A History of the Oneness of God in Christianity(Baptism in Jesus Name, the Godhead in Christ)

TABLE OF CONTENTS:DEDICATION (3)INTRODUCTION (20)CHAPTER 1 THE GODHEAD BELIEF OF ANCIENT ONENESS APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTALS (22)Praxeas History and Modalistic Monarchian Godhead DoctrineNoetus History and One God DoctrineCleomenes Godhead DoctrineCatholic Pope Zephyrinus One God DoctrineCatholic Pope Callistus Godhead DoctrineEarlier Modalist Monarchians Believed Christ, as the Father, Had A Soul and Spiritual Glorified Body in the Old Testament Sabellius Modalist Monarchian Godhead DoctrineCommodians Modalist Monarchian Godhead DoctrineMarcellus Godhead Doctrine Photinus One God Doctrine CHAPTER 2 THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC BELIEF OF TWO AND THREE GODS: THE OBSCURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE (35)Noted Trinitarian Bible Scholars Confess That the Trinitarian Doctrine Is Obscure in Its Present Form, and Cannot Be Found in the Old Or New Testaments

The Catholic Semi-Arian Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods 107 AD Ignatius Doctrine, 150 AD, Justin Martyrs Doctrine, 160 AD Titians Doctrine, 170 AD Theophilus Doctrine, 180 AD Irenaeus Doctrine, 200 AD Tertullians Doctrine, 215 AD, Origens Doctrine, 250 AD, Dionysius Doctrine, 300

AD, Lactanius Doctrine, 312 AD Alexanders Doctrine The Origin of the Catholic Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods3000 BC Zoroasters Teaching, Hermes Teaching, the Sibyls Teaching, 387 BC Platos Teaching, 57 AD Philos TeachingThe Catholic Nicolaitan Doctrine of the Ministry

The Arian Doctrine of the Godhead (310 AD) The Catholic Binitarian Doctrine of Two-Equal-gods or the Nicene Creed (325 AD) The Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine of Three-Equal-gods, or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (381 AD) CHAPTER 3 THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY (57)Comparing the Trinity of Pagans With the Trinity of CatholicismA Summary of the History and Development of the Trinity of the Babylonian ReligionWhat Does the Bible Mean by the Term Mystery BabylonWhen and Where Did the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion Begin Who Started the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion What Kind of Religion Was Mystery Babylon How Did the Godhead Set Up by Lucifer Through Nimrod, Change into A Trinity of Three Separate Persons in One GodThe Babylonian Mystery Religion Spreads Throughout The World The Babylonian Doctrines that Catholicism Christianized Before the End of the Fourth CenturyCHAPTER 4 HISTORY REVEALS THAT GODS APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCES WERE IN THE VAST MAJORITY FROM 33-399 AD (70) Catholic Cardinal Newmans ConfessionProtestant Doctor James Hastings Confession107 AD, Catholic Priest Ignatius Confession150 AD, Catholic Priest Justin Martyrs Confession180 AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus Confession200 AD, Catholic Priest Tertullians Confession225 AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus ConfessionProtestant Doctors M'Clintock and Strongs ConfessionProtestant Professor Adolf Harnacks ConfessionThe International Standard Bible Encylopaedia Confession

CHALPTER 5 HISTORIAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENANCE OF GODS APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCH IN EACH CENTURY (76)CHAPTER 6 THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITARIAN FORMULA FOR BAPTISM (119)150 AD, Catholic Priest Justin Martyr Changed the Mode and Formula for Baptism,

and the Catholic Church Adopted His Teaching

The Pagan Origin of Trine Immersion and the Use of the Triune Titles of Godin the Formula for Baptism255 AD, Catholic Priest Cyprian Changes the Catholic Formula for Baptism by Takings the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Out of Their Second Immersion, and Replacing It with the Title SonBIBLIOGRAPHY (130)ENDNOTES (136)

Copyright May 30, 1996 by Harry A. Peyton under the title of The Doctrines Of Christ.

A Note from the Author: Since Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ, gives His Salvation and His Word to all freely (Rev 22:17, Mt 10:7-8), this book, and all other books, are given without charge. Feel free to copy it in digital or written form, and share it with others. All CAPITALIZATION and ITALICIZATION in QUOTES used in this book is always MINE. All Biblical quotes used in this book will be in dark red, and from the New King James version of the Bible, unless another version is stated as the reference. The vast majority of all translations of the Bible, as well as Hebrew and Greek Lexical definitions and grammar, will come from BibleWorks computer software program version 7.0. The author in most places will quote verses from the Bible instead of commenting on a verse and giving a reference; for He believes that the written Word of Gods has greater power to inspire and enlighten a heart to understand and act upon truth, than the elegant oratory or writings of any man.

DEDICATIONThis book is dedicated to all the courageous men, women and children of the present and past centuries, who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and believed His Truths. I would especially like to acknowledge those who suffered social scorn, loss of income, loss of property, imprisonment, torture and martyrdom for their faith in Christs New Birth message and their monotheistic belief in Jesus Supreme Deity.INTRODUCTION

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8).In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and

truth (Jn 1:1, 10, 14).Napoleon Bonaparte speaking of the Deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the conquering power of His Cross said: I know men; the life and death of Jesus Christ was not that of a man. If the death of Socrates was that of a sage, the death of Jesus Christ was that of God. The gospel of Jesus Christ is no mere book but a living creature with vigor, a power that conquers all that opposes it. Alexander, Charlemagne, and myself have founded great empires, but upon what did the creation of our genius depend, upon force: but, this man Jesus Christ has founded His empire upon love, and to this day millions would die for Him. [1] Have you ever wondered why there are so many different teachings or diversity of beliefs in the religious world pertaining to the doctrine of godhead? Have you ever wondered how one God can be three separate persons or beings? If so, let me assure you, that you are not alone. There have been a host of others throughout all ages that have asked the same questions. There has been in the history of the church basically five teachings on the godhead. The Modalist Monarchian Doctrine: This is oldest teaching known in church history. It declares that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles by which the one God has revealed Himself to His children. They proclaim that Jesus is the Father incarnated in a human body. They believe in one and only one person in the godhead and that is Christ. This teaching started with the apostles in 33 AD and it can be found throughout church history.The Doctrine of the Semi-Arians or the Belief in Two-Unequal-gods: The second teaching on the godhead to arise, according to church history, was what history calls the Semi-Arian belief. I call it the belief in two-unequal-gods. This was the teaching of a group that broke from the monotheism of the Modalist Monarchians some time after 70 AD. These apostates called themselves Catholics. The majority of them taught that the Father and Son were two separate and distinct gods, beings or persons in the godhead. They did not teach an equality of persons. They taught that the Father created another god or being or person before the world began, which He called the Son. This meant that they considered Jesus to be homoiousios or of like substance with the Father, which made Him a lesser God than the Father since He did not share in the Fathers substance. They also believed that the Holy Ghost was an impersonal spirit and another name for Christ.The Arian Doctrine or the Denial of Jesus Deity: This was the third teaching on the godhead to arise. It started in 310 AD with a Catholic Presbyter in Egypt by the name of Arius. In a few years Arius had a large following that challenged the godhead doctrine of their fellow Catholic ministers. This teaching stated that the Father was the one and only God, and Jesus was not God in any sense, but was the highest or greatest angel in God's creation. According to Professor Philip Schaff in work entitled History of the Christian Church: The Arians made the Holy [Spirit] the first creature of the Son, and as subordinate to the Son as the Son to the Father. The Arian trinity was therefore not a trinity immanent and eternal, but arising in time and in descending grades, consisting of the uncreated God and two created demi-gods. The Semi-Arians here,

