
The Holy Spirit and the Trinity
T he Trinity theory in it's most popular form says that God is at the same time one person and three persons. The teaching professes that Christ is God the Father and is the Holy Spirit. I find this theory irreverent and illogical. I continue to expand on that in this article but my main article is The Holy Spirit and You. The approach that I will use here is to first look at a the evidence that the theory contradicts the Bible and follow by examining the scriptures that people use from the King James version to support the theory.
The Trinity theory contradicts the Bible
In order to accept the Trinity you have to discard fundamental portions of the Bible. Without the record expressed in these parts of the Bible our faith would be vain. In other cases the explanation provided by the Bible is sufficient and complete without introducing a theory that is notoriously illogical.
Who is Christ's father?
If they are three persons then Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit by all the evidence in the Bible. There is no mention of anyone but the Holy Spirit in the siring of Christ yet Christ himself tells us of His father and prays to Him.
If they are one and the same person then Christ was his own Father. I find this obscene and offensive.
The theory of the Trinity demands that these must both be true but this contradicts the scriptures.
So the Holy Spirit was responsible for conception however the parent was God.
Christ was not his own Father. He had a father and it was not the Holy Spirit.
The term God allows for more than one person
While God is not a trinity this does not mean that God is necessarily singular. El is the singular form of the word God, when -im
is added e.g. Elohim, it is made plural. It is impossible to be at the same time with God and be God if God is singular.
God said let us not me .
Nobody has seen the Father but people including Moses and Abraham have seen God.
The word for God here is Elohim the plural noun. There are three entities that are God in the Bible but only two are persons. The Holy Spirit is not a person and only two members of Elohim are explicitly identified the Bible as persons.
The Holy Spirit is not Christ
I just went through a long presentation to show that the Holy Spirit is Christ now I am saying that it is not. Of course the difference is the context. The Holy Spirit is not Christ the person but in every other real sense it is He. It has already been mentioned that the Holy Spirit came on Christ
Christ was full of the Holy Spirit not the Holy Spirit
and that the Holy Spirit was to be sent by Christ.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father
We all know the basic argument that no one has seen the Father (John 6:46, John 1:18) but many have seen the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:31-22, John 1:32)
We have already seen that the Holy Spirit came as a dove when the Father was in heaven (Mark 1:10-13) . Next consider that when Christ went to the Father the Holy Spirit came to earth.
In this next extract of scripture we note that the Holy Spirit is conspicuously excluded here. Why did it not say but the Holy Spirit
or suggest that the Holy Spirit was either included or an exception.
Furthermore it is repeatedly stated, i.e. by Luke and Mark, that there is at least one piece of information that Christ, nor angels nor humans know while the Father does. The scripture is obviously making it clear that all beings in the universe have been accounted for and it is impossible for someone not to know what they know.
How is it that nobody considered it important to state whether or not the Holy Spirit knew? Since it is not accounted for and the Holy Spirit has also been identified in one place while the Father was in another (Mark 1:10-13) then they cannot be the same and in addition to this, it (the Holy Spirit) either does not exist or it is not an individual.
The Holy Spirit is Christ and the Father
The Holy Spirit is Christ AND the Father. Have you ever stopped to consider why the tongues of fire were cloven i.e. split in two on the day of Pentecost? The Holy Spirit is two in one.
We know that this is Christ because we are told this earlier in chapter 1.
We know that the Holy Spirit IS Christ; it says the Lord IS that spirit.
We can also piece together the fact that the Holy Spirit is Christ from the book of Revelation
We know that this is Christ because we are told this earlier in chapter 1
But later on in Revelation 2 we read
So we find that it is the Spirit that is speaking to the churches and yet it is Christ that is speaking therefore they must be the same.
But it is also the Spirit of the Father. We have already shown that there is only one Spirit so it has to be both of them simultaneously since all that was said about Christ and the Spirit must apply to the Father and the Spirit because it is one Spirit. So Christ and the spirit are one hence the Father ans the Spirit are one.
The Holy spirit gene
In other regards the Holy Spirit is like a gene. It gives the person who has the gene certain powers. Christians are in that sense genetically modified to possess the God
gene and that gene will one day be exposed to a catalyst that will transform all Christian to be immortal.
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit
The question of blaspheming the Holy Spirit makes sense when the Holy Spirit is seen as the presence of God. If the Holy Spirit is the presence of God then if we blaspheme the Holy Spirit we resist both Christ and God the Father. Neither of them can be present in us. It is by God living in us that we are identified as Christ's and transformed.
On first appearance this point seems to support the argument for the trinity but if the issue of respect of the Holy Spirit is so essential to salvation and God is a trinity how then can the key people of Christianity blatantly omit the Holy Spirit from crucial events? The only answer to me is that they did not and that all that is the Holy Spirit is already included in these references that do not specifically name the Holy Spirit and consequently there is no trinity.
The language of Christ, John and Paul and the whole Bible from Genesis to revelation conspicuously omits the Holy Spirit as a separate member of God.
The impression in Genesis is that the Holy Spirit is separate from the entity God. God created and God spoke but the Spirit OF God moved. Although Holy Spirit is said to speak and is personified in other ways in the New Testament only God spoke in the beginning. It did not say the Word of God spoke thereby distinguishing the word as separate from God. This would be expected if the reason for identifying the Holy Spirit was to show that the Holy Spirit is a functionally different member of God. On the other hand, the spirit OF God is said only to have moved over the earth. It does not say that God moved over the face of the Earth as would be expected to be consistent if there was no need to show a distinction and it never says that the Holy Spirit spoke or created.
The story continues (or begins) in John. Here the word, related to the speaking in Genesis, became flesh. We now see that the entity God contains a personality that can be separated from the rest of the entity. Although the Holy Spirit had moved this entity is the one that did the creating. So to be consistent the language in Genesis should have identified the word as separate if the reason for identifying the Holy Spirit was to highlight functional differences, but there is no mention of the word, there is only God and the Holy Spirit.
