Before I get started I would like to apologize for the delay on this post. I have begun my rereading of other scriptures making it much more difficult to focus on just the new testament and cranking out a post right away. But here it is...the last of the four gospels. Also bare in mind that this post took a sizable amount of effort and time, so I am sure there are mistakes therein. Whether it is something related to a Grammar rule/typo/incorrect intrepretation/etc. So I am counting on you tough critics to correct me on my errors. So let's begin

================================================

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN

I know all you trinity fans out there were just waiting for this gospel out of the four. Right? Man those first few verses, bombshells to my position. Right? Well, let us look at what I have to say of those verses when taking into account the entire context thus far. Of course, I will make mention of other verses in John regarding the trinity as well, not just the first few verses. The first few just happen to be the most interesting thing yet. The most hope for trinitarians thus far.

Since these verses are so key and important to the trinity position thus far I will take PLENTY of space to explain and quote (I am even doing side research on the usage of Greek words which translate as "God" or "god" which will be posted aside from this post and added to the final verdict). I am not going to give a short and sweet response like everything up till this point. Short and sweet just is not going to work here.

John 1:1-14 (NIV)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent,nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Follow me as I piece this confusion together. First of all, I would like to note the BIAS for the trinity already found in the bible. It makes my job, someone in search of the true meaning, difficult. Because the translators have inserted their personal feelings into the text in various forms. In this case, the translators capitalized "Word" which turns out to be the Greek word “LOGOS”. This exact word is used throughout the bible and is NOT capitalized. So why capitalize this common word here? The translators had a trinitarian mindset/bias and mistranslated it so it would support their beliefs. Not only this, but do you see all these references to God with a capital "G" ? Turns out the translators arbitrarily picked those too. Get this. The translators translated "HO THEOS" as "the god" when it refers to satan in 2 corinthians 4:4. But in John 1:1 the phrase “THEOS” is translated as “God” when the word is describing the “LOGOS.” You may be sitting there thinking “Yeah, well the ‘HO’ makes a difference.” Yes it does. “HO” means ‘the’. So in 2 corinthians 4:4 satan is referred to as “the god” whereas in John 1:1 the “LOGOS” (Word) is required to “god.” If you capitalize one, you must do both. Otherwise you are showing bias without scriptural proof. And I know christians are not going to add satan as a part of their God! So bare in mind that the “LOGOS” is no more God than satan is.

John 1:1-2 in Greek

en arch hn o logoV, kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV. outoV hn en arch proV ton qeon.

2 Corinthians 4:4

en oiV o qeoV tou aiwnoV toutou etuflwsen ta nohmata twn apistwn eiV to mh augasai ton fwtismon tou euaggeliou thV doxhV tou cristou, oV estin eikwn tou qeou.

This has actually caught my eye for a rather interesting post. I have begun researching the usage of the word “God” in the Greek texts and how the spelling differs from case to case. I hope to post my conclusion of this rather large research in due time. If this is not bad enough, the gospel's author is accused of FOGERY. Forgery of Philo of Alexandria's ideas of the logos among other things. Now let's dive right into the text, regardless of all the surface issues.

The part most christians would point to would likely to be statement "and the Word was God." I mean, that is pretty clear is it not? Unfortunately for trinitarians it is not as crystal clear as they would hope. Because the much ignored words before it cast doubt as to the interpretation trinitarians are taking here. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Now let's think about this. If the Word is God by identity (The interpretation trinitarians hold) then why would the author of this GOD inspired book tell me that God was with God? This statement holds no purpose under the interpretation trinitarians take. And every single inspiration from God has a purpose, correct? Not only this but the fact that the author tells us that the "Word" was in the beginning is another pointless statement IF the Word = God. This is because God always is and always was. Eternal. So why is the author stating these pointless statements? Why not just say "The Word was God" and have at it. I'll tell you why I think this is so. These verses are telling us (The readers) that the statement "and the Word was God" is not to be taken as a statement of identity! In fact, here is an alternative interpretation that takes this subtle sign into account (Not to mention the uncertainly of translating this with “God” or “god”).

I feel this has nothing to do with identifying WHAT the Word is, but rather WHO the Word came from. Ask yourself this question: When you read a book by Thomas Jefferson and someone asks "What are you reading," you can correctly reply in two ways. "I am reading 'Insert book title' by Thomas Jefferson" or "I am reading Thomas Jefferson." In the second response, does the person actually mean to say "I am reading the physical corpse of Thomas Jefferson, the actual person." Of course not. The WORDS of Thomas Jefferson represent him; they are him in some sense. The same could be true in this verse.

You still might be concerned with "He was with God in the beginning." He who? He jesus? Who are we talking about? Well, let us assume it is jesus as christians will. This "He" is not labeled as God, so really whether I agree or not is not important. Is the "He" = "Word" It certainly appears so. But let us ask another question : Does it matter whether jesus = Word or not. Not at all. The Word has already been cleared as not God himself but God's declaration, God's book, or whatever you want to call it. So what if jesus is a physical manifestation of God's declaration/God's book (This theme becomes even more apparently true in later context I'll discuss shortly, check for yourself in verse 14 if you wanna read ahead). This does not mean jesus = God.

