I am writing in reference to your tract "The Godhead: One Person or Three." In reading this tract, I felt a need to reply and clarify the issues brought up.

I am not a minister, an elder, or a deacon, but simply a Christian. What I have to say is not to be taken as a challenge, nor is a reply necessary. Yet, if you wish to reply, my name and address is included. It is my sincere desire that you will take another look at this exalted subject. In doing so, I pray you will lay aside any traditions of men and search the scriptures with an open heart and prayer. Thus, allowing the Word of God to speak to you concerning the Godhead.

In reply to your tract, I will deal with each subheading in succession beginning with page 1.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

Please realize that the apostles never taught, nor did the scriptures ever imply, that there are three separate persons in the Godhead. No chapter or verse was, nor could ever be, sited to qualify this statement. The apostles were monotheistic Jews who had no thought of introducing a dramatic new revelation of plurality into the Godhead. Neither writers nor readers thought in Trinitarian terminology. This concept of "Christian Trinitarianism" was foreign to them, because it had not yet been formulated. Although the idea of a trinity did not originate with Christendom, it was a significant feature of many ancient pagan religions and philosophies before the Christian era. Trinitarian scholar, Alexander Hislop, asserts the Babylonians worshipped one God in three persons and used the equilateral triangle as a symbol of this trinity (The Two Babylon's p 16). Trinitarianism did not achieve its present form until the end of the 4th century, and its definitive creeds did not take final form until the fifth century. The scriptures do teach the Godhead is in one person, Jesus Christ (Col.2:9).

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Scriptures: We're in accord. We believe in the scriptures: the sixty-six books of the Bible, both Old & New Testaments.

Teach: Again we're in accord as to imparting information, to instruct, to set forth as a doctrine.

Three: We don't deny the number three. We believe in the number three, four, five and so on. We're not contesting the number three, but the issue is three what?

Separate: We believe in distinctions. There are distinctions between the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is a distinction between the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ, but these distinctions do not indicate separate persons in the Godhead.

Persons: The English word person is from Latin Personna, meaning the mask on the face of an actor. In other words, God the invisible Spirit (John 4:24) has no other mask over His invisible self (Col.1:15) than the person of Jesus Christ. By person, I mean as Webster defines a person as an individual human body or being, as 'He will be here in person." A person is a being characterized by a body. A being is not necessarily a human person, but a person is necessarily a physical being. A person has bodily presence and is not an intangible spirit. If God exists as three persons and each is God, and each is separate and distinct from the other, then that is three gods any way you look at it. No man or preacher has ever been able to read from the Bible the phrase "three persons in the Godhead." You can read it from the Roman Catholic Church or the Council of Nicea, but where is it in the Bible? If by person you don't mean a human being, but a divine being, then you have Jesus praying as God and not as a human being. You would also have Jesus as God dying on the cross. If a Spirit is a person, then according to Rev. 5:6, where the seven Spirits of God are mentioned, there would be seven persons in the Godhead.

Godhead: The state of being God (Col.2:9). Not Godheads, as would be if each has the fullness of God in Him, but the one Godhead.

Father, Son, Holy Ghost: Different manifestations, roles, titles or offices through which the one God operates and reveals Himself. Not three divine beings, minds or wills composing the one Godhead.

BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH

On both of these points we're in agreement. However, the problems become insurmountable when the one Godhead is assumed to be composed of three separate and distinct persons. Each person is either fully God, making three Gods, or each person is 1/3 God thus completing the full Godhead. Which is your position?

BIBLE DOES TEACH

(1) The Bible does teach that there is only one God. God is absolutely and indivisibly one with no distinction of persons. Many times the scriptures call God the Holy One (Ps.71:22, 78:41; Isa.1:4, 5:19, 24), but never the "Holy two, the Holy Three, or the Holy Many."

(2) The Bible does not portray the one deity as consisting of three persons anywhere. Please consider how three persons in the Godhead existing together, each being God, and each being separate and distinct from the other, could logically be referred to as one and not three Gods?

(3) It is clear the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost cannot imply three separate persons, personalities, wills or beings. They can only denote the multiple roles, manifestations, titles and works of the one God.

(4) You have portrayed the Godhead as consisting of three divine persons, with three separate minds and wills. One in the respect that they united together for a common purpose. To be "one in plan, one in doctrine, one in protection." By your definition you have converted monotheism into polytheism, trio-theism to be exact. The term "three persons" is incorrect because there is no essential threeness about God. The only number relevant to God is "one."

(5) God is one divine being with one personality, will and mind. He has one visible body - the glorified human body of Jesus Christ.

PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD

Our discussion is not in pluralities, but a plurality of what? The issue is not ''us'', ''our'', or ''we''. We accept the plurality of these terms. We believe in a plurality of attributes and manifestations of God. Even Elohim, as most scholars agree, indicates God's greatness of His multiple attributes and not persons in the Godhead. In Smith's Bible Dictionary, p 220, under the word "God", he says "the plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it refers to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians' call the plural of majesty or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of powers, displayed by God. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge is equally emphatic. "Only an inaccurate exegesis which overlooks the more immediate grounds of interpretation can see references to the trinity in the plural form of the divine name Elohim." The Jews certainly did not see the plural form as compromising their strong monotheism.

The Bible itself reveals that the only way to understand "Elohim" is that it expresses God's majesty and not a plurality of persons in the Godhead. It does this by its insistence on one God and by its use of Elohim in situations that definitely portray only one person. For example, only one being called Elohim wrestled with Jacob (Gen.32:30), and only one golden calf was called Elohim (Ex.32:1-35). The Bible even applies Elohim to Jesus Christ (Ps.45:6; Zech.12:8-10, 14:5). Certainly, no one would suggest there is a plurality of persons in Jesus.