Notice the two-way relationship. No third in this relationship. Remember that John was writing long after the Holy Spirit came.
Christ continues the theme. In this first discourse notice that the Holy Spirit is not part of the relationship but is an enabler. The relationship is Christ and the Father in the Christian. The Father did the works that Christ did. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit as would be expected. The comforter is a tool of the relationship. The Holy Spirit that did the works in Christ was the Father.
Notice how the Holy Spirit is mentioned. As a gift, a gift that knits together all in Christ and the Father.
In this discourse Christ mentions even angels and men but leaves out the Holy Spirit.
Other instances where Christ conspicuously omits the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is excluded when the most critical relationships are described in Bible
Also:
Paul did it repeatedly in his salutations.
also (1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephes. 1:2; Philip. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:3)
The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in Revelation in spite of all the activity. Here again the trend of conspicuously leaving out the Holy Spirit continues.
Christ leaves out the Holy Spirit from the two individuals that are like one
If the Holy Spirit is one with Christ and the Father and is a person then why would God forget to remember him?
King James Version support for the Trinity
As a means of supporting the Trinity Biblically the Trinitarians have cited 1 John 5:7-8, 1 Timothy 3:16 and Matthew 28:19 in the King James Version but these three have been determined to be fraudulent additions to the word of God.
The presentation of the gospel to the whole world begins with a clear statement of its authority.
There is only one name so how then does it appear in Matthew 28:19 that there are three?
According to the Bible there is no authority higher that Christ's in the earth
As far as the authority relating to salvation is concerned, the Father subjected even Himself and has done it to His own glory.
It is fairly easy to find copious discussion on these scriptures on the internet and in any case it is not my intention to provide conclusive proof but simply to give an answer for the faith that lies in me. This has been around for centuries and still the dispute persists so I would be rather presumptuous to believe that I can resolve it. As a result I intend to hit the highlights of the arguments against these and leave readers to search out the details.
Matthew 28:19
I begin with matthew.
According to this Christ commanded his followers to baptize in the name of the Trinity. If that is authentic then how is it that nobody in the Bible ever obeyed it?
The apostles were certain that their way of following Christ was to be imitated.
If they did not even know when they were being disobedient then how could you trust anything that they say.
In their defence the Trinitarians claim that the reading of Matthew 28:19 has not changed since the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. History shows that there is a long version and a short version to Matthew 28:19. The short version has been established by the writings of eminent
church fathersbecause they quoted it in their writings. These facts have been established by notable researchers in papers like
The Lord's command to baptise ; an historico-critical investigation, with special reference to the works of Eusebius of Caesareaby Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare. The short version omits the reference to
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That is the version the the apostles wrote and the version that was quoted in the works of Eusebius, Justin Martyr and Aphraates. The reason why it has not been preserved in manuscripts is that on 23 February 303 Diocletian established an edict which was posted, declaring that all churches were to be destroyed, all Bibles and liturgical books surrendered, sacred vessels confiscated, and all meetings for worship forbidden. During the course of the persecution all original works except those kept by the state supported clerics were destroyed. By 325 and the Council of Nicea the destruction had been completed.
My understanding from the Bible is that the trinity heresy came from Babylon to Pergamos and then to Rome. On the subject of the Trinity wikipedia says:
Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine. An early Trinitarian formula appears towards the end of the first century, where Clement of Rome rhetorically asks in his epistle as to why corruption exists among some in the Christian community; "Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?" (1 Clement 46:6).[48] Around the turn of the first century, the Didache directs Christians to "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[49] Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110, exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit"
wikipedia TrinityWikipedia, the free encyclopedia WEBversion 18:17, 16 February 2021
One place that the Didache is available is the New Advent website https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm. To quote the relevant section from the Didache:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (Roberts-Donaldson translation; italic emphasis ours)
The Didache is supposed to have been written during the first century and hence the heresy cannot be attributed to later scholars. In the Bible I find the corruption in Judaism and Christianity linked to Babylon not Egypt as some propose. It seems to me that the corruptions began with Jews who tried to attach their theology to Christianity by rejecting the authority of the apostles and bringing in their own invention to justify that rejection. Their Golden Calf did not come out of the teaching of Egypt but out of Babylon where they had been delivered from. That is my understanding of it anyway. The theology existed during the life of the apostles but it was not theirs and was not in their works.
I John 5:7-8 and I Timothy 3:16
I now move to John and Timothy.
Both of these were addressed by English mathematician and scholar Isaac Newton his dissertation
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.
For 1 John 5:7 wikipedia says
...Newton claims to have demonstrated that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one", that support the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures. He then attempts to demonstrate that the purportedly spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He noted that "the Æthiopic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions, still in use in the several Eastern nations, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Muscovy, and some others, are strangers to this reading".[4] He argued[5] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes...wikipedia An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of ScriptureWikipedia, the free encyclopedia WEBversion 21:12, 31 October 2020
For I Timothy 3:16 He argued that the word
Godwas substituted in the phrase
God was manifest in the fleshinstead of the literal Greek
which was manifested in the flesh. For Newton the issue was accuracy. Many people want to support alterations to the Bible because the alteration supports their theology. The substitution of God in I Timothy 3:16 buttresses many peoples theology but it is not accurate.
Modern versions of the Bible usually omit the addition to 1 John 5:7, but some place it in a footnote, with a comment indicating that "it is not found in the earliest manuscripts". Modern translations of 1 Timothy 3:16 now typically replace "God" with "He" or "He who". There is too much discussion on the subject for me to reproduce here but it is easy to find. For example The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, on page 263 states: The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century
.