Most True Christians Go to Hell

8/18/2019 Most True Christians Go to Hell

1/125

THE TRINITY HERESYPs 2:1. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?.........

Rom 1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the orld are CLEARLY SEEN, being UNDERSTOOD by the things thatare made, EVEN HIS eternal poer and GODHEAD! so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE:

INTRODUCTION: “… SO TELL ME HOW YOU REALLY FEEL”

t is almost impossible to rap one#s head aro$nd ho something so pervasive, so idely accepted, most

of the time itho$t do$bt or second tho$ght can be so obvio$sly damnable as the doctrine of the trinityhat it can only be 2%hess 2:11&moc'ing& the ic'ed to their face.(1Kings 22:19-35) "n fact, some fol'seem to almost consider it a sin ($st to even consider any disc$ssion on the validity of the doctrine of the

rinity. )et hen e*amined to depth the doctrine is fo$nd to be so blatantly self contradicting,

cript$rally contradicting and o$t right incomprehensible d$ng of the highest magnit$de that one canonly come to the concl$sion that either +od is a $niversalist (everyone is going to heaven) or +od has a

cr$el& b$t very ($st s$rprise for almost everyone and anyone of any gro$p calling themselves -hristian.

What ma'es it all the more fascinating is ho so many people, even nondevo$t -hristians, can call itorthodo*y& almost ith a pavlovian& li'e /$ality. %his is b$t yet another tist fo$nd in the never

nding saga of the heretic#s apologetic tool bag. %he technical& definition of orthodo*y is right

hin'ing& hoever hen %rinitarians $se it to describe the doctrine of the trinity hat they do (even if

unwittingly) is associate and or $se the term synonymo$s ith the pop$lar thin'ing& or the doctrine thatmost -hristians& hold and of co$rse they o$ld reason that they do so beca$se it is right thin'ing&.

%his is hy they li'e to associate the doctrine of %rinity ith orthodo*y so m$ch. "t leaves their

a$dience 'noing that most -hristians& do accept it, so "t also implies that it m$st be tr$e andorthodo*& or for non -hristians it leads them to thin'ing that it m$st be hat tr$e -hristianity believes

and teaches.

Rom 2: 22. %ho$ that sayest a man sho$ld not commit ad$ltery, dost tho$ commit ad$ltery? THOU THAT ABHORREST IDOLS,

DOST THOU COMMIT SACRILEGE 2. %ho$ that ma'est thy boast of the la, thro$gh brea'ing the la dishono$rest tho$

+od? 2. FOR THE NAME OF GOD IS BLAS!HEMED AMONG THE GENTILES THROUGH YOU, as it isritten.

started o$t by saying lmost& beca$se if one considers the ords of -hrist himself then the matter ofho so many -hristians& believe in certain dogmas becomes more clear and perhaps a sober e*c$se to

econsider everything yo$ thin' yo$ 'no. %rinitarians are nothing more then polytheistic pagans homas/$erade as -hristians (or have been tricke into believing they are !hristian) and point to the fact

hat they have so many adherents as proof& that they are the tr$e ch$rch and hold to the tr$e doctrine.

I"#$#% &&:'333.. " also ill CHOOSE THEIR DELUSIONS,2T%("" 2:))333.. nd for this ca$se GOD SHALL SEND THEM STRONG DELUSION , that they sho$ld

believe a lie:

M#* 22:)' 3..MANY are CALLED3..M#* 2+:)&. 4o the last shall be first, and the first last: for MANY BE CALLED, 3..

5nly those ho first ere of the ho$se of "srael (all of "#srael$ was calle) and no only thosethat act$ally find& or -ome to -hrist& are of the called. %he called are defined by the fact thatthey have accepted -hrist and the gift of salvation offered.

Rom :-+ hom he did predestinate, them he also CALLED33..A*" 2:-/3even AS MANY as the 6ord o$r +od shall CALL3..

%a'e note of as many&, +od does not call &everyone& 7ven still only fe o$t of those ho are

called and come to -hrist act$ally ma'e it to heaven.

M#* 22:)' continue 3.......FEW are CHOSEN

1


2/125

M#* 2+:)& continue 33333333. BUT FEW CHOSEN.

%he point here is not to debate the predestination iss$e, b$t simply point o$t that of most people ho are

-hristians, ho are called& only F7W are chosen orthy. 8any theologians o$ld deno$nce this o$tight and the ob(ect here is not to e*plore this in depth in this st$dy b$t simply mention it for latter and

offer it as an e*c$se& for hy so many -hristians& hold to so many damnable b$t pop$lar vies and

all "t orthodo*y&.(right-thinking that gets confuse with %o%ular thinking)

8ost people do not seem to grasp the difference beteen a distinction or difference ithin an individ$al

and a separate individ$al (or thing) altogether. 9r. ames White is a pop$lar theologian and has rittenmany boo's one of hich as entitled %he Forgotten %rinity& "t is too bad everyone has not and doesnot forget it ;trinity&< %hree persons is by definition a pl$rality of persons or three god persons not one

+od person and th$s three people ho are each +od is by definition three gods not one +od. "n fact if

+od is one= only refers to oneness in p$rpose then yo$r admitting that yo$ are a polytheist having three

different persons ho each are +od beca$se yo$ ($st destroyed the only reason yo$ had for claiming yo$are a monotheist. "n fact hen %rinitarians ill claim they only orship one +od they are in fact no

different then a liar and a thief ho insist he does not lie or steal. )o$ orship three different persons

ho each are +od and only one in p$rpose not one in person. %hat is three different persons and threedifferent gods, as s$ch are polytheist not monotheist (&rying to a%%eal to three ifferent %ersons in a

ingle being is nonsense since a %erson is an iniviual being an in any case' no such three o-

*eae +onster e,ist anywhere else e,ce%t in the +ins of &rinitarians who create it for the sole%ur%ose of enying the truth an twisting scri%ture to fit their love of lies.) 8any complain yo$ ($st

don#t $nderstand the doctrine of the trinity& b$t the tr$th is that these academic fools& li'e to play

ac'amole& ith their terms and concepts. %his boo' ill address all the basic forms and prove that

no matter hat acrobatic contortions they tist the end res$lt is the same and their damnation is ($st.%he fact is %rinitarians m$st admit they orship three different persons ho are each +od ith different

amo$nts of god poers, 'noledge and a$thority ho send each other aro$nd (who are only one in

%ur%ose but not one in %erson) is three gods not one, claiming it =really is one= does not ma'e it tr$e>?>%his is the orship literally of another (%erson) es$s (2!or 11:). %h$s claiming repeatedly& yo$ are

not a polytheist, is in fact ($st the del$sion of fools and hypocrites. %o be fair after m$ch disc$ssion ith

one %rinitarian preacher he act$ally admitted yes e orship three gods. o most %rinitarians o$lddeny this ith their dying breath&. %he point here is this is the only honest statement a %rinitarian can

ma'e. " reali@ed that he anted to believe in the trinity so m$ch that he o$ld go herever the doctrine

o$ld go and that no amo$nt of logic or script$re o$ld convince him otherise. Ae had bo$ght the billof goods ith his eyes ide opened. Aoever, "t ill not ta'e long for him to find someone ho ill be

able to e*plain to him hy they do not really orship three gods. "t ill be something to the affect that

he ($st did not posses the $nderstanding and terminology to get aro$nd this parado*ical& concl$sion.

%he e*planation ill of co$rse, as they all are, ill be the most irrational sath of $nnecessary, selfontradicting and o$tright false h$mility d$ng that any man has ever salloed. B$t the tr$th is some

people ere made for damnation and the eternal fire of destr$ction. o don#t let that bother yo$ too

m$ch. %he devil and his angles ere made for destr$ction too, so those of yo$ in that same boat ill beith li'e minded company.

good e*ample of the doctrine of the trinity is e*pressed in hat has become 'non as the thethianasis creed. o it does not matter if yo$r version of the doctrine of +od in three persons fits ith

his partic$lar creed or hether or not yo$ agree ith this creed or any creed for that matter> %his paper

ill address the doctrine of the trinity in all of its basic forms and demonstrate that it is heresy hether

or not yo$ hold to any partic$lar creed or not. %his partic$lar creed here is called the thanasi$s creedb$t it as not act$ally ritten by thianasis. "t hoever is a good demonstration of the

ncomprehensible nat$re and masterf$l art of do$ble spea' that any other version of the doctrine of the

rinity ill also e*hibit even if they do it slightly differently or ith different termsCconcepts orperipheral iss$es on this s$b(ect. 4o for all the hypocrites ho o$ld deno$nce this or any man made

2


3/125

reeds& b$t in practice still hold to its same arg$mentation, concl$sion and or similar logical fallaciesdon#t orry yo$r version in yo$r t$rn ill be e*posed here soon eno$gh. "n any case here it is:

1.=Whosoever ill be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the -atholicD Faith.

2.Which Faith e*cept everyone do 'eep hole and $ndefiled, itho$t do$bt he shall perish everlastingly.

.nd the -atholicD Faith is this, that e orship one +od in %rinity and %rinity in Enity.

.either confo$nding the Persons, nor dividing the 4$bstance.

.For THERE IS ONE !ERSON OF THE FATHER, ANOTHER OF THE SON, AND ANOTHER OF THE

HOLY GHOST.

G.B$t the +odhead of the Father, of the 4on and of the Aoly +host is all 5ne, the +lory 7/$al, the 8a(esty -o

7ternal.

H.4$ch as the Father is, s$ch is the 4on, and s$ch is the Aoly +host.

I.%he Father Encreate, the 4on Encreate, and the Aoly +host Encreate.

J.THE FATHER INCOM!REHENSIBLE, THE SON INCOM!REHENSIBLE, AND THE HOLY GHOST

INCOM!REHENSIBLE.

10.%he Father 7ternal, the 4on 7ternal, and the Aoly +host 7tneral.

11. nd yet they are NOT THREE ETERNALS BUT ONE ETERNAL.

12. s also there are NOT THREE UNCREATED, NOR THREE INCOM!REHENSIBLES, BUT ONE

UNCREATED, AND ONE UNCOM!REHENSIBLE.

1. 4o li'eise the Father is lmighty, the 4on lmighty, and the Aoly +host lmighty. 1. nd yet they are not

%hree lmighties b$t 5ne lmighty.

1. 4o the Father is +od, the 4on is +od, and the Aoly +host is +od.

1G. nd yet they are NOT THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD.

1H. 4o li'eise the Father is 6ord, the 4on 6ord, and the Aoly +host 6ord.

1I. nd yet NOT THREE LORDS BUT ONE LORD.

