I am the First and the Last

Same Names of God and Jesus:

Revelation 1:17

“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”

Revelation 2:8

 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:  These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.”

Isaiah 44:6

“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.”

I understand the logic comparing the names of the Father to Jesus. Some argue that the Father is called the First and Last as well as Jesus therefore they are the same.  However, do we also believe that God died?  If you believe that the “First and Last” is strictly a title for the Father or the Triune God, then you would have to say that God “the First and Last” died at some point.  You must believe that one member of the Triune God can die.  Jesus didn’t say I am the First and Last who died (only as a man) and came to life (again as a man)…

If the Trinitarian Son can die, then why not the Father?  Before you say that only Jesus’ flesh or humanity died I would have to argue that point.  Study the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) and learn how the 3 animal symbols of Jesus died, each atoning for the spirit, soul, and body of humanity. The goat sin offering, the burnt offering, and the goat that was lead out of camp was shoved down a steep cliff; being sent back to `Azazel (refer also to the Book of Enoch).  As it was shoved down the cliff its body was shattered.   However, that is another teaching.

I have heard lots of verses that call God something in the Old Testament then later call Jesus the same thing.  I just don’t think that is a strong argument.  Especially when talking about the word “lord.”  I have no conflict with the close relationship of the Father and Son.  Their ministries are entwined.  They shared the same body during Jesus’ earthly ministry.  I just don’t believe that giving them the same and similar titles is as dramatic of a statement that some argue. 

We seem to forget that some of these titles were given to Jesus.  He had to acquire them.  Jesus previously did not have and then later received the name that is above all names.  This doctrine also is not accounting for the dispensations.  Prior to Jesus the Father was the King of Kings, and later Jesus became the King of Kings.  These titles are in relation to how the son and Father relate to the earth.  Jesus is not the King over the Father and I have already shown that the son is subject to the Father not equal. 

Now back to Isaiah 44:6.  There is another issue to talk about with this verse.  Some people believe that “his redeemer” is talking about Jesus. They read this verse as “..the Lord the King of Israel, and the Lord’s redeemer (Jesus).”  However, this verse in context is talking about Jacob, who is also called Israel and Yahweh who is the redeemer of Israel/Jacob:

Isaiah 43:1-28

“But now, thus says YAHWEH, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, "Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine!... says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.... I am YAHWEH, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.... Yet you have not called on Me, O Jacob; but you have become weary of Me, O Israel.... I will consign Jacob to the ban and Israel to revilement.

If you understand the verse in context Isaiah 44:6

reads:

“Thus saith the LORD (the King of Israel, and Jacob’s redeemer, the LORD of hosts); I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and apart from me [there is] no 'elohiym.” 

Just wanted to clear that up.

This is the end of everything I have to say about the Trinity.  If you have read the blog series and still have questions feel free to ask.  Notice the disclaimer "if you have read the blog series."  If there is something I did not cover that is relevant this is the time to address it.

If you just want to argue please see the "about me" section of the blog.

the Author of Life

Acts 3:15

“And killed the Prince (Author) of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”

The word for "Prince" or author in some translations is – archēgos: the chief leader, prince; of Christ one that takes the lead in anything and thus affords an example, a predecessor in a matter, the pioneer, the author. Some use this verse to put Jesus as the author of the universal creation. I’m not seeing that. Adam was simply the pioneer of death, Jesus of life.

The comparison of Jesus to Melchizedek

Hebrews 7:3

“Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually”

This verse is used sometimes to show that Melchizedek had no beginning (like Jesus) therefore Jesus is God. (weird. I know.) However one must also believe that, with this logic, Melchizedek is God as well. Also one would have to accept that, like Melchizedek, Jesus did not have a Father, Mother, or genealogy . Either this is true or only certain aspects of the comparison apply to Jesus?

