Tuesday, February 19, 2013

15. Is Prejudice against Black people a Mormon Doctrine?

Is Prejudice against Black people a Mormon Doctrine? The information sited here may or may not be accurate, but as my investigation continues, here is what I found from one source. The Los Angeles Times brings something to light which I vaguely remember from a long time ago. This reporter said that it has been a long-standing policy of Mormons that black people or people with dark skin are, according to their understanding of the Bible, a cursed race. After that article in the LA Times was printed, the next week in the Honolulu advertiser made a comment about the issue in question form as to whether or not the Mormons were planning to reverse their stand and accept black people as equals and allow them to enter to their priesthood. The article quoted an individual name Armand Mauss who claim to be the president of the Mormon history Association. When asked if they were going to change their position and disavow the former teachings, their comment as quoted from the Honolulu Star bulletin, "I think you're going to stand pat." He further said in this article that the church may worry that they would be seen as bowing to public pressure if they made such a disavowal in the wake of news stories about secret deliberations on the issue. He further said that the church's committee on public affairs is considering the issue, and will make recommendations to talk with church officials.

I intend to look more into the Mormon doctrines to see if this ruling still stands. If it does, it may be to the Mormon benefit to consider the counsel found at Acts 10:34-35 where it says, "for certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to him." With just a simple statement like this from the apostle Paul how could any church doctrine support prejudice. Or are the Mormons claiming that their stand is not one of prejudice? Or are they using another publication to validate this stand? What did Jesus teach when he was here on earth? Is there anywhere in his teachings that support the prejudice against black or dark skinned people anywhere? I couldn't find any! Does the book of Mormon or any other Mormon publications have passages and doctrines that support the teaching that blacks are a cursed race? My research will continue.


As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.

Monday, February 18, 2013

14. Baptism of both the Dead and the living

This section is currently very brief since it appears to me to be a simple open & closed discussion. I am using the Bible to justify the Truth of this matter and not a Mormon publication.

Mormonism teaches that Baptism is essential for salvation in the highest heaven. Those who died without hearing the LDS gospel are given a 2nd chance to receive it in “Paradise” and have “baptism for the dead” performed by LDS relatives so they can progress in eternity.

The Bible teaches that Baptism is a physical sign of our public declaration for salvation, our belief that Jehovah is our God and ruler, that we recognize the holy spirit as his active force and acknowledge the role it plays in Jehovah’s purposes. Dedication is an essential step that must precede baptism for all who choose to proceed to Baptism. Supporting scriptures - Acts 10:44-47; Romans 6:3-4; 11:6 Romans 14:7, 8; 1Corinthians 1:14, 17; 2Corinthians 5:15

The Bible teaches that the only 2nd chance for those who did not receive Christ before they died before Armagheddon or before this system ends, is in the resurrection to the paradise (wherein they must be dead to take part in a resurrection from the dead). Revelations 21:1-4 At the end of the 1,000 years there will be a final test wherein the judgment equal to that of Adam will take place – Hebrews 9:27; Luke 16:22-24 (This scripture in Luke is only an illustration) Luke 23:43 (paradise is an earthly location. The heavens were not referred to a paradise) Paul and the Corinthian believers did not practice “baptism for the dead.” – 1Corinthians 15:29.

To be alive is not equal to Life. Life is what Adam experienced when he was created. Life is everlasting, without end. Life for humans is here on earth. So in order to say we have life, is tantamount to saying we have everlasting life which is not possible until it has been granted to us at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ and Christ hands the kingdom back to Jehovah. This is when life is granted to mankind because they will have passed the final test (1Corinthians 15:24-28) Here it says, "Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." Of course you would have to subscribe to the teachings of the Bible to believe this teaching.



As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.



13. Three kingdoms or Three heavens Theory

Three heavens are three kingdoms where people will live after death: Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial. I hope my spelling of these three heavens or kingdoms is correct

The three heavens in the Bible refer to: 1) Sky where birds fly or the atmosphere surrounding our planet earth. - Genesis 1:7-8, 20 2) The Stars and Planets (the universe). - Psalm 19:1-6 3) The part of the spirit world where God resides. - 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 The Third Heaven - It appears that Paul (about 41 C.E.) was privileged to experience a supernatural vision so real that he did not know whether it was in the body or out of the body that he was caught away to “the third heaven.” “The third heaven” seems to refer to the superlative degree of the rapture in which he saw the vision. — 2Co 12:1-4 The context does not suggest that “the third heaven” refers to the atmosphere around our globe, nor to outer space or to any parallel universes, as postulated by astrophysicists. The Bible often uses the number three to represent emphasis, intensity, or added strength. (Ecclesiastes 4:12; Isaiah 6:3; Matthew 26:34, 75; Revelation 4:8) Thus, what Paul saw in vision was elevated or exalted. It was spiritual. Whereas some have endeavored to relate Paul’s reference to the third heaven to the early rabbinic view that there were stages of heaven, even a total of “seven heavens,” this view finds no support in the Scriptures. As we have seen, the heavens are not referred to specifically as if divided into platforms or stages, but, rather, the context must be relied upon to determine whether reference is to the heavens within earth’s atmospheric expanse, the heavens of outer space, the spiritual heavens, or something else, evidently for the purpose of expressing an intensification of the quality or idea.

Mormons teach that All people except the sons of perdition (apostates) will inherit salvation in one of three kingdoms of heaven. Hell is only temporary punishment for the wicked.

Only those that are anointed or referred to as the little flock will inherit heaven or become kings & priests with Jesus in that kingdom. The rest who reject Jesus as God’s only means of salvation will simply be eliminated from the chance to gain life. – Matthew 7:13-14; 25:46; Luke 12:32, John 3:36, 14:6 Revelations 14:1-4,


Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood authority is required to receive saving ordinances necessary to enter the highest heaven. This “authority” is found only in the LDS Church.

The Aaronic Priesthood authority has been replaced by the Melchizedek Priesthood authority held only by Jesus Christ. True salvation is a result of Jesus ransom sacrifice for all mankind. Jesus was the ransom, Jehovah offered the ransom – Matthew 20:28 John 3:16 Hebrews 7:1-4, 11-17; 23-28; Acts 4:12 1Timothy 2:6 1Peter 2:24


As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.






12. Marriage

According to Mormons, Marriage for eternity in a LDS temple is an essential step toward exaltation as a “god” like Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother with the hope of populating planets like our earth.

Marriage doctrine according to the Mormons -
The Bible teaches that Satan fell out of favor with God because he wanted to be “like” God and he offered this lie to Eve in the Garden she believed him.

At death, the marriage bond (or contract to remain married) ceases - Isaiah 14:12-14; Genesis 3:4-5; Matthew 22:28-30; Luke 20:34-36 1Corinthians 7:39

Mormons also believe in a celestial marriage saying Matthew 18:18 shows that the apostles had the power to bind in heaven whatsoever they bound on earth of where and all that chapter does it refer to marriage? How can falls words he explained that in 1Corinthians 7:39 which says that death abolished the marriage bond? The last four words are emphatically stating that a person may then remarry only in the Lord for only to someone in the faith for the truth. It says nothing about continuing the marriage of Heaven. It factually suggests remarrying here on earth someone else if that is the persons choice.

Compared to a similar thought at Romans 7:2 Mormons also believe that the spirit of man not only never dies but that it lives through stages of eternal progression that condemnation or damning is but a retardation of the progress, that man may ultimately become through advancement of stages, is intelligent and omnipotent as God himself. Considering that thought, compare Genesis 3:4-5 where it says: At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.” Also compare Ezekiel 18:4 where it says that the soul that is sinning will die. Psalms 146:4 says that at death, man's thoughts perish. Psalms 6:5 says that in death there is no remembrance. Also Genesis 2:17 shows complete death not retarded progression as the punishment for sin.