The Old Testament speaks of attributes as being with God, but when speaking of another person worthy of the name "God" the answer is an emphatic "NO". Deut.32:39, in speaking of persons, of others, of separate individuals called God (Elohim) it states, "There is no God with me." Attributes, yes! Persons, no! The Old Testament speaks often of attributes being with God. In Ps.130:7, mercy is with God. In Ps.136:9, a fountain of life is with God. In Job 12:13-16, wisdom and power are with God. The trinity says God had company. Truth says there is no God with me.

In Gen.1:26, the plural pronouns "us" and "our" must be reconciled with the singular pronouns in Gen.1:27, 2:7. Since Elohim definitely does not reveal a plurality of persons within the Godhead, then neither should the use of the plural pronouns. There is no reason to accept a polytheistic alternative in grammar than one that harmonizes with scripture. Any interpretation of Gen.1:26 that permits the existence of more than one person of God, runs into severe difficulties. Isaiah 4:24 says the LORD created the heavens "alone" and created the earth "by Himself". According to Mal.2:10, there was only one creator. Truth says there was none with God (Deut.32:39). Who was with Him? Is it possible to be alone and by yourself, yet with somebody at the same time? Is it logical to say, "I went to town alone, with John Doe?"

Gen.1:26. 3:22; 11:7 are examples of the plural of majesty. This is simply God speaking by Himself, in the presence of His angels, and then He goes ahead and executes His own will. The plural of majesty, or plural of self deliberation, is a common utterance taken from a king like Artaxerxes who speaks by himself, referring to himself in the singular and in the plural in his correspondence. In a letter to Ezra, Artaxerxes called himself "I" in one place (Ezra 7:13), but "we" in another place (Ezra 7:24). Daniel told king Nebuchadnezzar, "we" will tell the interpretation thereof before the king." According to Daniel 2:36, Daniel was alone. No one was helping him.

In Gen.1:26, who was God talking to when He said, "Let us make man?" Since the one God was doing the speaking, He was definitely speaking to others who were not God. For the verse states, "And God said...". God (Elohim) in this passage is plural and thus according to your theory should be translated "the Trinity." "The Trinity said, let us make man." What other person was the trinity talking to? Are there four persons in the Godhead? Your doctrine has God talking to God. How can you have one person who is God talking to a separate and distinct person who also is God, and still claim there in one God? As I said before this is polytheism. He could not have been speaking to the Son of God, because the Son was not born until four thousand years later at Bethlehem. The Son was made of a woman (Gal.4:4). If the Son was present in the beginning, who was His mother? Angels were present when God made the world (Job 38:7), and they applauded His creative acts. God wasn't asking the angels for help in creating man, nor did they counsel God, but He did take them into His confidence. The Bible makes it plain that God made man.

Gen.3:22-24 reveals that God is addressing the cherubim or elect angels who, together with himself, "knew good and evil."

Gen.11:7 again, "us" relative to God and the angels is seen. God indicates to the angels that Babel's hour of judgement is come. God, in conjunction with the angels, executed the work of vengeance.

BAPTISM OF JESUS

God never intended this baptismal scene to reveal a radical new revelation of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. Proof of this is His use of a dove. Is a bird a person? You have done away with your person of the Holy Spirit and made a bird out of Him.

To have a biblical understanding of this scene, we must remember that God is omnipresent (1King 8:27; Ps.139:7-13; Jer.23:24). Jesus is God and was God while manifested in the flesh while on earth. Of course, the physical body of Jesus was not omnipresent, but the Father or the eternal Spirit that indwelt Him was. Matt.18:20 teaches Jesus is omnipresent, not as the Son of God, but as the Father. That's why according to John 3:13, Jesus could be on earth and in heaven at the same time. This is also how He could be with two or three of His disciples at the same time when they are in different locations. The same God that was in heaven speaking was inside of that body which was standing in the water. Let the significance of this sink in! Jesus who was that day baptized in the river was omnipresent, everywhere present at the same time. If we deny that he, as to His divinity, was responsible for the voice then we virtually deny Him the attribute of omnipresence.

With the omnipresence of God in mind, we can understand the baptism of Christ very easily. It was not at all difficult for the divine Spirit of Jesus to speak from heaven for the benefit of the people as in John 12:28-30. Nor was it difficult to send a manifestation of His Spirit in the form of a dove, which according to John 1: 32-33 was for the benefit of John the Baptist, even while His human body was in the water. The voice was God's way of formally introducing Jesus to Israel as the Son of God while the dove was a special visible sign for John, who was incapable of seeing the Spirit of God anointing Christ. This let him know that Jesus was Jehovah and the messiah. The voice and the dove don't represent three separate persons anymore than when the Holy Spirit came in Acts 2:1-4. The Holy Spirit came (1) as a rushing mighty wind, (2) and there were tongues like as of fire, (3) and the Spirit gave utterance. Surely the Holy Spirit didn't exist as three separate persons. When you see an automobile traveling down the street and you can hear (audible) the noise from the engine and see the smoke (visible) from the exhaust, besides needing possible repairs, should we logically assume there are two engines under the hood? Is one engine needed to make the noise and the other to produce the smoke? Or can we expect both the noise and the smoke to be the product of the same engine? So we see that the baptism of Christ does not teach us that God is three persons but only reveals the omnipresence of God and the humanity of the Son of God. John 14:10 settles the issue. Jesus claimed that all miraculous works attending His ministry (and that includes the voice and the sign of the dove) were attributable to the one who dwelt within Him: "The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works."

THREE PERSONS -- EACH DEITY

Oneness doctrine maintains that there are distinctions in the Godhead, but not as such that it indicates separate and distinct persons. The Bible speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy ghost as different manifestations, roles titles, or relationships to man through which the one God operates and reveals Himself. The distinctions are between the three terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but it does not refer to these as three separate and distinct persons, personalities, minds, wills, or Gods. So in Acts 5:3-4, when the Holy Ghost is said to be God, we believe that. God is a Spirit (John 2:24), and there is only one Spirit of God (Eph.4:4). In 1 Pet.1:16 the Bible teaches us that God is Holy. In fact, He alone is holy in Himself. Therefore "Holy Spirit" is another term for the one God. It emphasizes that He who is a holy, omnipresent and an invisible Spirit actively works in the lives and affairs of mankind. The Holy Ghost is not a separate person from the Father anymore than a man and his spirit are separate persons.