)/. FOR, LI0E AS WE ARE COM!ELLED BY THE CHRISTIAN VERITY TO AC0NOWLEDGE EVERY

!ERSON BY HIMSELF TO BE GOD AND LORD1

2+. SO ARE WE FORBIDDEN BY THE CATHOLIC RELIGION TO SAY, THERE BE THREE GODS OR

THREE LORDS.

21.%he Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.

22.%he 4on is of the Father alone! not made, nor created, b$t begotten.

2.%he Aoly +host is of the Father, and of the 4on neither made, nor created, nor begotten, b$t proceeding.2.=4o there is 5ne Father, not %hree Fathers! one 4on, not %hree 4ons! 5ne Aoly +host, not %hree Aoly +hosts.

2.nd in this %rinity none is afore or after 5ther, one is greater or less than nother.

2G. B$t THE WHOLE THREE !ERSONS are -oeternal together, and -oe/$al.

2H. 4o that in all things, as is aforesaid, the UNITY IS TRINITY, AND THE TRINITY IS UNITY IS TO BE

WORSHI!!ED.

2I.Ae therefore that ill be saved, m$st th$s thin' of the %rinity.= (&he thanasian !ree.)

%his is the 'ind of masterf$l do$blespea' that all %rinitarian doctrinal versions m$st employ. %his li'e

most %rinitarians m$st admit it is INCOM!REHENSIBLE” b$t yet it is the most reasonable& arg$ment

hey pretend. %heir arg$ments attempt to convince everyone that the best most reasonable arg$ments

from script$res reach a concl$sion that is incomprehensible& and yo$ m$st accept the tr$th of it as$ch. %his is tr$ly ironic, they give yo$ their interpretations& and theory, or models of a three person

headed god hile admitting it is incomprehensible b$t claim yo$ m$st have faith in their theory $nder

pain of damnation. o> %hese people are damned fools (factually in a state of a+nation /0 they arefools for it' because they are without e,cuse) and they need to be e*posed for hat they are. %hey may

have different versions and ideas of ho the trinity all or's& in script$re and or reality b$t at the end

of the day it is ($st the same 'ind of do$ble minded (a+es 1:) do$ble spea' as any other demonicdoctrine.


4/125

333.cho'e cho'e co$gh co$gh it all don3Rom 1:20. For THE INVISIBLE THINGS OF HIM from the creation of the orld are clearly seen, being $nderstood by the things that are made, EVEN his

ternal poer AND GODHEAD! so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE!3..%his %rinitarian idea

of +od head is nohere to be seen certainly not clearly by the things hich are made s$ch that they areitho$t e*c$se& ;no, it is incomprehensible?>?>> %hat o$ld be li'e me stealing yo$r things and then claiming "

did not steal them beca$se " am forbidden from confessing that " stole from yo$, ergo " did not steal

from yo$.>?> 6oo' hat fools men have become. %he fact yo$ deny hat yo$r doing does not changehe fact that yo$ are indeed doing it> Worshiping three different persons and calling it 57 +59&

does not change that fact that yo$ are orshiping three different gods ho are each a different god

person in a different location doing different things. )o$r not ($st liars and hypocrites yo$#re del$sional

beyond ords. )o$ thin' that if yo$ call yo$r pagan practices -hristian then it m$st be so. We do notorship three different gods beca$se that o$ld be rong and e confess& that e only orship one

+od. %hat is the only arg$ment that yo$ can logically, coherently and consistently ( Ad nauseam ) ma'e.

%he %rinitarian claim is as valid as a hore (or an ancient %riest %rostitute) ho confesses& that she

practices the d$ties of a -hristian oman of love&. and deno$nces all forms of se*$al immorality>?>)o$ fools>?>

magine someone comes into yo$r home hile yo$r aay, ta'es yo$r things and hen they are ca$ght

red handed& they claim loo'. " have confessed that " did not steal from yo$.& %hey contin$e ithAo many times do " have to repeat myself?. " confess that thievery is rong b$t e (the thieves) do

not steal e reallocated& and that is completely different then thievery. F$rther, e confess that e donot ta'e other peoples things rongf$lly.& What fool o$ld believe them? When %rinitarians confess&

he orship of three different and distinct persons ho are each +od (with ifferent a+ounts of

knowlege %ower an authority) is the orship of 57 +od they are either fools or ($st liars ho seem

o be able to find plenty of other fools ho ill b$y their lies via the alapean$tb$tter sandich&onfession of e orship one +od (no +atter how +any ifferent %ersons that go +ay be)&. (n 16:1

"7the sa+e is a thief an a robber.$4 2!or 11: also take note of 8ust how +any ti+es the writings of

ohn are relevant in this iscourse) " $se the alapean$tb$tter sandiches& reference beca$se it is theame basic approach of trying to ta'e something li'e sorcery and give it a harmless& f$n loo' to it or

a'e some poison p$t in the apples and hen people start dying claim it m$st have been something in theater. & lapean$tb$tter sandiches& has been $sed as a pop$lar children#s reference to children#smagic& b$t in fact is really nothing b$t the desensiti@ation& program to ma'e sorcery hich e*actly

hat the doctrine of %rinitarians is sorcery, seem harmless and mystical& b$t not malicio$s ..yo$

'no3&li'e magic& 3&these are not the droids yo$ loo'ing for& ..&they can go on their ay&3.. %hehief does hat thieves do and accomplishes hat thieves accomplish b$t yo$r s$pposed to accept it as

o'ie do'ie& beca$se, ell, they confessed that thievery is rong period and they did not do that. %hey

-onfess these facts& emphatically>. )o$ may not be able to properly $nderstand& the great mystery of

hat they did b$t neither sho$ld the fact it is incomprehensible and irrational bother yo$, ($st accept it


5/125

'noing that it is the tr$th and or face the rath of +od#s ($stice to all ho deny that hat they areaying is tr$thf$l and good. fter all, they confessed Enity is %rinity, and the %rinity is Enity& therefore

t m$st be tr$e Right?

%hey prefer to claim any contradiction;s< as ($st an apparent contradictions&. %his is to say they ill

laim there is no real contradiction, only it may loo' li'e a contradiction beca$se of something to the

ffect! e cannot overcome the limited ability of the h$man mind to grasp the f$ll nat$re of o$r great+od. %his then allos them to: ;a


6/125

omprehended>?> "t is not a /$estion that there are things e do not f$lly $nderstand it is the fact thatmen not script$res feel the need to come along and e*plain ho one really means three. %he root iss$e is

not abo$t +od or the script$res at all. %he iss$e is abo$t menKs lac' of faith in hat +od said abo$t

himself in the first place and then ma'e their appeals to false h$mility and +odKs grande$r hile denyinghe very name of the very +od they say they love. (2ter 2:1-3)

A NOTE TO THE !HARISSIES: " 'no 4ome ill point to =fools= 8at :22 b$t miss the conte*t

.=itho$t a ca$se=, hich is the conte*t 2. %his is demonstrated in 1 -or 1:G.re yo$ offended everyime yo$ read that, )5E F5564 L A)P5-R"%74 and B6"9 +E"974>?>? (&hat was not 8ust written

o the church but still a%%lies to +ost %eo%le in the church to this 0ay) People might ($st ant to calmdon and be li'e icodem$s ho as one of those that -hrist =called o$t= ith the same b$t it did nottop that honest man from honestly searching o$t the matters even all the more so......8ight need to as'

yo$rself of hat 'ind of Pharisees are yo$?.....$mmmm

9emonstrating and or shoing the comparison and contrast beteen a so$nd mindClogic and reasoning

verses ho and hy certain arg$ments are s$ch o$trageo$s and ine*c$sable foolishness so as to be

ns$lting ($st for offering them $p in the first place is the hole point to the st$dy e*ercise. %he boo'sPsalms and proverbs refer to fool;s< ;Foolishness< /$ite often. " mention Ps L Prov beca$se they are

imply ma'ing reference to a generic state of mind condition and or ay of thin'ing and yet people

don#t seem to be too concerned abo$t ho many times they $se the ord beca$se they are not ta'ing it

personally hen they read them. 4o, Why o$ld yo$ ta'e it here so personally $nless it someho itapplies to yo$???

!3o4(35" :6 7 O 8( "$m9(, ;


7/125

We belong to -hrist as member of a body of -hrist here as -hrist belongs to +od3ote the belongingor +od possessing -hrist ($st as -hrist possesses the saints. %his shos $s onership of that spirit and

hat son! 4o the son and the spirit are s$bservient to ehovah. %rinitarins do not ant to see or

appreciate ($st ho devastating the fact that -hrist belongs to +od and is s$bservient to the father hilealso being coe/$al ith +od..:

!%$$9$#

n any case, the hint sho$ld be in the obvio$s /$estion "f -hrist is +od#s (belongs to o' subserviento o) and yet co e/$al ith +od, then -hrist is +od#s hat?? " 'no yo$r thin'ing +od#s son right?

Well the 4on is +od as ell as the son of +od, e ill e*po$nd $pon this more in chapter five.

n any case, there are only to possibilities that e*ist here:

1. "f es$s is a different person then he is a less poerf$lly and 'noledgeable person of the

others persons of +od then es$s is not coe/$al& and as s$ch a lesser person Min a differentlocation ith a different mindN, hich is a lesser god person. %his is the hypocrisy of %rinitarians

beca$se it demands that es$s is a person of lesser a$thority, 'noledge and poer of the other

to persons of +od! 5ne person gives the other person his a$thority>?> "f es$s is a different person then he is a less poerf$lly and 'noledgeable person of the others persons of +od then

es$s is not coe/$al& and as s$ch a lesser person, a lesser god! 4imply saying no, no& is

denying the obvio$s and only logical concl$sion in favor of acrobatic denials of p$re

pathological del$sions> %his is the 'ind of self contradicting absol$te nonsense that %rinitarianstry to p$sh ith one hand then cover $p and deny ith the other.

5r

H


8/125

2. es$s is only part of one person +od in the same ay that my hand is part of me and can only'no and comm$nicate to yo$ hat " tell it to comm$nicate 3%his ill be shon to be the

correct, coherent and consistent description and e*planation e ill find in the script$res.

%his sho$ld be $nderstood in the same ay that a head is greater then a right hand and yet still the same

person as the head, beca$se that is e*actly ho script$res describe the relationship beteen father as the

head and the son as the right hand and arm. )o$r head is greater then yo$r right arm and yet it is still the

ame person of yo$. "n fact this can 56) be coherently $nderstood as the parts of a single individ$alperson. o other constr$ct or's. 4cript$res nor any 'ind of consistent logic& is compatible ith three

different persons ho are each +od (with so+e %ersons being greater than the other %ersons) e*cept forit#s a (inco+%rehensible) mystery&. "s yo$r head a different person then yo$r right arm? es$s is thepirit of +od that animated flesh ($st li'e o$r spirit animates o$r flesh. -hrist did the same things

biologically (eat slee% et al) that e did beca$se es$s as a spirit attached to flesh (it is 8ust *is s%irit

was the s%irit of o eternally e,istent' not the s%irit of a +an) When -hrist died that spirit of +od lefthe flesh it as animating ($st li'e o$rs does hen o$r flesh dies. es$s is +od b$t not all there is to

+od! "n the same ay that a piece of pie is p$re pie b$t not all there is to the hole pie. 4o es$s and the

piece of pie are th$s e/$al to the rest of the pie (h 2:=) in terms of s$bstance ............b$t not in /$antity

(%ower' knowlege et al) .