It is my understanding from discussions with Mormons, they feel that all of these Scriptures discuss only what is to happen with the body as if there is a separation from body and spirit. I feel the Scriptures make it plain that there is no separation between the body, the spirit or the soul. Without the body there is no spirit. The body and the soul are one.

Joseph Smith once said, "some revelations are of God, some revelations are of man, some revelations are of the devil" he also talked that there are many gods that each one is polygamists, has procreative powers like man and brings forth sons and daughters and that men may become gods. Notice Journal of discourses volume 4:comp 283. "And you have got to learn how to become gods yourself, the same as all gods have done before you." Also take note of "The Sheer" volume 1 apostle Orson Pratt states, "in heaven where our spirits were born, there are many gods, each of whom has his own wife, or wives which were given to him previous to his redemption while yet in his mortal state." Also for further confirmation of this Mormon teaching compare the following - Journal of discourses col VI, The Seer 1:37. My comment is that only the devil ever promised man that he could be like God Genesis 3:1-5.

Mormonism teaches plural messages of polygamy among men and gods. Apparently Mormons claim that such is a means of grace and that any Bible testimony contrary thereto is a mistranslation. Let's start with the heavens first, "the gods who dwell in the heavens from which our spirits came, are beings who have been redeemed from the grave, with their wives, will be supremely happy. All enduring ties of conjugal love which existed in their bosoms when terrestrial and fallen beings are now greatly increased and perfected." This statement confirmed from the apostle Pratt, The Seer volume 1, 11, page 23 and volume 3 page 27 comparing this teaching to Matthew 22:23-33, it would appear to be in conflict. Taking verse 30 for example, "for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage but are as the angels in heaven." Wouldn't this scripture indicate that the Angels in heaven do not marry?

In the book doctrine and covenants, section 132 is found the vision of Joseph Smith commanding polygamy. Bishop RC Evans, I understand was holding at one time a high position if not the highest position in the Mormon church stated in his book "40 years in the Mormon church" page 46 the following concerning Smith's polygamy vision, it contains 66 paragraphs on concubinage and states that a man is not guilty of adultery even if he has 10 wives or women at one time and let the reader remember that in Revelation 7 times over damnation is promised to those who refuse to enter into polygamy and that the highest glory is only by the practice of polygamy. Although the Mormons have discontinued this practice is still claim that polygamy seen in this vision and recorded in the doctrine and covenants inspired from God. I don't know where in the book of Revelation Mr. Evans is referring, but this does raise an interesting question, "does this mean that seven times over damnation will be promised to all Mormons who now refused to practice polygamy?" What changed? My question did this term seven times over damnation come from? My understanding is that the leaders of God's people should be husbands of one wife is discussed in the Bible at 1Timothy 3:2, 12. Parallel the thought then with 1Corinthians 7:2 and we should be able to conclude that Jehovah God permits only one marriage made and not the polygamist arrangement Mormons claim is not only permissible by God but commanded by God lest you should suffer seven times over damnation.

We have good reason to think seriously about our standing with God. Why? Because evidence proves that God will soon destroy the wicked and establishes righteous new system. In the Bible it emphasizes the importance of relying on His (God's) understanding. Each one of us should ask yourself, "am I worshiping God in the way he approves?" When we examine what the Bible says on this matter what do we find? Does it teach that hundreds of millions of persons who practice religion in so many different ways are all pleasing to God? Does it show that all religion is good? In my Bible and Matthew 7:13-14, it says "broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction and many are the ones going in through it, whereas narrow is the gate and cramp the road leading off into life if you are the ones finding it." Notice how God condemns the people whose religions are based on the teachings of men. Compare Matthew 15:9. The Bible tells us that those rewarded with life must be doing the will of Jesus's father, Matthew 7:21-23. What is the will of the father?

When I showed this discussions to a Mormon elder showing the Scriptures verse by verse compared to his book of Mormon the statements were in direct conflict he finally had to admit that their teachings are from the book of Mormon and that they hardly use the Bible except to show how to overcome the statements to support Mormon teachings.



As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.









11. Who was Lucifer?

The Mormons say that Jesus is the “spirit brother” of Lucifer and of all mankind. He was created by a procreative act between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. Jesus is not our created spirit brother. He is our eternal God who created everything including Lucifer and mankind. Citing – Isaiah 9:6; Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 1:8; Colossians 1:15-18 They say that Jesus and Lucifer each offered competing plans of salvation. When Jesus’ plan was chosen over Lucifer’s plan, 1/3 of God’s spirit children followed Lucifer in rebelling.

So just who is this Lucifer? The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature. — Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16. Jehovah never mentioned to those reading the Bible what Satan's actual name was. Satan means resister. It is not the Devils name.

If the Mormons refer to Lucifer as being Satan, Satan never offered a “salvation plan” because only Jehovah God is able to be provide the savior and the plan to or for our ultimate salvation. Satan has only one plan and that is to turn away anyone from worshiping Jehovah and he doesn't care by what means is used to accomplish that purpose. Satan and his demonic angles fell (or were expelled) from heaven because he (Satan) wanted to be exalted “like” God himself. – Isaiah 45:21-22; 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:2-10


As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.

10. Who was Adam? Jesus, God or a creation of God?

Some of my notes on Jesus, Michael the Arch-Angel & Adam are discussed in Post #3 on the discussion of pre-existence. The information listed here is in addition to that discussion.

The Bible in 1Timothy 2:14 shows that Adam was a willful rubble against God's law because he was not deceived. Doctrine and covenants section 29 v. 40 admits "Adam partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment wherein he became subject to the devil because he yielded much temptation." Yet the same book says "Adam is Michael God has appointed Michael your Prince and established his feet and set up on high given him the keys of salvation the consul and direction of the holy one."

I am not certain why anyone would want to claim Adam was a positive role model. Adam obeyed Satan and for the first time participated in wickedness. According to the Scriptures Adam ended his life outside the favor of God. He became a servant of the devil certainly not in the position of favorite is the Mormons seem to suggest.

I have been told by other Mormons that it is their belief that Adam is also God in heaven, and that he came to earth with one of his celestial wives, under another identity is Michael the Archangel and that as the Archangel he becomes our God and the father of Jesus Christ. "Now here it, or inhabitants of the earth, when our father, Adam, came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve, one of his wives with him. He is our father and our God and the only God we have to do." Brigham Young sermon, Mill star volume 15 page 769, 1853. Also the Mormon publication Truth volume 15 number 10 published in 1950 stated this, "in the light of this revelation, we must believe that Adam is our father, and our God and that he also is the literal father of Jesus, the son of Mary, both spirit and body." These teachings did come from older publications, nearly 45 years old and the point of this writing, and that their understanding may have changed over the years. However for my reading I understand they still do believe this teaching. Although with some Mormon elders I talked to they teach that Adam is the physical descendent of Jesus and so therefore can be referred to as Jesus's father. But this is not the teaching that the publication Truth states as quoted in the previous paragraph.

In the book of Mormon,2 Nephi 2:22-23 it makes the statement that a Adam had not transgress he would not have fallen to remain in the garden he would not have had children and that the bottom of verse 23 it states that they knew no sin to Mormons conclude from this person they to have children is to sin?

Mormonism teaches that Jesus was begotten by Adam and not by Holy Spirit that he was a leguminous with many wives, and that he had children that he was needed for this reason. For confirmation of the following quotes," I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer because I said in my lecture on marriage and her last conference that Jesus Christ was married ay Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha and others were his wise and that Jesus begot children." Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of discourses volume 11:210 the Mormon comment: we believe Matthew 1:20 which reads: "But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife home, for that which has been begotten in her is by holy spirit." Well obviously they don't believe Matthew 1:20 as implied because of comments in this report stated earlier that Adam and not God using his Holy Spirit as active force was the literal father of Jesus. In the publication Truth published in March 1950 page 273 it says, "the Lord told me that Jesus was the son of Adam"

In further discussions with the two elders from the Waialua Ward, I was told that Jesus was begotten by Adam and not by Holy Spirit as Matthew 1:20 states. He concluded that since God was Jesus's father and Adam was God that Adam's father. The elder that told me this said that he was also a bishop from the Hauula Ward in Hawaii. Despite further comments by other Mormons which suggested that Adam died in God's favor is interesting in that some Mormons claim Adam to be God. So what is it. Adam died in God's favor? Adam died outside of God's favor? And at the same time Adam is God?