Are the next few verses 3 and 4 talking about God or jesus/Word? Again, does it matter? Not really. These characteristics sound God-like, so christians are fast to claim these for jesus and therefore conclude jesus is God. But let us take a trip back to the beginning of the bible, Genesis!

Genesis 1:1-5

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

God never tells us of the creation of angels in the beginning of Genesis. Nor of satan for that matter (A fallen angel). We simply read about the creation of adam , eve, the world, etc. In addition, the bible only makes mention of creating “Adam” and “Eve” when it comes to humanity. Although, christians must accept the fact that others were made without specific mention or else it makes no sense where Cain’s wife came from. So it can be said that “Adam” and “Eve” figuratively represent the first group of humans, or simply that the other humans created are not mentioned. With this in mind, if jesus was created along with or aside from this group and not mentioned, then it would not be considered something strange, and actually something possible. Also notice that Genesis leaves the method of creation wide open. How did God create the heaven and the earth? Alone? With helpers? Solely ordering other creations (Angels)? Have another creation take charge in His place? It remains silent! So it is superfluous to assume God did it alone as the final and correct interpretation. The possibilities are endless. What if jesus helped? What if jesus ordered angels around? Then one might say the world was made “Through” jesus. But also “Through” God. Both would be true of each independent person: Both jesus and God.

Moving on, verse 4 specially is very interesting. In verse 4 before john's speech it says "In him was life, and that life was the light of men," then john states "He[John] came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe" The life in jesus is said to be "the light of men," then john tells us he is testifying concerning THIS VERY LIGHT! And men can believe THROUGH jesus. Believe what? The light? GOD? Things are starting to make sense now.

The next verses of 6-9 offer little; because john decides he is going to insert his little "I am from God" speech. Although even his speech does help a little. John states "He himself was not the light" WHO? He jesus? Although john did not clearly say, it should already be clear. Jesus himself was not the light, because the light WAS THE LIFE IN JESUS! Then the next verse must again be about jesus, since john is not mentioned between the "He" referring to jesus and this "he." "He [Jesus] came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world."

God was coming into the world THROUGH JESUS! But jesus is only but a witness to the light. Through jesus as witness, GOD is COMING INTO THE WORLD! God is that true light. No where is jesus labeled God or the true light.

We come to verses 10-13, which talk about yet another "He", but WHO HE? GOD? JESUS? Well, it must be talking about jesus if we remain consistent with interpretations of verses 3 and 4, thus this must be about jesus as well. Interestingly enough this makes perfect sense. If jesus is human, as I suspect, then the phrase “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” takes on an entirely different meaning that a trinitarian would take it to mean. Instead of this meaning “God owns us” it would “jesus is one of us.”

Finally verse 14! The Word became FLESH! "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." This ties back to the beginning of my post. God's WORD/DECREE/BOOK/DECLARATIONS became manifest in the FLESH through jesus! Does that mean jesus is God? Hardly. Jesus was a representative of God, sent by the Father to reveal the Father. So what was jesus before becoming flesh? Maybe just a spirit? A soul? By the context it is inconclusive. But you might wonder “What about jesus being called the One and Only?” Well, is jesus not said to be the One and Only begotten son of God? That should answer your question. This title however does not clearly and conclusively label jesus as God.

Verses 15-17 confirm jesus can have some role in all this "He" business. But then my favorite verse out of this whole mess comes. VERSE 18!

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

This is actually very humorous. Notice how the NIV translation tries to make jesus sound like God? Makes it seem like "Yeah, you know it. TRINITY!" Well Look at the KJV:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath delcared him."

WOAH! How did the translators differ SO MUCH?? The only begotten Son verus God the One and Only?!?!

I took the liberty of searching the web for an answer to this absurd amount of difference and actually came to a PRO-TRINITY website that aids my position. Who nice is that? They come to the conclusion that the correct reading should be ONLY BEGOTTON SON (They disagree with the use of THEOS, Greek for god, in the verse as cited in NIV and other translations). They conclude this even though the oldest translations have THEOS. You can read it for yourself here: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html

Now coming back to the statement “No man hath seen God at any time” we must ask ourselves, How can jesus be God when many saw Him? He could not. I'll give you a very good reason why. Because of this: "[...]Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9)

Now if you read John 14:9 without first reading the rest of the chapter and context around it, you might think "CONTRADICTION!" This is not the case. Jesus in John 14:9 claims you shall see the Father through jesus's works. Meaning you will not actually SEE the Father PHYSICALLY. This verse in combination with the last show that jesus is not God or part of some trinity God.

Phew. Ok, even though that was long, I actually made it shorter than I originally wanted it. Basically, the verse is not as clear as trinitarians need it to be in order for this verse to be a basis for the belief in the trinity. The verse is especially riddled with dishonest translating, plain confusing statements, and mystery. So I expect many people to disagree in some proportion with the entirety of my argument regarding these verses.

Anyways, the next verse relating to the trinity is 1:32-33 talking again about the bodily descending of the “Holy spirit” (Simply called “The Spirit” in this verse, but the other gospels tell us this is the “Holy spirit/ghost”)

In 3:34 we notice that people whom God has sent will speak the words of God. This is important to know, because jesus continually tells us he has been sent by God. And immediately after this verse in 3:35 we have another citing of the Father GIVING everything to the son (jesus).