In John 14:26. the fact that the Holy Spirit can be sent does not mean the Spirit is a separate person from God anymore than Him sending His light, truth, mercy, voice, or word (Ps.43:3, 57:3, 68:33, 107:20) means that these are separate persons from Himself. Is your voice or your word a separate person from you? The titles Father and Holy Ghost describe the same being but emphasizes different roles that He possesses.

The one God simultaneously fills the two roles of Father and Holy Spirit. The scriptures bear this out. Trinitarianism says the Holy Ghost is not the Father, but the scriptures teach that He is.

Compare the following:

(1) Who is the Father of Jesus Christ? God the Father (John 3:16, 5:17-18) or the Holy Ghost (Matt.1:18- 20: Luke 1:35). Either God the Father, who is the Holy Ghost, was the Father of the Son of God or Jesus had two Fathers.

(2) In Joel 2:27-29 Jehovah God said, "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh", yet in Acts 2:1-4, 16-18, Peter called it the Holy Ghost. This is because the Holy Ghost is the one Spirit of God.

(3) Who raised Jesus from the dead? God the Father (Act 2:24; Eph.1:17-20) or the Holy Spirit (Rom.8:11)? Surely you don't think two persons raised Jesus from the dead.

(4) In Matt.1O:20, the Father will give us words to say in the time of persecution, but according to Mark 13:11 the Holy Spirit will do so.

Mr. Brown, we do not believe the Father "is" the Son, yet we do believe the Father is "in" the Son (John 14:10). The divine Spirit in Jesus is the Father, and not a divine Son Spirit. Would you deny the Father is in Jesus? If the Father "is" the Son, then the Father would have suffered and died on Calvary. This is called patripassianism. This is clearly an impossibility. If one believes in a God the Son, as Trinitarians do, then the God that was the son was tempted, suffered and died. Oneness doctrine rejects the unbiblical idea of dead deity and "Trinitarian patripassianism." The titles Father and Son are not interchangeable terms.

Your proof texts regarding the Father and the Son as separate persons are simply distinctions between the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ, distinctions between the flesh and the Spirit and not persons in the Godhead.

John 20:17 is a reference to the human nature of Jesus because He told Mary, "go to my brethren." It's as a man that Christ is our brother (Heb.2:11-13). This doesn't prove Jesus wasn't the Father any more than it proves that He wasn't God. Did a dead God arise and ascend to another God? If this is referring to Jesus as God, then it is implying the Father is God in a way that Jesus is not because He ascended to the one God. As a man, the eternal Spirit was His Father. As the Father, He was the disciples Lord and God (John 20:28). The distinction is between humanity and divinity, not between God and God.

John 8:16 in your quotation concerning Jesus you said, "my judgement is "NOT" true, for I am not alone", then implied the Father was with Him as another separate person. Did Jesus, as a member of the Godhead, not have good judgement? Actually, the scripture says His judgement "IS" true for I am not alone. Why was His judgement true and way was He not alone? Simply because it was the Father, as the eternal Spirit, that indwelt Him that did the works (John 14:10), and not because a separate and distinct person of the Godhead was literally with Him. The God that was in Him was the Father, and not a "Divine Son Spirit." According to John 5:30, Jesus did say that of His own self He could do nothing, and this included judging. Was He, as a member of the Godhead, not able to do anything of Himself, or was this referring to His human nature, to Jesus as a man? When Jesus said they have "both seen and hated both me and my Father", did the people literally see and hate two persons of the Godhead? Or, when they saw both Jesus and the Father the people saw only one person, Jesus Christ? Thus proving that he was the Father in harmony with Isa.9:6 that the child born and the son given was also the mighty God and the everlasting Father. What you need to prove is persons in the Godhead, and not a distinction between the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ.

To accuse us of believing Jesus is His own Father and His own Son is a direct misrepresentation of truth. This shows you have a total misconception of the dual nature of Jesus. What seems strange or impossible if applied to a mere human becomes understandable when viewed in the context of one who is both fully God and fully man at the same time. Whenever we see a description of two natures with respect to Jesus, we should think of Spirit and flesh. Because Jesus had a dual nature we should not think it incredible that He could perform a dual role. The truth is the eternal Spirit Fathered the flesh or the humanity of the Son of God. As God, Jesus is the Father. As the Son, He is the flesh or humanity that God indwelt. We don't teach, as is inherent in your doctrine, that God Fathered God or that Jesus had two Fathers.

Your belief that Jesus is not the Father is in conflict with the scriptures that reveal He is. The following scriptures teach Jesus is the Father:

(1) Isa.9:6 The child born and the Son given is the everlasting Father. Jesus is the Son prophesied about and there is only one Father (Mal.2:10; Eph.4:6), so Jesus must be God the Father.

(2) John 14:8-10 Phillip asked Jesus to show them the Father. Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Christ claimed to be the Father manifest in the flesh.

(3) John 2:19 Jesus used the personal pronoun "I" in reference to Himself as the Father who would raise up His body from the dead. In Acts 2:24 Peter preached that God raised up Jesus from the dead.

(4) The Father alone can draw men to God (John 6:44), yet Jesus said He would draw all men (John 12:32).

(5) Jesus promised to answer the believer's prayer (John 14:14), yet He said the Father would answer prayer (John 16:23).

We can easily understand all this if we realize that Jesus has a dual nature. He is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son. The divine Spirit in the Son is the Father.

Heb.1:8 Jesus is not being called God the Son, but this verse clearly refers to the deity in the Son. This is not a conversation in the Godhead, but a prophetic utterance inspired of God looking to the future incarnation of God in flesh. The term son is a reference to the flesh and never refers to deity alone, or deity apart from the humanity of Jesus. The Father is the eternal Spirit who indwelt Him. The term "God the Son" is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, or deity in absence of humanity and therefore it is unscriptural.

