Go to the beginning of the Salvation vs. project.
Go back to: or of the Trinity/Binity series.
The following information shows that the claim that God is a Trinity or Binity does not have the scriptural support that Trinitarians and Binitarians claim it does. Below, each of their proofs of this claim are definitively refuted. Later posts will cover the so-called "proofs" of the claim that Jesus is God and that holy spirit is a personage.
DO REFERENCES TO "JEHOVAH'S ANGEL" PROVE THAT JESUS OR HOLY SPIRIT IS JEHOVAH?The word "angel" means "messenger". It is someone who delivers a message from another personage, not for themselves. It is the same as saying "the king's messenger". In ancient times, when a messenger delivered a message from a king, they remembered the exact words and the intonation of those words, speaking as if the king. (2 Kings 18:17-37 [par|int]; 2 Kings 19:1-13 [par|int]) One error in that delivery could cause an unintended war and even result in the messenger's death at the hands of the king who sent him.
Also, even Jehovah's prophets have spoken as Jehovah. Moses spoke as Jehovah at Exodus 15:22-26 [par|int] and Moses spoke as God while delivering Exodus 19:25 [par|int], 20:1-3 [par|int]. In fact, at Exodus 4:15-16 [par|int] Jehovah himself says "you will serve as God to him" and at Exodus 7:1, 2 [par|int], he said, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet. You are to repeat everything that I will command you." Note that the word "Elohim" is used here toward Moses, so Jehovah clearly means that Moses will act as Jehovah, which also clearly undermines the claim that "Elohim" refers to a Trinity, as Moses is only one person. (See DOES JOHN 1:1 PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD in Part 12  for more details.) So there is no mystery to any of Jehovah's angels acting as God on his behalf. God is not an angel. Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is here?
What about when Balaam bowed down to an angel? (Numbers 22:26-31 [par|int]) At Revelation 19:10 [par|int], an angel rejected worship though claiming to speak the words of God, thus the angel that Balaam bowed down to had a special position, and no indication is given of Balaam worshipping the angel as God, and it does nothing to prove that the angel is Jehovah, as prostration is not only done toward God, but also toward kings and other prominent figures. (See DOES THE FACT THAT PEOPLE AND ANGELS BOWED DOWN TO JESUS PROVE THAT HE IS GOD? in Part 12  for more details.)
You decide: Are references to "Jehovah's angel" speaking as Jehovah clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consier: The word "angel" literally means "messenger". No human living on earth has ever seen God with his physical eyes. Even Moses spoke as God to Israel, so obviously the angels in heaven are given his word to speak in God's behalf.
DOES GENESIS 1:26 [par|int] PROVE THAT GOD IS A TRINITY OR BINITY?Does this scripture somehow imply that all the beings included in "us" and "our" are co-equal gods? Does a manager saying "Let us make cake that looks like us?" require that all those he is speaking to are also managers with the same station? Obviously not. He could just as easily be talking to employees. Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is here? To infer that God and Jesus are the same because God said, "Let us make man in our image" is clearly without sense or merit. It does not even carry a remote implication of such meaning. But the reasoning goes that only God does the creating, which is true, but he does it through Jesus, just as one might send a message through a messenger. (See DO JOHN 1:3 AND COLOSSIANS 1:16 PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD? in Part 12  for more information.)
You decide: Is this account clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: Working together does not prove they are the same personage, nor does it imply a pantheon. God created all things created through Jesus.
DOES GENESIS 18:1-5 [par|int] PROVE THAT JEHOVAH IS A TRINITY?It is supposed that this artifical limitation of context indicates that the "three men" in this account are the Trinity. Note, however, that verse 1 says that "Jehovah appeared to [Abraham] among the big trees of Mamre." Thus, before the 3 men even came to him, Jehovah made himself known to Abraham. Note, also, that Abraham "raised his eyes", meaning that he had either been dreaming in asleep or in vision. And still more, Abraham knew that they were Jehovah's representaives the moment he saw them because of the vision he had. Thus, Abraham bowed down to them out of respect for Jehovah, not because any of them were Jehovah.