%he only coherent ay -hrist can be +od and s$bservient to +od all at the same time is if -hrist is only

a part of +od in the same ay that my right hand is a part of me ;llen< and s$bservient to mellen


9/125

CHA!TER ONE:“IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER” !ART )

ohn 1:1. &hese wors s%ake esus' an lifte u% his eyes to heaven' an sai' FATHER, the hour is co+e glorify thy >on'that thy >on also +ay glorify THEE: 2. s THOU hast given hi+ %ower 7 3. .. that they +ight know THEE THE ONLY

TRUE GOD ' an esus !hrist' who+ THOU HAST SENT .

% %he son identifies himself as the Father

5% %he father is identified as the son333 -hrist is o$r Aigh priest as ell as the sacrificial 6amb of+od, m$ltiple sim$ltaneo$s roles are not diffic$lt, for the omnipresent one person of +od

o%< )': . Philip saith $nto him, 6ord,SHEW US THE FATHER ,.. J. es$s saith $nto him, HAVE IBEEN SO LONG TIME WITH YOU, AND YET HAST THOU NOT 0NOWN ME, Philip? he that hath SEEN ME HATH

EEN THE FATHER1 and ho sayest tho$ then, 4he $s the Father?

%he =oneness= beteen -hrist and the father is not comparable to a man and his ife, for only a fool

o$ld say =When yo$ have seen me yo$ have seen my ife, ho sayest tho$ then, 4he $s yo$r ife?=otice they as'ed to see %A7 F%A7R and the response as n 1:J ..A7 " B77 45 65+ time

ith yo$, and yet hast %A5E 5% Q5W 87, Philip.....o image some fool trying to claim that

tatement if yo$ as'ed to see his ife>?>>? %he hole point to -hrist statements is that he is the 487person as the father Myo$ ant to see the F%A7R b$t have " been ith yo$ b$t yo$ don#t 'no

me>?>?>N& beca$se +od is only one person not three different persons. "ronically,& the father ill in t$rn

dentify the son as the father also.

"#$#%/:&. For $nto $s a child is born, $nto $s A SON IS GIVEN: and the government shall be $pon his sho$lder: and HISNAME SHALL BE CALLED Wonderf$l, COUNSELLER , (>ee ?& @#AB: this is the *oly >%irit) %he mighty +od,

THE EVERLASTING FATHER ,3 3 ( B%h :=. Cne o /0 @ather of all) THE !RINCE OF !EACE . (rince is a >C/)

"#$#% 22:2). nd " ill clothe him ith thy robe, and strengthen him ith thy girdle, and " ill commit thy government into his hand: and HESHALL BE A FATHER to the inhabitants of er$salem, and to the ho$se of $dah. 22. nd THE 0EY OFTHE HOUSE OF DAVID ill " lay $pon his sho$lder! so SO HE SHALL O!EN AND NONE SHALL SHUT! and HE SHALL

HUT AND NONE SHALL O!EN333

%his is es$s >?>.................R(4 -: %hese things saith he that is holy, he that is tr$e, HE THAT HATH THE 0EY OFDAVID ' he that O!ENETH, AND NO MAN SHUTTETH, AND SHUTTETH AND NO MAN O!ENETH!333. R(4 22:)2. nd, behold, " come /$ic'ly! and MY REWARD IS WITH ME, to give every man according as his or' shall

be. 1. I AM AL!HA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, THE FIRST AND THELAST3..1G I ESUS have sent mine angel to testify $nto yo$ these things333333R(4 ): . " am lpha and

5mega, the beginning and the ending, saith the 6ord, hich is, and hich as, and hich is to come, THE

ALMIGHTY.3.

)Co3 &:). Wherefore come o$t from among them, and be ye separate, saith the 6ord, and to$ch not the $nclean thing! and " ill receive yo$.

1I. nd WILL BE A FATHER UNTO YOU, and ye shall be my sons and da$ghters,saith the 6ord lmighty.

(3(m$#% -:) AT THAT TIME they shall call er$salem the throne of the 6ord! and all the nations SHALL BE GATHERED UNTO IT,

TO THE NAME OF THE LORD, ;Rev 1J:1CPs 1I:2 !%his is 74E4>?>..see also -h H &in the name of the

J


10/125

father&< to er$salem:31I. IN THOSE DAYS and shalt not t$rn aay from me 1J. ..and " said, THOU

SHALT CALL ME, MY FATHER1 ( B%h :=. Cne o /0 @ather of all)

8any li'e to point to the fact that (as we shall see an e,a+ine further latter) -hrist himself had a +od

and a father (?o+ 15:=2!or 1:3 11:3B%h 1:3 := 1 et al) as evidence that -hrist as a different

person then +od the father. Aoever this is tr$ly ironic beca$se it proves their error not validates theirarg$ment>?> %here is only one coherent ay in hich son co$ld be +od b$t not& the father and also

orship +od and be less than the father b$t still both be the same one +od& and that is if they are bothparts of the same person (like a right ar+ an hea) rather then a different persons. %he fact they don#t#ee and or appreciate ($st ho totally devastating their on arg$ment is to itself o$ld be h$moro$s if it

ere not so pathetically ignorant and oef$l. %he f$rther e move into this st$dy the more e shall

*amine the differences beteen parts of the same individ$al person verses different individ$al persons.

B$t in short only part of yo$r one person s$ch as yo$r right arm can be both yo$ as ell as not as greatas yo$r head, only a part of yo$ can be obedient to yo$ (or o) hile also being yo$ (or o). gain,

ironically& as e move thro$gh this st$dy e ill find that script$res ma'e the very same references>

4o it is not abo$t a great mystery& of a aesome +od, b$t rather faith in the ords of a aesome +odho promised to send a strong del$sion for those ho o$ld not receive the love of the tr$th. (2&hess

2:11)

) T$mo*%8 &:)' 3..o$r 6ord es$s -hristKs appearing, 1. hich Ae ill manifest in Ais on time, Ae WHO IS THE blessed and

ONLY Potentate, the Qing of 'ings and LORD OF LORDS, ho ALONE HAS IMMORTALITY,DWELLING IN UNA!!ROACHABLE LIGHT, ;ames 1:1HL 1ohn 1:! alone&! this incl$desangles, any and all other persons, not ($st h$mans


11/125

6ord ere a pl$rality of persons....... While in the ne*t verse it $ses re one& %he difference being is that . 4ee PR% 4":& on the +ree' ord $sed here in 8ar' 12 (the reek wor is

"*eis$ only refers to one %erson) B "n the ne*t verse $ses the +ree' ord Aen& (Ehich also

refers to ifferent %arts of the sa+e %erson enotes a unity of function an %ur%ose an oes not +ake any e+ans with res%ect to a nu+ber of %ersons. this is covere in !h si,) F$rther, es$s

ill be /$oting himself in script$res. es$s 4tatement is a /$ote from a 4cript$re that as

inspired by es$s himself hile and hen es$s as yet in heaven and not yet having come to theearth. Aoever, hen es$s is on the earth spea'ing abo$t himself in the flesh and the rest of

him (his hea) in heaven es$s $ses the re& pl$ral verb. Why? For the same reason shon in

PR% F5ER:& that -hrist $ses the third person prono$n he& hen referring to himself the

creator. (see also !CFFB/& G5 an !h si, on the significance of "*eis$ H "*en$ fore,%ane e,%lanation)

o%< )+:-+. I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE ( C/B D "*B/$)

4cript$res $se are& here beca$se the gree' term translated as 57& here is A7&. %his ord

can denote m$ltiple parts of the same body f$nctions as 57SA7. While the +ree' ordtranslated as one& in the previo$s verse is Aeis& and it cannot be $sed in any ay other then

57 P7R45 hen spea'ing of persons or entities. When to terms e/$ally apply they can

only do so in a ay that they do not contradict each other. )o$ cannot appeal to a contradictionof terms to claim a valid arg$ment for or against. %h$s, hat is denoted here in ohn 10 is not a

n$mber of persons b$t simply a $nity of f$nction, p$rpose and or $tility beteen the head and

the right arm of +od. F$rther its $se is tr$e and $sed in the same reason that if my hand in a

leather glove came to the other gloves to comm$nicate to yo$ all abo$t ho to live, prayorship, s$ffer and die for me, " o$ld point to that part of me that as the head in heaven as the

greater part of me. %he head (in heaven) is greater then the right hand (son) on the earth. -hrist is

anting them to foc$s on the spirit of +od not the physical flesh of +od. %he physical flesh isthe sacrifice as es$s said:

o%< &:&-. "t is THE S!IRIT that /$ic'eneth! THE FLESH !ROFITETH NOTHING: the ordsthat " spea' $nto yo$, they are spirit, and they are life.

es$s is not trying to comm$nicate some m$ltiple people here ith the verb are& Ae is the same person as the +od in heaven b$t come in flesh spea'ing to men in flesh abo$t himself in heaven.