"I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this earth the first man Adam the first man sent his own son Jesus Christ ..." Journal of discourses 4:1 also ..." He was not begotten by Holy Ghost" Brigham Young, Journal of discourses 1: 345-346 also apostle Orson Hyde, sermon, Beadle, page 304. In reality however the Bible never once teaches that Jesus ever was married. Therefore, any claim other than that would be pure speculation inspired from another source, other than the Bible.

In the book of Mormon, Mosiah 3:8 says that Jesus Christ is the father of the heaven and earth, the creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. Compare through Colossians 1: 15-16 which says," who is the image of the invisible God the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in the heavens and that are on the earth visible and invisible ..." So that the one who was firstborn of everything was not God that the image of God. This clearly supports Jesus is God's son the one who created all things under the direction of his father.


As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.









9. Tithing & the Mosaic Law

On Tithing, All members are expected to tithe most give 10% of their pretax income to the church. Doctrine and covenants 64:23 says, "verily it is ... A day for the tithing of my people for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his (the lord's)coming." I think the Mormons get the idea that tithing is required of Christians by examples when tithing was required by the Mosaic Law. There are many examples of how & when tithing was performed. Some of them are:

Hebrews 7:5 - True, the men from the sons of Le′vi who receive their priestly office have a commandment to collect tithes from the people according to the Law, that is, from their brothers, even if these have issued from the loins of Abraham




According to the Bible, contributions are to be voluntary not compulsory. However, the Bible at 2 Corinthians 9:7;
Galatians 3:10-13, 24-25 and Ephesians 2:15(also quoted below) say that the Mosaic law including tithing terminated by the death of Jesus and Malachi 4:4 Why should we “remember . . . the law of Moses”? That Law is not binding upon Christians, yet it served as “a shadow of the good things to come.” (Hebrews 10:1) Hence, paying attention to the Mosaic Law can help us to see how the things written in it are fulfilled. (Luke 24:44, 45) Moreover, the Law contains “typical representations of the things in the heavens.” Studying it is essential if we are to gain an understanding of Christian teachings and conduct.—Hebrews 9:23.

In fact, some religious denominations require that their members donate a fixed sum. The practice is called tithing, that is, giving 10 percent of one’s income to the church. Does the Bible really require that we offer a fixed sum as a donation? In other words, how much should I donate? If a person wants to make a donation toward the work accomplished by Jehovah’s Witnesses, how much should he give? The apostle Paul wrote: “Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”—2 Corinthians 8:12; 9:7.


Tithing in the past
The Bible contains clear instructions to the nation of Israel about the amount God required them to give. (Leviticus 27:30-32; Numbers 18:21, 24; Deuteronomy 12:4-7, 11, 17, 18; 14:22-27) These requirements were not excessive. Jehovah promised that in return for obedience to his laws, he would make the nation ‘overflow with prosperity.’—Deuteronomy 28:1, 2, 11, 12.

In other instances, the Israelites could voluntarily donate as much or as little as they desired. For example, when King David planned to build a temple for Jehovah, his subjects donated “gold worth five thousand talents.”* (1 Chronicles 29:7) Contrast this with what Jesus observed when he was on earth. He saw “a certain needy widow drop two small coins of very little value” into the temple treasury chests. How much did her donation amount to? Only 1/64 of a day’s wages. Yet, Jesus said that this small sum was acceptable.—Luke 21:1-4.


Are Christians Required to Give a Set Amount?
Christians are not under the Law covenant given to Israel. Thus, they are not obliged to give a set amount to God. However, in the true Christian congregation, giving is a source of much joy. Jesus Christ himself stated: “There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving.”—Acts 20:35.

Jehovah’s Witnesses support their worldwide preaching work through voluntary donations. These donations are used to print literature, such as the magazine you are reading, and to build and maintain their places of worship, known as Kingdom Halls. None of the funds collected are used to pay salaries. Some who devote themselves full-time to share in the disciple-making work do receive assistance to defray their transportation costs and other personal expenses. But no one demands such help. In fact, the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not receive any financial assistance to support their preaching work. Instead, most work secularly to support themselves, just as Paul did when he worked as a tentmaker.—2 Corinthians 11:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:9.


Some logic on the matter of tithing
Does the bringing in of “all the tenth parts,” or tithing, represent giving our all to Jehovah? The Mosaic Law was abolished on the basis of Jesus’ death, so monetary tithing is not a requirement. Yet, tithing has a symbolic meaning. (Ephesians 2:15) It does not represent the giving of our all. While the tenth part was brought year after year, we bring our all to Jehovah only once—when we dedicate ourselves to him and symbolize our dedication by undergoing water baptism. From that time on, everything we have belongs to Jehovah. Still, he allows us to choose a portion of what we have—a symbolic tithe—to use in his service. It is whatever our circumstances allow and our heart impels us to use. The offerings we bring to Jehovah include the time, energy, and resources used in the Kingdom-preaching and disciple-making work. Also included are attending Christian meetings, visiting sick and elderly fellow believers, and rendering financial support to true worship.


As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.






8. The Purpose of their ministry & Plan of Salvation & Their Temples

The Mormon Plan of Salvation as I understand it

The primary purpose of temple work is to “seal” or unite families together, with the expectation that those relationships continue beyond death. The same temple rites can be performed for those who have died. There is no counterpart to temple practices in other Christian churches. Taken from their pages on core beliefs of Mormons with regards to their ministry, it says "This is a difference in practice rather than in doctrinal belief, since many Christian churches send out missionaries to preach the gospel. However, the missionary program of the Church is distinctive and recognizable for the sheer number and distribution of missionaries, for the length and variety of their service, and for their appearance and their preaching of a restored gospel."

A statement from sociologist named Rodney Stark based on his research into the Mormons and other social groups, (who does not claim to be a Mormon or a churchgoer), here he stated, "The missionaries work hard, but most conversations are inspired by others.

People don't convert to anything based on doctrine ... People join because their family members or good friends are members ... that's the way movements always grow." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded in New York State in 1830 with just six members, is today the fourth largest church in the United States by independent estimates. But admitted that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is far from being an insignificant religious organization.


I have heard that LDS scholars explain to their members that their new scriptures is not beyond what is declared in the Bible but only a clarification and complement thereof there is no tension between the two that both the Bible and the book of Mormon teach the same plan of salvation I found that the interesting statement so I decided to look further into what I believe to be the Mormon plan of salvation.

This initial part of my investigation was taken from excerpts statements made by Rex E Lee, president of Brigham Young University (hereinafter referred to as BYU) he states, "though we do not remember it, we existed as spirits before this life." According to this LDS belief of eternal progression, by strict obedience, a man, any man may become a God, a creator like God. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man sits enthroned in yonder heavens" states Joseph Smith. You have got to learn how to be God yourself ... The same as all gods have done before you." Mormon prophet Lorenzo Snow said, "as man now is God once was; as God now is man may become." The only offer of God had ever recorded in the Bible was the empty promise by Satan the devil in the garden of Eden Genesis 3:1-5 the Bible shows that God created Adam and Eve to live on earth and instructed them to produce a perfect family and that they would both live here in happiness eternally as long as they were obedient. Genesis 1:28, Psalm 37:29, Isaiah 65:21-25. Adam's disobedience brought sin and death into the world Romans 5:12 2Nephi 2:22-23, 25 state that "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." Spirits in heaven are thus said to await a chance to live on a sinful earth, a necessary step toward perfection and godhood. And LDS magazine Ensign says: "we look upon what Adam and Eve did with the great appreciation rather than with disdain." Joseph Fielding Smith the great-nephew of Joseph Smith states, "this doctrine that man existed in spirit creation in the Bible only discerned through the mist or fog because of many plane and precious things have been taken out of the Bible," further it states: "this belief is based upon revelation given to the church May 6, 1883."

