ’s divinity

does indeed contradict many other clear portions of scripture, and
that they cannot be explained away. The third step of the lie,
contradicting a direct word from God, is complete. All that remains
is step four. What wounds does this attack of the enemy inflict upon
the church of today?

1.
The issue of ‘being like Christ’. If he is God, that goal is
absolutely impossible; even though we are commissioned to do just
this.

2.
We are ‘joint-heirs’ with Christ, yet we are most certainly not
God. This can breed confusion as to our part in eternity. (Romans
8:17 “and if children then heirs—heirs of God, and joint heirs with
Christ, if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified
together.”)

3.
We are to worship God alone, and any other worship is idolatry.
If Christ is not God, the entire Christian church is essentially living in
idolatry, because it worships him on a regular basis. Take, for
instance, the hit song The Heart of Worship by Matt Redman, where
the lyrics include, “I’m coming back to the heart of worship; it’s all
about you Jesus.”

4.
Many people who believe Christ is God pray to him, even
though the only command we have is to pray to God the Father, and
the only person that the Apostles themselves prayed to was God the
Father as well. We may ask things of Jesus (John 14:4), but prayer
should be directed toward God.

5.
Accepting the doctrine as truth will beyond a shadow of a doubt
lead to questioning the validity of the scriptures, due to all the
contradictions which arise. How are we to believe in God and do His
will if we can’t even be sure that His word is true?

22
6.
The Trinity is veiled with the ‘necessity of mystery’, claiming
that we cannot truly understand God. This is simply not true, as we
are supposed to understand God. (Romans 1:20 “For since the
creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”)

7.
The reality of who Christ is, and how much he really had to
endure, is completely lost. God would have had no problem resisting
temptation, as He cannot be tempted at all. The honor we should
give Jesus for living a completely obedient life, even to death, no
longer exists; Jesus being God and living a perfect life is much like the
episode of Seinfeld, where a 30-something year old Cosmo Kramer
beat up a bunch of little kids in his Karate class, claiming it was ‘fair’
because they were at the ‘same skill level’. God turning into a man
(coming down to our level) and living perfect is no challenge; God
CAN’T sin, and thus the truth of what Christ had to endure is
completely lost.

8.
The temptation of Jesus Christ in the desert becomes
completely for show: Satan knew God wasn’t going to sin, God knew
God wasn’t going to sin, and since they were all alone with each
other, the entire thing was pointless.

In all truth, the list could go on, but these should by far be
reason enough to cast off the chains in which Satan has us shackled,
and continue on seeking God’s truth. I trust that it is now evident
how the first lie, that of ‘impossible perfection’, feeds in a big way off
of this lie. So also do these two lies feed off of the third lie. The third
lie is, in actuality, directly related to the purpose of this book.

Back to Articles

23