4ince there is a distinction beteen the father and the son the $se of are is perfectly normal inthe same ay that people might say me and my arm are not getting along right no e are

having fits& "t is not $ncommon to men (who are +ae in the i+age of o) to refer to their

parts and meas$res in the third person or pl$ral tense. We have already seen ho that es$s (whois the creator) referred to the creator (*i+self) in the third person 8at 1J: he hich made

them at the beginning made them male and femal,&. %he $se of pl$ral prono$ns only indicates

distinctions b$t it does not demand different persons. 7*ample " love my motorcycle e goeveryhere&. %here is a distinction beteen to things b$t they are not both persons. nother

e*ample: " got BBT in my mo$th! my feet are in the ater, and a cool bree@e on my head, man

e are lovin it& distinctions even in personal prono$ns only demand 57 person. %hat is to sayin all the e*amples only one of the distinctions is an act$al person the others are ($st parts or

other ob(ects. %his is important to 'no and $nderstand that pl$ral prono$ns only demand a

single person in the ob(ect! they do not demand m$ltiple persons. nd this is hy so many

people are so easily conf$sed. When a te*t or statement $ses a pl$ral prono$n yo$ m$st cons$ltthe conte*t and or the rest of the statement to ascertain ho many persons. We&, they and $s can

all be $sed in reference to inanimate ob(ects. 4o hy do so many ignore the plain passages that

spea' to the sing$larity of +od#s person to demand a pl$rality of persons? %hat is not ho theords are $sed. %hey can refer to a pl$rality b$t they do not have to. %h$s, the fact that the

11


12/125

script$res $se pl$ral prono$ns tells yo$ nothing abo$t the n$mber of persons of +od>> F$rther, itis of $pmost hypocrisy for %rinitarians to point to the many instances here personal prono$ns

are $sed for the Aoly 4pirit and for -hrist and th$s claim the $se of a personal prono$n demands

one person b$t then t$rn right aro$nd and deny even ith the even more n$mero$s instances;UH000< here personal prono$ns are $sed for +59& . B$t %rinitarians are do$ble minded

;ames 1:I< if they ere not then by the same reasoning, $sing the same personal prono$ns, they

o$ld have to arg$e even more strongly that +od m$st be only one person> %rinitarians illdemand a sing$lar individ$al person for the Aoly 4pirit beca$se of personal prono$ns is $sed for

the Aoly 4pirit, b$t deny that +od is a sing$lar individ$al person hen the script$res $se the

same e*act personal prono$ns in many more instances for +od>?>

+od the Father is a person the Aoly 4pirit is a person, es$s is a person, they are all %A7 487

P7R45. %he head in heaven ;father?> +od is a

person, the Aoly 4pirit is a person, es$s is a person...the same person>?> %here are only

distinctions in the manifestations d$e to being in different 'inds of $niverses ie spirit$al L physical and f$nctioning differently in those all at the same time. 4ame A7 or A"8 b$t the A7

that is in heaven is also the Ae that is on earth b$t the A7 on earth is s$bordinate and obedient to

the A7 in heaven beca$se the A7 in heaven is the greater part of the A7 that is on earth>?> %hehim& is the h$man that is formed hen that part of the spirit of +od gets connected to h$man

flesh in a ay that the rest of the spirit of +od is not connected to flesh. "n all cases there is the

$se of personal prono$ns beca$se hile they are all the same person, they are in those differentstates (FC0B> ergo: +oalis+). "t is the different states that ma'e the distinctions. +od is not

h$man and does not live in the physical $niverse. %h$s, the Ae& that is in heaven is distinct (in

life for+) from the A$man (life for+) that is on earth. Aoever, in both the physical and spirit$al

$niverse, the higher (>%irit not chaine to hu+an %hysical flesh) and loer (>%irit that is

chaine to hu+an %hysical flesh) formsCmodes of e*istence, it is the same spirit and same personin both. %he different parts of +od in those different $niverses (%hysical H s%iritual) all referring

to each other not different persons>?> "t is great folly to attempt to deny that +od has different parts of himself interacting in different ays at different times , beca$se even in the nonsensical

%rinitarian constr$ct of a single one being ith three different persons o$ld demand that those

three different persons be different parts to that one being& of +od . 5f co$rse there is no s$chthing as a single being made $p of m$ltiple persons, e*cept in the vain imaginations of

%rinitarians ho coined that constr$ct (cant fin o escribing that4 it is euce via the

circular fallacies of &rinitarians) for the sole reason of denying the tr$th and p$shing their lies.

%heir damnation is ($st

5n the other hand, some try to arg$e the oneness& here in ohn 1H:21! n 1:IJ et al is li'e theoneness beteen h$sband and ife hoever, hen " loo' at yo$ " do not see yo$r ife, (theywere wanting to %hysically look at the father an !hrist tol the+ they were n 1:IJ !1 ohn

1:1-2) %hat comparison or attempt is not even logically e/$ivalent or valid. . %here is a oneness

in p$rpose that applies to ones head and hands and the verse that spea' to the oneness beteenthe h$sband and ife is tal'ing abo$t a oneness in p$rpose or flesh not of person. o one is

/$estions the fact that the ord one& -an be $sed in different ays 3%he point is abo$t ho

-hrist $ses it ith respect to himself and the father. %he =oneness= beteen -hrist and the fatheris not comparable to a man and his ife, for only a fool o$ld say =When yo$ have seen me yo$

12


13/125

have seen my ife, ho sayest tho$ then, 4he $s yo$r ife?= ...B$t that is hat -hrist said thatabo$t himself and the father. Aere, the oneness is of person not ($st p$rpose.

common mista'e that people often ma'e ith respect to statements and even the broaderconte*t from hich they come can be s$mmed $p in the folloing /$estions. ell hich is it?&

"s Ae trying to say this (oneness of %ur%ose) or is the a$thor trying to say that (oneness of

%erson) ? %he correct anser is that it is not a eitherCor& anser b$t both are e/$ally tr$e and both e/$ally valid. %his is covered more in -h of VAeis# and VAen#&.

%here is a oneness of p$rpose beteen the head and the right hand $nless yo$ have some

disability here it titches and moves or not moves d$e to that lac' of one in p$rpose or control(the "0r >trangelove$ conition). %here is no do$bt that one in p$rpose o$ld also apply to my

head and right hand. Aoever, if in fact =+od is one= only refers to oneness in p$rpose then

yo$r admitting that yo$ are a polytheist having three different persons ho each are +od beca$seyo$ ($st destroyed the only reason yo$ had for claiming yo$ are a monotheist>...... %hree persons

is by definition pl$rality of persons or %hree persons not one person and th$s three people ho

are each +od is by definition three gods not one +od. )o$ may confess& till the cos comehome that three different persons are the same +od and is monotheism all day long b$t the fact is

yo$r either a fool or a liar b$t damned either ay.

%here is also a oneness of person. "n fact, the only script$re;s< that act$ally $se the ordperson& ith respect to +od do so in the sing$lar tense Ais person&

H(5 ):-. WHO BEING the brightness of his glory, and THE EX!RESS IMAGE OF HIS

!ERSON, and $pholding all things by the ord of his poer, hen he had BY HIMSELF p$rged o$r sins, SAT DOWN ONTHE RIGHT HAND OF THE MAESTY ON HIGH!

Both are tr$e and both are addressed33B$t yo$ can#t ta'e one 'ind of oneness to eliminate the

other ith3..nd neither can yo$ ta'e a verse (such as the oneness between a husban an

wife) that is not even addressing a n$mber of persons b$t yet still try to $se it to ($stify adefinition of m$ltiple persons of +od . %his is partic$larly tr$e since hen script$res specifically

spea' and $se the ord =P7R45= of +od not persons.....&lean in $s not to thin' beyond hat isritten&...%rinity is nohere. %he one person of +od is hat script$res refer to specifically and

verbatim> es$s is the image of +ods# P7R45 ;sing$lar


14/125

one o who is the father also) B$t that is e*actly hat the %rinitarian position is allabo$t, they are playing the hypocrite they need to be on both sides of the conversation

and terms they $se. es$s is one +od& ho is 5% the same person so that the one

+od& does not have to be that one +od#s& on son. %hey need +od to be m$ltipledifferent persons hile at the same time claiming those different persons are only one

+od. %he irony is that, if there is 56) 57 +59 and both son and father are the

487 57 +59 then yes +od is also +od#s son (o is hi+self' oIs own son) andhaving m$ltiple different persons of +od ill not ma'e the con$ndr$m& disappear, it

only distracts yo$ ith persons on the one hand hile the magician can conceal the fact

that +od is himself the son of himself. %rinitarians attempt to play slight of hand tric' in

that they ant yo$ to loo' at different persons so that +od ho comes is not the son ofhimself& hile at the same time claiming father and son are the same one +od>?> 45,

hen yo$ are as'ing ho the son is they ant yo$ to see different persons, B$t hen

yo$r as'ing ho many different gods there are they only ant yo$ to see one +od. "nshort they are distracting yo$ ith one hand hile hiding their contradictions ith their

other hand and play both sides of the fence in terms and concepts. "n any case, if the son

of +od is not himself (lf the sa+e one o is not oJs own son' or the son is not the sonof hi+self) then yo$r +od is not 57 of anything b$t rather yo$ orship different gods

b$t simply call those different gods one god&. "t o$ld be li'e trying to get aro$nd a la

that states yo$ can only have one child& (such as !hinaIs one chil %olicy) by claimingthat the three different infants born to yo$ are all ($st one toddler&. 56) F556

W5E69 BE) %A% R+E87%>?>

2 -hrist is o$r Aigh priest as ell as the sacrificial lamb of +od, m$ltiple sim$ltaneo$sroles are not diffic$lt, for the omnipresent +od. es$s is a son by virt$e of the physical

birth (k 1:31-32 s 2: 1n :9 < "t is s$perfl$o$s even fallacio$s to insist on a second

person of +od beca$se a son m$st be a different person then a h$man father beca$sees$s did not have a h$man father and +od does not ta'e a ife and have children li'e

men do ?>?>3 +od via the angel told 8ary that hat as going to be born as to be

called the son of +od, (/C&B: here in *eb it states "# E# LB &C *#F @&*B?' /0 *B >* LB &C FB >C/

- %a'e note (%erha%s after the reaer has gone through all of the +aterial an

argu+ents here) of ($st ho hypocritical the %rinitarians $se of anthropomorphisms to

($stify hy +od m$st be& three different persons on the one hand, hile in the same breath deno$nce the very same anthropomorphisms hen and here +od claims to send

1


15/125

that part of himself he considers to be his right arm born into the physical orld via a physical birth of a oman and calls that right hand his son. o the %rinitarian deno$nces

-hrist on description of hat as to be born that o$ld be -alled the son of +od&

(yes son of hi+self) on the one hand and as a res$lt are left embracing the $nnecessaryidea that +od m$st be m$ltiple different persons. 4o hat +od has clearly stated and

described (o in the s%iritual universe will sen that %art of hi+self that he consiers to

be his own right ar+ will be born into the %hysical worl of hu+an flesh) is ($st a fig$reof speech or metaphor b$t hat +od specifically deno$nces (o s%ecifically enounces

that he is +ulti%le ifferent %ersons) m$st be the tr$th& that all men m$st accept

according to these %rinitarian heretics. What +od describes is ($st a fig$re of speech not

to be ta'en too literally hile the ideas that plainly contradict +od m$st be accepted astr$th&.

o$ld be fair to point o$t ($st ho disg$sting it is that %rinitarians ill deno$nce hat e shall seeoing forard (the scri%tural +oalistic escri%tions) as heresy in favor of the none*istent constr$cts in

he face of their inconsistencies and incoherence hile =p$nting= it all to it#s a mystery& and then try to

an that bit of faithlessness off as pio$s piety&>?>? 33Ao pathetic, they might as ell cry o$tllah 'bar= hich is do$bly ironic beca$se:

;1< %hat is the polemical cry& of another gro$p of fol's ho hen faced ith theirinconsistencies and incoherence ma'e

;2< %hat phrase means +od is greatest& hich is the same empty nonsense for hy e

sho$ld not deny trinity simply beca$se it is incompressible. %hat battle cry& is the onlyreal =arg$ment= for hy everyone sho$ld e*cept the trinitairan nonsense beca$se: +od

is so great and past o$r $nderstanding yo$ 'no&>?