Acts 10:38 This passage doesn't imply two separate persons in the Godhead, but refers to the dual nature of Christ. Did Jesus need anointing with power as God or as man? As God, He was the Almighty (Rev.1:8). As man he could do nothing of Himself and needed the power of the Holy Ghost (John 5:30). If Jesus and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, how come He got anointed with the power of the Holy Ghost yet He claimed it was the Father who worked the miracles (John 14:10)? What happened to the Holy Ghost? Why did God need to anoint God? This is simply another scripture distinguishing between Christ's deity and His humanity, and not separate persons in the Godhead.

You say Jesus is not the Holy Ghost, but the Bible teaches He is. The divine Spirit in Jesus is identified as the Holy Spirit. Compare the following:

(1) According to John 4:24, God is a Spirit. There is only one Spirit of God (Eph.4:4). According to 2 Cor.3:17, the Word tells us "The Lord is that Spirit." There is one Lord (Eph.4:5) and the one Lord said, "I am Jesus" (Act 9:5). This doesn't sound like two persons.

(2) The Spirit of Christ was in the prophets of old (1 Pet.1:10-11), yet we know it was the Holy Ghost that moved on them (2 Pet.1:2l).

(3) Who makes intercession? Heb.4:15; 7:25, teach Jesus. In Rom.8:28 the Holy Spirit does.

(4) John 14:16 says the Father would send another comforter, namely the Holy Ghost, and that He would abide with them, forever. Yet in John 14:17-18, Jesus said "I will come to you." The Holy Ghost was with them in the person of Jesus, but soon would be in them as the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus promised to abide with His followers to the end of the world (Matt.28:20).

As we have seen, the divine nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is identified as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Father and the Holy Spirit are identified as the same being. Instead of showing three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, we have seen either the different roles or offices through which the one God operates and reveals Himself, or distinctions between the divine and human natures of Jesus. If it were possible to show a distinction of persons, then you also establish separate centers of consciousness in the Godhead which would be polytheism. Is Jesus in the Godhead as you teach, or is the Godhead in Jesus? According to Col.2:9 all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily, and we are complete in Him, not them. Once again we understand the Word of God does not teach Jesus is the second person of a three person Godhead.

ONE DEITY - ONE HUMANITY

You teach God is emphasizing His oneness as opposed to pagan deities or idols but that He still exists as a plurality. If this is true then why didn't God make it clear to the Jews, including those who wrote the Old Testament, who have insisted on absolute monotheism and not a theology of persons? The Old Testament scriptures make it plain using the strongest possible language to describe absolute oneness by using words and phrases such as "none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, beside myself, and one" (Isa.45:6- 8, 21-23; 44:24; 46:9). God could have not made it plainer that no plurality exists in the Godhead, and that He is absolutely one in number. Who is the speaker who commonly refers to Himself as "I" and "me" and says there is no God with me? The New Testament reveals this speaker to be Jesus. Compare Isa.43:10-ll; 45:22-23 with Matt.1:21; Titus 2:13; and Phil.2:10-11. Jesus is the saviour of the world and someday every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess

Jesus as Lord and God as Thomas did (John 20:28). It was the Lord Jesus who said, "I am God and there is none else." It would be impossible for Jesus to say this if there are two other persons with Him who are also God. Mr. Brown, can you make the statement standing up among your preacher brethren, that you are the only true gospel preacher and there are none else?

In Isa.42:8: 44:6: 44:24, you teach these are contrasts between God and idols. Now you are beginning to see it. Any God in your concept other than Jesus is an idol. Any God beside Jesus is a false god. Isaiah is contrasting the one God to those which others thought were God. They thought these idols were divine beings who were God besides the speaker.

Acts 17:26 teaches the human race descended from one source, Adam, not two or three sources. Certainly the human race is made up of many people. 00 you believe that because the human race is made up of many individuals that this proves the Godhead does also? If so, then why stop at three? Why not teach a family of gods as other religious groups teach? Using your logic, if because the Bible establishes that there is only one deity proves that there are only three persons in the Godhead, why would not the fact that there is only one humanity prove that there are only three people in humanity? In regard to your question about full humanity being ascribed to Jesus, does that make Him the only human? To have a parallel you need to produce a scripture where Jesus said, "there is no human beside me." Compare this to Isa.45:21-23 and Phil2:10-11 where Jesus is the speaker and said, "there is no God else beside me.. .". Please consider the thought that if three human beings, sharing human nature are three men, then why aren't three divine beings, who share divine nature three gods? The Bible clearly emphasizes that God is one (Gal.3:20). He is not one God in three persons, but is simply and indivisibly one with no distinction of persons.

MATHEMATICAL DEMONSTRATION

Eph.4:4-6 A Trinitarian interpretation is not logical because it separates Jesus from God. It also implies the Father is God in a way that Jesus is not, thus robbing Him of His full and complete deity. It designates the "one God" to be only one of three persons in the Godhead. How can you claim two other persons within the Godhead besides that " One God?" If that "one God" is the first person in the Godhead, then any other persons could not be God and could not be in the Godhead. To be consistent you must accept Jesus as the one and only God of the Bible (1 John 5:20) or else abandon your theology of one God.

The apostle is emphasizing the different roles of God and the importance of these roles. In verse 4 the one Spirit is connected with the thought of one hope and one body. This reminds us that the one Spirit of God baptizes us into the one body (1 Cor.12:13), and the hope God set before us of sharing the glory of Christ when we are indwelt and led by His Spirit. Verse 5 groups the one Lord with the one faith and one baptism, indicating we must condition our faith and baptism upon the person, name, and work of the Lord Jesus. Verse 6 brings it all together speaking of the "one God and Father of all., who is above all (i.e. who is Lord), and through all, and is in you all (i.e. Who is the Spirit in you)." Not only must we believe in God as our Father and creator, and the work of His Spirit in the hearts and lives of man, but we must accept Him as manifest in the flesh through Jesus Christ. We must acknowledge that Jesus is come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3). Again, this proves the oneness of God. The one God is Spirit and He is the Lord of all.