Also, if there was a Melchizedek then he was at some point born from a mother and father. The comparison is showing how Melchizedek’s priesthood is understood and recorded in history. This is not a statement about Melchizedek’s eternal or inhuman nature; nor is this the statement with Jesus. It is simply stating that Jesus’ priesthood will not end.

He Was in the Form of God

Philippians 2:6-8

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
Who in the form (morphe- external appearance [children are said to reflect the form of their parents]) of God is presently existing.
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
not esteeming a thing seized or to be seized or held on to
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ
his being or having the nature, rank, authority, of God

This is talking about how Jesus had the nature of his Father not the nature of Adam. This nature gave him authority as a man as he had previously in heaven. And even though he had this he did not esteem it as something he had to violently keep.

ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
But emptied himself of reputation or made vain his own force
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,
the form (morphe-external appearance) of slave he took
ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·
in the likeness or resemblance of man (Adam-humanity) he came into a state of being
καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
and his outward appearance was found as man

This is talking about the how he was perceived verses what his nature as God’s son was. He was viewed as just as empty as every other man yet that was not the case. He looked like a slave to death on the cross, just a man of Adam. He had to empty himself of reputation and his ability to overcome death in order to die.

ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν
he humbled or lowered himself
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,
becoming obedient unto death
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.
death even of a cross.

He was not a slave to death, so in order to atone for the slaves he had to humble himself contrary to his nature of life and obey the dominion and limits of death in order for his body to die. He lowered himself to receive what the slaves were under. Though he clearly obeyed God I don’t think that is what this verse means. I believe he was obeying death, the “slaves” master.

In context these verses are talking about how Christians humble themselves and have the mind of Christ as he was humbling himself. It’s talking about regardless of your authority or rights or how you are perceived you must keep the focus of the kingdom leading your mind and not your flesh.
In his flesh Jesus could have said death has no power over me and he would not have died. He had authority over death. But for the sake of others he emptied himself on the cross and was perceived as a slave to death.

God then exalted him in verse 9. Did Jesus then exalt himself or did someone else?

Omnipresence & Revelation 4:11

Revelation 4:11

This verse is often used to show that Jesus was in fact the creator God of the universe. However, if you read all of chapters 4 and 5 you will see that, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being,” is directed to the person sitting on the throne; who is not Jesus. Next to the one on the throne is a book that none can open. Then…

Rev. 5:6-7
“And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb (I hope we can agree the lamb is Jesus) as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.”

Omnipresent:

I won’t spend much time here. However, to say (as some would) that Jesus or the Father is, or is perceived as, omnipresent makes them each by default God is a ridiculous statement. We have no complete idea how the spirit realm interacts with our physical realm in a mechanical sense.

I could just as easily say that I or my spirit is currently seated in a heavenly place and yet is here on earth in my body. If the body without the spirit is dead, and I am not dead, then my body must contain a spirit that is both present with me and seated in heaven at the same time. Does that make me omnipresent or do you simply not understand specifically how the spiritual realm relates to the physical? All this to say, I reject a doctrine of omnipresence that includes transcending time, nor would it be an exclusive characteristic of deity if it were true.

By him were all things created...

Colossians 1:15-17:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου,
who is the image of God invisible
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
firstborn of all establishment
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
for in him established all
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
in the heavens and upon the earth
τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι
the visible and the invisible whether thrones or lordship or highest authority (or the ability to make power felt)
τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται,
all by him and in him are founded (established)
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ nτὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.
and he is above all (authority) and all (authority) in him stands together. [( ) = mine]

I believe this is simply talking about how and where he established authority. Because he was born a man he was able to establish his authority in heaven and earth. Now all authority is his whether it is visible or invisible.

One other thing to consider about the Colossians verses. The word translated created or creatures is the word ktizō. The concept of the word can potentially mean the creation of the world, but it is better understood to mean a re-forming, shaping, or settling. It is the idea of a pioneer that goes into a wild land and establishes rule and livelihood; building cities, and establishing dominion over chaos.