In Genesis 3:4-5, I indicated that my understanding was that a person would eventually die. This would mean that the person's thoughts and everything he was made out of wood die. You claim that a person spirit will live on eternally. It would be interesting to see if the Mormon understanding was that a person's spirit has everlasting life regardless of its course on earth! At 2Nephi 2:27 where men are apparently given a choice between life with the Great Mediator or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity of the devil. An initial concern would be what the Mormon understanding "the captivity of the devil" was. In verse 29, it states "... And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein ..." I'm not quite sure where Mormon teachings draw the conclusion that the will of the flesh is or could be to want eternal death, or how it is that the evil is in the flesh? Could it be that their teaching is that man was created to be in the spirit rather than in the flesh, since it appears that their teaching is that the spirit is man's eventual outcome? In Alma 42 the statement is made "mortality as a probationary time to enable man to repent and serve God." How could this be though, when people are born, they take on the characteristics of their parents, looks as well as personalities? What would happen if a child dies? Does he or she go back to the spirit world with all the sins forgiven? Why would people than be born handicapped, where would justice be in all of that? When the thought is mentioned that mortality is a probationary time, how does the statement harmonize with God's original command to fill the earth and subdue it in verse 28 Genesis chapter 1? Where's the cross-reference to the Bible was supporting data to show that the statement is a God sponsored belief? Alma 42 in the opening statement says that this fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death upon all mankind. And yet you make the statement that all this was well within the purpose of God. Why would God purpose that mankind temporarily fall into spiritual death? Where's the consistency in the Mormon teaching of who Adam is? According to Mormonism, isn't Adam the same as Jesus, father or God himself? This line of reasoning doesn't seem to fit. The statement further implies, "only the truly penitent are saved." And what happens to the rest? It says "all others are subject to God's justice." What does that mean? Life back on earth again? Some form of death? Life in a punishable spirit realm?

In considering the point where Mormonism claims, "we can become like God's," you refer to for Scriptures. In Revelation 3:21, my question is, since you seem to apply this Scripture to mankind in general, that all mankind has the opportunity to be kings with Christ and to rule on his throne? My understanding was that this letter was not addressed to all mankind but to a class of individuals known as the 144,000 who will rule with Christ as kings and priests forever on his throne. In reading the Scriptures in the book of Revelation 3:21, 7:4 I see a conversation culminating this song in verse four chapter 7 listing the number to be 144,000. These of course are not the only ones to be saved but the only one school be in the ruling class with Christ, because in Revelation 7:9-10 there is a discussion of a great crowd which no man was able to number. I feel that those who will be saved on earth will be among those of the great crowd. This is the reason we go door-to-door and find sheeplike people to become members of that great crowd.

You also reference Psalm 82:1-8 and John 10:34 showing that men are to become gods. However, the Scriptures simply use the term gods is mighty men and not to the hope of being angelic creatures. Here the context of the entire Bible needs to be used rather than selecting the text then trying to use it to support a thought not supported by the Scriptures. In 2Corinthians 3:18, you discuss again being a God. I understand the Scriptures taken from 2Corinthians 3:17-18 to discuss the law of Moses, avail and the law of Jesus, the unveiling. It implies that when the law of Jesus which will fill the old Mosaic law covenant, a new relationship with Jehovah existed. By declaring God's truth and conforming ever closer to his personality and ways, Christians make progress from glory to greater glory, but not to ourselves. Their words and actions bring increasing glory to God's image they seek to reflect.



As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.
























7. The Trinity

According to what I have been able to gather from the Mormons about their belief in the trinity, I believe that they feel that there exists a Godhead which consists of 3 separate and distinct beings, but are united in purpose. Among the most important differences with other churches professing to be Christian are the issues concerning the nature of God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I am searching for information in the Mormon doctrines where this is found so that I can reference it.

There is so much information to disprove a Trinity by using the Bible it's difficult to know where to start, so I thought I'd spend a few minutes discussing what I have read about the Trinity belief.

Q: "Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?" I could not determine if this site was a site with or without the Mormon blessing. So if you are a Mormon reading this, you might want to verify that this is or is not your belief. This information taken from:
https://gotquestions.org/Mormons-believe-Trinity.html

Answer: Mormons say they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, Mormon doctrine denies the Trinity, teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit do not comprise one God.

According to Mormonism, Jesus is a created being, the first spirit to be born of the Father (Mormon Doctrine, p.129) and a celestial mother (Mormon Doctrine, p.516). Therefore, Jesus could not be the eternal God or part of an eternal Trinity. Mormons also teach that both the Father and the Son are men with bodies of flesh and bone (Doctrine & Covenants 132:20; Articles of Faith, p 38); as two separate people, the Father and the Son cannot be considered “one.”

Mormons also teach that Jesus is just one of many sons of God. Jesus is referred to specifically as “a son of God” in the Book of Mormon (Alma 36:17). Lucifer, or the devil, is another son of God in Mormon theology (Mormon Doctrine, p.163). Further, Mormonism teaches that the number of gods is increasing. Any man on Earth can one day become the god of another planet and populate it with children born to him from his eternal wife (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-354). Any one of those children can later become a god in his own right (Doctrine & Covenants 132:20). Thus, there is not just One God, triune or not; there are many, many gods (Book of Abraham 4:3).

Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith, clearly rejected the Trinity. He wrote, “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God. . . . All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism [the Christian faith]. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster” (Teachings, p. 372). Other Mormon writers such as James Talmage have confirmed Mormon denial of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, p.35).

It is a mysterious doctrine, but the Bible does teach that there is One God eternally existing in three Persons (Matthew 28:19). Because Mormonism holds a distinctly unbiblical view of God, the Mormon Church should be considered a religion distinct from Christianity rather than a part of it.

(Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)


Now: THE TRINITY DOCTRINE - My research on the Trinity as I understand it.
Scriptures in this research that are quoted herein, sometimes more than once:

Genesis 1:2, 26, 4:7,
Numbers 11:17,
Judges 14:6,
Psalm 8:5, 83:18, 139:7-12 143:10,
2 Samuel 23:2,
Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25-26, 30,
Isaiah 30: 27-28, 42:8, 59:18-19,
Daniel 4:34-35,
Habakkuk 1:12
Joel 2:28-29,
Micah 3:8,
Matthew 3:11, 16, 17, 4:1, 8, 9, 10, 10:19-20, 15:1-9, 20:23, 21:23-32, 43, 23:13-36, 28:19-20
Mark 1:8, 12, 8:38, 10:18, 12:32, 15:34,
Luke 1:67, 4:18, 5:17, 7, 35, 22:29, 42, 23:46,
John 1:14, 18, 3:13, 16, 18, 5:18, 19, 30, 6:38, 62, 7:16, 45-49, 8:17-18, 10:30, 31-36,
14:10, 16, 17, 24, 26, 28, 17:21-22, 20:17, 31,
16:3, 7, 8, 17:3, 20:17,
Acts 1:16, 2:1-4, 24, 31-32, 4:13, 23-25, 27, 30, 5:31, 6:3, 7:55-60, 11:24, 13:52 17:2-3, 10-11, 18:25, 28:25,
Romans 5:14, 21, 12:11,
1 Corinthians 1:10, 3:6-8, 8:5-6, 11:3, 12:4-6, 14:33, 15:24, 28,
2 Corinthians 1:3. 4:4, 7, 6:6, 13:13-14,
Philippians 2:6, 9
Colossians 1:15, 16
Galatians 1:1,
1 Thessalonians 5:19,
2 Thessalonians 2:3-7
1 Timothy 2:5-6, 5:21,
2 Timothy 3:16
Hebrews 2:2, 9, 3:1, 5:5, 8, 9:24,
James 1:13,
1 Peter 3:18
2 Peter 1:20-21,
1 John 4:9, 5:6-8
Revelation 1:1, 5-6, 3:2, 12, 14, 4:8 thru 5:7, 14:1,
For a total of ____ 200+ ____ scriptures and excerpts from _____ 31 ____ Bible books

DISCUSSION
Do you believe in the Trinity? Many people in Christendom (all religions professing to be Christian whether considered to be true or false by their doctrinal beliefs) do. After all, it has become the central doctrine of many churches of Christendom for centuries.