STATEMENTS OF A PLURALITY

The issues are persons in the Godhead, and not whether the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mentioned together. As seen below, these terms do not identify three different persons in the Godhead, but indicate the different roles, or offices through which the one God operates and reveals Himself. A belief of separate and distinct persons put you in direct conflict with the scriptures.

Act 10:38 Teaches us about the dual nature of Jesus Christ as proven on page 9. This is simply another scripture distinguishing between Christ's deity and His humanity, and not between separate and distinct persons in the Godhead.

John 14:26: 15:26 These passages of scripture certainly don't prove a plurality of persons within the one Godhead because of the inherent problems which would exist in the context of these chapters. Why does Jesus pray to the Father to send the Holy Ghost, then end up doing it Himself (John 15:26; Act 2:33)? Why does Christ send another person to help them and "be with them forever" when He will be with them till the end of the age to help them (Matt.28:20; Mark 16:20)? If Jesus has been doing ok so far, why does He now send in another person to help? Why does the Spirit need to testify about Christ, if Jesus will be with us always till the end of the age? Why can't He do His own testifying like He is doing now? According to John 14:26, the Holy Ghost will be sent "in my name" ,i.e. when my name is used (Bauer Lex. p. 572). Why does the Holy Ghost come at the calling of Jesus' name? Is it possible the name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus? The Holy Ghost was supposed to teach them all things, yet Jesus taught them. Christians were taught by Jesus and the truth was in Him (Eph.4:21). Peter said Jesus' divine power had given them all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet.1:1-3).

Concerning another, you have the 2nd person praying to the 1st person to send the 3rd person (John 14:16). In verse 17 you have the 3rd person coming, yet in verse 18 the 2nd person comes. Then in verse 23, after a committee meeting, the 1st person decides to come with the 2nd person. Then you must explain the 1st person sending the 3rd person in the name of the 2nd person (vs.26), yet John 16:7 says no, the 1st person isn't going to send the 3rd person, the 2nd person will. Did the Father forget to send Him? Does the Bible contradict itself? This is the confusion of unscriptural doctrine. We must rightly divide the Word of truth. The truth of the matter is that when Christ spoke of the comforter (John 14:16-18,26; 15:26), He spoke of His own Spirit. The comforter is the Spirit of truth (vs.17). Who is truth? Jesus plainly said, "I am...the truth" (vs.6). If Jesus is the truth, then the Spirit of truth is the Spirit of Jesus. In verse 17, Jesus said the disciples knew the comforter because He was dwelling with them and would be in them. Who was dwelling with the disciples at that time? Jesus was. In verse 18 Jesus makes the point crystal clear by saying, "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you." As long as Jesus was present with them in the flesh He would not be present spiritually in their hearts. After He physically departed He would send back His own Spirit to be with them. This is how He fulfills His promise to be with us to the end of the age (Matt.28:20). It is clear from the context that the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost is simply Jesus in another manifestation.

John 1:1, 14: The Word was in the beginning with God and was God, not a separate person from God. In John 1:1, if God here means God the Father then the Word is not a separate person for the verse would then read," The Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father." Deut.32:39 said, "there is no god with me." Isa.44:24 says He was "alone." Who was with Him? The Word was. Now either God told a lie, or His Word is not a separate god with the Father. In the day that you can make your word a separate person from yourself, then you will have established a trinity. Your word is not a separate person from yourself, and neither is God's. You can go to town with your word and it can be said that you went to town alone. If you took another person with you it wouldn't be intelligent to say. "I went to town alone with John Doe." According to John 1:14 when Jesus was brought forth at Bethlehem, "the Word was made flesh." This was fulfilling the prophecy in Isa.9:6 where a child would be born and a Son given and His name would be called"...the mighty God and the everlasting Father.

Eph.2:8: This scripture is another reference distinguishing between the various manifestations and roles of God, and not a plurality of persons composing a Godhead of separate minds and wills. Claiming to be one because they united together for a common purpose, "to be one in plan, one in doctrine, one in protection" (p.2 of your tract). Note the threeness of Heb.10:19-21, "by the blood of Christ... through the veil... an high priest over." Does this make Jesus three persons? It seems according to your thinking it does.

MISAPPLIED PASSAGES

Job 13:8-10: Danny Brown said he wasn't accepting persons secretly, he's doing it openly. Are you implying it's ok to sin openly, just don't do it secretly? I don't read where there is one bit of difference between a secret sin and an open sin in the eyes of God. It's idolatry to worship more than one person of God. If this verse applies to God then it obviously demolishes Trinitarianism.

Isa.9:6 (1) The gift and the giver are not references to separate and distinct persons in the Godhead as you imply, but does refer to the dual nature of Christ. As to His deity He is the mighty God and the everlasting Father, and is the giver of the gift. Are there two mighty Gods? Is there a mighty God outside of Jesus? As to His humanity He is the child born and the Son given, and is the gift. The terms child and Son refer to the incarnation or the manifestation of the mighty God and everlasting Father in the flesh. Jesus is both God and man, the giver and the gift. He is the mighty God and the everlasting Father in the Son (John 14:22). You asked, "Who gave the Son? God gave the Son, that's who gave Him. We believe God gave the Son and that God sent the Son. We don't believe God gave God or that God sent God as you teach. If you have trouble seeing Jesus in His roles as gift and giver, will there be any hope in seeing Jesus as the "door" of the sheepfold (John 10:7), and the "good shepherd" (John 10:11), and the "lamb of God" (John 1:29), yet being one person? According to Heb.9:11-26 He is both our high priest and sacrifice. Did this make Jesus two persons? Why didn't Jesus give Himself instead of waiting to be sent by someone else, if He is God the Son and co-equal with the Father? Is God the Father greater than God the Son (John 14:26)? What does this do .to the co-equality among the persons of the trinity?