In 4:23-24 interesting tells us that the true worshippers will worship the Father. Not the son, the Father. So I must ask, why is the son not mentioned if the son is God? Could it be that the son is not God?

Another great verse comes up in 5:19, where jesus tells us that he can do nothing of himself. He basically tells us he is God’s puppet. He imitates God in a sense. And in 5:23 jesus states that by honoring the son, you have honored the Father. This should make sense. Jesus is imitating the Father, so if you scorn the son, you are scorning the Father. Honor son, you honor the Father. And in 5:26 it states the Father gave life to jesus (Sound familiar? Maybe like adam was given life?). Also in 5:27 jesus is said to have been given authority by God to execute judgement. GIVEN!

Then we come to 5:37 which reaffirms the interpretations I made in John 14:9 about only seeing the Father through jesus’s works. In this verse it is said “[…] Ye have neither heard his[The Father] voice at any time nor seen his[The Father] shape.”

In 6:38-40 jesus basically admits he getting his orders from God. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me […]”

Then there is something that really made me wonder. Look at 6:63, “[…] The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” This statement made me wonder whether I failed to incorporate the possibility that jesus and the “LOGOS” are separate entities. In fact, although I am still undecided due to the confusing context of the first few verses, it is very possible. Because remember the “LOGOS” was with God in the beginning (Remember my soul/spirit theory?) and jesus’s words are spirit. Interesting, is it not?

In 7:16 jesus admits that “My[Jesus] doctrine is not mine[Jesus’s], but his[Father] that sent me.” Jesus continually stressed credit with the Father. It makes me wonder how trinitarians just simply ignore all these signs.

Another very interesting verse is 8:12. Jesus calls himself the “Light of the world” and states “he that follweth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

This is surely a reference to the life inside jesus that is the “light of men.” This adds more emphasis between light and life. But does this relate to the “LOGOS”? The words jesus speaks that are life? This is all too interesting. Maybe this Spirit/Life/Light = LOGOS which is in jesus. I am starting to think this is the case and in my final verdict I will ultimately choose either jesus = LOGOS or LOGOS is in jesus. Currently the second option sounds better.

Then in 8:23 jesus says he is not of this world. Does that mean he is calling himself God? Not necessarily. This could be jesus making a distinction between him and the rest of humanity. Whereas the rest of humanity has lived upon the earth, jesus has remained in heaven and has only come down to earth to fulfill the will of the Father.

Jesus calls himself the son of man in 8:28 and again affirms he does nothing of himself. Want to know something even better? In the OT God tells us he is not the son of man:

Numbers 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

So how then is jesus God? I think he cannot.

Then we come to another favorite of trinity believers. 8:58, “Jesus said unto them, Verily verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

I have seen endless debates upon these harmless two words, because of an alleged connection with where God in a sense names Himself “I am” to moses in exodus. Although, if you consider the two words, they are a proclamation of existence. It is like saying “Before Abraham was, I existed.” Or Simply “I exist.” So regardless of the similarity in words, it is erroneous to jump to the conclusion that this is a reference to exodus and therefore jesus being God. Some have even speculated that “I am” was a result of John’s writing style, since no other gospel ever quoted jesus as saying “I am.” If you look briefly at this site you will see examples of the “I am” phrase being used several times in the gospel of John : http://www.cresourcei.org/IAM.html

Now we come to 9:31 where it is said that “Now we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.”

Does this not sound exactly like jesus? Doing God’s will??? Sinless??? And jesus performs many miracles and prays several times to God throughout the gospels. This casts doubt on the idea that jesus is doing the miracles of himself.

Then all of a sudden I was shaken. John 10:11 and 10:14 have jesus referring to himself as GOOD! But does this mean he is claiming deity since God alone is Good? At first glance I thought my mission had come to a halt and I was done for. But further investigation of the Greek allows my view.

Matthew 19:17

  ο δε ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος ει δε θελεις εισελθειν εις την ζωην τηρησον τας εντολας

Mark 10:18

ο δε ιησους ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος

Luke 18:19

ειπεν δε αυτω ο ιησους τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος

John 10:11

  εγω ειμι ο ποιμην ο καλος ο ποιμην ο καλος την ψυχην αυτου τιθησιν υπερ των προβατων

John 10:14

The Greek word “KOLOS” (καλός) appears both in John 10:11 and 10:14 and is translated as “good.” Notice this word does not exist in all three instances were jesus says only God is good. The point being a specific word for good was being used which jesus said only applies to God. “KOLOS” is not that type of “good” being referred to. When I learn more about the specific meanings I will also include it in the final post.

Then we come to a very anti-trinity statement in 10:29 “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all […]”

Jesus does not set himself aside when stating this. He is included in the statement as being lesser than the Father. But the doctrine of the trinity teaches us that God is trinity of CO-EQUAL parts/beings/whatever. Jesus is claiming to not be equal with the Father, thus discrediting one of the most important parts of the doctrine of the trinity.

And then we come to 10:30 where jesus is said to be one with the Father. Trinitarians are fast to say “See TRINITY!” but they fail to look at the larger context. Because in 15:4, 17:11, and 17:21-22 we see that jesus’s union with the Father is not as trinitarians perceive it.