as elsewhere, approached the orthodox doctrine, but rejected the consubstantiality, and asserted the creation of the Spirit. [2]The Doctrine of the Binitarians or the Belief in Two-Equal-gods: The fourth teaching on the godhead was a belief in two-equal-gods or persons. This doctrine started in 325 AD. The Catholic Church started this doctrine in an effort to combat the Arian doctrine of the godhead. They put their doctrine into a written form and called it the Nicene Creed. They said that Jesus was homoousios or of the same substance with the Father, thus making Him an equal God with the Father, since He now shared in the Fathers own substance. Therefore, they change their godhead doctrine and traded in their forefathers belief in two-unequal-gods for a belief in two-equal-gods. This Creed speaks of the Holy Ghost, but does not tell us what they believed about the Holy Ghost. Catholic Bishops as a whole at this time did not believe that the Holy Ghost was a separate person in the godhead. In fact most of them did not know what to believe about the Holy Ghost. The New Catholic Encyclopedia definitely informs us what the Catholic Bishops at Nicea believed about the Holy Ghost. Under the heading of the Trinity, the Catholic Church made a good and honest confession about the development of their Trinitarian doctrine. It stated: In the last analysis, the 2nd century theological achievement was limited. A Trinitarian solution was still in the future. The Apologists spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.... On the eve of Nicene 1, the Trinitarian problem raised more than a century earlier was still far from settled. It was the problem of plurality within the single, undivided godhead. [3]Even as late as 375 AD, most Catholics Bishops still did not believe the Holy Spirit was a person or even God. Gregory the Catholic Bishop of Nazianzus, who later became a Pope, said: Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence [meaning not a person], others a creature [meaning an angel or a created spirit being], others God himself, and others know not which way to decide. [4] The Doctrine of the Trinity or the Belief in Three-Equal-gods: The fifth teaching to arise on the godhead was the Trinitarian doctrine. In 381 AD Catholic Bishops dreamed up yet another creed, which they called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This creed was the same as the Nicene Creed but it made the Holy Ghost a person in the godhead. But it did not spell out his relationship to the Father and Son. Therefore, they change their godhead doctrine again; they traded in their belief in two-equal-gods for a belief in three-equal-gods. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost were now three separate and distinct persons (Greek - hypostases) or beings. In 382 AD, Catholic Pope Damascus called a Roman Council in which he perfected their belief in three-equal-gods. This council defined the Trinitarian doctrine as three persons who were equal in power, glory, knowledge, and all other attributes of God. At last Lucifer finally had his Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead in his Roman Catholic Church.

CHAPTER 1THE GODHEAD BELIEF OF ANCIENT

ONENESS APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTALS

This history is a sketch or an outline of this subject, and it is no way intended to be a complete history. It is designed to give my readers a basic understanding of the great history of Jesus name baptism and the godhead in Christ. The true history of the one God, Jesus Name Pentecostal Church has been destroyed. All the writings of her great Apologists have been burned, and if any survived, they are probably hid in a room in the Vatican Library that could withstand an atomic blast. The only history we have of Christs Bride is the one that was written by the Catholic Nicolaitan priests who hated her. Therefore, it is hard to tell to what extent Catholicism twisted their teachings. It is impossible to present a history of Gods people without giving a history of both their belief in Jesus Name Baptism, the Supreme Deity of Christ and Speaking in Tongues, because Catholic and Protestant histories distinguishes them from all other religions by these doctrines. The greatest tragedy of history is not only the loss writings of Gods inspired preachers, but also the assumption of historians that Catholicism was the original Church instead of a church setup by apostates somewhere after 70 AD. Even though historians know right well, that the writings of these early apostates and some of their disciples have been corrupted or altered, they still proclaim her as the original church. Why? Because the only history they have to base theirs opinions on is Catholic history. It is not hard to pervert history when you destroy the writings of all your competition.It is obvious from the writings of the fathers of Catholicism that many books were written against them by the Apologists of the Gods Apostolic Church, and the writers of various denominations. Professor Charles Guignebert, in his book The Early History of Christianity, confirmed this when he said: these people had written a great deal against her [Catholicism], or concerning her; this literature has almost entirely disappeared and the little that remains is only enough to show us how great would be the service it might render. Because it has no alternative but to use (a) polemical or exegetical writing mainly, badly emended by accounts reputed to be historical, but written long after the events and at a time when they were scarcely understood.... It is right and necessary that we should not forget that fact. For example, to try to exact from the collection of [Catholic] Christian documents alone an exact idea of the early times of the Church was to give way to a tantalizing delusion; whether the fact was realized or not, the undertaking [of it by historians] was inspired by prejudgments of the faith.... They endeavored to preserve its old standing as an originality, and this desire was fed from more than one root in the theological postulate of revelation. [5] Therefore anyone who reads and study the writings of the Catholic Ante, Nicene, and Post Nicene Fathers should keep in mind the following facts, which Professor Guignebert and other Church historians have boldly proclaimed: First, we know from the writings of the apostles and disciples that false doctrines existed in their day, which later developed into a denominational systems known as Gnosticism and Catholicism. This is why Paul told the Bishops in the Church of Ephesus: I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them

(Acts 20:28-29), and Jude admonished the Church in his day they should: earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). The documents known as The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles and the Didache, that were masquerade as the writings and teaching of the apostles are denounced by the majority of textual scholars as fabrications that Catholic priests of the second or third century invented. Second, Nicene and Post Nicene priests had a tendency to alter manuscripts that were written by their Ante Nicene predecessors in the ministry. They did this by either adding to or takings out certain lines that either confirmed or denied a certain doctrine; and because of their hatred of the denominations that opposed them, they had a tendency to misrepresent or twist the teaching of their antagonist, as Dr. Guignebert so competently pointed out. Third, because of the denominational biases of some of the reformation leaders and modern day church historians, there was a tendency to misinterpret the writings and beliefs of these ancient Catholic priests, in order that, their denomination may have a historical foundation for some of their beliefs. Before I begin my history of Gods Modalist Monarchian preachers, it would be to my readers advantage for me to define their one God doctrine, as well as the two-god doctrine believed by the early writers of Catholicism; for the Ante Nicene Catholic priests were not Trinitarians but believed in two-unequal-gods, the Nicene priests were Binitarians or taught two-equal-gods, while the Post Nicene priests were Trinitarians or believed in three-equal-gods. This way my readers can receive a better understanding of the history they are about to read. Modalist Monarchianism may be defined as a first century belief that God is one person as well as one being, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. The ancient preachers of oneness were anti-Trinitarians, who believed that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were titles, offices, modes of revelation, or characters as in a play, that the one person of God has revealed Himself to His Children. As the Father, the one God revealed Himself as the Creator of man and the cosmos. As the Son of God, the Father revealed Himself as the Savior of all mankind by becoming a man, and as a man died for their sins. As the Holy Spirit, the Father revealed Himself as the Regenerator of man, by comes in and dwelling in him for the purpose of redeeming, empowering and transforming him into Christs likeness. Even though ancient oneness preachers proclaimed that the Lord Jesus Christ was Father manifested in the flesh, they all did not hold the same Christology views. They all believed that the Logos pre-existed as the Father and was not a being separated from Father, but was His visible form or body. They also believed that it was the Christ that became Jesus or the Son of God at Bethlehem, and the Holy Spirit was another name for the Logos. The early Oneness believers held two different Christology views on the Logos incarnation. One group of oneness preachers believed that Gods entire Spirit and body substance was incarnated at Bethlehem. The other group of preachers, such as Sabellius, believed that the only the visible portion or body of God the Fathers own substance became incarnated. I understand this to mean that God the Fathers Holy Spirit Nature stayed in heaven while His Spiritual Body Nature became incarnated and His Soul Nature dwelt in it.