(2) Mr. Brown, it would be all right for a Father to have a Father except if there is only ONE Father. There is only one divine Father (Mal.2:10). Teaching two divine Fathers puts you in direct conflict with the prophet Malachi, the apostle Paul (1 Cor.8:6), and Matthew (Matt.23:9). There is only one plain reference in the Old Testament where God is called a Father relative to the Son, and that is in Isa.9:6. Here Isaiah declares Jesus is the Father and not a second person distinct from the Father. The issue is, "is the divine Spirit that was in Jesus the Spirit of the Father, or the Spirit of a divine Son separate from the Father?" John 14:10 teaches the divine Spirit that dwelt in Jesus was none other than the Father. Would you deny the Father was in Jesus? Your teaching of two divine Fathers in the Godhead makes God the Father our grandfather. If your not careful, you will have three Fathers because He who begets is the Father. He who begot the Son was the Spirit (Matt.1:20; Luke 1:35). If the persons of the Godhead are separate and distinct, as your proposition states, then Jesus had two Fathers.

It's an absurdity to compare Abraham to God because both are called Fathers. Do you believe Abraham is called father (Rom.4:11,16) in the same sense that God is in Mal.2:10 Matt.23:9; 1 Cor.8:6? In 2 Cor.6:18 God is our Father and is called the Lord Almighty. This is Jesus according to Rev.1:8. Are there two Almighty's? Because Abraham is called a father, does this make him God also? You are supposed to be showing persons in the Godhead, not whether men are called fathers. In Ex.7:1 Moses is called "a god." Does this make him God in the same sense as the Lord God? Does this make him another person of the Godhead? Would you say Jesus is God only in the sense that Moses was called a God? You try and take away His divine eternal Fatherhood, will you try and take away His deity also? There is no way to make Jesus God without making Him the Father. It is only as the one God that He can be the everlasting Father (1 Cor.8:6; Eph.4:6; Mal.2:10; John 4:21-24). Father of countries and other fathers have no more relation to the Godhead than the north pole has to a goose nest.

You teach Jesus is a Father because God gave Him children (Heb.2:13). But He is a Father in every way. He made us (John 1:3; Col.1:17). He heals us (lPet.2:24; James 5:14- 15; Mark 16:16-18). He preservers us (Jude 1). He chastens us (Rev.3:19). He answers prayer (John 14:14). He counsels us (Isa.9:6), and He heals the brokenhearted and delivers (Luke 4:18). He is the chief shepherd and bishop of our souls (1 Pet.2:25; 5:4). He is our saviour (Matt.1:21; Titus 2:13), and His divine power hath given us all things pertaining to life and godliness (2Pet.1-3). This is why Col.2:10 tells us we are complete in Him. We wouldn't be complete in Jesus if we needed two others.

(3) Jesus is called "the mighty God", and not one of three Gods. Are there three mighty Gods? How can you say Jesus is God the Son, and that Mary gave birth to God the Son, then deny Mary gave birth to God. In Rev.1:8, Jesus is the Almighty. There cannot be two or three Almighty's. There is only one Almighty, and this is Jesus.

(4) Yes, Jesus is the proper name of the child born and the son given in Isa.9:6. Although there are many names and titles used in scriptures to identify Him, Jesus is His proper name. There is a difference between a proper name and a descriptive name or title. People can call you by various names, and that gives them a description about you and might indicate something about your character, but you have only one proper name. The proper name is what you get at birth. When Jesus was born the angel said, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus" (Matt.1:21). Isa.9:6 does teach His name (whatever that name will be) will describe or will be called wonderful, counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the prince of peace.

The scriptures teach baptism is to be "in the name of Jesus" (Act 2:38; 10:48). According to Bauer's Lexicon, p.572, this means to "be baptized or have oneself baptized while naming the name of Jesus Christ." We are talking about the salvation question and remission of sins, so we have to have the power of God through the name of Jesus. In Act 3, if it was necessary to speak the name of Jesus to affect divine healing, how much more essential in baptism in which there is remission which brings the power of the blood to cleanse the soul. In Act 10:48 Peter tells us where to use the name to get this remission. Water baptism is not valid without the invocation of the name of Jesus. Silent baptism or baptism using the descriptive titles of Christ, without the use of the proper name of Jesus, one would simply go down dry and come up wet.

(5) Since you believe the name of the Father is "Father", do you insist the name of Jesus is "Son"? In Matt.28:19 Father is a name, but not a proper name. It is a noun, but not a proper noun. Matt.28:19 describes only one name, because "name" is singular and not plural. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not proper names but descriptive titles. We must ask what is the one proper name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Without a doubt the name of the Son is Jesus (Matt.1:21). The name of the Father is also Jesus. Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name' (John 5:43). Jesus said He manifested and declared the Father's name (John 17:6, 26). According to Heb.1:4, Jesus received His name by inheritance. These scriptures teach the Father has revealed Himself to man through the name Jesus. The name of the Holy Ghost is also Jesus. In John 14:26 the Holy Ghost is given and revealed through the name Jesus.

EMMANUEL

God has only one divine nature, substance, or essence and it is indivisible and cannot be separated or divided into a plurality of persons. If there is only one God, and that God is the Father (Mal.2:10), and if Jesus is God, then it logically follows that Jesus is the Father. In fact, there is no other way to make Jesus God other than to make Him the Father (1 Cor.8:6). To deny the Fatherhood of Jesus is to deny His deity. According to Old Testament scripture, Jehovah has revealed His plan to appear in human form, and has fulfilled these scriptures by coming in the person of Jesus Christ (Isa.9:6; 40:3-9; 35:4-6; Luke 7:22). Jehovah has kept His promises and did become man, literally "God with us" (Isa.7:14; Matt.1:23). Since there is no other God but Jehovah by His own declaration (Isa.43:10-11; 45:21-23), therefore, Jesus and Jehovah are the same. The child born and the son given is also the mighty God and everlasting Father. The one who came in the flesh was Emmanuel. The one eternal

God (the Father) has become flesh (the Son), and this one God has poured out His Spirit (the Holy Ghost) upon all flesh.