Espeically take note of 17:11

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are”

Jesus is asking that others be one in the same regard as jesus is one with the Father!

Regardless of the fact that jesus claiming to be one with the Father was not a claim of Godhood, the jews become upset thinking he has claimed to be God. Jesus quickly answers them with the following from the OT

10:34

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came and the scripture cannot be broken”

What does this say to me? Jesus is essentially saying “I am no more God almighty than you are.” To both the term god has been applied and yet neither are God almighty.

We have yet another resurrection miracle, this time Lazarus is raised by jesus in 11:43. But again miracles do not prove Godhood…God can bestow powers unto whomever He so chooses.

Do a little fast forwarding and we get to 14:10 where jesus says “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”

This statement is simply beautiful. Because it almost equates Father = LOGOS = God, although not clearly. And if it does then I would of course need to revise some of my views regarding the initial verses. What do you think about the meaning of this verse? Also notice the Father is accredited to doing the works, all of them. Not jesus.

If you didn’t believe me when I said Jesus is lesser than the Father, than prepare yourself for 14:28

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.”

Here you go. Jesus telling you straight up. “Yeah, even I am under the Father. Even I am less than the Father.” Thus shooting down this idea of CO-EQUAL UNITY.

Another hard hit to trinitarians is 17:3 where it is said “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

You notice how jesus sets himself ASIDE from the statement of the one and only TRUE GOD? I find this quite significant. It is yet another place I feel jesus is saying “I am not the one and only true God almighty.”

Coming to the end here we have 20:17 where jesus says “[…] I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

Again another place where jesus is putting himself under God and separate from God. An idea that does not go well with the doctrine of the trinity.

Well you might wonder then why Thomas calls jesus God in 20:28. Well there is distinct and highly ignored problem. Thomas says to jesus “My Lord and my God” but is he calling jesus this? It is not really clear whether or not he is. Because Thomas’s statement was merely a reaction to what jesus had shown him.

CONCLUSION:

The gospel of John does not prove the trinity as a christian doctrine. Although specific verses can be intrepreted in a trinitarian way, doing so will contradict the context of the book. Therefore, I conclude the gospel of John offers no aid to the doctrine of the trinity, but in fact offers a sizable amount of resistance to the idea.

Just for any new comers. This is a post following several others, all part of a series. Eventually I will condense all my posts in one work, but for now I am doing it in pieces. Time to discuss the Gospel According to Luke.

===================================================================

To start off, the Holy Spirit is spoken of in John 1:15 , 1:19 , 1:35 , 1:41 , 1:67 , 2:25-26 , 3:16 , 3:22 , 4:1 , 11:13 , 12:10 , and 12:12. Aside from 3:22 this Spirit holds absolutely no connection to God. In Luke 3:22 the Holy Ghost again makes a connection back to Matthew 3:16-17. So we again see Holy Ghost/Spirit = Spirit of God/Father. So check Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:20 for more contextual evidence of this. However, even this connection fails to label the Spirit as GOD.

In Luke 2:52 we see jesus again lacking the attributes of divinity. Jesus is said to be "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." If jesus is God, how then is he increasing in anything? And also gaining favour with God (Himself?). Makes no sense.

Then I come to make favorite verse that CRUSHES the Son of God = God position. Reach Luke 3:38, Read it! "[...] Adam, which was the son of God" It is superfluous to assume that Son of God = God. In fact it is plain against this verse, unless you want to now have Quadinity God!

Then we have an instance where jesus raised someone from the dead in Luke 7:12-15 and the crowd GLORIFIES GOD in Luke 7:16! NOT JESUS!

Then jesus's powers are ACCREDITED TO GOD in 9:43! AGAIN, NOT JESUS! and Jesus himself gives credit for all his doings to God in Luke 10:22!!

Then in Luke 18:18-21 we come to a repeatition of my favorite anti-trinitarian verse! Refer to this quote from my Mark post :

"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'" "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

Jesus is clearly telling this boy "Hey, I am NOT GOD! No one is GOOD except GOD!" The boy even corrects his language after jesus calls this to his attention saying only "Teacher" afterwards. Jesus corrected this now, and trinitarians should take heed from this!"

Other than this, the Gospel According to St. Luke has many reoccurances of already mentioned details found in one or both the Gospel of Matthew and Mark.

CONCLUSION:

The Gospel According to St. Luke offers to aid to the trinitarian position/belief and in fact offers some resistance! Therefore, I conclude no proof of this concept is found therein!

EDIT: CORRECTED MARK 1:11 MISTAKE

Before I get started, I would like to comment on the last post. The last post was analyzed simply with the book's context solely. As I keep moving on the context will grow, until eventually the entire new testament will be the context. Thus, in light of me finishing my rereading of the Gospel According to St. Mark I will edit a few interpertations of Matthew and add the respected Mark supporting verses. I will also use the still unchallenged views in matthew to support views in Mark and so forth as I keep moving on. So let us begin!

======================================================================

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK

In the very first verse, the author calls jesus the son of God. However as discussed in the Matthew post, the son of God doesn't equal to God. This become even more clear in the Gospel According to St. Mark.