In view of this, you would think that there could be no question about it. But there is, and lately even some of its supporters have added fuel to the controversy.

Why should a subject like this be of any more than a passing interest? Because Jesus himself said at John 17:3, “Eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy.

Various Trinitarian concepts exist. But generally, the Trinity teaching is that in the Godhead, there are three persons. The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost; yet, together they are not "three", but "one" God. The doctrine says that the tree are co-equal, almighty and uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead.

Others, however say that the Trinity doctrine is false, that the Almighty God stands alone as a separate, eternal and all-powerful being. They say that Jesus in his pre-human existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning. They teach that Jesus has never been Almighty God’s equal in any sense, that he has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the Holy Ghost is not a ghost, not a person but is God’s spirit. His active force.

Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics of the Trinity doctrine say that it is not a Bible teaching. One history source even declares: “The origin in the Trinity doctrine is entirely pagan,” taken from the publication, “Paganism in our Christianity.”

If the Trinity is true, it is degrading to Jesus to say that he was never equal to God as part of a Godhead. But if the Trinity is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone his equal, and even worse to call Mary the “Mother of God.” If the Trinity is false, it dishonors God to say, as noted in the book Catholicism: “unless people keep this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt, they shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity.”

It would seem that there are good reasons then, why we should all want to know the truth about the Trinity. So what I chose to do was to look at the various types of Trinity doctrines side by side.

One concept is from the Roman Catholic Church which states: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion, thus, in the words of Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity, the persons are co-eternal and co-equal, all alike are created and omnipotent.” Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity, “the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,” even saying: “Christians are those who accept Christ as God.” In the book “Our Orthodox Christian Faith,” the same church declares: “God is triune, The Father is totally God. The Son is Totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.”

Thus the Trinity is considered to be one God in three persons. Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.

Is such reasoning hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found this line of reasoning confusing, so contrary to normal reason, they ask, how could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the Holy Spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God?

“Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason”
This confusion is widespread. The encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.” Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but can only accept it.” Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.”

A dictionary of Religious Knowledge says, “Precisely what the doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” We can understand then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “There are a few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?” And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.”

The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied.

In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book, What are they saying about the trinity? Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyways? He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no effect in day-to-day Christian life and worship.” Yes, the Trinity Doctrine is the central doctrine of these churches and nobody can logically explain it.

Not a God of Confusion
How could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims again: “A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.” And in their Theological Dictionary it states: “The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly
intelligible.” However, it seems that contending that the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, that it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. This is because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.” 1 Corinthians 14:33.

In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even the Hebrew Greek and Latin scholars as well as Priests of Christendom’s highest order, including The Clergy of all Trinitarian denominations cannot even explain it using scriptural support? Furthermore, do people have to be theologians to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent? John 17:3

If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, even housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief. Matthew 15:1-9, 21:23-32, 43 23:13-36; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13

IS THE TRINITY CLEARLY A BIBLE TEACHING?
If the Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.

First Century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to the people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” Acts 17:10-11. Then in Acts 17:2-3 It states, “. . .he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references from the Scriptures.” Since the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be.

A Protestant publication states, “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century C.E.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary). A Catholic authority says that “the Trinity is not directly and immediately in the word of God.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia). Another interesting finding is that there is no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together.

The Encyclopedia of Religion Admits: Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits, “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.” In his book, The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman also admits: “The Old Testament implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead . . . Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or fore-shadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.” An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no evidence of any teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.

Testimony of the Greek Scriptures
The same Jesuit Fortman states: “The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity. No explicit teaching that in one God there ar4e three co-equal divine persons . . . nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.”

Interestingly, The New Encyclopedia Britannica agrees: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.” Again in The New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology states, “The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence.”

Despite this obvious evidence, in that Neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of the 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity. However, there are many that persistently maintain that the Trinity is scripturally based. So I chose to look back at how the Trinity actually developed and bring that information to the current times.

Q: How did the Trinity doctrine develop?

Many think it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. Although this may not be totally correct. I found that the Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was the same substance as God, which apparently laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council, there was no mention of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the triune Godhead. After Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula. By this, for the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.

I found interesting data in publications that stated that many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads or trinities of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: “The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods.

Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece and Rome in the centuries before, during and after Christ. The trinity was a major preoccupation of the Egyptian theologians. And it seemed that there is a direct link between the spiritual force of Egyptian religion with this type of Christian theology.

In the book, “A Statement of Reasons,” Andrew Norton says of the Trinity, “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and of his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”

In the fourth century C.E. the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, this form of Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class. Support for this is found at 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7.

A few questions on this subject now come to mind. Why for thousands of years, did none of Gods prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the central doctrine of Faith?

The aforementioned information is data that I have gathered from various sources which I have documented. They may be accepted or debated but the information does exist as it has been stated. But now, I will document from the Bible scriptures that show clearly and beyond debate just whether or not the Trinity is a bible based doctrine or not.

FROM THE BIBLE
Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. I have used for this research, a Bible written in our everyday English for an easier understanding. I also compared the information herein offered from the King James Version. The main difference, aside from the easier understood language is that this Bible uses and identifies the name of God as Jehovah. The King James Version states in its preface, that it has removed the Title of God, Jehovah and replaced it with God or Lord as has always been the history of this version. One scripture to compare is Isaiah 42:8, “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory.” Psalms 83:18 states, “You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” Nowhere in the Bible is anyone else called the ‘Almighty.” Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit is ever called that, for God as he alone is referred to in the Bible as Jehovah is supreme. For the sake of this discussion, when I refer to God, I will use the name Jehovah since the Bible makes it abundantly clear, using 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 states, “ . . . Just as there are many gods and many lords, there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are and we for him and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.” At John 17:3, Jesus called God, “the only true God.” Was he referring to himself? Try and read the scripture for yourself, and then make your own determination. Or consider 1Peter 3:18 which says, “Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” Did Jesus mean that when he said that “he might lead you to God” he was going to lead you to himself?

Discussing the existence as well as the heavenly pre-existence of Jesus, we find that while Jesus was a perfect human on earth, that this is not how he began. He himself declared that “he had descended from heaven.” (John 3:13) He also said to his followers: “What if you should see the son of man Jesus ascent to where he was before?” (John 6:62) Does this qualify him to be part of a Triune Godhead? No for the Bible plainly states that in his pre-human existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their individual creations. Jesus, in his pre-human existence, was “the firstborn of all creation.” Support for this is found in Colossians 1:15. He was the beginning God’s creation, found in Revelation 3:14. Yes, the Arch-Angel later known as Jesus was the beginning of Gods invisible creation.

Proverbs 8:12, 22,25-26 says, although referring to Wisdom, this scripture has commonly been also referred to as Jesus in his heavenly form when it states, “Yahweh (or Jehovah) created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world.” As “Wisdom” in his pre-human existence, Jesus goes on to say that he was by Gods side, as a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30). In harmony with this role as a master craftsman, the Bible says at Colossians 1:16, “through him God created everything in heaven and earth.” At 1 Corinthians 8:6, the Bible states, “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” (Hebrews 3:1) Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest whom we confess—Jesus. If Jesus was high priest, then how could he also be God to whom he was high priest as mediator between the Christians and God?