Your analogy of Mr. Harper and Mr. Black does not apply because it is out of harmony with the Word of God. The issues are "Persons in the Godhead," not whether Mr. Harper and Mr. Black are two men. If because Mr. Harper and Mr. Black are two separate and distinct men, does this make Jesus and the Father two separate and distinct Gods? Jesus, speaking of Himself as Jehovah God said, "I am God and there is none else" (Isa.45.21-23 cp. Phil.2:10-11). You have Jehovah God saying, "Jesus and God and there is one else." Could Mr. Harper say, "I am man and there is none else?" Obviously not, but Jesus could because He is the "true God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20; Col.2:9-10), and God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim.3:16).

Concerning John 1:14, the truth is the Father, who is Spirit (John 4:24), begot the flesh. The distinctions are Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son, and not between separate and distinct persons in the Godhead. God did not beget God as your doctrine teaches. You need to explain how God can father God? Also, if Jesus was God the Son and that flesh was God then you have Mary giving birth to God, and Mary being the mother of God as the Catholics teach.

SON OF GOD - NOT - GOD THE SON

Jesus being the Son of God is not just alleged to be true, it's a scriptural fact spoken by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:35). However, the Bible does not use the term "God the Son" even once. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Son is the flesh or the humanity. The Father is the eternal Spirit who indwelt the Son. The term "God the Son" refers to the flesh as being divine or God. So you have God being born, God suffering, and a God that died. I certainly do not subscribe to that.

To maintain a Trinitarian concept of God, you are teaching Jesus did not know some things as God (Mk.13:32), yet the Bible says that He "knoweth all things" (John 21:17). Trinitarian philosophy has Jesus as God saying, "my Father is greater than I", yet in John 5:18 He is equal with God. Where is the equality among the members of the Godhead? You portray the 1st person in the Godhead as being greater than the 2nd person in the Godhead. How can God be greater than God? How can God know something that God doesn't know? This is your problem, not mine. I don't believe that flesh was God. To explain the humanity of Christ you rob Him of His deity by making Him a subordinate and inferior member of the Godhead. You have robbed Him of His attribute of omniscience. You have Christ emptying Himself of His attributes of deity, which would mean an abdication of deity with Jesus becoming a mere demigod. According to Phil.2:6, "He took upon Himself the form of a servant." He was not always a servant, but He took upon Himself, at His incarnation, a servant's form. The servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth (John 15:15). When Jesus said that He knew not the time of His return, and that the Father was greater than He, He spoke as a servant. Verses like this do not prove that Jesus is not God or the Father, they only prove that He was human. What Jesus did not know as the son, He knew as the Father.

Phil.2:6-8 This scripture is saying Jesus had the nature of God, that He was God Himself. God has no equal (Isa.40:25; 46:5-9). The only way for Jesus to be equal with God is for Him to be God. The divine nature of Jesus was the very nature of God the Father. He did not renounce His deity, but His being in the form of God alone. Jesus did not empty Himself of the attributes of deity for this would undeify Him, but He did conceal them in the weakness of human flesh. He did voluntarily strip Himself of His right to glory and honor on earth by taking the nature of a man and dying. As a man He did not receive the honor that was due Him as God. Instead of acting in His rightful role as king of mankind, He became a ministering servant. He did not give up His nature and power as God. He hid His divinity in humanity, but His deity was still evident to the eyes of faith.

An understanding of the dual nature of Christ is the key that explains the Jesus of the bible fully and comprehensively. Once we get the revelation of whom Jesus really is, the one God of the Old Testament robed in the flesh, all the scriptures fall into place. Jesus was both God and man, Spirit and flesh, Father and Son. He was God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim.3:16). He could speak from two different standpoints. He could speak and act as man one moment, and as God or the Father the next. As man or the Son He slept, as God He calmed the sea. as a man He could do nothing of Himself (John 5:19), but as God He was the Almighty (Rev.1:8). As a man He prayed (John 17), as the Father He answered prayer (John 14:14). As a man or the Son He died, as the Father He raised Himself from the grave (John 2:19-21; Act 2:24). As the Son of God there were some things He didn't know (Mk.13:32), as God or the Father He knew all things (John 21:17). As a man Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), but as God He is the head of all principality and power and we are complete in Him (Col. 2:8-10)

The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the trinity, but simply teaches Jesus has two natures--divine and human, flesh and Spirit. Upon investigating these passages we find they reaffirm that Jesus is the one God and that the Father is manifest in the Son.

CHART

Your chart teaches the Father is not Jesus but Isa.9:6; John 10:30: 14:8-11; Act 2:214 cp John 2:19-21 say He is. The chart says the Father is not the Holy Ghost, but Joel 2:27-29 cp Act 2:1-4, 16-18; John 3:16 cp Matt.1:18-20 & Luke 1:35; and Matt.10:2O cp Mk.13:11 teach that He is. Your chart says Jesus is not the Holy Ghost, yet 1 Pet..1:10-11 cp 2 Pet 1:21; John 6:40 cp Rom 8:11; John 14:16 cp John 14:18 & Matt.28:20; Act 2:4 cp Col.1:27 teach that He is. Who are we to believe, your chart or the Bible?

All the scriptures on your chart have been dealt with on pages 6-9. As we have seen, none of these passages portray the one God as existing as three separate and distinct persons. What they do show is the fallacy of such reasoning. They do affirm the multiple roles and works described by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the dual nature of Christ.

As I said on page 1, Trinitarian scholar, Alexander Hislop, asserts the Babylonians worshipped one God in three persons and used the equilateral triangle as a symbol of this trinity. Thus, we can see the idea of a trinity did not originate with Christendom but that it is a significant feature of many pagan religions and philosophies before the Christian era.