The early Catholics began their apostasy from the true believers over the godhead and ministerial order in the local church. Since they were few in number, they organized and became known as the Roman Catholic Church. These early apostate believed in two separate and distinct persons in the godhead. They believed that God the Father created, begot, or generated before time began a second god called the Logos. They taught that this Word was a pre-existing Son of God who became Jesus at Bethlehem. They also believed that the Holy Spirit was another name for the Logos.Basically the one major difference between the earlier Oneness and the Catholic believers is their belief concerning the identity of the Logos. Now this is a very important point that my beloved readers should keep in mind. Who is the Logos? Is He the same person as the Father, or is He someone different from the Father? Is He the Father the one and only God, or is He a second god different from the Father. Is He someone less than God or is He equal to the Father? Is He an eternal being or is He a created being? If He is God, did He retain His deity when He was born of Mary as a man? The entire godhead dispute was basically over these issues until 381 AD, when the Catholic Church officially adopted the concept of the Trinity of Babylon. The Catholic Church in all their creeds did not teach a Trinity of three separate persons in the godhead before this time. If it was not for the pride of the apostates Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and the early Catholic apologists, and their love of Greek Philosophy, especially the writings of Plato and the corrupt Jewish writings of Philo, their doctrine of two-gods, which later developed into a doctrine of three gods, would have never came into being. In fact, their doctrine of two gods really originated in Zoroastrianism. Let us examine three historical references that verify these points.The Ancient Oneness Godhead Doctrine: The Catholic Encyclopedia gave a fair explanation of the origin and differences of belief between the Modalist Monarchians and the early Catholics. It revealed that the Jesus Name Monarchians: made the Son and the Holy Ghost merely aspects or modes of existence of the Father, thus emphatically identifying Christ with [the Father] the one God.... They spoke of the Father as Spirit and the Son as flesh. [6] The Ancient Catholic Godhead Doctrine: This same encyclopedia went on to reveal that the Jesus Name Modalist were against the Catholic adoption of Plato and Philo doctrine of two gods, in others words: the learned philosophizing of the Christology of Catholicism. This godhead doctrine: to the simplicity of the [Catholic] faithful looked too much like a mythology or a Gnostic emanationism. The Monarchians emphatically declared that God is one, wholly and perfectly one, and that Jesus Christ is God, wholly and perfectly God. This was right, and even most necessary, and whilst it is easy to see why the theologians like Tertullian and Hippolytus opposed them for their protest was precisely against the Platonism which these theologians had inherited from Justin and the Apologists.The Alexandrians alone insisted rightly on the generation of the Son from all eternity; but thus the Unity of God was even less manifest. The writers who thus theologize may often expressly teach the traditional Unity in Trinity, but it hardly

squares with the Platonism of their philosophy. The theologians were thus defending the doctrine of the Logos at the expense of the two fundamental doctrines of Christianity, the Unity of God, and the Divinity of Christ. They seemed to make the unity of the godhead split into two or even three, and to make Jesus Christ something less than the supreme God the Father. This is eminently true of the chief opponents of the Monarchians, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian. [7] Dr. James Hastings in his Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, speaking about this controversy declared: Modalist Monarchianism was powerfully supported by the critico-historical school of exegesis which grew up at Antioch in opposition to the speculative, allegorizing school of Alexandria. He went on to say that on one side of this great battle was: Monarchianism, the Antiochene historical-critical school of interpretation, and rationalism, which opposed Catholicism, with its allegorical interpretation, and its metaphysic of deity. [8] The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia speaking of the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity gave this summation: In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment. The influence of inherited conceptions and of current philosophies inevitably showed itself in the efforts to construe to the intellect the immanent faith of Christians. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether (Trinity, sec 22).Praxeas History and Modalistic Monarchian Godhead Doctrine

Praxeas, A One God, Jesus Name Man of God: Quintus Septimius Florens, better known as Tertullian, embraced Catholicism when he was about 30 years old. When he was 40, he embraced some of the heresies of Montanus, and became one of their chief preachers. Around AD 200, he wrote a work entitled Against Praxeas, who was a holy Jesus Name Preacher of that day. Tertullian, who lived in Carthage, which is in northern Africa, revealed that Praxeas came to Rome during the time that Victor was Bishop (AD 189-199).According to History of Dogma by professor Adolph Harnack, Eusebius claimed Praxeas was in Rome when Eleutherus was Bishop (AD 175-189). Catholics call Bishops of Rome Popes. Harnack says: If this Bishop was Eleutherus, and that is probable from Eusebius H.E. V. 4, then we have four Roman Bishops in succession who declared themselves in favor of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus. [9] We do not know who among Gods people converted Pope Eleutherus and Victor to the truth concerning the supreme deity in Christ Jesus, but we do know that Zephyrinus and Callistus were converted by Cleomenes, who was a disciple of Epigonus, who was a disciple of Noetus. Tertullian said Praxeas came to Rome after he had suffered imprisonment for his unwavering faith in the almighty God in Christ Jesus. Praxeas, like the great apostles Peter and Paul, suffered much for the Gospel sake. The angry Tertullian tried to belittle Praxeas suffering by called it: the annoyance of a prison, and no doubt slandered him in an attempt to discredit him. Tertullian, the Montanist, was

angry with Praxeas because he had Eleutherus brand Montanus as a heretic. [10]Some historians, like Harnack, believed Montanus was a Modalist Monarchian in his godhead belief. But, I find this hard to believe since Tertullian definitely had a two god or person belief, and not only that, but according to John Blunt, in his work entitled Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought, Montanus used the Catholic formula for baptism. He wrote: Montanus himself had retained the Catholic form. For this we have the evidence of Athanasius... (cont. Arian. Or. ii, 43). He is writing of baptism, and the names are the names of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. [11] Montanus was excommunicated for heresy. Some historians say that Montanus claimed to be the voice of the Holy Ghost, while others say he claimed to be the embodiment of the Spirit. Even if Montanus had a one God belief from the beginning, these accusations against him, if they are true, are enough to brand him as a heretic.Tertullian could have been angry with Praxeas for another reason. It is a historical fact that a great number of the Montanist were converted to the truth and became Modalist Monarchians, especially in Africa. In fact the main body of Apostolic Montanist broke away from Montanus and Tertullians two-god group somewhere around c. 190. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirmed this when it stated: A number of Montanists led by Aeschines became Modalists. It also went on to confess that Tertullian may have twisted the teachings of Praxeas, and Hippolytus may have done the same with Noetus. It declared: It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian and Hippolytus to have misrepresented the opinions of their opponents. [12] Tertullian and Hippolytus were both Bishops, and no Nicolaitan-Balaamite pastor enjoys losing their people, who are their bread and butter. Also, these men did not like it very much when the great mass of Christians in their day called them heretics. For Eleutherus, the Bishop of Rome, to condemn Montanus, he must have had a lot of faith and confidence in Praxeas as a man of God. So, it is obvious, Eleutherus had to be a Jesus Name Preacher. Tertullian really does not say why Praxeas had Montanus condemned as a heretic. Callistus excommunicate Sabellius supposedly for some heresy, so why should it be thought strange for Eleutherus to excommunicate Montanus for some heresy. My readers should bear in mind that Sabellius was a convert of Callistus. They both were Modalist Monarchians in their godhead belief. So, it would appear that it was not because of Sabellius godhead belief that he was excommunicated. Callistus no doubt was probably fearful and jealous of Sabellius for he was very popular with the people as a teacher. Many Earlier Modalist Monarchians, Such as Praxeas, Believed that Christ or the Father Had A Body in the Old Testament: According to Tertullian, in 200 AD, oneness preachers must have believed that Christ or the Logos, as God the Father, must have dwelt in a bodily form in the Old Testament, even though they believed God is a Spirit Being, or Tertullian following argument would make no sense! Tertullian speaking of Christ preexistence as the form of God (Phil 2:6) declared: In what form of God? Of course he [Paul] means in some form of God. For who [among the Jesus Name Preachers] will deny that God is a body, although God is a Spirit? For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form.... But you