Another puzzling verse about the Holy Ghost/Spirit appears in Mark 1:8, where jesus is said to baptize people with the Holy Ghost/Spirit. A better connatation of this entity will be gained soon though. Also in Mark 1:11 a voice from the clouds again calls jesus a beloved Son ("The Spirit" can be interperted as the Spirit of God by Matthew 3:16-17).

Jesus of course performs his miracles, just as he did in Matthew. The healing, the demon exorsisms, the walking on water, the feeding of many with little food, etc. All these in no way prove that jesus is God. This was discussed in the Matthew post and supported by Matthew 10:24-25 and Matthew 11:27.

We likewise find jesus praying once again in several places (Mark 1:35 and Mark 14:32-36). In addition we have jesus forgiving sins again. He gives the exact same answer as he did in Matthew 9:1-8. He never claims to be God (Mark 2:5-11).

We again have a crowd glorifying God because of jesus, they don't glorfy jesus himself (Mark 2:12). Another reoccurence from Matthew is jesus being labeled Lord of Sabbath. Jesus states the Sabbath was made for men, not men for the Sabbath. So again he is not claiming Godhood (Mark 2:28). Also in Mark 6:7 and 3:15 the disciples are again cited as receiving the abilities to cast demons out and heal illnesses.

The Holy Ghost/Spirit is mentioned again in Mark 3:29, but it is not labeled or identified as God.

Then we come to the most anti-trinitarian verse yet (Although I have seen apologetics confuse/lie to themselves to get out of this problem. They never really address the true problem). In Mark 10:17-20 jesus denies being Good, and therefore being God. Read it:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'" "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

Jesus is clearly telling this boy "Hey, I am NOT GOD! No one is GOOD except GOD!" The boy even corrects his language after jesus calls this to his attention saying only "Teacher" afterwards. Jesus corrected this now, and trinitarians should take heed from this!

Then we come to my first Inter-Book contextual correction. In Matthew 10:20 I stated the context of Matthew did not support that the Holy Ghost/Sprit = the Spirit of the Father. However in Mark 13:11 the Holy Ghost/Spirit REPLACES the Spirit of the Father in usage. So it should follow they are the same thing. Meaning now I must deal with this before we have a bunch of gleeful trinitarians, of course without due cause. Who or what is the "Spirit of the Father?" Well, I know this much. It is not the Father! It is seperate from the Father, whatever it is. My best guess is this Holy Ghost/Spirit/Spirit of the Father is simply one of God's angels. I can not, however, conclude it as God. The being never exhibits God's characterisitcs nor is labeled or identified as God as far as I have seen.

Once again jesus admits he is not omniscient is Mark 13:32 just like he did in Matthew 24:36-41. ONLY THE FATHER KNOWS! NOT EVEN THE SON! This is clear cut. It even mentions the Son!

And that is pretty much it. This book did not offer much resistance to anti-trinitarians, and much to trinitarians. Surprisingly it is more anti-trinitarian than even Matthew. I will be taking comments/corrections/arguments/etc. for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. No other new testament texts YET! I know a bunch of you are probably waiting for the Gospel of John, well it is coming soon! Rest assure I will get to it.

CONCLUSION:

The Gospel According to St. Mark not only does not prove the trinity in the slightest, but is very clearly seen to be anti-trinitarian in nature. Therefore, I conclude the trinity finds no basis in the Gospel According to St. Mark!

(ENTRY EDITTED: WORDING REVISED ON 3:16-17 AND 22:43-45 REFERENCE CORRECTION AND STATMENT REGARDING JESUS PRAYING BEFORE CRUCIFIX)

Before I get started on this let me make a few things clear. As I said in the last post, christianity did not accept the trinity until the 4th century. Why did it take so long? If jesus made it so clear he was God and that God is a trinity, what were all the christian officials arguing about at the various councils? Of course, we need to take into account that the doctrine of the trinity had late arrival with respect to jesus's demise because it even took quite some time for the new testament to be written and the accepted books to be canonized.

Anyways, there are two ways I can think of right now that would prove the trinity in some regard. If both jesus and the holy spirit are labeled as God, then the trinity is being supported. If the Father along with the other two are collectively in one verse labeled as God, then the trinity is being supported.

So let us start with off with the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Should this not be called the Gospel according to God? Or maybe not. Guess the man is more responsible for it, or is he?)

====================================================================

Very early in the book (Matthew 1:18) it is stated that jesus is a child of the Holy Ghost/Spirit. The book does not tell us how or in what way. Did the Holy Ghost have intercourse? Did the Holy Ghost magically plant a sperm inside the womb that would in turn produce a perfect person? Or did the spirit just plant a baby directly in there? No one will know. Also the Spirit is never identified as God anywhere.

Even as a baby people wanted to worship jesus and he had not even preached the message of God yet. King Herod claims he wants to worship the child in Matthew 2:8. Then in Matthew 2:11 the wise men worship the baby jesus and give gifts.

Then we come to the very first place jesus is called the Son of God (Although not directly). In Matthew 3:16-17, the Spirit of God comes down from heaven and a voice from heaven calls jesus his beloved Son. This, however, does not prove the trinity as true. The voice did not say "This is God" or anything the likes thereof. Thus trinitarians have nothing to work with here.