I think this is much more accurate considering the specific list of things that were established in and by him such as thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. (kjv) It's not putting Jesus at the beginning of time in the process of the universal physical creation. (Though he may have been present) It is putting him in his ministry of establishing dominion in heaven, earth, and all things below the earth. It is talking about his reclamation of authority for the Father. To whom he will give all of this authority and dominion back. (1 Cor. 5:28)

Son of God = God??

Some argue that because Jesus claims to be the Son of God that he is therefore God. I have always stated that Adam was also God’s son yet not the Creator himself.

Luke 3:23-38
“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son (huios) of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph…of Adam, of God.”
As you progress down the linage of Fathers and sons there is no Greek word stating each as son prior to each name. There is only the definite article. This is similar to le or la in French. In the Greek it simply shadows the conjugation of the Greek word. So in vs. 23 through 28 it is a genitive conjugation of each man’s name signifying they are “of” the previous name; as in, “I am Josh, (who is the son) of Stan, (who is the son) of Jack.”

More specifically each of these conjugated names is not only modifying the previous name but in context is drawing from the original word son or (huis). Therefore, Adam is declared the son of God in vs. 38 because all of these names are in the same phrase as vs. 23. Technically, Luke 3:23-38 in the Greek is one sentence, so to speak.

As if this wasn’t enough it amazes me how people’s minds work. All I really have to say is, “aren’t you a son or daughter of God? Aren’t there many scriptures to justify that statement?” As soon as I bring that up the person who initiated this poor argument starts to squirm, then tries to show a difference between Jesus being THE son of God and we are just A (child) of God.
Really? So he is not the first born of many brethren? Jesus is no more or less a son of God than I am. Granted it is because of him that I am a son and I’m grateful, but that doesn’t change what is. Being a (or) the son of God does not make you by default God.

Does God Have Blood?

Acts 20:27-31

“…which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

So the church was purchased with blood but whose blood was it? That would depend on who's church it is.

This is one example of scripture dependant on which Greek your translation uses. “The Authorized Version of 1611 (King James Version) utilizes the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") as the basis for the Greek New Testament. The Textus Receptus is based upon various Greek texts but also carries some influence from the Latin Vulgate. The earliest work was prepared by Desiderius Erasmus. This work was later revised by Robert Estienne (or, Stephanus) and further revised by Theodore Beza. The text produced by each is substantially the same, aside from some minor variations.”
In the KJV it says, “ἐκκλησίαν (church) τοῦ θεοῦ (of God).”

I use the Constantinus Tischendorf Greek New Testament and reference with the KJV. Tischendorf “is perhaps best known for his discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus (one of the oldest extant copies of the New Testament in Greek, circa 360 A.D.) in a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. Tischendorf devoted his life to locating the most accurate sources for the compilation of the Greek New Testament. This desire for the earliest, most reliable manuscripts drove him for most of his life. The result of this drive is Tischendorf's Eighth Edition Greek New Testament, completed just two years prior to his death, and considered by many to be his best.”
It represents the oldest known text and says, “ἐκκλησίαν (church) τοῦ κυριου (of the Lord).”

Another Greek version I use occasionally is the Byzantine/Majority Text. It blends a variety of Greek texts to form a type of harmony. “The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan, Antiocheian, or Syrian) is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, though not in the oldest. The New Testament text of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Constantinople Patriarchate edition of 1904, is based on this text-type. While considerably varying, it also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages. Modern translations mainly use Eclectic editions that conform more often to the Alexandrian text-type.
The Byzantine text is also found in modern Greek Orthodox editions, as the Byzantine textual tradition has continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church into the present time. The text used by Greek Orthodox Church is supported by late minuscule manuscripts. It is commonly accepted as standard Byzantine text.”
The Byantine text uses them both saying, “εκκλησιαν (church) του κυριου (of the Lord) και (and) θεου (of God).”