Rom 1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the orld are CLEARLY SEEN, being

UNDERSTOOD by the things that are made, EVEN HIS eternal poer and GODHEAD! so that they are

WITHOUT EXCUSE:

s this ill e*plore f$rther, )74 74E4 9"9 -6"879 %5 B7 +59 4P7-"F"-6) ( *owever it is right to sayesus choose his wors carefully because he i not want folks to focus on the flesh that was staning before the+

but rather the s%irit that was ani+ating that flesh) %he problem is that even most -hristians either do not 'no ordo not care hat +59 said abo$t A"8476F 37rgo the heresy of trinity3.. %he Righteo$s Right Aand of the 6ord

A7 -587%A=............ = 5 R76) 3.K" 8 A7K! "%#4 E4% 87>>=.... %he R"+A% R8CA9 is hat is

R77679, 3What is sent and comes to 47 E4, the 46%"5 R7769&, that right arm comes andgets %A7 "-%5R)& and ill RE67&. %hat right armChand "4 =Ais R"+A%75E4 47R%= that +od

897 BR7& and as 6"F%79 EPC76%79& and th$s BR7 %A7 4"4 of many& >?>? %his is the absol$te

trongest case for the fact that yes, 74E4 9"9 -6"8 %5 B7 +59, -587 " %A7 F674A>>3 When es$states " 8 A7 that can co$ld only be ta'en as saying " 8 +59 beca$se it as +59 ho stated " 8 A7&, the

only savior ho ill come to save yo$ in that day yo$ ill 'no " 8 A7& the spea'er is +od and es$s is the

laimant of that statement very specifically and $nambig$o$sly. %he servant to come is identified by the one hoends that servant as A"8476F>?>.....%rinitarians deno$nce modalism as a heresy b$t +od $ses by definition

modalism to specifically describe and define himself ;the ho and hat o$ld come to save man0 es$s himself

ays claim to that mode and refers to these very same passages hen he states e*cept ye believe " am he& ye ill

die in yo$r sins...3"f yo$ do not accept the modalistic +od that as es$s yo$ ill die in yo$r sins.. hello anybodyo$t there&3.

1


16/125

What shall be demonstrated is the fact that hile the %rinitarians ill claim to have a p$re and tr$e love for +od theeality is that everything they profess is a denial of the +oalis+ (an even the s%ecific ter+s use in the te,t

e+ans that o is C/; one %erson) that +od specifically $ses to describe himself.

3.brings Prov 2G:12 to mind

THE TRINITARAIN “ONENESS”

T%( ?oo>$


17/125

8o;3 9#%#* Co33(* A


18/125

1I


19/125

CHA!TER TWO:….MY RIGHT ARM I SEND J “HE” COMES….LITTERALY, ”I AM HE” J NO OTHER ITS

UST “ME”

FOLLOW THE !RONOUNS

"#$#% '-:)+.)e are my itnesses, saith the 6ord, and MY(&*B >B/0B?) SERVANT(>B/&) WHOM I (&*B

>B/0B?) HAVE CHOSEN: that ye may 0NOW and BELIEVE ME, (&*B >B/0B?) and

UNDERSTAND that I (&*B >B/0B?) AM HE: (&he "# a+ he$ #> "+e$) %he 4ameperson ho is spea'ing in this passage, sending his servant is claiming that A7 is that servant that ill

be sent>?> )es there is a distinction beteen father and son ($st li'e there is beteen head and right armb$t in both cases the right arm and the head as ell as the father and the son are still the same

person>>..... before me there as no +od formed, neither shall there be after me. 11. ", even ", am the 6ord! and BESIDE ME

(&*B >B/0B?) THERE IS NO SAVIOUR 3(/C&B: cts :12 there is none other na+e uner heaven given a+ong +en' whereby we +ust be save...Ehat is that na+e an who is it #&B?; "+e$)

o%< :2'. " said therefore $nto yo$, that ye shall die in yo$r sins: forIF YE BELIEVE NOT that I

AM HE, ye shall DIE IN YOUR SINS3. 2I. %hen said es$s $nto them,WHEN ye haveLIFTED U! the 4on of man, THEN shall ye 0NOW that I AM HE, and that " donothing of

4ome have as'ed here did es$s specifically say =" 8 +59=...5', consider, "f yo$ as' me are

yo$ the preacher " might say yea =" am he=! that is ($st a generic reference that co$ld apply to

anything ....A5W77R, es$s is ma'ing specific script$ral references and laying claim to here+59 himself claimed to be =" 8 A7=....."t as no different then if yo$ as' someone right no

are yo$ +od? and they responded ith =" 8 A7= that o$ld be same as them saying " 8

+59......%he reference es$s $ses is a specific reference to being +od......When -hrist lays claim

to " 8 A7& it as the same as saying +od said abo$t himself = " 8 A7= 3and yo$ need to'no and believe that " 8 A7& refers to me and as s$ch is a specific claim to being +od....>?>

1J


20/125

6est the s$btleties of hat is being said here escape yo$ let me spea' plainly: %he " am he& "4

6"%7R6) the same person me& that is going to send3333.

33333nd 5A yea, +59 98 )5E "F )5E 95 5% B76"77 "%&>

%hat is not a ish for yo$, nor is it a c$rse $pon yo$. "t#s ($st a fact! thatKs the ay it is...

33333.3."t#s that simple.

"#$#% '+: /. O PION, THAT BRINGEST GOOD TIDINGS, get thee $p into the high mo$ntain! 5 er$salem, that bringest good tidings, lift $p thy voice

ith strength! lift it $p, be not afraid! say $nto the cities of $dah, BEHOLD YOUR GOD 10. Behold, THE LORD

GOD WILL COME ith strong HAND and HIS(&he @ather) ARM (&he

>ervant that is sent) SHALL RULE FOR HIM: ;%he person spea'ing ho sendsAis right arm to R$le


21/125

that o$ld ma'e absol$tely no sense if yo$ spea' of Father and son as to different persons b$tit does ma'e perfect sense if yo$ $nderstand that father and son are the distinction of PR%4 of

the same Person ho is +od f$lfilling different roles sim$ltaneo$sly. %his is hat the script$res

describe and define for $s. %he father is that part of +od that send#s commands instr$cts andteaches his on right arm born into h$man flesh ergo called son of +od hat to say and do. %he

son of +od is that part of +od that +od considers to be his on right arm that comes into the

physical orld and connects to flesh in a ay that the rest of +od is not (like a han in a leather glove) .

"#$#% ':)2. Aear'en $nto me, 5 acob and "srael, my called! I AM HE 1 I AM THE FIRST, I ALSO AM THE LAST . 1.MINE HAND ALSO HATH LAID THE FOUNDATION of the earth, and MY RIGHT HAND

ath spanned the heavens: hen I call $nto them, they stand $p together. 1. ll ye, assemble yo$rselves, and hear! hich among them hath declared these

hings? THE LORD HATH LOVED HIM: ;Ais on right arm is the A"8& that

he have loved>: n 1H:,22G! 1:J! < HE ill do his pleas$re on Babylon, and HIS ARM SHALL

BE on the CHALDEANS. 1. ", even ", have spo'en! yea, I HAVE CALLED HIM: " have bro$ght HIM,

nd HE shall ma'e HIS ay prospero$s. 1G. -ome ye near $nto me, hear ye this! " have not spo'en in secret from the beginning! from the timehat it as, there am ": and no the 6ord +od, and his spirit, hath sent me. 1H. THUS SAITH THE LORD, thy Redeemer, THE HOLY ONE OFSRAEL! I AM THE LORD thy +od hich teacheth thee to profit, hich leadeth thee by the ay that tho$ sho$ldest go.

I"#$#% &&:'. I ALSO WILL CHOOSE THEIR DELUSIONS, (2&hess 2:11). 1. nd WHEN YE SEE THIS, YOUR HEART SHALLREOICE, 3 and THE HAND OF THE LORD SHALL BE 0NOWN TOWARD HIS SERVANTS , and HIS INDIGNATION TOWARD

HIS ENEMIES.1. For, behold, THE LORD WILL COME WITH FIRE, 3. and his reb$'e WITH FLAMES OFFIRE.

Eo=;" )6:'. PharaohKs chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are droned in the Red sea. . %he depths have

covered them: they san' into the bottom as a stone. G. THY RIGHT HAND, 5 6ord, IS BECOME GLORIOUS in poer: THY RIGHT

HAND, 5 6ord, HATH DASHED IN !IECES THE ENEMY.

R(4 2:2. nd HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON! as THE VESSELS OF A !OTTER SHALL THEY BEBRO0EN TO SHIVERS: even as " received of my Father.

+od is spea'ing of his on right arm (an even %ersonifies that right ar+ with the %ersonal %ronouns

"*B$' "*#>$ an "*#F$) that ill come to save man that ill come to r$le over man b$t that right arm

ill come into flesh formed to be the servant the man es$s. %h$s es$s is nothing b$t that part of +odhat +od considers to be his right arm that comes into h$man flesh. +od spea's of his right arm that

o$ld come in the third person A"8& in the same ay that people do abo$t their on parts of their

body not beca$se it is a different person then the spea'er. %he spea'er here point blan' identifies that its himself that is coming, that is ill be his on right arm that comes to be the servant of the +od ho

ends his right arm to man in the form of h$man and in flesh.. %he spea'er identifies himself as the "

8 A7& as ell as identifies himself as the A56) 57 5F "4R76 ho o$ld come via his onight hand to man. %o hold to the doctrine that the first person sent a second or different person to save

man is heresy. Ais right arm "4 Ais manifested in the flesh servant to come that o$ld save>?>

"#$#% '/:2. nd he hath made my mo$th li'e a sharp sord! in the shado OF HIS HAND HATH HE HID ME, and made me a Polished shaft! in his

$iver hath he hid me! . nd said $nto me, THOU ART MY SERVANT, O ISRAEL, in hom " ill be glorified. . %hen " said, " have labo$red in vain,have spent my strength for no$ght, and in vain: yet s$rely my ($dgment is ith the 6ord, and my or' ith my +od.