will not allow Him to be really a [different] substantive being by having a [separate body or] substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a [separate] person, and so be able as being constituted second to God the Father, to make two, the Father and the Son, God the Word. [13] Tertullian went on to say: Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of. They make selections from the Scriptures in support of their opinion. For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, I am God, and beside me there is no God; so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lords answer to Philip, I and my Father are one; and, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me. [14]Therefore these early heroes of faith must have believed that Christ, as God the Father in the Old Testament, must have had some kind of body! Most of Gods people in the earlier ages did not allowed Gods substance to be divided. How can anyone divide Gods Spirit Nature from His Soul or Human Nature and make two separate and distinct persons is beyond me? I will speak more of Gods Spirit and Soul Nature later. According to Tertullian, Praxeas must not have believed God to be an omnipresent Spirit Being in His true essence or substance. Omnipresence is one of Gods many attributes but it is not His personal essence. He also implied that the Jesus Name Preachers believed that God the Fathers essence or substance was contained in a personal body. Praxeas One God Doctrine: Tertullian mocked Praxeas because he and his forefathers believed the entire godhead dwells in one person. He said they taught: They distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and the Son are one and the same [person]. Such a monarchy as this they learnt. The Word of God or the Spirit of God is also called the power of the Highest, whom they make the Father. See, say they, it was announced by the angel: Therefore that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh that was born, it must be the flesh that is the Son of God. [15] Tertullian went on to say: Now, although when two substances are alleged to be in Christ namely, the divine and the human it plainly follows that the Divine Nature is immortal, and that which is Human is mortal, it is manifest in what sense he [Praxeas] declares Christ died even in the sense in which He was flesh and Man and the Son of Man, NOT as being the Spirit and the Word. [These Oneness Pentecostals declared,] we do not maintain that He died after the Divine Nature, but only after the Human. [16]All theologians and historians, who claimed oneness preachers taught that God died at Calvary, should repent of that lie. Surely this passage was not hidden from their view. Even though Jesus Christ is God the Father in the flesh, it was not the Divine nature that died, but it was His human nature only that was subject to pain, death, and other human frailties. God cannot die! Man cannot kill God! I have asked Trinitarian preachers who declare lie this question: Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God, or is He nothing more than a mere man? Every Protestant preacher

I have asked this question to has responded by saying: Jesus is God. I then declared to them: You must either preach our position, or you must teach that God died on Calvarys cross, and God laid dead in a tomb for three days before He came back to life again, also that mortal man had the power to kill God. Noetus History and One God Doctrine

Noetus, A True Man of God: Hippolytus wrote a work entitled The Refutation Of All Heresies around 225 AD. This man was a heretical Catholic bishop, whose church was in a suburb of Rome. He was a contemporary of Tertullian and an older contemporary of Cyprian, and like them, he belonged to the North African or Western School of Doctrine. Hippolytus wrote against Noetus and his disciples. Noetus was from Smyrna. My beloved readers may recall what our Lord said about the true believers who lived in the Smyrna Church Period; He said: I know the blasphemy of them [the Catholic apologists], which say they are Jews [children of God], and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:8-11, also see Mt 7:15-23). Noetus, unlike Hippolytus, was a true man of God. Noetus One God Doctrine: Hippolytus went on to say: Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are the same [person], no one is ignorant. For he makes his statement thus: `When indeed then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father: and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another's. He is styled by the name of Father and Son, according to the vicissitude of times, [or at different time periods]. He confessed Himself to those beholding Him a Son no doubt; yet He made no secret to those who could comprehend Him of being the Father. [17]Epigonus, Cleomenes, Zephyrinus, and Callistus were all men of God. Hippolytus wrote not only against Noetus but also against Zephyrinus, who was a Bishops of Rome from c. 199-210, and Callistus, who was a Bishop of Rome from c. 210-222. Hippolytus was furious because the people of Rome branded him as a heretic and did not want him as one of their Bishops, so he set himself up as a rival Bishop or as some historians prefer an anti-Pope. Therefore, he lied and slandered the character of Noetus and all of the real Bishops of Rome. Cleomenes Godhead Doctrine

Hippolytus informed us that Catholic Bishops or Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus were disciples of Cleomenes, who was a disciple of Epigonus, who was a disciple of Noetus. According to Harnack, Epigonus was in Rome during the time Zephyrinus was Bishop, or shortly before. [18] Hippolytus says that Cleomenes started a Theology School in Rome. He wrote: the school of these [so-called] heretics during the succession of such Bishops continued to acquire strength and augmentation from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail. [19] Harnack declared: Cleomenes and his party maintain that He who was nailed to the cross, who committed His Spirit to Himself, who died and did not die, who raised Himself on the third day and rested in the grave, who was pierced with the lance and fastened with nails, was the God and Father of all. [20] With the information I have at this moment, it is hard for me to determine how many of the Bishops of Rome before the Council of Nicene really believed and preached the truth. It is obvious from these statements that Zephyrinus and Callistus must have

had a One God, Jesus Name belief. Catholic Pope Zephyrinus One God Doctrine

Hippolytus continued: Callistus attempted to confirm this heresy.... Now Callistus brought forward Zephyrinus himself and induced him publicly to avow the following sentiments: I know that there is one God, Jesus Christ; nor except Him do I know any other. [21] Zephyrinus also boldly declared: For the Father, who is in the Son, deified the flesh, after He had assumed it, and united it with Himself, and established a unity of such a nature that now Father and Son are called one God, and that henceforth it is impossible that this single person can be divided into two. [22]Catholic Pope Callistus Godhead Doctrine

According to Hippolytus, Callistus publicly reproached him and his very small band of rebels by saying: Ye are Ditheists, which is a belief in two gods. Callistus then expounded the truth to the real Christians of Rome. Hippolytus stated: Bishop Callistus alleges that the Logos Himself is the Son, and Himself is the Father; and though denominated by different titles, yet that in reality he is one indivisible Spirit. And he maintains that the Father is NOT one person and the Son another, but that they are one and the same.... For that which is seen, which is man, he considers to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son, to be the Father. For says Callistus, I will NOT profess belief in two gods, Father and Son, but in one; for the Father subsisted in the Son Himself. So that Father and Son must be styled one God, and that this person being one, CANNOT be two persons. [23]Let my readers take note that these zealous Modalistic Monarchians accused Hippolytus Catholic group of believing in two separate persons or gods in the godhead. They did not accuse them of being Trinitarians, which is the belief in three separate and supreme persons or gods. The early Catholic apostates and their deceive followers, as I have said before, did not believe the Holy Ghost to be a person.Sabellius Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine

Harnack stated that Cleomenes remained the head of the Oneness Theological School of Rome until c. 215, when Sabellius succeeded him. Even though all oneness preachers believed in Gods form or body in the Old Testament, they held two different ideas concerning the Logos incarnation. One group of oneness preachers believed that Gods entire Spirit and bodily substance was incarnated at Bethlehem. The other group preachers, such as the Sabellians, believed that the only the visible portion or the humanity of God the Fathers own substance became incarnated. Harnack speaking about Sabellius godhead belief says: The one being was always called by Sabellius uiopatwr [son-father], an expression which was certainly chosen to remove any misunderstanding, to make it impossible to suppose that two beings were in question. [24] Alexander (315 AD) declared that Sabellius taught that the Logos had a corporeal pre-existence. Alexander believed that the Logos as the Son of God was begotten before time began. Speaking of the Logos pre-existence, Alexander wrote, we believe: in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; not begotten of things which are not, but of Him who is the Father; not in a CORPOREAL