So take your pick. I personally believe that the Father is a spirit and does not actually have blood and that if speaking of “God’s blood” this is more of a statement about sonship and not Trinity. My son Caleb is my flesh and blood because he is my son. If I was a being without flesh and blood I could still use the word picture but that is not to say God has blood. Nor is it a proof that:

a. God purchased with blood
b. Jesus is the one with blood therefore
a=b Jesus is the Trinitarian God…

Did Jesus Create the Universe?

Trinity Verses

Hebrews 1:2
“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

I believe this translation is misleading. I could break down the Greek and show word by word how this is poorly translated, however here is one simple word to look at which shows the intent of the verse. The word cosmos consistently is used in Greek scripture to show the physical world/universe or metaphysical anti-godly human collective.

However, in Hebrews 1:2 the word translated “world” is αἰών - forever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity; the worlds, universe, period of time, age. Even the 38 times it is translated “world” its’ context is using it as a synonym for age.

For example:
Mathew 12:32
“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.”

Hebrews 1:2 is stating that the Father “made” brought forth or birthed - ποιέω – our current church age, or eon, and our future age or ages, through Jesus. We are currently living in the “age to come” that Jesus prophesied. So you could say Jesus is the son, "by whom also (the Father) brought forth the age".

Also, relating back to the Hebrews passage, how could Jesus be “appointed” heir of all things if he himself made all things and they were already his? An heir receives that which belonged to someone else.

II Peter 1:1-2

Trinity Verses

II Peter 1:1-2:
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,”

Some say this verse is stating that God and Saviour both modify Jesus Christ. I will most definitely argue that the language of this II Peter passage is debatable. Some translations, like the NIV (which I don't recommend), put the “our” with God instead of savior, “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” In the Greek either can be considered correct. But let’s put it into the context of other greetings found in the Epistles.

Romans 1:7
“Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Corinthians 1:3
“Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Corinthians 1:2
“Grace [be] to you and peace from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Galatians 1:1-3
“Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace [be] to you and peace from God the Father, and [from] our Lord Jesus Christ,”

Ephesians 1:1-2
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace [be] to you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Philippians 1:2
“Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Colossians 1:2-3
“To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,”

1 Thessalonians 1:1
“Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians [which is] in God the Father and [in] the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Thessalonians 1:2
“Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Timothy 1:1
”Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope;”

2 Timothy 1:1
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,”

Titus 1:4
“To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

Philemon 1:3
“Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

James 1:1
“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”

My only point is that if one uses the wording found in the grammar of II Peter 1:2, which varies with different translations, then what do you do with the clear statements made by virtually every other letter in the New Testament; statements that clearly distinguish between God and Jesus? God is the Father and Jesus is the Lord.

John 5:18, 1 John 3:2, Titus 2:11-14

Trinity verses

This section is based on various conversations and letters I have engaged in. I’m hoping to bring clarity to verses that some find problematic.

John 5:18
“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”
If I say that God is my Father does that make me equal with God? Yes, in Elohim nature but that does not mean I am Jehovah.

1 John 3:2
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
Do we believe that we are part of the Trinity or are we willing to accept an alternative meaning to son-ship and equality with God? I doubt that most would argue against the fact that we can be sons and daughters of God. Nor would these children say that God is not their Father. However, if calling God your Father requires one to be “God” then maybe we can agree on the Elohim understanding of equality.

Titus 2:11-14:
The best translation is the KJV in this instance:

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;”

Follow Peace

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 16

This is the end. I don’t know how most of you have received any of this but it was all meant to help. I hope that accepting my lens of Jesus will help you in many ways.

I hope it will help those of you who accept Paul’s Gospel to have a place with less or no tension with Jesus’ actions and words. That instead of trying to rape and twist scripture to make Jesus perpetually “fat and happy” you can accept him for who he is. He is an emotional person who loves you. He has expectations, joy, intimacy, and at times disappointment with his bride. He is our Lord, husband, King, friend, and brother. The Father is reconciled with humanity; Jesus, not so much.