. nd no, saith the 6ord that FORMED ME from the omb TO BE HIS SERVANT, ;that right arm isoming and ill be formed& in flesh to be the servant of +od, yo$r right hand is ith yo$ and it is yo$,t can only 'no and do hat yo$ yo$r head tell it to do, "t is obedient to yo$ and yet it is yo$ or coe/$al

ith the rest of yo$. %his is the nat$re of +od. %rinity of +od in three different persons is not ($t heresy

21


22/125

b$t blasphemy and pagan idolatry>>< to bring acob again to him, %ho$gh "srael be not gathered, yet shall " be glorio$s in the eyes of theord, and my +od shall be my strength. G. nd he said, "t is a light thing that tho$ sho$ldest be my servant to raise $p the tribes of acob, and to restore the

reserved of "srael: " ill also give thee for a light to the +entiles, that THOU MAYEST BE MY SALVATION $nto the end of the earth. H. %h$s saith the

ord, the Redeemer of "srael, AND HIS HOLY ONE, to him hom man despiseth, to him hom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of r$lers, Qings shall see

nd arise, princes also shall orship, beca$se of the 6ord that is faithf$l, and THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL, and he shall choose thee. I. %h$s saith the

ord, "n an acceptable time have " heard thee, and in a day of salvation have " helped thee: and " ill preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of theeople, to establish the earth, to ca$se to inherit the desolate heritages! J. %hat tho$ mayest say to the prisoners, +o forth! to them that are in dar'ness, she

o$rselves. %hey shall feed in the ays, and their past$res shall be in all high places. 10. %hey shall not h$nger nor thirst! neither shall the heat nor s$n

mite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of ater shall he g$ide them. 11. nd " ill ma'e all my mo$ntains a ay,

nd my highays shall be e*alted.

"#$#% 62:). .. G.%herefore MY !EO!LE SHALL 0NOW MY NAME: therefore they shall 'no IN THAT DAY that IAM HE that doth spea': behold, IT IS I. H. HOW BEAUTIFUL U!ON THE MOUNTAINS ARE THE FEET OF HIM THAT

RINGETH GOOD TIDINGS,3.. 10. THE LORD HATH MADE BARE HIS HOLY ARMN THE EYES OF ALL THE NATIONS1 ;-hrist is hat as and in this very conte*t that hich as made

bare or made manifested of +od>?>?> 7PR744 "8+7 of the person Msing$larN invisible +od Aeb 1:1

! 1 %im :1G! 1Peter 1:20! 1n 1:2! :LI Mnote son& by virt$e of the physical birth 6' 1:12! Ps

2:H! 1n :JN<

!"#m" /:). O SING UNTO THE LORD A NEW SONG! (?evelation !h 5:9 H 15:3) for he hath done marvello$s things:

HIS RIGHT HAND, and HIS HOLY ARM, ;-hrist is that right handand holy arm of +od that god $sed to create all things in the same ay e do ith o$r right hand

and arm>. es$s

+ot the victory for $s and for +od beca$se es$s is nothing b$t the right arm of +od come in the

flesh


23/125

and. 11. Ae shall see of the travail of his so$l, and shall be satisfied: by his 'noledge shall MY RIGHTEOUS

SERVANT USTIFY MANY! for he shall bear their ini/$ities. 12. %herefore ill " divide him a portion ith the great, and he shall

ivide the spoil ith the strong! beca$se he hath po$red o$t his so$l $nto death: and he as n$mbered ith the transgressors! and HE

BARE THE SIN OF MANY , AND MADE INTERCESSION FOR THE TRANSGRESSORS.

I"#$#% '):)+. Fear not, for " am ith yo$! be not dismayed, for " am yo$r +od. " ill strengthen yo$, yes, I WILL HEL! YOU, " ill $phold

yo$ WITH MY RIGHTEOUS RIGHT HAND.K

es$s is the one +od b$t is also the son of the same one +od

es$s is the one +od B$t also the servant of the same one +od

es$s is the one +od B$t also lovesCis loved by the same one +odes$s is the one +od B$t also not as great as the same one +od et al ad fin

%his is only -oherent ta'ing es$s, the savior and r$ler as the right arm, at literal face val$e. %o ascribe+od& to three different persons ma'es a pantheon of different gods as ell as creates contradictions and

o*ymoron#s simply ignoring these facts and calling it yo$r faith in +od& only demonstrates 2%hess

2:11. "t does not ma'e yo$ pio$s and faithfilled>?>

Eo=;" )6:'. PharaohKs chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are droned in the Red sea. . %he depths have

covered them: they san' into the bottom as a stone. G. THY RIGHT HAND, 5 6ord, IS BECOME

GLORIOUS in poer: THY RIGHT HAND, 5 6ord, HATH DASHED IN !IECES THEENEMY.

R(4 2::2. nd HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON! as THE VESSELS OF A !OTTER

SHALL THEY BE BRO0EN TO SHIVERS: even as " received of my Father.

"#$#% &&:'. I ALSO WILL CHOOSE THEIR DELUSIONS, ;2%hess 2:11?>

"#$#% &2: THE LORD HATH SWORN BY HIS RIGHT HAND , AND BYTHE ARM OF HIS STRENGTH, 3. 11. Behold, THE LORD HATH !ROCLAIMED UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD,ay ye to the da$ghter of Xion, Behold, THY SALVATION COMETH1 BEHOLD,

HIS REWARD IS WITH HIM, ;%his is es$s the right arm of +od not adifferent person then the father>?>?>

2


24/125

R(4 22:)2. nd, behold, " come /$ic'ly! andMY REWARD IS WITH ME, to give every man

according as his or' shall be. 1. I AM AL!HA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, THEFIRST AND THE LAST.

H(5 &:)-. For hen GOD MADE !ROMISE to braham, BECAUSE HE COULD

SWEAR BY NO GREATER, HE SWARE BY

HIMSELF,+od sore (an showe us how to live' %ray' suffer an ie) by Ais right hand and arm hich is

himself> "n the same ay that my right arm and hand are myself& even tho$gh " am still greater

then either my hand or my arm and they too can only comm$nicate hat " tell them to. 4inceman is made in the image of +od yo$ o$ld thin' that fol's o$ld ant to start ith that

concept to apply first, rather then invo'ing the n$mber three or the ord %rinity entirely

$nnecessarily, into a +od that is /$ite clear abo$t the fact that Ae is only one person..38y righthand "4 me and is W"%A me ;n 1:1?>? 9istinctions are not m$ltiple

persons. %he fact that +od has distinctions beteen father son and holy spirit is not any more

incomprehensible then a man ith a head and right arm and a sprit that animates them all. 5ne

might be tempted to thin' that +od act$ally intended for $s to $nderstand his nat$re by $sing thevery creation (even in the language an ter+inology) that as made in that image. "t appears that

most everyone is loo'ing at this all bac'ards. +od is referring to his right hand that he sent and

p$t into flesh as his son. (because that right ar+ co+es via %hysical birth) +od is 5% referringto a different person ho is the son as Ais right hand& as in he is my right hand man> )o$ cant

claim to believe that =" am A7= if yo$ believe in the trinity beca$se %rinity holds +od in three

different persons ho are each +od ...so to yo$ es$s is not A7& b$t =some other person= sent by A"8& (the first %erson) >?> 6' 1: that A56) %A"+ hich shall be born of thee shall be

-6679 the 4on of +od .......What is that =Aoly %hing=?? (*eb 1:57 n again' # will be to

hi+ a @ather' an he shall be to +e a >on


25/125

8an is made in the image of +od and +od $ses these e*act terms to describe and define hisnat$re. )o$ right arm is distinct from yo$r head..."t is ith yo$ and it is yo$....)o$r head is

greater then yo$r right arm (the father is greater then # 33. )o$r damnation is ($st>

(3(m$#% )&:2). %herefore, behold, " ill this once ca$se them to 'no, " illCAUSE THEM TO 0NOW

MINE HAND and my might! and they shall 'no that MY NAME is %he 6ord.

T$*;" ):)&. THEY !ROFESS THAT THEY 0NOW GOD1

BUT IN WOR0S THEY DENY HIM, being abominable, and disobedient, and $ntoevery good or' reprobate.

2


26/125

!3o4(35" -+:' WHO HAS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN, OR DESCENDED? Who has gathered the ind in Ais fists? Who has bo$nd the

aters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? WHAT IS HIS NAME, AND

WHAT IS HIS SONS NAME, "f yo$ 'no?

I"#$#% 6-: ). Who hath believed o$r report? and to hom isTHE ARM OF THE LORD

REVEALED ...............I. 3 for he as c$t off o$t of the land of the living: FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY

!EO!LE WAS HE STRIC0EN3. 11. Ae shall see of the travail of his so$l, and shall be satisfied: by his 'noledge shall MYRIGHTEOUS SERVANT USTIFY MANY! for he shall bear their ini/$ities. 12. 3. and HE

BARE THE SIN OF MANY , AND MADE INTERCESSION FOR THE TRANSGRESSORS.

o%< ):). "n the beginning as the Word, and THE WORD WAS WITH GOD,

AND THE WORD WAS GOD 2. %he same as in the beginning ith +od.

Rev 1J:1 nd he as clothed ith a vest$re dipped in blood: and HIS NAME IS CALLED

THE WORD OF GOD1

!"#m" )-:). " Will praise thee ith my hole heart: BEFORE THE GODS WILL I SING !RAISE UNTO THEE. 2. " ill orship

toard thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy loving'indness and for thy tr$th: for THOUS HAS

MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY

NAME.

Enderstand all of this is 5% ($st some abstract philosophical disco$rse on ho the a$thor chooses to

$nderstands or see the nat$re of +od. o, on the contrary. %his here is e*posing the %rinitarians

philosophical impositions onto script$res, facts and so$nd or common sense reasoning shoing hohey tist the script$res to their on destr$ction in spite of hat the script$res clearly and plainly teach.

%he tr$th of this matter "4 4"8P67 , hat is comple* and complicated is all the tisting, distortions,

ontortions and o$tright lying that %rinitarians do 'noingly or ignorantly that have to be or'edhro$gh so as to $ntangle the incoherent blob& of a mess they have created and still to this day

perpet$ate very s$ccessf$lly..

CHA!TER THREE:Rom 1:20. For THE INVISIBLE THINGS OF HIM from the creation of the orld ARE CLEARLY SEEN, being $nderstood by the things that are

made, EVEN HIS eternal poer and GODHEAD! so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE:

% ohn 1 es$s W4 +od and as W"%A +od3.;yo$r right arm is yo$ and is ith yo$<

2G


27/125

5% %he R"+A% R8 of +od the Father is the 4avior , the " 8 A7& that Father as going to send toave man

% es$s the savior came and as to come again ith fire and as shon previo$sly r$le for +od!.