Jesus is then called the Son of God in the form of a question by the devil several times as the devil attempts to tempt jesus. Again this does not prove the trinity in any amount any more than where the Spirit of God called jesus his beloved Son. Although interestingly enough jesus does say this, "Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Jesus tells satan to only worship/serve the Lord after satan asks for worship from jesus. Although this does not necessarily disprove the trinity, it is food for thought. If jesus is God, then why did jesus not say "Worship me your God, and serve me only."

Then of course he have jesus healing all sorts of people with all sorts of illnesses and problems. (Matthew 4:23-24 being one example). Jesus also performs other miracles like stopping the waves and winds in Matthew 8:23-27 and casting demons out into pigs in Matthew 8:28-32. Do miracles prove jesus is God? Do not think so again. Other prophets had their signs and miracles, did they not?

Then we come to another eye opener. Jesus forgives someone's sins after healing them in Matthew 9:1-8. Does this make him God? Afraid not. When you read the context jesus explains why he said what he said and never claims to be God. In fact the people praise GOD for allowing jesus to have the authority on earth to forgive sins. NOT JESUS!

Afterwards we come to the place where jesus appears to be bringing a girl out of a comma in Matthew 9:23-26 (Not really sure what condition she has, although the people thought she was dead and jesus claims she is in fact asleep). Why do I mention this you may ask? Because I have had people claim this shows jesus raising the dead. Well it does not so far as I can tell. And even if it did, it does not prove jesus is God as will be made more clear in the next verse.

In Matthew 10:1 jesus his twelve disciples the ability to cast out demons, heal every disease and illness, however in Matthew 10:5 jesus states they should only to go the lost sheep of Israel, NOT the Gentiles or Samaritans (Strange how paul traveled and dealed a lot with the gentiles). But there is a point to this verse being brought up. Jesus’ disciples were GIVEN THE AUTHORITY to do miracles. Why then do you conclude jesus is God simply because he was GIVEN THE AUTHORITY by God? Seems unwarranted to do so.

Then there is Matthew 10:20 speaking of the Spirit of the Father who will speak through the disciples. Is this the same as the Holy Spirit/Ghost? I do not believe there is enough contextual proof to support that conclusion. They appear to be separate things, since it would have been easier to just say "The Holy Spirit/Ghost will speak through you." The very usage of another concept implies two different entities, thus the trinitarian position takes another blow. 

Even more of a blow to the trinitarian position is Matthew 10:24-25. "A student[I interpret this to mean the DISCIPLES] is not above his teacher[I interpret this to mean JESUS, see Matthew 23:10], nor a servant[JESUS AGAIN] above his master[THE LORD GOD]. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.[...]"

This shows that just because they are alike, that does not mean THEY ARE EQUAL! OR EVEN THE SAME BEING! In fact in future posts you will see a sighting of jesus saying that the Father is greater than ALL including himself!

In fact in Matthew 11:25 jesus is worshiping God the Father. Does God worship himself? Yet another reason to believe jesus is NOT God. And in Matthew 11:27 jesus states that the Father the one doing everything. If jesus is God, then why would God the Father in heaven be doing everything? That would include giving jesus the AUTHORITY to do miracles.

Then the Son of Man (Jesus) is called the Lord of the Sabbath in Matthew 12:8. Again this has nothing to with Godhood. Does being the Lord of the Sabbath make you God? I do not think so.

Then for the second time in the entire book the Holy Ghost/Spirit is spoken of. This happens in Matthew 12:32, but again this being/entity is not identified as GOD.

Once again we find jesus praying to God the Father in Matthew 14:23, which is a problem as discussed earlier.

Then we have peter and jesus walking on water, again no proof that jesus is God. Even though peter only last for a short while, because his faith was lacking. And after the water-walking people nonetheless decided to worship jesus on the boat. Why not worship peter as well? He did it for a few seconds! (Matthew 14:25-34)

Again in Matthew 15:31 the crowd around jesus praise the GOD OF ISRAEL! Not jesus! Finally for the first time in the entire book jesus claims to be the messiah/christ and son of God when addressed a question regarding his identity in Matthew 16:16-17.

 Then there is another instance where, I believe it is supposed to be interpreted as the Spirit of God as in the earlier verse, a voice from a cloud calls jesus his beloved Son. (Matthew 17:5)

Then in Matthew 22:43-45 we have an allusion to the old testament regarding psalm 110:1 which states, "The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

This is one of those verses I felt were baseless in defense of the trinity in the old testament. Plus I had to address it in the new regardless. As you see the LORD in all caps means the name of God was used there (i.e. JHVH,Jehovah,etc.). This is GOD. The Lord is just a title, not a word signifying identity of being God. In the old testament angels are even called Lords by prophets such as Lot (You should have seen this in one of the alleged trinity proof-texts in my old testament post). So again jesus is not calling himself God.

Another blow to the trinitarian position is Matthew 24:36-41, which has jesus telling us ONLY the Father knows when the Hour of the end of ages is going to come. NOT EVEN THE SON KNOWS! And yes the word ONLY is in the verse. So jesus is not omniscient, meaning he lacks one of the qualities God possesses.

And do not be mistaken by the next verse of Matthew 24:42. Jesus calling himself Lord is in the same context as Pslam 110:1 discussed earlier. It does not equate to being GOD.