Also, the account describes, not God or three parts of God, but describes "three men". In verse 9 it says "they said to him", meaning the message was being carried by all 3 of them, not just one. So if all 3 are delivering the message, then either all 3 are God or all 3 are not God. As the account continues it says "when the men got up" and "the men left from there", that is two of the three, not all three. Then it goes on to call them "the two angels" at Genesis 19:1 [par|int]. Thus, since they all 3 spoke the message, and the two that left were angels, then the third one with Abraham was also an angel, simply relating the message of Jehovah. (See DO REFERENCES TO "JEHOVAH'S ANGEL" PROVE THAT JESUS OR HOLY SPIRIT IS JEHOVAH? below for more information.) The angel at the thornbush spoke to Moses as if Jehovah, but that angel was not Jehovah. (Exodus 3:2-5 [par|int]) Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian reasoning is here?
Abraham was not calling them Jehovah when he offered to wash their feet. Just as they were delivering Jehovah's message by way of surrogate, Abraham was using them as his surrogate to wash Jehovah's feet. Since Jehovah has no actual feet to wash, by washing the angel's feet, Abraham was able to provide the service of a slave to Jehovah even though he could not actually wash Jehovah's feet. He continued responding back to Jehovah because they were representing him. They had no need to take Abraham's message to Jehovah because Jehovah was already observing and listening and Abraham knew it.
Remember, Jehovah himself said that no one alive may see him. (Exodus 33:20 [par|int]) That is because the only way to see God is to go to heaven and the only way to do that is to be an adopted son of God and die in the flesh. Later, John, though knowing Jesus face-to-face, wrote: "No one has seen God at any time." (John 1:18 [par|int]; see DO REFERENCES TO "JEHOVAH'S ANGEL" PROVE THAT JESUS OR HOLY SPIRIT IS JEHOVAH? above for more information.) Thus, Abraham was not speaking with Jehovah God himself, but with Jehovah's messenger, an angel.
This account in Genesis is the only place in the Bible where more than one angel is sent to speak for God, but their number had no greater significance than that provided in the Scriptures. Reading something existentially theological into it does nothing but diminish the significance of why there were 3 of them: it was because they represent a 3-fold witness, and two of them went off to act as a two-fold witness against Sodom. (Deuteronomy 17:6 [par|int]) This is significance enough. Adding a second purpose to the number is not necessary to interpret the question of why and is therefore superfluous and unnecessary to speculate on.
You decide: Is this account clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: Verse 1 shows that Jehovah visited Moses in vision before the three men arrived. The account makes clear that it was 3 angels that appeared as men for a specific purpose related by the account, not 3 parts of God, which is not related in the account. No one on earth has ever seen God. Their number as 3 men already serves the significance of being a 2- and 3-fold witness. No theological implications are given in the account.
DOES GENESIS 19:24 [par|int] PROVE THAT JEHOVAH IS A TRINITY/BINITY?Some believe that because the name "Jehovah" appears twice in this sentence as the one causing and as the one sending, that it is speaking of two separate parts of the Trinity/Binity. However, what do the Scriptures written by the same human author say about where the fire is coming from? Leviticus 10:1 [par|int] says, "At this a fire came out from before Jehovah and consumed them, so that they died before Jehovah." Can you see what Trinitarians/Binitarians are failing to consider? Clearly, "fire from Jehovah" actually means 'fire coming out from before Jehovah'. Thus, Genesis 19:24 is referring to the one sending the fire and it being sent from the fire before Jehovah's throne, as Daniel 7:9-10 [par|int] shows, "His throne was flames of fire; its wheels were a burning fire. A stream of fire was flowing and going out from before him. " This was the place from which Jehovah sent the fire.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: No other person is defined and the "fire from Jehovah" is explained in other places as coming "from before Jehovah", that is the stream of fire going out from before his throne.
DOES DEUTERONOMY 6:4 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?The statement "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" does not mention 2 or 3 different entities, but gives a single name, "Jehovah" (Latinized in many translations from Heb., YHWH) and clearly says that Jehovah is "Our God" and that he is "one" as opposed to the many triune deities that were present in Assyria, Canaan and Egypt at the time. In order for this statement to indicate a Trinity, Moses would have to have been aware of such a meaning, but there is no indicator anywhere that Moses believed God to be a Trinity despite speaking to Jehovah "mouth to mouth" for 40 days straight. (Exodus 34:28 [par|int]; Numbers 12:8 [par|int]) Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is here? This was a clear statement of Jehovah's distinction from the polytheism of the nations. The Jews understood that and Jehovah did not make any attempt to correct their understanding to indicate any other idea and He clearly did not intended to communicate any other idea. Jehovah himself explained the meaning of his statement when he said, "I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none." (Isaiah 43:10; see DOES ISAIAH 43:10 PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD? below.)