%Q7 5%7 5F: " 8 A7& ! "% "4 "&! A9& R8& 4W5R& 4A66 B7 %5 87 45&

"#$#% &2:). 2. nd THE GENTILES shall see thy righteo$sness, and all 'ings thy glory: and THOU SHALT BE CALLED BY A NEW NAME, ;Rev

:12< hich the mo$th of THE LORD SHALL NAME. ... I. THE LORD HATH SWORN BY HIS RIGHT

HAND , AND BY THE ARM OF HIS STRENGTH, 3. 11. Behold, THE LORD HATH !ROCLAIMEDUNTO THE END OF THE WORLD, 4ay ye to the da$ghter of Xion, Behold, THY SALVATION

COMETH1 BEHOLD, HIS REWARD IS WITH HIM, ;%his ises$s the right arm of +od not a different person then the father>?>


28/125

"#$#% &&:'. I ALSO WILL CHOOSE THEIR DELUSIONS, ;2%hess 2:11?> (/C&B: C0 !/ LB P/0B?>&CC0 L; &*B &*#/>

&*& ?B F0B. F/ #> &*B A#>#LB #FB /0 #KB/B>> FK#/ &*B #/A#>#LB C0

!B?; >BB/ > #/ ?CF/> 1:26)

"#$#% 62:). .. G.%herefore MY !EO!LE SHALL 0NOW MY NAME: therefore they shall 'no IN THAT DAY that I

AM HE that doth spea': behold, IT IS I. H. HOW BEAUTIFUL U!ON THE MOUNTAINS ARE THE FEET OF HIM THATRINGETH GOOD TIDINGS, THAT !UBLISHETH !EACE1 THAT BRINGETH GOOD TIDINGS OF GOOD, THAT !UBLISHETH

ALVATION! that saith $nto Xion, %hy +od reigneth> 3.. 10. THE LORD HATH MADE BARE HIS

HOLY ARM IN THE EYES OF ALL THE NATIONS1 ;-hrist is hat as and in this very conte*that hich as made bare or made manifested of +od>?>?> 7PR744 "8+7 of the person Msing$larN

nvisible +od Aeb 1:1! 1 %im :1G! 1Peter 1:20! 1n 1:2! :LI Mnote son& by virt$e of the physicalbirth 6' 1:12! Ps 2:H! 1n :JNee ?ev 1:9 section on the kingo+

he s%irit of o is the kingo+ an hence their rewar)77

H(5 ):6. For $nto hich of the angels said he at any time, %ho$ art my 4on, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN

THEE nd again, I WILL BE TO HIM A FATHER, AND HESHALL BE TO ME A SON G. nd again, WHEN HE BRINGETH IN THEFIRSTBEGOTTEN INTO THE WORLD

"t is hypocritical arg$ment that denies the literal arm of +od that comes (calle the son because

of the %hysical birth into flesh ergo"son of +an$) and insist that there be a second person of+od based on the fact that h$man sons m$st be a different person then their h$man father even

tho$gh es$s did not have a h$man father and +od does not ta'e a ife and have children li'e

man do>?> es$s is a son& by virt$e of the physical birth 6' 1:12! Ps 2:H! 1n :J of +odcoming into the physical $niverse via a physical birth, 5% beca$se yo$ ant to ass$me that

+od m$st procreate or alays e*isted in the same pl$rality that the h$man fathers and h$man

sons that he created. What is even more c$rio$sly hypocritical is the fact that according to the%rinitarian reasoning, +od is not capable of being only one person in three parts. 5 5,

hoever, on the other hand they are /$ic' to point to ho great +od, past o$r h$man

$nderstanding and o$r limited feeble minds Ae is as the reason for hy e sho$ld ($st accept

that +od can be one being ith three different persons as a godhead&. %he coherent andconsistent approach to the one person godhead is thron o$t in favor of the incomprehensible

three person +od beca$se +od is so great he co$ld do that. %hey ill say e don#t have to

$nderstand it beca$se e can#t and m$st not p$t limits on +od. Aoever, on the other hand, theyill deny that +od is great eno$gh to be only be one person ho is the father and the same

2I


29/125

person ho is the son and the same person ho is the holy spirit (even though that is how heescribes hi+self.) +od is not great eno$gh to be and do that. "n any case, the %rinitarian#s treat

their god to only be as great and incomprehensible in the ay and for the reason they imagine the

+od to be. %rinitarinas have no diffic$lty seeing& (never +in they also clai+ it is i+%ossible to fully unerstan) that +od is three different persons (with three ifferent +ins an or three

ifferent locations with ifferent a+ounts of knowlege' %ower an authority that sen each

other aroun) b$t they cannot, ill not accept and o$ld fiercely deny and claim that it isimpossible for one +od ith one person, co$ld ($st have three different bodies (*e occu%ies) of

all the same person>?> )o$ see +od is only as +reat and incomprehensible in the ay and for

they reasons that they say +od is past (your) feeble& h$man $nderstanding, b$t they in their

h$mility&, h$mbly& accept that fact! and be damned& hat anyone or any script$res have tosay otherise abo$t it.

CONSISTENT COHERENCE:

o%< ):). %hese ords spa'e es$s, and lifted $p his eyes to heaven, and said, FATHER , the ho$r is come! glorify thy 4on, that thy 4onlso may glorify thee: 2. s tho$ hast given him poer over all flesh, that he sho$ld give eternal life to as many as tho$ hast given him. .nd this is life

ternal, that they might 'no THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and es$s -hrist, hom tho$ hast sent.

otice it does not say thee and es$s&, it states thee only&. %h$s, IF yo$ hold to the "dea that es$s andather are different persons (rather then esus is the sa+e %erson as the father but istinct in

ortion4+anifestation4right ar+ of the sa+e %erson) then:

;1< %he distinction beteen the %A77 (%erson) hich is the father (%erson) here and es$s,

(%erson) eliminates es$s as +od. 4o hile the distinction beteen father and son hat

%rinitarians $se to demand& that es$s m$st be a different person then the father, that same logic

o$ld then prevent even demand that es$s is not and cannot be +od. Beca$se the person ofes$s in this verse is distinct from the person of the father and the person of es$s states

emphatically that the father person in this verse is 56) and the ONLY TRUE GOD, F$rther,

es$s o$ld be relegated to ($st someone that the father person ho is the only +od sent. ………..

(o as ifferent %ersons results in *B?B>;);2< %he same lang$age is also $sed in o%< ):)'. nd the Word as made flesh, and delt among $s, ;and e beheld his

glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, "f only begotten of the fathermeans that -hrist is the 56) son of +od then li'eise THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD

demands that the father person alone is the only +od and o$ld e*cl$de the es$s person from

being +od also and then the "slamic interpretation of that verse o$ld be correct in that +od viahis ord spo'e the 8an es$s into e*istence into 8ary#s omb s$ch that es$s is simply a

created man that the FATHER ho is the ONLY TRUE GOD sent.gain, it does not say thee

and es$s&, it states thee (the father) only&3(& he enial of the ivinity of !hrist is *B?B>;)

%he 5nly consistent and coherence ay to correctly $nderstand this dilemma& (for the &rinitarians an

he esus ivinity eniers) is to accept the ord of +od (%un intene) that +od sent a part of Aimselfhat +od considers to be Ais on right arm into flesh and called that man (the %rouct of s%irit

ani+ating hu+an flesh that was born a natural birth via that %art of o hi+self that he %ut into that

flesh) Ais 56) B7+5%%5 45. %he head (father %erson) controls the right arm (ohn 5:19-26)

hat as sent into flesh (the son esus' sa+e %erson ifferent "a%%enage$)

+od via the angel told 8ary that hat as going to be born as to be called the son of +od (k

:324*eb 1:5)3there as no son of +od $ntil he as born hoever that part of +od himself that Ae

onsiders to be his hand C right arm by hich he created all things and o$ld latter send via a physicalbirth had alays e*isted. Aoever, the %rinitarian +od is sooo great and magnificent, beyond

2J


30/125

omprehension b$t sadly +od is not so great eno$gh to call that right arm born into the physical orldAis on son. +od as great as Ae is co$ld not be Ais on son even tho$gh if the son of the one +od

(that right ar+ of o co+e in the flesh) is not the same one +od that sent that son (right ar+) then +od

s not one +od. b$t don#t let the tr$th, reason and script$res get in the ay of yo$r damnable heresies.

o%< :2'. " said therefore $nto yo$, that ye shall die in yo$r sins: forIF YE BELIEVE NOT that I

AM HE

, ye shall DIE IN YOUR SINS3. 2I. %hen said es$s $nto them,WHEN ye have

LIFTED U! the 4on of man, THEN shall ye 'no that I AM HE, and that " do nothing ofmyself! b$t as my Father hath ta$ght me, " spea' these things.

ohn I:22I ith "saiah 3.. )o$ can#t claim to believe that =" am A7= if yo$ believe in the

trinity beca$se %rinity holds +od in three different persons ho are each +od ...so to yo$ es$s is

not A7 b$t some other person sent by a different person Aim=>?>

!"#m" )):)& THE RIGHT HAND of the 65R9 is EXALTED ;&lifted$p& ohn 12:2 nd ", if " be lifted $p from the earth, ill dra all men $nto me . %his

he said, signifying hat death he sho$ld die.


31/125

one in %erson but also as s%ecifically aresse' one in %ur%ose as your right ar+ an hea areone in %ur%ose' two ifferent kins of oneness whish uses two ifferent reek wors an one

oes not negate the other)

B es$s is ith +od and is +od in the same ay that yo$r right arm is ith yo$ and is yo$ and

yet obedient to yo$ all at the same time. es$s is the first and the last for the very reason that he

is 5% a different person then the father or the head b$t beca$se Ae is that part of +od come inthe flesh that +od considers to Be his right arm come to man in the ay that e might p$t o$r

right hand into a leather glove of flesh. "n fact this is the only coherent ay to $nderstand that

nat$re of the s$bservient b$t coe/$al son of +od ho is +od>?> REVELATION ):. I AM AL!HA AND

OMEGA, THE BEGINNING and THE ENDING , saith the 6ord, WHICH IS, and

WHICH WAS, and hich IS TO COME, THE ALMIGHTY.