Then you what? Jesus prayers another three times IN A ROW to the Father, because it looks like he does not want to be crucified (Matthew 26:36 , 39 , 44).

In Matthew 26:63-64 jesus is again agreeing to being the messiah/christ and the son of God. Later jesus is worshipped again in Matthew 28:9 , 17 after his resurrection. In Matthew 28:18 jesus says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Given to jesus? By whom? GOD! This was discussed earlier. It seems jesus is trying to make it clear that he is not God by placing credit where credit is due.

Then when I thought it was all over and the trinity had been crushed, I came to the second to last verse and it surprised me!

Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

I bet all the trinitarians are nodding their heads in glee, but without due cause. This verse is accused of being a later insertion and not part of the original! View the entire argument here:

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm 

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html (Verse said to not even be useful)

And it is not a very useful verse. The verse never labels the three as God. But with the dispute of the verse's authenticity, trinitarians lose even more ground.

THEREFORE I CONCLUDE:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew DOES NOT support the trinity. There is absolutely no support in there, and even the best support is accused of being a later insertion. In fact the book is quite anti-trinitarian as show above.

PS

Do not mention other trinity proofs from other books YET! Only comment on the book of Matthew for now. As I add more posts we can talk about more and more books as a whole.

This post is going to be a beast. It has so much material that I might just break off it into smaller pieces. The first verse alone managed to take up two pages of single spaced 12 point font text. I have entirely over-estimated my time, so it is going to take a few more days more than likely to fully complete it. Plus I must proofread it quickly, revise, shorten where I can, remove problems, etc. So if I am unable to finish by tommorow, I'll present the verses I have completed as PART II (A). Other parts will follow if this happens, which it likely will.

To start this post off, I would like to say a few things. judaism has never held a view that God is a Trinity. Since the scriptures of judaism and the old testament are closely related, and in some cases identical, I would think they have good reason for their belief against this concept. Although I cannot simply assume this, because I have seen time and time again that sometimes organized religion and/or groups of people have held beliefs that do not originate from their scriptures. Another interesting note is the trinity was not accepted by early christians, many being converts from judaism, and not even by early christianity. The trinity was only accepted into christianity after several debates on the nature of christ were conducted and was not formulated until the 4th century. Yet, regardless of the history of how this concept came about, it is one of the defining beliefs of christianity for many. Though some denominations do not believe in the concept, while still considering themselves christian.

Now let us begin analyzing every single verse and as much context as needed regarding every single verse that has ever been used to prove the trinity which I have seen used before.

=====================================================================

Genesis 1:26 , 3:22 , 7:11 , and possibly others make reference to God as "Us" and "Our" in the case of Genesis 1:26

Trinitarians will argue the use of plurality supports the trinity. However there are several problems with this argument.

#1 The use of plurality may signify authority, power, or greatness. In the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic languages the use of plurality is used to magnify/emphasize a person's greatness. And considering the old testament was likely to be originally written in one of these languages, it would follow that the usage was not intended to signify a plurality in persons.

#2 In Genesis 1:27, right after the supposed trinitarian plurality, the verb used for "Created" is singular. This would mean that God is being referred to as a singular person, not a plurality of persons.

(Source : http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq134.html  ;check it out. There is much more they have to say, then the small bit I used)

#3 Even if it were accepted that the use of "Us" and "Our" signified a plurality in persons, if would not tell us HOW MANY! Meaning God could be a Binity, Trinity, Quadinity, ===> Infinitinity. So one would have to use another verse to state how many (I would say it would likely be a new testament verse).

=====================================================================

=====================================================================

Then there is Genesis 1:2 where it is said "and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters"

In short, this verse proves nothing. There is absolutely no mention of the 2nd member, even if you take this to be the third. And looking at the context, the verse does not exclusively say the Spirit = God or whether the Spirit is seperate from God. Also there is a large lack of knowledge as to what this "Spirit" is referring to. But regardless of the lack of knowledge the verse still offers no support to the trinitarian belief, although trinitarians may like it.

=====================================================================

=====================================================================

Next there is Isaiah where it is stated : "[...] And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit."

According to the same source I used above (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq122.html) this verse is actually being mistranslated, possibly purposely. The verse is supposed to read "and now the Lord God has sent me, and His Spirit" Some translations like the KJV even mistranslate it more so in saying "[...]and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." This misdoing is the precise problem the site speaks of, however even the NIV is alittle off, which might lead one to a trinitarian view.

With all this in mind, the spirit being spoken of has no context suggesting it is the third member of the trinity. You could just as easily say the spirit being spoken of is a prophetic spirit given to the prophet. The source I use even goes as far as to show that this "spirit" cannot be a member of a coequal trinity God, because the spirit is ordered around by God. (Check out Numbers 11:17 , 11:25, and 11:29 among others listed on the website used above)

=====================================================================

=====================================================================

Genesis 19:24 is another place trinitarians like to cite. It says "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens."

Trinitarians claim that the two places the LORD is referred to proves that God is a trinity.