You decide: Is this verse clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: Three separate entities are not defined here. Moses, who spoke the words, was not aware of a Trinity. There was a reason for stating it that involved distinguishing him from the pantheons of the nations. Jehovah himself inicated the meaning, saying there are no other god's but he alone.
DOES ECCLESIASTES 4:12 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?Does just mentioning 3 things always mean to imply that God is a Trinity? First, God is not mentioned here, but verses 9-11 clearly shows that it refers to human relationships. Does it make sense to use something as proof of the Trinity/Binity that does not even refer to God? Second, to suggest that this proves that God is a Trinity is to claim that God is not omnipotent because when this verse is applied to the Trinity, it suggests that all three parts are finite, as well as that any one of them could fail on their own and are thus weak, not omnipotent. It also suggests that there is something that could overpower any one of them. Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is here? This illustration is meant to suggest that friends and married couples can help each other, but keeping God in their relationship will strengthen them even further. Drawing theological implications from this text destroys one's ability to understand it.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: God is not mentioned here, and since God is omnipotent, he cannot fail in any way. The real meaning of the text is obscured by the claim.
DO ISAIAH 6:3 [par|int] AND REVELATION 4:8 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?These verses merely use the 3-fold witness (2 Corinthians 13:1 [par|int]) of saying that Jehovah is "holy, holy, holy", not that he is 3 gods in 1. Verse 2 of Isaiah only mentions Jehovah and the seraphs. It makes no mention of the holy spirit or Jehovah's anointed one anywhere in the context. It does not even provide a prophecy of the messiah. Revelation makes no mention of the holy spirit in that context. Thus, no Trinity could so much as be implied here, at all. Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian reasoning is here? One would be blinding themselves, rather than opening their eyes, to see "holy, holy, holy" as implying 3 people of whom only 1 is mentioned in the context. (Isaiah 6:10 [par|int])
You decide: Is this verse clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: Throughout the Scriptures, saying something 3 times is a 3-fold witness. There are no separate entities mentioned in regard to those words.
DOES ISAIAH 43:10 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?There is no statement made indicating any unity of parts. NASB and other Bibles say, "I am He." The Jews would not have understood this to mean that God would be his own servant. There is no referring agent here except God. The servant spoken of in this verse are the ones chosen as his "witnesses", plural, referring to the entire nation of Israel. The entire nation is his servant. (Isaiah 41:8 [par|int]) This is clear no matter what translation you read. Can you see what Trinitarians/Binitarians are failing to consider? His declaration that "I am he" or "I am the Same One" refers to the same one they have always dealt with. It is not a reference back to "my servant". (Really, how does God serve himself?) By seeking to force another interpretation, Trinitarians hide the real meaning of the text from people's minds. Can you see how dangerous it is to force interpretations?
You decide: Is this verse clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: The servant is Israel, the nation, and Jehovah is simply saying that he is the same one they have always dealt with.
DOES ISAIAH 44:6 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?Jehovah here clearly states, "there is no God but me". Just because Jesus is called a god at John 1:1 [par|int], 18 [par|int] and 10:33-36 [par|int] does not make him competitive with Jehovah. (See their respective explanations in Parts 12  and 12 .) At Psalm 82:6 [par|int], Jehovah himself calls "Gods" those who are also "sons of the Most High", so clearly God is here referring to his title in a special sense. Jehovah himself said to Moses, "You will serve as God to him". (Exodus 4:15, 16 [par|int]) Can you see what Trinitarians/Binitarians are failing to consider? At Isaiah 44:6 [par|int], the word "God" is referring to his uniqueness and superiority against the non-existent gods of the nations. Verse 7 established this meaning when he asked "who is there like me?" That verse shows that Jehovah's prophets and Jesus could tell what was to happen in the future, but only because Jehovah revealed it to them. (Amos 3:7 [par|int]; Matthew 24:36 [par|int]) Thus, not even Jesus has the omniscience of God.
You decide: Are these verses clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: Context shows that God is comparing himself to the non-existent gods of the nations, making it clear that he is the only God in existence.