MANNER [i.e. tangible body] by excision or division as Sabellius and Valentinus thought, but in a certain inexplicable and unspeakable manner. [25]Blunt speaking of Sabellius says, according to Hilary: In place of the Unity of Three distinct Persons we have the entire coalescence of what are distinguished only in name, not in substance (Hilary de Trinity. vii. 5).... The only Divine Sonship allowed by Sabellius doctrine being then that which took place in time at the Incarnation, there was also at that time, a division of the Union.... If Hilary be a competent witness, that Sabellius did assert a separation of the Protensio, which reaching usque ad Virginem, took the name of Son. This last step was taken to avoid the charge of Patripassianism... by asserting that only a portion of the Divine Nature became incarnate.... Epiphanius... adds that this conception was likening the Father to the body, the Son to the SOUL, the Holy Ghost to the spirit. [26] Socrates Scholasticus in his history spoke of the Creed of Sirmium, which was published in 352 AD in the Presence of the Emperor Constantius. In it the Catholic Church described some of the Godhead teaching of Gods Jesus Name People of that day by pronouncing a large number of anathema on them. The Creed stated: If any one shall dare to assert that the Unbegotten, or a part of him, was born of Mary, let him be anathema. If any one should say that the Son was of Mary according to foreknowledge [i.e. existed in prophesy only as God becoming a human being], and NOT that he was with God, begotten of the Father before the ages let him be anathema If any man affirming him that was born of Mary to be God and man, shall imply the unbegotten God himself, let him be anathema. If any one says that it was not the Son that was seen by Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or a part of him, let him be anathema. If any one says that it was NOT the Son that as man wrestled with Jacob, but the unbegotten God, or a part of him, let him be anathema. If any one should say that the Father, Son, and Holy? Spirit are one person, let him be anathema. If any one, speaking of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, shall call him the unbegotten God, let him be anathema.[27] It is very obvious that Catholicism was very unhappy with Gods people. The portion of the Fathers own Nature that became born of Mary was His Glorified Spiritual Body, and His Soul dwelt in it. Catholicism has always pronounced curses on Gods people in every century. They have always been afraid that Gods people once again would prevail over all of Christendom. The Catholic Encyclopedia stated: In the fourth century the Arians and Semiarians professed to be much afraid of it [Sabellianism], and the alliance of Pope Julius and Athanasius... gave some color to accusations against the Nicene formulas as opening the way to Sabellianism. This same encyclopedia also gave us some insights into Sabellius beliefs. It says: Saint Athanasius tells us that he said the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis but two in name. [28] Commodians Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine

Commodian was another great man of God. He was a Bishop in a church in Africa around c. 250. According to Harvard professor Harry A. Wolfson, in his work entitled The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, Commodian taught in verse 91 of his Carmen Apologeticum: the Father went into the Son, at Bethlehem. This revealed that the Father was the God who was in the Lord Jesus Christ. He also added:

Commodian speaking for himself, says almost in the words quoted above [i.e. God is only one person] as representing the views of Praxeas and Noetus. [29]Professor Schaff wrote: Commodian was a Patripassian in Christology and a Chiliast in eschatology. Schaff also gave a brief description of Commodians book. He says: it discusses in 47 sections the doctrine of God, of man, and of the Redeemer (verses 89-275); the meaning of the names of the Son and Father in the economy of salvation (276-573); the obstacles to the progress of Christianity (574-611); it warns Jews and Gentiles to forsake their religion (612-783); and gives a description of the last things (784-1053). [30] It is a shame that no one has translated this great work into English. I have a copy of it, which is written in Latin, in my library.The writers of The Catholic Encyclopedia classified Commodians godhead beliefs with that of Praxeas and Noetus. It stated: in the west they [the Modalist Monarchians] were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are called Sabellians. It went on to declare: Sabellius or at least his followers may have considerably amplified the original Noetianism. There was still Sabellianism to be found in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra developed a Monarchianism of his own, which was carried much further by his disciple [Photinus]. Priscillian was an extreme Monarchian and so was Commodian. [31]Marcellus Godhead Doctrine

Blunt speaking of the fourth century Sabellianism stated: Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and his followers held a third and advance stage of Sabellianism; for this [so-called] heresy Marcellus was condemned by several Arian Councils, particularly by that of Constantinople in AD 336. Socrates states... that he held the Son of God to have His beginning from His birth of the Virgin and the kingdom of God not to be without an end (H.E. ii. 33).... Marcellus held, according to Eusebius, that there was but one person in the Divine Nature. [32] Marcellus despised the Catholic doctrine of two gods or persons in the godhead. He boldly proclaimed that the Father became the Son and Holy Ghost in time, and at the end of time, these offices will ceased and He will only be know as the Father. This was basically the doctrine of Sabellius. Edward Gibbon, in his book entitled The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, declared: Athanasius defended above twenty years the Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when al last he was compelled to withdraw himself from his communion, he continued to mention with an ambiguous smile the venial errors of his respectable friend. [33]Photinus One God Doctrine

Blunt speaking of Photinus, who was a disciple of Marcellus, and those who followed him said: Theodoret says that Photinus differs from Sabellius only in phraseology.... Photinus held the tenet of an Antitrinitarian Monarchian, and that Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; that a certain portion of the Divine Substance, which he called the Word, descended upon and acted through the man Jesus Christ; that on account of this association of the Word with the human nature Jesus was called the Son of God, and even God Himself; that the Holy Ghost was not a distinct Person, but a celestial virtue proceeding from the Deity (Epiph. Haer. Lxxi.; Hilary de Trin. vii. 3,7, viii. 40; Socr. H. E. i. 18, 19, 30; Sozom. iv. 6). These tenets are sufficiently stated in the article Samosatenes, and other articles regarding

the various Monarchian sects.Blunt went on to say: Marius asserts that Photinus held the Divine element that acted in our Lords Person to be substantivum or ousiwdes. Now Photinus denied the personality, and consequently the Sonship of the Word, but allowed its eternity as existing in the one undistinguished God. We are therefore thrown back upon the tenet described in Sabellians as the division of the Union, namely, that the Deus protensus, not being a distinct Person, is separable from the Godhead, or that a certain portion of the Divine Substance added to the human nature formed Jesus Christ the Son of God. [34] If my beloved readers desire to read a Biblical exegesis on the godhead, I would suggest my book The Mysteries of the Godhead Revealed.

CHAPTER 2THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC BELIEF OF TWO AND THREE GODS:

THE OBSCURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINEGods people in the Old Testament went into apostasy several times. They keep going into Lucifer's Mystery Babylonian Religion, or in other words, Lucifers Babylonian Trinity. This trinity consisted of: Baal, Ashtaroth, and Tammuz. Baal represented god the father, the sun god; Ashtaroth represented the mother god or the mother of the gods, the moon goddess; Tammuz represented the son of god or god the son, who was also known as the sun god. The Bible stated: They forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth (Jug 2:13). God told Ezekiel: You will see greater abominations that they [the House of Israel] are doing. So He brought me to the door of the north gate of the LORDs house; and to my dismay, women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz (Eze 8:13-14). God told Jeremiah: The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the Queen of Heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger (Jer 7:18). Gods people did not do this one time, but throughout their history. Israel forsook the LORD and worshipped and served the Babylonian Trinity. Here are just two examples: The prophet Samuel speaking to the house of Israel said: Then Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, If you return to the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths from among you, and prepare your hearts for the LORD, and serve Him only; and He will deliver you from the hand of the Philistines. So the children of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and served the LORD only (1Sa 7:3-4). Years later, the people of Israel went into Baal worship again. They cried unto the LORD and said: We have sinned, because we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and Ashtoreths; but now deliver us from the hand of our enemies, and we will serve You (1Sa 12:10). Noted Trinitarian Bible Scholars Confess that the Trinitarian Doctrine