I have seen some people speculate as to the first LORD being an army of angels sent by the LORD, thus they represent the LORD on earth. This view is supported by the context of the chapters before this verse. For example, in Genesis 18:1-5 the LORD appears in the form of three men who are later labeled as angels in Genesis 19:1-29 (And the three angels does not prove the trinity either. Commonly people mistake numbers for meanings, when really no meaning is intended or even there). Also in chapter 19 verse 13 the angels say they are going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and that the LORD has sent them to destroy it. Finally in verse 24 of the same chapter we come to the verse of question. So let's recap. The LORD appeared in the form of three angels (Obviously the three angels are not God, but they represent God on earth). These angels tell us they are here to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and that they were sent by the LORD to do it. Now using all this let's look at what my pervious source has to say on the topic (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq061.html)

The source claims the mention of LORD twice is to emphasize that the LORD is the cause, the doer, the performer, the commander. This might be important considering ANGELS were sent to perform the destruction. God is making it clear who is commanding the destruction of the city.

=====================================================================

These are all the old testament verses I have seen used so far. Some have mentioned others on certain websites, but after reading their claims and the verses along with context I felt their view was so baseless and without restraint by the text that it was not appropriate to label it as proof. If these verses come up in the comments, then I'll address them. Otherwise, this is the post on the old testament and whether the trinity is proven therein.

CONCLUSION:

The old testament does not prove the trinity. It can be argued that it actually disproves the trinity, but all I am concerned with is whether it proved the trinity in any manner. After analyzing the oftenly used verses, I conclude it does not.

=========================================================================

John 4:23-24

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

=========================================================================

This post will be very short, as it doesn't need much explaination or quotations. In the new testament it is stated plainly that "true worshippers will worship the FATHER in spirit and truth" The rest can be plainly read above, the key point is that the FATHER should be worshiped by the true worshipers.

EDIT (OMITTED THIS SECTION AND CHANGED CONCLUSIONS DUE TO LACK OF EXCLUSIVITY):

Also for all you Trinitarian believers out there, listen to this verse VERY CLOSELY! The FATHER is the only "part" of the trinity mentioned and then it goes on to talk about GOD as a whole. I take this verse to be a HUGE blow to the trinitarian belief, because it seems to be plainly saying that GOD is simply the FATHER. NO SON of God and NO holy spirit.

Therefore I come to a conclusion:

1. GOD (i.e. the FATHER) should be worshiped in spirit and in truth. This means NO WORSHIP OF JESUS! OR THE HOLY SPIRIT!

I decided I'd just list verses used instead of actually quoting them. because the verses make a short post look quite longer than it really is. I might just quote bits and pieces. and encorparate the verses into my analysis. Anyone can view the entire verse along with the entire context at biblegateway.com (I used NIV verison)

New Testament used:

Matthew 5:17-19    Matthew 7:12     Luke 24:44

=========================================================

In Matthew 5:17-19 jesus tells us "I have not come to abolish them[The Law or Prophets, check context] but to fulfill them" and also "not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" then jesus says "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven [...]"

So what does this basically say? It says jesus is coming to fulfill the Law and Prophets, not abolish them. Nothing is disappearing from the Law UNTIL "everything is accomplished". People who break one of the LEAST of the commandments while teaching others to do likewise are the least in heaven.

Then jesus says in luke 24:44 "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms"

Suddenly jesus is saying that only that which is about him must be fulfilled. And out of no where jesus mentions the Psalms, which is not mentioned in the other verses although jesus says "This is what I told you while I was still with you"

So I take it the "everything is accomplished" is when everything about jesus in the Law and prophets is fulfilled. Not sure what is up with the psalms mystery there. Jesus tells us that breaking the least of the commandments and telling others to do likewise makes us the least in heaven (Not a good thing).

So what can I gather from all this?

1. I think it was Paul who altered the Law on forbidden foods and told others to do likewise, right? This then would make him the least in heaven. And if jesus told paul, as some would tell me, then guess what ladies and gentlemen JESUS WOULD THE LEAST IN HEAVEN BY HIS OWN STATEMENT! This idea could also be extended to modern days with pope verdicts or any religious head's verdicts for that matter which tell others to break ANY of the commandments, even the least of them.

2. I do not think everything regarding the messiah, which would in turn regard jesus according to christians, has happened according to the old testament. For instance check out ezekiel 37:26 or even Isaiah 2:4.

First here are the bible verses where the story will take place:

============================================================== 

Matthew 27:3-8 (New International Version)

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Acts 1:18-19 (New International Version)

(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

==============================================================

As you can tell there is what appears to be a disagreement in these two stories. In one the chief priests purchased the Field of Blood and in the other Judas purchased the Field of Blood. Also in one story Judas hanged himself, in the other he fell HEADLONG and basically exploded (Not exactly, but you get the idea)

Now unusally when I present this I present it as a contradiction and challenge people to tell me how it isn't. I am going to, however, take a rather different approach. I am going to call this story time, and all other similar posts in the future. I am going to give everyone the opportunity to feed me some baseless story (Or if you have some biblical proof a basefull story) as to how these two passages do not contradict one another. I will then judge everyone's baseless stories on a scale from 0 to 10 in several different categories including:

Humor - X/10

Creativity - X/10

Believablity - X/10

Logical Soundness - X/10

If you happen to be offering basefull proof, then please say so and I'll reply normally without any rating.