DOES ISAIAH 44:8 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?Verse 8 references Deuteronomy 32:4 [par|int] by saying that other Gods are not the "Rock" that saved them out of Egypt. 1 Corinthians 10:4 [par|int] calls Jesus "the spiritual rock", but is it meant in the same sense? No. At Deuteronomy 32:6 [par|int], the meaning of his being a rock is defined, saying, "Is he not your Father who caused your existence, The One who made you and firmly established you?" And at 2 Samuel 22:32 [par|int]: "For who is a God besides Jehovah? And who is a rock except our God?" It is as Paul said, "Rest [your] hope, not on uncertain riches, but on God, who furnishes us all things richly for our enjoyment." To the Christian congregation, however, Jesus was not the "Rock" in this way, but was a rock foundation upon which to build the Christian congregation. (Matthew 7:24-26 [par|int]) Can you see what Trinitarians/Binitarians are failing to consider?
Note that at 1 Corinthians 10:4 [par|int], the focus is not the "Rock", but the spiritual drink they got from the rock. Jesus provided that spiritual drink of truth. And what of our explanation of Matthew 16:18 [par|int]? Do we not claim that Jesus is the rock he himself referred to in that verse? Yes, but that rock is the carved out "foundation cornerstone" referred to at Matthew 21:42 [par|int], Mark 12:10 [par|int], Luke 22:17-18 [par|int], Acts 4:10-12 [par|int], 1 Corinthians 3:1 [par|int] and 10:4 [par|int], Ephesians 2:20 [par|int] and 1 Peter 2:6-8 [par|int] and the "stone of stumbling" and "rock mass of offense" of Romans 9:32-33 [par|int] and 1 Peter 2:7-8 [par|int]. This stone is not Jehovah himself, but Jehovah himself has quarried it from the mountain of Jehovah. (Daniel 2:34, 35 [par|int], 45 [par|int]) God is the one who provides the kingdom, Jesus is the one upon whom it is established.
You decide: Are these verses clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: Context shows that God is comparing himself to the non-existent gods of the nations. Jehovah is the "Rock" upon which we depend, while Jesus is merely a stone upon which we base our understanding, hewn from Jehovah's mountain.
DOES ZECHARIAH 14:9 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?It is claimed that "Jehovah will be King" represents Jesus, while "Jehovah will be one, and his name one" refer to the Father and the holy spirit. This in no way makes clear that there are three distinct individuals. Also, the word echad, translated as "one", is also translated as "first", and given the context here, with the word "king", "first" may actually be the better translation. For instance, if I said, "And Nathan will be manager over all the store. In that day Nathan will be first, and his name first," do you get any sense that this is speaking of 3 different individuals in one? Even if the word "one" is used, it still does not indicate 3 people. Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is here?
Additionally, this refers to the prophecy of the period after the 1000 years, when Jesus "hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father" and he "will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 [par|int]) Thus, this prophecy says the Father, not Jesus, is God and will be the universal sovereign just as he was before mankind's rebellion. In that prophecy, Jesus is not called "God", nor does he retain all his authority from his 1000 year reign. The Father is the one who becomes "all things to everyone".
You decide: Is this verse clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: Replacing names shows that it does not indicate any other person. "First" is another translation. Paul refers to a prophecy of the same event that clearly identifies only one person in God as sovereign over mankind. Jesus hands his authority over the kingdom back to God from which it came.
DOES MATTHEW 28:19 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?Keep in mind that the earliest text we have for this verse comes from 18 quotations by Eusebius in various works*, which cite the verse as, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in my name." This is attested to by the many baptisms referred to in the scriptures (Acts 2:38 [par|int]; 8:12 [par|int], 16 [par|int]; 10:48 [par|int]; 19:3-5 [par|int]; 22:16 [par|int]; Romans 6:3 [par|int]; Galatians 3:27 [par|int]) as well as many theologians and Christian encyclopedias of the Bible**. Nowhere in the scriptures is the formula shown to be practiced in regard to baptisms.
It was not until after the council of Nicaea that Eusebius began quoting Matthew 28:19 [par|int] with the formula. There is also an early Hebrew manuscript of Matthew, (which language Matthew was originally written in as attested by Papias, a first century Christian,) called Shem Tob's Matthew from the seventh century, that also presents the text as "in my name". Additionally, the threefold formula is entirely absent in the rest of the book of Matthew and the entirety of the scriptures. That is not to say that the 3 are not fundamental to our understanding of Scripture, but that they are not 3 parts of the same being or substance. The Catholic church burned all previous manuscripts of the Christian scriptures they could find from the fourth to fifth centuries, which is why manuscripts before the fourth century have proven elusive.