Is Obscure in Its Present Form,

and Cannot Be Found in the Old or New Testaments

Doctor Hastings under the heading of the Trinity stated: The Old Testament could

hardly be expected to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity.... In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannie theology. Hastings continued: The story of the Trinity in ecclesiastical history is the story of the transition from the Trinity of experience, in which God is self - revealed as the Father or Creator and Legislator, the Son or Redeemer, and the Spirit or Sanctifier, to the Trinity of dogma. To say that there are three separate personalities in the Godhead would be polytheism. [35]In The Encyclopedia of Religion, which is composed by many Trinitarian scholars, we read: Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.... Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.... Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is therefore arbitrary [meaning based on ones preferences, notions, or whims]; while it is incontestable that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural evidence alone. [36]The Encyclopedia Britannica speaking of the Trinity stated: In general we may say that the Trinity takes on four differing aspects in the Christian church: in its more common and easily apprehended form as three gods, in its ecclesiastical form as a mystery which is above reason to be accepted by faith.... To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God which is emphasized in the Scriptures. [37]Trinitarian doctors John MClintock and James Strong, in their Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature declared: Respecting the manner in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost make one God, the scripture teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its being explained to us. [38] What these scholars are saying is that the Babylonian Trinity is a mystery. Now, have you not heard other Trinitarian Preachers say the very same thing? German professor Harnack says: The doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church [meaning Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches], is not contained in the New Testament. He continued by saying: At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference [meaning in the beginning, or as it first existed]. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so even in the age of the [Catholic] Christian apologists. [39] What Dr. Harnack is saying is this, Catholic apostates of the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, along with their deceived converts, did not believed in a Trinity of three persons in the Godhead. None of these heretics considered the Holy Spirit to be a separate person in any sense of the word; also none of these Catholic Priests considered the Son equal to the Father in origin, power, and other attributes.

The renowned Catholic professor John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his work entitled Essays and Sketches, presented Catholicism as the original Church. But even he had to admit that the doctrines of the Trinity, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and the Mass were not found in the Bible. Even though he understood these facts, he still believed they were true. He defends them not from a Biblical point of view, but from the traditions of the early Ante Nicene Catholic Preachers.

He admonished all Protestants to accept by faith these Catholic doctrines, since they have accepted the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity by faith without any real scriptural proof. In volume one, he made the following statements: Where was your Church before Luther? The obvious and historical answer is they were in the Roman Catholic Church. He then proceeded by saying: Take a large view of the faith of Christians during the centuries before Constantine established their [meaning the Roman Catholic] religion. Is there any family likeness in it to Protestantism? [40] The obvious answer is no. He then went on to prove that historically, by comparing the teachings of the Reformers with that of the Catholic Ante Nicene Fathers.

After that, Father Newman made a very shocking confession. Let us hear this Priests confession and see if He makes a good and true confession, before we grant him absolution. He said: all parties must confess, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not brought out in form upon the surface of Scriptures. As I have said more than once, to allege, that all points that are beyond clear Scripture proof are mere peculiarities of each sect [meaning different religious systems]; so that if all Protestants were to agree to put out of sight their respective peculiarities [meaning unscriptural doctrines], they would then have a Creed set forth distinctly, clearly, and adequately, in Scripture. For take that single instance, which I referred to in a former Lecture, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Is this to be considered as a mere peculiarity or no? Apparently a peculiarity [for] it is not brought out in form in Scripture. First, the word Trinity is not in Scripture. Next I ask how many of the verses of the Athanasian Creed are distinctly set down in Scripture? [41] The answer to Newmans question is very few. Newman continued his confession and reproach of Protestants by saying: He who admits the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in spite of felling its difficulties, whether in itself or in its proof - who submits to the indirectness [meaning lack] of the Scripture evidence as regards that particular doctrine - has a right to be told those other doctrines, such as the apostolic succession. [42] Newman proceeded with his confession and reproach to the fallen away daughters of Catholicism by saying: not Scripture, but history [meaning the tradition of the Ante Nicene Priests] is our informant in Christian doctrine. All Protestants who consider the Bible as the one standard of faith, meaning those who say they base their beliefs on the Bible and not tradition, let no one take refuge and comfort in the idea that he will be what is commonly called an orthodox Protestant, [if] he will admit the doctrine of the Trinity, but not that of the Apostolic Succession. [For] this is an impossible position: it is shutting one eye, and looking with the other, shut both or open both. [43]What confessor Newman is saying is this, since Protestants have accepted and believed the Catholic version of the Babylonian Trinity by faith, that is without any real scriptural proof, they then have earn for themselves the right to accept and believe by faith all other Catholic doctrines, which are also not taught in the Bible, as Newman openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. No matter what people may or may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe he made a good and true confession, for which Gods people everywhere do thank him, and grant unto him absolution.

Comparing the Trinity of Pagans with the Trinity of Catholicism: Trinitarian minister and historian Alexander Hislop, in his great book The Two Babylons, compared the Trinity of Roman Catholicism with that of the Trinity of the Babylonian and other Pagan Religions. He writes: I have to notice, first the identity of the object of worship in Babylon and Rome. The ancient Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognized in words the unity of the godhead; and while worshipping innumerable minor deities [demons], as possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all. Most other nations did the same.... In the unity of that one only god of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Roman Church does at this day. The Papacy has in some of its churches, as for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the triune god, with three heads on one body. The Babylonians had something of the same.... In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is represented with three heads, under the name of Eko Deva Trimurtti, one god, three forms. [44]

There can be no room for doubt that the Babylonian Trinity, of three separate persons or beings in the godhead, was taught by all heathen nations long before Christianity can into being. The devil has always imitated and perverted Gods plan in all ages. He took Gods triune revelation of Himself to His children, and made three separate persons or beings out of the One God. The Jewish Encyclopedia under the heading of the Trinity, has this to say about this truth: The idea of a Trinity, which, since the council of Nice, and especially through Basil the Great [370 AD], had become the Catholic dogma, is of course regarded by Jews as antagonistic to their monotheistic faith and due to the paganistic tendency of the [Roman Catholic] Church: God the Father and God the Son, together with the Holy Ghost... have their parallels in all the heathen mythologies, as has been shown by many Christian scholars. [45]

Just as Gods people in the Old Testament went into to apostasy, some of Gods people in New Testament times also went into apostasy. It started with a group of so-called theologians known in history as the Ante-Nicene Fathers or the Catholic Fathers. Most of these men were students of Greek Philosophy. The churches these apostates started became known as the Roman Catholic Church. The following brief history of how the Babylonian Trinity came into apostate Roman Catholic Christianity, for the first four hundred years, should give my beloved readers, some idea of the magnitude of the subject of the Godhead.The Catholic Semi-Arian Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods

Somewhere after 70 AD, Ignatius, one of the bishops of Antioch, and other apostate bishops of other cities, apostatized from Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church, and came together and formed the Catholic Church. The apostle John spoke of it this way: Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us (1Jn 2:18-19). It was Ignatius who invented the Catholic Nicolaitan Doctrine, along with its Monarchial Bishop Doctrine, which God and His Church hated (Rev 2:6, 15).Professor Harnack in his book The Mission and Expansion of Christianity spoke of the apostasy of Ignatius and other Bishops of that ilk when he declared: As early as the second century the [Catholic] Church had conquered the people.... By the opening of the third century [200 AD], no layman ventured any longer to call ecclesiastics, brethren. The layman is a layman because he has not been set apart from the people by ordination. After the close of the second century [the Monarchical] bishops were the teachers, high priest, and judges of the church. Ignatius already had compared their position [as bishop or pastor] in the individual church to that of God in the church collective. [46] Harnack speaking of the enormity of their apostasy from God says: The most momentous result was the gradual assimilation of the entire [Catholic] Christian worship to the nature of the ancient mysteries. By the third century [200 AD] it could already rival the most imposing cultus in all paganism, with its solemn and