An interesting conversation took place in heaven as related to us in Genesis 1:26, there it says, “Let us make man in our image.” This simply means that two or more individuals will work together on something. In this conversation, God was simply addressing another individual. After simple even brief research, it can be determined that this conversation was between Jehovah God and his Son, Michael later known as Jesus. Yes, he was speaking to his master craftsman or the pre-human Arch-angel, Jesus. Hebrews 5:5 says, “you are my son, I today, I have become your father.”

COULD GOD BE TEMPTED?
At Matthew 4:1, Jesus is spoken of as being tempted by the Devil. After showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, Satan then said, “all these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” (Matthew 4:8-9). Satan was trying to cause Jesus to be disloyal to God. How could this take place if Jesus was in fact God? Is Satan so bold so as to try and convince God to bow down to him? Could God rebel against himself? All creations including angels and humans could rebel against God and some did. The temptation of Jesus would make sense only if he was, not God, but a separate individual who had his own free will, one who could have been disloyal had he chosen to be, such as an angel or a human. James 1:13 supports this, “When under trial, let no one say: ‘I am being tried by God,’ for with evil things God cannot be tried nor does He himself try anyone.” Not being God, Jesus could have been disloyal, but he remained faithful saying: “Go away Satan! For it is written, ‘it is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” Matthew 4:10. He didn’t say, you must worship me and me alone you should worship, did he? The Bible further states at 1 Timothy 2:5-6, “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” Interesting that when he came to earth as this ransom, the Bible refers to him in Hebrews 2:9 as, “lower than the angels.” How could any part of an almighty Godhead – Father, Son or Holy Spirit ever as being lower than the angels?

The Bible calls Jesus the “only begotten Son of God. (John 1:14, 3:16, 18 and at 1 John 4:9) Trinitarians, by all counts I have researched, say that since God is eternal so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his Father? Jesus here known as the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. In this context, the Almighty God can rightly be called his Father, that God is the senior and Jesus is the Junior, in time, position, power and knowledge. Since there eventually were other spirit creatures created in the heavens, it is proper to refer to Jesus as the only begotten Son of God since it has become evident that it was through Jesus that all o9ther spirit beings came into existence. Similarly, he has never been referred to in the Bible as “God the Son.” When Jesus died, the Roman soldiers standing by knew enough to say that what they had heard from his followers must be right, not that Jesus was God whom they had just killed but stated, “this certainly was God’s Son.” John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God.” God created the pre-human Jesus Directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be co-equal with God in power or time as eternity since he had a beginning.

Jesus never claimed to be God. Everything he said about himself indicates that he did not consider himself equal to God in any way – not in power, not in knowledge and not in age. In every period of his existence, whether in heaven or on earth, his speech and conduct reflected subordination to God. God is always the superior, and Jesus will always be the lesser one who was created by Jehovah God, his father.

Time and again, Jesus showed that he was a creature separate from God and that he, Jesus, had a God above him. It was a God whom he worshiped, a God whom he called Father. In prayer to God, he said, “You, the only true God.” (John 17:3) At John 20:17, he said to Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” At 2 Corinthians 1:3, the apostle Paul confirms this relationship: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God and Father. Paul said, “For us there is but one God, the Father . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ . . . ” 1 Corinthians 8:6. Why do you think that Paul would separate the two during this statement? The apostle Paul further shows the distinction when he mentions “the presence of God and of Christ and of the elect angels,” at 1 Timothy 5:21. Jesus’ words as we read at John 8:17-18 are also significant. He states: “In your own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is true.’ I am one that bears witness about myself and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is Almighty God, must be two distinct entities, for how else could there truly be two witnesses in this statement?

Compare too the scripture at Mark 10:18 where it states, “why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even he himself. God is good in a way that separates Him from Jesus. Time and again, Jesus made statements such as: “The Son cannot do anything of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.” John 5:19 I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of Him that sent me.” John 6:38. What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.” John 7:16.

The followers of Jesus always viewed him as a submissive servant of God, not as God’s equal. They prayed to God about “thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, . . . and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.” Acts 4:23, 27 and also vs. 30.

When Jesus was baptized, Gods voice from heaven said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” Matthew 3:16-17. Was God saying that he was his own son? That he approved of himself? That he sent himself to earth? No, God the Creator was saying that he, as the superior personage was approving of his Son’s actions being the lesser one, for the work that laid ahead.

Jesus indicated his Fathers superiority when he said: “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.” Luke 4:18. Anointing is the giving of authority or a commission by a superior to someone who does not already have authority. Here God is plainly the superior, for he anointed Jesus, giving him authority that he did not previously have. He further made his inferiority to Jehovah clear when the mother of two disciples asked that her sons sit one at the right and one at the left of Jesus when he came into his Kingdom. Jesus answered: “As for seats at my right hand and my left, these are not mine to grant; they belong to those to whom they have been allotted by my Father,” Matthew 20:23. Had Jesus been Almighty God, those positions would have been his to give. But Jesus could not give them, because Jesus was not God.

Jesus’ own prayers are a powerful example of his inferior position to his father Jehovah. When on the torture stake about to die, his prayer said in part, “ . . . let not my will but yours take place.” Luke 22:42. Then in Mark 15:34 Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have you deserted me?” To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself? or part of himself? Surely that cry, “My God,” was not from someone who considered himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he being deserted? Himself? That would not make any sense. Jesus also said: “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.” Luke 23:46. If Jesus were God, for what reason should he entrust his spirit to the Father?

After Jesus died, he was in the tomb for part of three days. If he were God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: “O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.” But the Bible says that Jesus did die and was unconscious or dead in the tomb. And who resurrected Jesus from the dead? If he was truly dead, he could not have resurrected himself. On the other hand, if he was not really dead, his pretended death would not have paid the ransom price for Adams sin. But he did pay that price in full by his genuine death. So it was “God who resurrected Jesus by loosing the pangs of death.” Acts 2:24.

Does Jesus’ ability to perform miracles such as resurrecting people indicate that he was God? Well, the apostles and the prophets Elijah and Elisha had that power too, but that did not make them more than men. God gave the power to perform miracles to the prophets, Jesus and the apostles to show that He was backing them. But id did not make any of them part of a plural Godhead.

Jesus had limited knowledge
When Jesus gave his prophecy about the end of this system of things, he stated: “But of that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 12:32. Had Jesus been the equal Son part of a Godhead, he would have known what the Father knows, or if he was God, he would not be able to make that statement without lying. Similarly we read at Hebrews 5:8 that Jesus “learned obedience from the things he suffered.” Can we imagine that God had to learn anything? No, but Jesus did, for he did not know everything that God knew. And he had to learn something that God never needs to learn – obedience. God never has to obey anyone.

The difference between what God knows and what Christ knows also existed when Jesus was resurrected to heaven to be with God. Note the first words of the last book of the Bible: The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.” If Jesus himself were part of an equal Godhead, would he have to be given a revelation by another part of the Godhead? Surely he would have known all about it, for God knew. But Jesus did not know, for he was clearly not God.

Jesus continues subordinate
In his pre-human existence, and also when he was on earth, Jesus was subordinate to God. After his resurrection, he continues to be in a subordinate, secondary position.

Acts 5:31 says that “God exalted this one (Jesus) to his right hand.” Paul said at Philippians 2:9 that: “God exalted him to a superior position.” If Jesus had been God, how could he have been exalted, that is, raised to higher position than he already had? If that were the case, he would have already been in the most high exalted position by being a co-equal part of a Triune God. So, if before this exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to the balance of the Godhead, God the Father and the Holy Spirit. There just isn’t any logic to this line of reason.