Understanding the Elohim will, I believe, tear down walls between us and God and our Lord. They are not distant from us. Regardless of how many times we chant and sing about our “closeness” to them, in our minds it is hard not to feel separated from such a distinctly different nature of being found in the Trinity. Removing the doctrinal hurdles between us and them can bring tenderness and warmth to a previously cold and sacred point of view.

Finally I hope understanding Jesus as the vehicle of the Father and the place where we commune with the Father will help us to understand their ministry of reconciliation. It can increase how we view his strength and worthiness as our savior. It will also help us understand our ministry of reconciliation as well.

I have never talked with a person who did not at some point in their life question the Trinity. It has become one of those concepts you must either accept or reject. Most people feel that to reject the Trinity is to somehow reject or diminish Jesus. I honestly think my position glorifies him more. Yet none of that is my motivation. I accept my lens simply because I believe it is truth and I have peace from my spirit on the matter. Let the Holy Spirit guide you in truth on this and follow his peace.

(Though this is the end of the teaching I will continue to post scriptures after this that people find problematic. Most would be bored with it and I don’t technically consider it part of the teaching. However, it may be necessary for those who still have hang-ups/questions.)

Am I the "antichrist"??

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 15

[We are told that by believing in Jesus we are MADE the very righteousness of GOD through Christ (II Corinthians 5:21). Why does it not say we are made the righteousness of Christ through faith in Him? Jesus could only give us what He had. If it is Jesus’ righteousness that was exchanged for our unrighteousness, how is it that this says what is imputed to us is God’s righteousness? I believe the answer is that Jesus possessed God’s righteousness because He was God in the flesh - therefore we are able to receive the very righteousness of God, which is His, credited to our account.] An anonymous friend


This is a misunderstanding of righteousness. Righteousness is not a substance and it is not holiness. It is right standing, a position. Jesus is in right standing with the Father. If you are in Christ you can experience the free gift of being in his right standing with God. The definition of righteousness is - in a broad sense: the state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God. The state of being is dictated by God therefore is God’s righteousness, but Jesus holds the position. So Jesus is in right standing with God or you could say God’s righteousness. Once again Jesus is a vehicle. We use him to enjoy God. God is in him and so are we. Jesus is our tent of meeting.

2 Corinthians 5:21
“For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

2 Peter 1:1
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ:”

1 Corinthian 1:30
“But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:”

Antichrist?

Some accuse or warn me of my doctrine being antichrist.

II John 1:7-8
“Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.”

I John 4:1-3
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”

I believe Jesus came in the flesh. The authors of the Apocalypse of John, the Gospel of John, as well as I, II and III John wrote to the Johannine community. Some members departed and became a rival sect, mostly over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ. I John was most likely written between 90-120 A.D., these groups tended toward certain Gnostic teaching that believed the flesh was inherently evil and therefore Jesus did not have flesh.

I understand the thoughts and concerns on the matter. It would seem that most initial responses to an “attack” on the Trinity would be negative. I’m not offended by these statements and I appreciate that people care to speak to me about it. However, I don’t believe they are correct. In fact, though technically including Jesus’ flesh, the Trinitarian position diminishes his flesh far more than mine.

I hope after reading this all can see that I strongly believe Jesus came in the flesh. These verses do not relate to any Trinitarian ideas. If the text said, “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus as being the third member of the Triune God is of the antichrist,” then you would have a great case.

Orthodox Christianity believes that Jesus is God in the flesh because it is an important part of the Imperial Church and their doctrines. After the Council of Nicea the church was in bed with Rome, and Constantine would not allow disunity in the church. The text we have in the canon is a direct result of the prompting of a pagan emperor.

Orthodoxy means nothing to me. This doctrine is anything other than clear in scripture. Even when I agree to limit myself to the cannon most Trinitarians deemed authoritative, the text fails to prove their doctrine. History is written by those who win the wars and so was the Trinity doctrine.