exact ritual, its priest, its sacrifices, and its holy ceremonies. [47] If my readers would like to read a history of the Nicolaitan doctrine, I would suggest my book A Prophetic History of Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church or The Heresy of the Nicolaitans. One of the greatest problems, Gods Churches had during the first four hundred years, was with Satans Churches blaspheming God; they did this by christianizing pagan doctrines and then calling themselves Christians or Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. As I stated before, when these apostates first began, they did not believe in a Trinity of three separate persons, but believed that there were only two-persons in the godhead. They believed that the Father was the supreme God being uncreated or unbegotten, and the Son was a lesser or inferior God because He was begotten by the Father. They believed the Father created Him from a homoiousios or a like substance to God the Fathers own personal substance. Where did the godhead teaching of these apostates originate? History reveals that these Catholic Ante Nicene Priests received they pagan godhead from Philo, who received it from Plato, who received it from the Sibyls, who received it from the Zoroastrian doctrine that was taught in the Babylonian Religion. Who were the early Catholic Fathers who started the Catholic Church and what did they teach about the godhead? According to history this godhead doctrine started with Ignatius (c. 70) and Clement of Rome (c. 70), who were among the first apostates to teach this pagan heresy, and they were the ones who formed the Catholic Nicolaitan Church in the first century. The main Catholic Nicolaitan heretics of the second and third centuries, who taught this godhead doctrine were: Justin Martyr (c. 150), Clemens of Alexandria (c. 200), Tertullian (c. 200), Hippolytus (c. 225), Origen (c. 215), and Cyprian (c. 250). All of these heretics loved the writings of the Greek philosophers, especially Plato, and the allegoric method of interpreting the scriptures that was used by Philo. My beloved readers should bear in mind, that none of the early fathers of Catholicism or their heretical disciples, who are called apologist, believed in a Trinity of three separate and equal persons in the godhead. In fact, the Trinity they believed in was composed of two persons or gods each having a separate body and existence from the other, and one impersonal spirit which had no body, which represented the power of Christ, or as some prefer, the Logos other self. The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia gave a fair summation of the godhead doctrine of the early Catholic Priests. Under the heading of the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity we read: In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether. [48] Dr. Harnack included the Catholic apologists godhead doctrine in his list of the pagan teachings of the Ante Nicene Fathers. He stated: It is not Judaeo-Christianity that lies behind the Christianity and doctrines of the [Catholic] apologist, but Greek

philosophy - Platonic metaphysics, Logos doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic and Stoic ethics - the Alexandrine-Jewish apologetics, ...particularly in that of Philo. [49] Wolfson boldly declared the above truths when he stated that Ignatius, and all the other apostate Catholic fathers, who started Catholicism did not: believe in a preexistent Trinity.... Before His [Jesus] birth there were only two preexistent beings, God and the Holy Spirit, the latter identified with the preexistent Christ, and, if the term Logos is used, it is identified with the Holy Spirit. He continued by saying: like Philo, the [Catholic] Fathers attributed to the Logos... two stages of existence prior to the creation of the world, which according to Philo was the internal and external Logos that was also called by the title of the Holy Spirit. [50]107 AD, Ignatius Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Ignatius of Antioch was the father of all Catholic Nicolaitans. If there was someone before him who taught him these damnable doctrines we have no written record of it. According to history, He was the first to write down his beliefs on the godhead and the Nicolaitan doctrine of the ministry. Because of different opinions of scholars concerning which are the true writings of Ignatius, i.e. the short version, the long version, or the Syriac version, I will quote from all three versions for his godhead teachings can be found in all of them. I personal believe the longer version is the one he wrote. Ignatius in his epistles emphatically proclaimed, many times, that God the Father is uncreated and the highest God or the only true God. He also declared that the Logos or Christ was created by the Father before the universe was spoken into existence and is a lower or lesser god. He definitely spoke of the Logos as a separate being or person from the Father and called Him the begotten God. In his Epistle to the Ephesians he says: Our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. He continued by saying that the Son of God was begotten: before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. Ignatius encourage the Ephesians to keep the faith of: God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and the first-born of every creature. [51] Here Ignatius applied the Biblical term: the first-born to the Logos being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time. Ignatius ended his letter to the Ephesians with these words: Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ. [52] Ignatius indisputably proclaimed that the Holy Ghost was Jesus. He obviously did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. In his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius reaffirmed his belief in two-unequal gods by saying: He [the Logos or Christ] being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever. [53] In this passage Ignatius connects the Logos with the Son, and proclaimed that the Son is not an eternal being. In the Syriac Version of Ignatius epistles, we find his so-called refutation of errors. In his Epistle to the Tarsians, he writes against the godhead teachings of Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church by saying: Jesus Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son. Wherefore it is one [Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [Person] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former].

Because Ignatius and other Catholic bishops demoted Jesus to a second rate position in the godhead, he had to write to this church to admonish them to think of Jesus as God. He says: How could such a one [Jesus] be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And in another place, The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me. [54] Let my beloved readers take note, Ignatius uses the above passages of scriptures to verify His teaching that Christ was a begotten God, and He was also the Holy Spirit. From this time on, all Catholic Priest will use Ignatius teachings on the godhead in their writings, and some will even put their own religious twist to it, but all will claim that the Father and Son are two separate beings or gods. 150 AD, Justin Martyrs Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Justinus, who is better known as Justin Martyr, was the first to defend in writing the two-god system of Philo and Ignatius. Justin was without a doubt the real theologian of this two-god system. Justin, like his masters before him, definitely taught that the Father was the unbegotten and the highest God, while the Logos or Christ was a begotten and lower or lesser god, and the Holy Spirit was another name for the Logos. Dr. Paine in his book A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism revealed: Justin Martyr refers to Platonic and stoic authorities for his Logos ideas. He was himself a Platonist before he became a Christian, and he never laid aside his philosophers cloak. [55] Justin and all the other early Catholic heretics could not understand the Logos concept of the John 1:1 and Rev 19:13. The reason for their ignorance was they all interpreted it by the works of Plato, especially his work entitled Timaeus, Philos two-god system, and the pagan concept of a lower separate god called the Son that dwelt with the Father. As a result they were blinded to the truth that God changed a portion of His eternal Holy Spirit Nature into a Human Soul and Glorified Spirit Body Natures, and dwelt in it. Dr. Wolfson speaking of Justins godhead doctrine, as He wrote against Gods Oneness people wrote: Justin Martyr already describes the Logos as one whom God begot from Himself.... Justin Martyr maintained that the Logos is distinct from the Father in number and not in name only. [56] Justin in his First Apology called the Logos: the first-begotten of all creation. He then stated that the Holy Spirit is the Logos. He says: It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God. [57] Justin, like Ignatius, connected the term first-born with the generation of the Son before time began. In Justins Second Apology we read: But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His son, who along is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ. For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God. [58] No one can read the writing of the early Catholics and believe

they taught the eternal sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is part of teachings of the Trinitarian doctrine.Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho a Jew clearly defined his heresy of two-unequal-gods. He says: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, said I, from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself. He was begotten of the Father by an act of will. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God. Justin then quoted Proverbs, the eight chapter, to prove that the Logos was begotten by the Father. He says: And it is written in the book of Wisdom The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth. He begets me before all the hills. When I repeated these words, I added: You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit. I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but NOT by abscission, as if the ESSENCE of the Father were DIVIDED; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided. [59] It is a pity that this blind apologist understood these scriptures through the eyes of Plato and Philo. For instead of seeing the Logos as the embodiment of God or the Fathers visible Self with a human nature as Paul taught (Col 2:8-9; 1:15), he saw Him as a person existing outside of or next to God. 160 AD, Tatians Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr. He, like his master, also believed that the Logos had a beginning, and the Holy Spirit was just another name for the Logos. He wrote: For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone. The Logos Himself also, who was IN Him, subsists. And by His simple will, the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him [the Logos] we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission. The Logos coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, and He has not divested the Logos-power of Him [the Father] who begot Him.... For the heavenly Logos, a Spirit emanating from the Father and [is] a Logos from the Logos-power [of the Father], in imitation of the Father who begot Him, made man an image of immortality. [60] No eternal Trinity can be found here.170 AD, Theophilus Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Theophilus taught same godhead doctrine as all the others. He wrote: God, then having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begot Him,, emitting Him along with His own Wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.... He [the Logos] then being the Spirit of God, and governing principle, and Wisdom, and power of the Highest,