%hese phrase are stated in three places here! also in verse I and again in Rev :I. nd the fo$r

beasts had each of them si* ings abo$t him! and they ere f$ll of eyes ithin: and they rest not

day and night, saying, Aoly, holy, holy, 6ord +od lmighty, WHICH WAS, and IS, and IS TO

COME3. nd is similar to A9%# #?> What is so diffic$lt to $nderstand hen +od $ses the

very same terms $sed ith the very creation created in his image??? Why do so many feel theneed to come $p ith every analogy $nder the s$n b$t completely ignore and blo off (as

figures of +eaningless s%eech) the very terms and ay that +od himself describes father son andholy spirit>? man is made in the image of +od and +od $ses the parts of a man that is created in

+od#s on image to describe himself ;father son and holy spirit< ho incomprehensible& isthat>?>

Aoever, none of this diss$ades these children of hell, on the contrary many evil men li'e to scoff ith

$ch ridic$lo$s things as :

)o$ ($st don#t $nderstand the doctrine of the trinity or ho the ord person& is definedC$sed properly

nd one of my favorite ones

es$s as not a ventrilo/$ist& at his baptism

5r

Who as es$s praying to 3Aimself?? ..;ith a smile, smir' and scoff<

1


32/125

5$r anser to that foolishness is this::................... +od is one person ho only sent a part of himself

alled his right arm via a physical birth ergo called his son to teach $s ho to live pray, s$ffer and die to

A"8476F>?>....ell, he certainly did not come to teach $s ho to pray and die to some other god????.....

es$s is +od right???> 3Fools, yo$

laim to orship one +od and then base yo$r scoffing a$gments on the ridic$lo$s idea that the one +odas not praying (or swearing) to himself?>?...(*e coul %ray to or swear by no greater then *i+self'

nor coul their be any higher authority to hol o to his own oath... %he %rinitarians ant to haveheir ca'e and eat it too as the saying goes. 5n the one hand they need to say they only orship one

ndivisible +od beingC entity b$t on the other hand they feel the need for some reason to 'eep es$s or

+od from praying and tal'ing to himself by dividing him $p into different persons>?> "t never occ$rs to

hem that that since there is only one +od to pray too and es$s is that +od come in the flesh that heo$ld need to tal' to himself as to sho $s ho to live, s$ffer, pray and die for o$r (an the flesh)

benefit not his>?> +od came to earth to live s$ffer and die for Ais benefit or for the benefit of man?

%ho$ fool, there is only one +od to pray too so if +od is going to personally (in the flesh) sho $s hoo pray to +od, then he o$ld need to do so by praying to himself. %here is perfectly good coherent

easons for the one +od to be praying to the one +od (%raying to hi+self).

B$t, oh no, %rinitarians feel that if +od tal'ed to himself then that o$ld be st$pid at best and at orst

ma'e +od schi@ophrenic or some other mental illness they fear. o sir, they ill have none of it, they

are on a mission from god&. %hey are going to go o$t and save +od from himself and any

chi@oidCmental illnesses that might bedevil& +od himself. What is even more ridic$lo$s is that theirol$tion to 'eep +od from tal'ing to himself (so+e +ental illness they feel) is to evo'e m$ltiple

person;s?> 8an is made in the image of +od and hen " see a man ith m$ltiple differentpersonalities, in the ay %rinitarians desperately need their god to be, e call it a disorder (e+on

%ossession to be +ore e,act) not divine>?>

%hey ill say comments similar to the folloing: )o$r vie of =person= is far too rapped $p in

modern conceptions of personhood. %A7 %)P7 5F =P7R45744= %A% %A7 878B7R4 5F

%A7 %R""%) A4 "4 7%"R76) 9"FF7R7% %A7 WA% AE8 B7"+4 A7 afteradmitting and trying to ma'e that arg$ment ith then spend the rest of any disc$ssion trying to

onvenience everyone hy it m$st in fact really be three separate and or different persons as the orld

person& is normally $sed>? 5ther s$ch comments are employed as in es$s as not a ventrilo/$ist at

his baptism, as if that ere the alternative needed (to e,%lain one %erson) or proves anything ?>? "tho$ld also be pointed o$t that %rinitarians also (+ust an even a+it) ascribe three different minds (in

2


33/125

ifferent locations) in this god of theirs (for the sa+e e,act reasons4argu+ents they insist +ust beifferent %ersons) and yet still ith a strait face claim, even insist, that those three different god minds in

hree different bodies and different locations is 5%& three different gods>?> gain ($st another

rinitarian hypocritical attempt at playing both sides of the fence. %here is 56) 57 +59 they say,b$t insist on different persons beca$se they feel it ridic$lo$s that one +od o$ld be praying to

himself>?>? %hey deny there are m$ltiple different gods b$t in practice that is the doctrine they defend

and orship>

What fools (or worse %rov 2=:12) men become hen they fall in love ith themselves and their on

deas. Wa'e $p> "t is poison, not pio$s faithf$lness>?> %his o$ld all ($st be a big hilario$s (o'e (worthy

of the best co+ey troo%) if it ere not so pathetically foolish and damnable. "f the 5ne +od (in heavenwho is a >#?#&) anted to validate that it is in fact himself (on the earth in hu+an flesh) that has come

n the flesh on the earth, then a voice o$t of heaven telling everyone that is Aimself is perfectly

onsistent ith a coherent agenda and methodology. %he voice and itness to men does not come for+od#s on sa'e b$t for man#s reass$rance. ( -ohn ):./ esus answere an sai' TH0S 1O02E2A3E NOT 4E2AUSE OF 3E, 4UT FOR YOUR SA5ES ) %he one person +od (who is

o+ni%resent) in heaven as ell as on the earth (at the sa+e ti+e) anted everyone to 'no that it asndeed A"8476F =in the flesh= 4$ddenly e can see that the only things bedeviled& ith many

demons& (an +ental i+%erfections) are the %rinitarian#s logic and mindset itself.

F$rther, hile the %rinitarian can vividly& image a incomprehensible being ho is three different

persons, that still does not 'eep that one being from tal'ing to himself the same one beingCentity if they

are tr$ly only one +odCbeingCentity. Aoever, at best it not only 'eeps that being from tr$ly being one

b$t ma'es that being into a incomprehensible and incoherent god and in reality it is the orship of threedifferent gods hile only denying it claiming people ($st do not properly $nderstand the concept. %hree

different persons (with three ifferent +ins) in three different locations is not one of anything e*cept

perhaps one pantheon of three gods hile trying to call that pantheon one being or one entity. "t is ($stanother masterstro'e of do$ble minded (a+es 1:) do$ble spea' +od is three and +od is one all at the

ame time, to do$bt this they s$ggest o$ld be to do$bt hat +od is capable of doing. 8any ill b$y

his bag of d$ng beca$se after all they do not ant to be acc$sed of p$tting limits on +od. fter all +odan do anything. %hey might as ell ($st come o$t and say it plainly, beca$se they are certainly living it:

"#ll be damned, ifC before any +od, script$re or so$nd mind comes along and tells me (trinitarians) otherise.&>

%his %rinitarian idea of +od head is nohere to be seen certainly not clearly by the things hich are

made s$ch that they are itho$t e*c$se& (no' it is inco+%rehensible' re+e+ber


34/125

distinctions in f$nction and of circ$mstanceCcondition of the vario$s parts of +od not differences in

person>?> +od is a person, the Aoly 4pirit is a person, es$s is a person...the same person>?> %here are

only distinctions in the manifestations d$e to being in different 'inds of $niverses ie spirit$al L physical

and f$nctioning differently in those all at the same time....4ame A7 or A"8 b$t the A7 that is in heaven

s also the Ae that is on earth b$t the A7 on earth is s$bordinate and obedient to the A7 in heaven

beca$se the A7 in heaven is the greater part of the A7 that is on earth>?>........

ppealing to attrib$tes of +od s$ch as isdom and love is no different then appealing to appendages

$ch as head and right arm e*cept one of those is ho the script$res describe +od and the other is not>?>

B$t both of those o$ld still only /$alify for one person as the ord person& is normally defined>

Ao ="ronic that %rinitarians ill try to deny the script$res $se of +od literally sending Ais right armeven ridic$ling that< beca$se of its nthropomorphic implications and yet that is the e*act bases for all

rinitarian arg$ments. "t is the anthropomorphic descriptors that trinitarians try to $se to reasons for

arg$ing a demand for m$ltipleCthree different persons of +od ;ie. had to be m$ltiple persons so that +odas not praying to himself et al. %he T$estion m$st be as'ed, Ao many other +ods is there for the

one +od to pray ;or sear< to?>?> 77(o coul swear by no greater then *i+self' nor coul their be

any higher authority to hol o to his own oath...


35/125

Rom# %rinitarins

prefer to ignore the very descriptions and ays that +od $ses f$rther, call it heresy, and then

invent a tri$ne god in co$ncils of heretics and claim it had been in the script$res all along>

%he pop$lar e*c$se is that ord person does not mean person s$ch as e normally thin' of a person&

(ifferent se%arate fro+ other %ersons' that woul +ake +ulti%le ifferent gos they +ust a+it < b$t on

he other hand they m$st be different persons the ay the ord is normally $sed beca$se that is the

ntire bases for claiming that +od m$st be m$ltiple different persons. Father in heaven, 4on on earth, as

different persons in different locations (an as so+e woul suggest with ifferent +ins) o need to

orry e ($st chal' $p the do$ble minded do$ble spea' to the fact that +od can be and not be different

persons all at the same time beca$se +od is great !3333.. &lah c'bar& ( co++on Fusli+

,%ression that has been use to e,%ress ones faith even when "the reality$ conflicts with reason)75h

b$t ait, they too o$ld deno$nce %rinitarians as polytheist pagans also. 5ne can only onder b$t seehy and ho even the heathens see the hypocrisy and blasphemy of the %rinitarians. 4adly, if e ere

o $se this metric (the nu+ber of ifferent %ersons in ifferent locations an or with ifferent +ins)

alone, (not consiering other factors) then e o$ld be left ith the concl$sion that 8$slims ere

loser to the tr$e one single +od then the %rinitarians are>?>

#m(" 2:)/. %ho$ believest that there is ONE GOD! tho$ doest ell: THE DEVILS ALSO BELIEVE, and tremble3

%rinitarians cannot even legitimacy lay claim to having the degree of faith& that demons do. "t is a sad

tate b$t a fact that most of -hristianity do not even have the most basic of doctrines ;the n$mber ofpersons< of deity. %his is li'e a doctor ho has no 'noledge of hat blood or germs are>?> 4erio$sly,

imply calling yo$r orship of three different persons in three different locations (an or with three

ifferent +ins) one +od being& even insisting ( nausea+ ) that it is still only orshiping one +od

does no more to change the reality (an or the +orality) of hat yo$ do (call your %olytheis+

+onotheis+) then an abortionist ho confesses& that they do not 'ill innocent people (because a fetus

s not a %erson) o>, (they confess) they promote h$man and omen#s rights, free choice and or the

ove for o$r children#s f$t$re&. %hey o$ld pretend that they don#t ant any children to s$ffer beca$se

hey love people and children soooo m$ch.

hore ho deno$nces prostit$tion and confesses ;ad na$seam< that she does not practice s$ch

ic'edness ..hat she does is totally different she only comforts those ho need it she is a not a

prostit$te she is ($st a caregiver& does not change hat it is even tho$gh she calls it by a different name

a

Documents

Most True Christians Go to Hell