Paul also said at Hebrews 9:24 that Christ entered “heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf.” If you appear in someone else’s presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate. Similarly just before being stoned to death, the martyr Stephen “gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” Acts 7:55. Clearly he saw two separate individuals, but no holy spirit, no triune Godhead. Did he just miss something? Was it a typographical error? Perhaps a slip in the inspiration of the accounting in this scene? In the account at Revelation 4:8 to 5:7, God is shown seated on his heavenly throne, but Jesus is not. He has to approach God to take a scroll from Gods right hand. This shows that in heaven Jesus is not God but is separate from him.

Consider 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28. After that will come the end, when he (Jesus in heaven) will hand over the kingdom to God the Father . . . Then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who has subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

Jesus Never Claimed to be God
The Bibles position is clear. Not only is Almighty God Jehovah a personality separate from Jesus, but He is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as a separate lesser and humble servant of God. That is why the Bible plainly says that, “The head of the Christ is God” 1 Corinthians 11:3. And this is why Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I.” John 14:28. The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be.

Quoting from the Rylands Bulletin, a bulletin recognized by an increasing number of Bible scholars stated, “The fact has to be faced that the New Testament research over, say the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus certainly never believed himself to be God.” Also it stated, “When therefore they assigned Jesus such honorific titles as Christ, Son of Man, Son of God and Lord, these were way of saying not that he was God, but that he did God’s work.” Concluding that the idea of Jesus’ being God opposes the entire testimony of the Bible. Jesus was always the obedient subordinate servant.

Holy Spirit
According to the Trinity doctrine, the Holy Spirit is the third part of this triune Godhead. I found in a publication, “Our Orthodox Christian Faith,” stated that “The Holy Spirit is totally God.”

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Hebrew word most frequently used for the word “Spirit” is ru’ach meaning breath; wind; or spirit. In the Greed Scriptures, the Greek word is pneu’ma, having a similar meaning. Do these words indicate that the Holy Spirit is part of a Trinity?

The Bibles use of Holy Spirit indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of this purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations.

At Genesis 1:2, the Bible states that “God’s active force (spirit – in Hebrew – Ru’ach) was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” In the King James version it states, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Here, God’s spirit was his active force working to shape the earth.

God uses his spirit to enlighten those who serve him. Also, David prayed at Psalms 143:10, “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit (ru’ach) is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness.” When 70 capable men were appointed to help Moses, God said to him at Numbers 11:17, “. . . and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee and I will put it upon them . . .” In a Bible written in our modern English, it says, “I shall have to take away some of the spirit (ru’ach) that is upon you and place it upon them.”

Bible prophecy was recorded when men of God were “borne along by Holy Spirit (Greek – pneu’ma)” 2 Peter 1:20-21. In this way, the Bible was inspirit of God. (The Greek word for this expression taken from 2 Timothy 3:16 was Theo’pneustos) or actually translated God Breathed. The Holy Spirit guided Certain people to see visions or to have prophetic dreams: 2 Samuel 23:2, Joel 2:28-29, Juke 1:67, Acts 1:16, 2:32-33 just to mention a few.

Mark 1:12 implies that the Holy Spirit impelled Jesus to go into the wilderness after his baptism. This same Spirit was like a fire within Gods servants, causing them to be energized by that force. Ane it enabled them to speak out boldly and courageously. Micah 3:8, Acts 7:55-60, 18:25, Romans 12:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:19.

By his Spirit, God carries out his judgments on men and nations. Isaiah 30:27-28, 59:18-19. And God’s Spirit can reach everywhere, acting for people or against them. Psalm 139:7-12

Gods Spirit can also supply “Power beyond what is normal” to those who serve him. 2 Corinthians 4:7. This enables them to endure trials of faith or to do things they could not otherwise do. Regarding Samson, Judges 14:6 relates: “The Spirit of God seized on him and though he had no weapon in his hand, he tore the lion in pieces.” Did a divine person actually enter or seize Samson? Manipulating his body to do what he did? No, that would simulate demonism which God clearly condemned as he did in Noah’s day. It must be then that it was really the “power of the Lord that made Samson strong.”

The Bible says that when Jesus was baptized, Holy Spirit came down upon him appearing like a dove, not like a human form. (Mark 1:10) This active force of God enabled Jesus to heal the sick and raise the dead. As Luke 5:17 says, “The Power of the Lord was behind Jesus’ works of healing.” God’s spirit also empowered the disciples of Jesus to do miraculous things. Acts 2:1-4 relates that the disciples were assembled together at Pentecost when “suddenly there occurred from heaven a noise just like that of a rushing still breeze, . . . and they all became filled with Holy Spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the Spirit was granting them to make utterance.” So the Holy Spirit gave Jesus and other servants of God the power to do what humans ordinarily could not do. A catholic theologian Edmund Fortman (quoted earlier in this discussion) says in an article entitled The Triune God: “Although this Spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear than the sacred writers of the Hebrew Scriptures never conceived or presented this Spirit as a distinct person.” In the Scriptures, it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have children (Luke 7:35). Sin and death are called kings (Romans 5:14,21). At Genesis 4:7, it states “Sin is a demon crouching at the door,” personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cain’s door. But of course, sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the Holy Spirit make it a spirit person.

Similarly, at 1 John 5:6-8 not only the spirit but also “the water, and the blood” are said to be witnesses.” Obviously the water and blood are not persons, neither is the holy spirit a person. In harmony with this, is the Bibles general usage of Holy Spirit in an impersonal way, such as paralleling it with water and fire. (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8) People are spoken of as being filled with Holy Spirit in the same way they are filled with such qualities as wisdom, faith and joy as shown in Acts 6:3, 11:24 and 13:52. At 2 Corinthians 6:6 Holy Spirit is included among a number of qualities. Such expressions would not be so common if the Holy Spirit were actually a person.

Then too, while some Bible texts say that the Spirit speaks, other texts show that this was actually done through humans or angels (Matthew 10:19-20, Acts 4:24-25, 28:25, Hebrews 2:2) The action of the Spirit in such instances is like that of radio waves transmitting messages from one person (or a radio / TV / Computer etc.) to another far away.

At Matthew 28:19, reference is made to “the name . . . of the Holy Spirit.” But the word “name” does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say “in the name of law,” we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. So baptism, “In the name of the Holy Spirit” recognizes the authority of the spirit, that is from God and functions by divine will.

Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as a “helper,” and he said it would teach, guide and speak (John 14:16, 26, 16:13) The Greek word he used for helper (parakletos) is in the masculine gender. So when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used masculine personal pronouns (John 16:7-8). On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for Spirit (pneuma) is used, the neuter pronoun “it” is properly employed.

Most Trinitarian translators hide this fact as the Catholic New American Bible admits regarding John 14:17, “The Greek word for ‘spirit’ is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English (he, his, and him), most Greek manuscripts employ it.” So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with “parakletos” in the Bible at John 16:7-8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. Also in a Catholic Dictionary, I found where it is stated, “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power.”

In conclusion, I find here by using all the available sources I could find that The Holy Spirit is not a person but is in fact God’s active force that he uses to accomplish his will. It is not equal to God, it is not God, but is always at His disposition and is subordinate to him. Simply put, the Spirit is Gods power. If you question why I so often used a catholic source to aid in clarifying the status of the Holy Spirit, it is because, there is ample information available in their research data, some of it is in agreement with a reasonable conclusion and the parts I quoted herein are in agreement with logic and common sense as I have discovered it. I don’t feel that I used biased sources either. I feel my research on these points so far listed, I have been fair to all resources herein observed. I stepped out of my own belief to view from the doctrines of others and have come to the above mentioned conclusions. And yet with all the Catholic literature used in this research which plainly point to the fact that the Holy Spirit is a power and not a person, the Catholics still are being taught that the Holy Spirit is 1/3 of a god triune being.

Some have made the statement that some Bible texts offer proof in support of the Trinity. However, when reading such texts, we should keep in mind that the Biblical and historical evidence does not support the Trinity. Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses. And this is true of all such scriptures on a variety of subjects.