came down upon the prophets and through them spake. [61] Here Theophilus clearly revealed that the Holy Spirit is the Logos, and Wisdom is another title of the Logos. Many of the early Catholic Priests declared Wisdom was a title of the Logos, who was the Holy Spirit. Theophilus also declared: The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest. The Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He [God the Father] had Him as a counselor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place. [62] According to this Catholic Priest, God the Father is omnipresent and has no form, but Christ who was begotten by the Father has form and a dwelling place.Other Catholic Priest, such as Tertullian, will use Theophilus godhead teaching, and also claim God the Father emitted His Son from His own bowels, by speaking Him into existence. No one can accuse Theophilus of being a Trinitarian, even though he is the first Catholic to use the word Trinity. Theophilus, being an allegorist like His Catholic predecessors in the ministry, in his teaching on the sun and moon compares the godhead to them; he says: In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity: of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom. [63] Let my beloved readers take note, Theophilus used the personal pronoun His to show that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God belong to God the Father.180 AD, Irenaeus Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Irenaeus, like his fellow Catholic bishops, taught that the Logos was a being, whom the Father begot before time began. Irenaeus declared: If any one, therefore, says to us, How then was the Son produced by the Father? We reply to him, that no man understands that production or generation but the Father only who begat, and the Son who was begotten. [64] He also declared: John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [65]From the Fragments of the Lost Writings of Irenaeus we read: Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in the fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood. He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe. [66] Irenaeus applied the title the only begotten God to the Son of God, i.e. the Logos, because He was begotten by the Fathter before time began. He stated: His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Fathers brightness, and explained His purposes (as also the Lord said: The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]. [67]Irenaeus called Christ the Holy Spirit of the Father. He wrote: For He [Jesus] is

indeed Savior, as being the Son and Word of God, but salutary [i.e. producing a beneficial effect] since (He is the) Spirit for he says: The Spirit of our countenance Christ the Lord. But (for) salvation as being flesh: for the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. [68] He also declared: He [Jesus], who is the perfect bread of the Father, offered Himself to us.... He did this when He appeared as a man. [We who] become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God, may be able also to contain in ourselves the Bread of immortality, which is the Spirit of the Father. Those upon whom the apostles laid hands received the Holy Spirit, who is the food of Life (Eternal). [69] It is very obvious from the above quotes that Irenaeus believed the Son of God was not an eternal being but a created being; and the Holy Ghost is another name for the Logos. Therefore, he was not a Trinitarian, even thou he speaks in mysterious tones in certain passages. 200 AD, Tertullians Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: It is in Tertullian that Trinitarians make their boast. They probably surmise, surely someone who writes against Oneness Pentecostals, uses the word Trinity in his writings, and speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be a Trinitarian. Not so! According to Dr. Schaff: Tertullian cannot escape the charge of subordinationism. He bluntly calls the Father the whole Divine Substance, and the Son a part of it. [70] Tertullian, like his predecessors in the ministry, believed that God in His Spirit Essence was omnipresent. He declared: We know, however, that God is in the bottomless depths, and exists everywhere; but then it is by power and authority. We are also sure that the Son, being indivisible from Him, is everywhere with Him. Nevertheless, in the Economy or Dispensation itself, the Father willed that the Son should be regarded as on earth, and Himself in heaven. [71]Tertullians godhead teaching is definitely not the Trinitarian doctrine of Catholicism or Protestantism. Tertullian declared: For before all things God was alone being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call lo>gov, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself. This power and disposition of the Divine Intelligence is set forth also in the Scriptures under the name of Sofi>a, Wisdom; for what can be better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason or the Word of God? Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the CHARACTER of a

Second Person: At the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me; that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence. Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdoms Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him. through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and substances. Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, Let there be light. This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God begotten to carry all into effect. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, made a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart even as the Father Himself testifies: My heart, says He, hath emitted my most excellent Word. [72] As my beloved readers can perceived by now, Tertullian, like all the Catholic Priests before him, did not teach the Eternal Son of God doctrine of Trinitarians, but a Begotten Son of God. I might also add, if the Word was the conscious mind of God the Father as Tertullian declared, then the Father must have lost His mind when He made the Word a separate person from Himself! Tertullian concluded by saying: Whatever therefore was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father. For the FATHER is the ENTIRE SUBSTANCE, but the SON is a derivation and PORTION of the whole. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? [73] What Philo, Tertullian, and all the other Catholic Anti Nicene Priests did not understand is that God did not bring forth a separate person or being from His own Loins before time began, but as some Rabbis declared a Spiritual or Heavenly Man or Humanity. Rabbis taught this truth this way: Should one ask: Is it not written, Ye saw no manner of similitude? The answer would be: Truly we did behold Him under a certain similitude, for is it not written, and the similitude of the LORD should he [Moses] behold [Num 12:18].... Even that similitude was a likeness of the HOLY ONE, blessed be He.... For in the beginning... when He created the FORM of SUPERNAL MAN to be known according to the style YHWH in order that He might be known by His attributes and perceived in each attributes separately. [74]This humanity being God the Father had in its essence a Soul and Glorified Spiritual Body, which was Gods the Fathers Visible Self, Form (Phi 2:6), or Image (Heb 1:3; Col 1:15). In other word, the Father being an Invisible Spirit Being, and Omniscient, knew before the creation began that men whom He loved and created

would fall into sin and need redemption, therefore He CLOTHED Himself with a Spiritual Humanity (His Visible, Tangible Self that sat on the One Throne in Heaven), which at Bethlehem took on flesh, blood, and bones and became known as the Son of God, who was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8; also 1Pe 1:18-20). According to Justin Martyr, the orthodox JEWS of his day, that is 150 AD, believed and taught that God the Father had a Divine Human Nature in the Old Testament. In the Dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew, Justin mocks Trypho by saying: Just as YOUR TEACHERS suppose, fancying that the FATHER of all, the UNBEGOTTEN GOD, has HANDS and FEET, and FINGERS, and a SOUL, like a composite being; and they for this reason teach that it was the Father Himself who appeared to Abraham and to Jacob. [75] There are over thirty scriptures in the OT that speak of God the Fathers Soul in the present verb tense. (See my book The Mysteries of the Godhead Revealed, which is given away on my website: DoctrinesOfChrist.com). Justin mocks the Jews, just as all Ante Nicene Priests have done, because they all believed that the Son appeared to Abraham, a separate being, person, or God from the Father. There is NOT one scripture in the OT that uses the term or title Son or Son of God in reference to the existence of Christ or Logos or Gods Spiritual Humanity, but there are at lease three scriptures that speak of Gods Son in prophecy, as one who will be born one day in time (Psa 2:6-12; Isa 7:14; 9:6). Why can we not find one scripture that reveals the term Son of God was used by Christ in the OT? Because according to Gods prophetic Word, God reserved this title to refer to the Physical Humanity that God the Father would take on through the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem one day. Tertullian after declaring that God the Father is the Entire Essence of God then contradicts himself by saying: Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent [i.e. united] Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These THREE are, ONE ESSENCE, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, in respect of unity of Substance not singularity of number. [76] In the above two declarations, Tertullian becomes trapped by his own deceitful tongue. Since he declared that God the Father is the Entire Substance of God, the only way the Son or the Paraclete can be God is by being part of the Father, i.e. they must be the Father! Therefore, Tertullians three persons or Trinity is not real persons. In fact, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives a history of a word declared the word person in the second and third centuries meant an: actors mask, character in a play, later [i.e. 4th century] human being. Tertullian taught the Spirit was Christ: The Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Spirit is the substance of the Word, and the Word is the operation of the Spirit, and the Two are One (and the same). We declare, however, that the Son is God and the Word and Spirit of God. [77] Now, where can anyone find the eternal Sonship doctrine, or that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Logos in any of these passages? Tertullian did not teach the Trinitarian doctrine.