So why does the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses include this wording? Because the translation department has a standard of inclusion of manuscript evidence that does not include extra-biblical and late sources.
Now if we assume that the inclusion of the Father and the holy spirit are part of the original text, it still does not prove a Trinity. The word "name" can also cover an abstract concept as much as a tangible individual just as it does today when one says, "Stop! In the name of the law!" One can even state multiple concepts as being one "name", saying, "in the name of all that is fair and just." Being baptized into a name does not necessitate that the thing named is God, as 1 Corinthians 10:2 [par|int] says that the Jews were "baptized into Moses".
Now let's replace some names. If I say "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of Tim, Sr. and of Tim, Jr. and of the pigeon," do you get any sense at all that they are one and the same person? Of course not. Can you see how faulty the Trinitarians'/Binitarians' reasoning is here?
The Trinitarian research publication, McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature openly acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20 [par|int]: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552).
* Demonstratio Evangelica, Theophany, Hiistory of the Church, Panegyric of the emperor Constantine by Eusebius Pamphillius. What qualifies Eusebius as the best witness of the original text of Matthew? He was a Trinitarian who assisted in the formulation of the Nicaean Creed, his testimony to a text that did not assert a three-way formula, and being instrumental in the transmission of the Trinity and later adoption of the corrupted text, holds the greatest weight of any witness.
** The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, The Doctrine of Baptism by Edmund Schlink (p. 28), The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries vol. I (p. 275), Kyrios Christianity by Wilhelm Bousset, The Catholic Encyclopedia vol. II (p. 263), Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963 (p. 1015), The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, The Jerusalem Bible: a scholarly Catholic work, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. 4 (p. 2637), James Moffett's New Testament Translation (p. 64 fn.), "For Christ's sake" by Tom Harpur (Toronto Star, p. 103), The Bible Commentary 1919 (p. 723), Theology of the New Testament By R. Bultmann 1951 (p. 133), Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church by Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992 (pp. 20-21), The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Vol. 1 (Prolegomena 1), The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923 (New Testament Studies Number 5), A History of The Christian Church 1953 by Williston Walker.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof of a Trinity or Binity? Consider: Both Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence suggests that the formula is likely spurious and even if original, it gives no clear indication of three personages being the same ultra-personage. "Name" can refer encumpass multiple abstract concepts. Replacing names gives no indication that all 3 are God.
A Collection of the evidence for and against the traditional wording of the baptismal phrase in Matthew 28:19
A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
Matthew 28:19 (BiblicalUnitarian.com)
DOES 2 CORINTHIANS 13:14 PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?It is believed by Trinitarians that this scripture shows that all 3 mentioned are living and are the same God. However, let's remove the glasses of bias and look at the verse objectively. This verse is not focused on Jesus, God and holy spirit, but on the activities of a single group: "all of you", that is true Christians. Underserved kindness (or grace) is what we receive because of our faith in the ransom sacrifice of a perfect man and Son of God, Jesus Christ. We exercise "the love of God" by doing God's will. We share in holy spirit because it is something that is distributed to those who are united in faith by listening to the living God, (Hebrews 2:4; 4:2; 9:14) not because it is some third person in a Trinity. (It could be likened to sharing a meal at the same table.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof of a Trinity? Consider: When viewed objectively, we see that it is referring to the activities of Christians, not to the unity of multiple parts of God. The holy spirit is 'shared' through unity like a meal.
DOES 1 JOHN 5:7 [par|int] PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD?The words in the KJV and a few other translations that interject text in verses 7-8, saying, "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in the earth," do not appear in any manuscript outside the Latin Vulgate which was issued shortly after the fourth century counsel of Nicaea. (See the prior question above.) Also, the context gives no reason for a random interjection of such a doctrine, so that even if it had been part of the original text, it no more proves that they are all 3 God than to say that water, spirit and blood are all the same in the next verse which KJV also understands to mean that "these three agree in one" though the literal translation is "the three into the one are". Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian reasoning is here?
You decide: Are these verses clear proof of a Trinity? Consider: It is not found outside the post-Nicaean Vulgate and interpreting it as a Trinity is contradicted by the context because it also calls three unrelated non-living objects "witness-bearers".
See the next section for proof that God is neither a Triity nor a Binity.
Start at Part 1
Go to Part 11: What Proves That God is Not a Trinity/Binity?