The only scriptures I found in the Bible were all three, the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in one setting was found at Matthew 28:19-20, which says: “Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” also compare a second scripture, 2 Corinthians 13:13-14 where it says: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” It might be stretched to include also 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 which you could read on your own.

Just because three entities, persons or subjects are considered in one paragraph, sentence or stream of thought does not make all three the same, co-equal or even one to say the least. Nor more than discussing Lani, Kawika and Keone or Peter, James and John in the same conversation. This type of reference admits McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, “Proves only that there are three subjects named . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature and possess equal divine honor.”

Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13-14: “We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature.” And of Matthew 28:19-20, it says: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned or their equality or divinity.”

Other proof texts deal only with the relationship between two – The Father and Jesus. Consider the text located at John 10:30 which is often cited to support the Trinity doctrine, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being “one” with the Father. At John 17:21-22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us . . . that they may be one just as we are one.” Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were. See also 1 Corinthians 1:10. Another example is 1 Corinthians 3:6-8 where Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one thing,” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21-22. So when he used the word “one” (hen), in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Right in context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’”? John 10:31-36. No, Jesus claimed that he was not God the Son but the Son of God.

Some have used John 5:18 as a support for their belief in the Trinity. There is says in part, “ . . . he was also calling God in own Father, making himself equal to God.” But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse: “To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . ‘The Son can do nothing by himself, he can only do what he sees the Father doing.’” By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Is it possible that someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could do nothing by himself? Compare too, Daniel 4:34-35. The context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians of today, were drawing wrong conclusions.

Philippians 2:6 in the Catholic Douay Version says of Jesus: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Other translations read this way:
1. Who being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God. The New Testament, by G.R. Noyes
2. He truly of divine nature! Never self-confidently made himself equal to God. Das Neue Testament, revised edition by Fried-rich Pfafflin.
3. Who although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own. La Bibbia Concordata.
4. He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God. In Today’s English Version.
5. Who, although he was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
6. Who being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped. The New Jerusalem Bible.
In confirming this understanding, Philippians 2:6 when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate. The context of the surrounding verses 3-5 and 7-8 makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. Yes, Jesus humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death. Something that Almighty God would or could never do.

At John 1:1, the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Trinitarians claim that this means that the Word (in Greek, hologos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself. Note, however that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The word was with God.” Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. Again, consider other translations and how their scholars use the same verse.
1. and the word was a god. The new Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: with a Corrected Text.
2. and a god was the word. The Emphatic Diaglott.
3. and the Word was a divine being. La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel
4. and the Word was divine, The Bible an American Translation by J.M.P. Smith
5. and of a divine kind was the word. DasNeue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme
6. and the Word was a god. New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
7. and the Word was a God. The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek
8. and a god (or of a divine kind) was the Word. Dan Evangelium nach Johannes by Sigfried Schultz. And finally . . .
9. and godlike kind was the Logos. Das Evangelism nacho Jonah’s by Jonah’s Schneider.
I found at John 1:1, there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theos or god. The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was and the Word or logos was with God a form of theos. The first theos is preceded by the word “ton” (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to an instinct identity, in this case the Almighty God (and the Word was with God). On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was with the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theos (a predicate noun) as divine, godlike or a god. On what authority do they do this? The Koine Greek language had a definite article (the), but it did not have an indefinite article (a or an). So when a predicate noun by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context. It is strictly a grammatical ruling that we need to consider. If the truth of an issue is to be clarified, all the issues need to be examined and observed. This is just one more of them. So there is no argument that John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word that he was divine, godlike, a god but not the Almighty God. This scripture confirms and harmonizes with the rest of the Bible which shows that Jesus was called “the Word” in his role as God’s spokesman and was obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

Then a question may also be considered. Does saying that Jesus Christ is “a god” conflict with the Bibles teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: You also proceeded to make him (man) a little less than godlike ones, that is angels. In Jesus’ defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that “the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed,” that is human judges. John 10:343-35. Being called a god in biblical sense does not suggest that that god would be referred to as the Almighty God. Even Satan is referred to as a god. He is called at 2 Corinthians 4:4 “the god of this system of things.”

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men or Satan. Since these are referred to as gods, mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is a “god”. Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “mighty god.” Isaiah 9:6. But does not “mighty god” with its capital letter indicate that Jesus is not in some way equal to Jehovah Jog? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called “Mighty” there can be only one who is “Almighty.” To call Jehovah God “Almighty” would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position. Throughout the entire Bible, Jehovah God was never referred to as a “Mighty God,” but was always referred to as the “Almighty God.”

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and you god.” John 20:17 Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. Revelation 1:5-6, 3:2, and vs. 12 to quote a few scriptures in agreement with this direction of thought.

Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” not that he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son” in a literal way, as in a natural father and son relationship, not as some mysterious part of a Triune Godhead.

Again, I confirm that not one scripture anywhere in the Bible says or suggests that all three entities herein discussed are the same in substance, power and eternity. The Bible is consistent in revealing Almighty God Jehovah, as alone supreme, Jesus as his created Son and the Holy Spirit as God’s active force.

Jesus Conversation & Prayers
Consider now the conversations Jesus had with his followers, onlookers, even prayers that were quoted during various occasions. None give any indication that Jesus was in fact the true God or was a 1/3 triune part of the true God confirming that he is a total and separate entity, that he is a created being similar in composition and structure to other angels. By his activity and his various assignments clearly show that he was the arch angel, being the highest angel in Jehovah’s creation, His first born.

As I read various articles which reference or uses scriptures from the Bible, I often find statements where Jesus could not be equal to his Father. Mark 8:38 says, “Whoever becomes ashamed of me . . . when he arrives in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Why would he say in the glory of his Father? If he were equal in glory to his Father, wouldn’t he just say something similar to “when He arrives in all His glory?”

Jesus is quoted as saying at John 5:30, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not min own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (King James Version). How could Jesus make this statement if he was in fact God or even a part of God or if he was in any way equal to God?

John 14:10 states: “Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you men, I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.” Could this statement be made if Jesus was God or even part of a triune Godhead?

Consider too, John 14:24, “He that does not love me does not observe my words; and the word that you are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me.”

At John 14:28 Jesus says, “ . . . the Father is greater than I am.” How could Jesus make any of these statements if he was God?

At Luke 22:29 Luke reports, “and I make a covenant with you just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom,” It is not possible for a person to make a covenant with himself nor would it be proper language for anyone to construct a sentence structure such as quoted from vs. 29 suggesting that a contractual arrangement had been created between a Father and a Son and yet only one individual existed. Yet still where is the third entity in this arrangement mentioned? There is no mention anywhere in this surrounding context which suggests or even indirectly suggests that the Holy Spirit was a party to this contractual agreement. Jehovah’s Holy Spirit would be involved only in the enforcing of the contractual arrangement according to the logic of what activity the Holy Spirit is engaged, which has come to be known as Jehovah’s active force.

Surely Paul, an apostle of Christ knew of the relationship between God and Christ. This is why in Galatians 1:1 he opens his letter to the Galatians with the statement, “Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him up from the dead.” Obviously Jesus cannot be God because God didn’t die, nor did a 1/3 part of God die, thereby leaving only 2/3’s of a God in existence. Simply put, Jehovah God performed the resurrection of Jesus, the Son from earthly life back to the heavens where he lived before he agreed to offer his life as a ransom sacrifice. Then neither does this scripture point to Jesus as a part of a triune Godhead here since there is no mention of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 14:1 says: “And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.” How could the 144,000 have his (Jesus’) name AND the name of his father written on their foreheads if both Jesus and his Father are one?

The ample scriptures herein listed should serve any honest hearted reasoning person to conclude that Jehovah is God, Jesus in His (God’s) son and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah’s active force.

As with all my research, it is ongoing and always under construction. So whatever you may be reading, there's a good chance it will change by the time you read it a second time. As I learn more about the Mormon teaching, I will post it and revise what I have written.