The supplemented chart (number 1) displays the confusion a Trinitarian concept of God would exhibit when compared to the light of the scriptures. Imagine if you would stand up among your preacher brethren and say, " I am the only true gospel preacher and there is none else." What would they think?

WHO SHALL WE WORSHIP

In John 4:21-24 Jesus taught the sole object of worship is the Father, and that "true worshippers shall worship the Father. Why did Jesus accept worship? It's because He is the Father veiled in the flesh (Isa.9:6; Col.2:9; 2 Cor. 5:19). According to Luke 4:8 Jesus said, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God." Thomas called Jesus, "my Lord and my God" (John 20:27-29). Jesus accepted Thomas' worship of Him as Lord and God, worship belonging only to the Father, thus proving Jesus was the Father. Was Thomas wrong in worshipping Jesus as the Father? We must face the obvious fact that unless Jesus Himself was the one Lord and God of the Bible, then He was teaching the people idolatry. Jesus was not wrong and this is why in Col.2:9-10 the scripture says, "for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and we are complete in Him." A Trinitarian interpretation of Luke 4:8 has Jesus saying, "Thou shalt worship the Lords thy God and them only shalt thou serve.

A scriptural statement of logic is: (1) The Father is the sole object of worship (John 4:21-24) . (2) Jesus accepted worship (John 20:27-29). (3) Therefore Jesus is the Father.

Your Heart Fund, Cancer Fund is not a parallel because neither one is the sole fund accepting contributions.

Jesus did not believe in a trinity. To Him the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost were one. One day every knee shall bow to Jesus and confess Him as the one Lord and God. We can do it now as in Ps.95:6-7; Matt.8:2; John 20:28 or later Phil .2:8-9.

ONE: JOHN 10:30

This passage speaks of the absolute oneness of Jesus with the Father. John 10:30 does not say, "I and the Father agree in one", as if they were united in purpose and protection only, but "I am the Father are one." This shows Jesus was identifying Himself as the Father. Jesus as the Father is our protector, and that the Father united with the flesh in such a way as to form one person, Jesus Christ. This claim of Christ was not misconstrued by the strict monotheistic Jews of His audience. They took up stones to kill Him because, "Thou being a man makest thyself God" (vs.33). Furthermore, the context also bears this out. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and we are His sheep. The scriptures plainly state there is only one fold and one shepherd (John 10:16). The context tells us the sheep are in Jesus' hand (vs.28), and the same sheep are in the Fathers' hand (vs.29). Mr. Brown, if you have five pennies in your hand, how can the same five pennies be in my hand at the very same time? The sheep cannot be in both places at the same time unless Jesus is the Father. They both have the same hand so they must be the same person. This level of oneness is beyond our attainment because it speaks of His absolute deity. Jesus said," He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). No matter how united a Christian is with God, He could not make that statement. No matter how united two Christians are, one could not say, " If you have seen me you have seen my friend." The same is true of a husband and wife, even though they are one flesh (Gen.2:24).

John 17:21-22: In this passage, Jesus was praying to the Father. The prayers of Christ do not indicate a distinction of persons between Jesus and the Father, but do show a distinction between the human and divine natures of Christ. Jesus prayed in His humanity, not in His divinity. He prayed as the Son and never as God. Jesus prayed only during the days of His flesh (Heb.5:7). During this time Jesus prayed as the Son of God. God doesn't pray to God, but the Son, man or His humanity prayed to the eternal Spirit which was the Father. Through prayer His human nature learned to submit and be obedient to God (Phil.2:8, Heb.5:7-8). His divine nature did not need help; only the human nature did. As son or man Jesus prayed, but as God He answered prayer. If Jesus was God the son, and He prayed to the Father as a separate divine person, then you have God praying to God. How can one God pray to another God without undeifying the God who is praying? What kind of help could God the Father give God the Son if their co-equal? Why would God have to pray to God? If Jesus prayed as God then His position in the Godhead would be inferior to the other persons. This would indicate that His position in the Godhead is subordinate to and not equal with the first person. Jesus never once prayed as God. He prayed as a man or the Son to the Spirit of the Father. Jesus did not pray to Himself because this incorrectly implies He had only one nature. What would be absurd or impossible for an ordinary man is not so strange with Jesus. The choice is simple. Either Jesus as God prayed to the Father which creates a form of subordinationism or inferior deity which is a denial of the full deity of Christ, or Jesus as a man prayed to the Father showing a distinction between humanity and deity and not between God and God.

In John 17:21-22, Jesus was speaking as a man. This is evident because He was praying. In His humanity, Jesus was one with the Father in the sense of unity of purpose, mind and will. In this sense Christians can also be one with God and each other (Act 4:32; 1 Cor.3:8; Eph.2:14).

As God, Jesus is one with the Father in the sense of identity with the Father - in the sense that He is the Father (John 10:30; 14:9.

TO SEE JESUS WAS TO SEE THE FATHER

John 14:9 Does this verse mean Jesus actually was the Father or that He was simply representing the Father? Let's allow the Bible to speak. The prophet Isaiah said, concerning Jesus, that the child born would be the mighty God and the everlasting Father (Isa.9:6). Jesus, Himself, boldly told Phillip it was the Father that was "dwelling in Him" that did the works (John 14:10). Do you believe what Jesus said? You teach the Spirit that was in Christ was not the Father. Would you have us believe the Bible contradicts itself? Is the deity resident in Christ the Father like He told us it was? When the disciples saw both the Father and the Son in John 15:24, how many persons in the Godhead did they see? The scriptures state, "He that seeth me seeth Him that sent me" (John 12:45). According to John 15:24, they saw and hated both Jesus and the Father but saw only one person, proving when they saw Jesus they saw the Father also. This is why Jesus told Phillip, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" and "from henceforth ye know Him and have seen Him" (John 14:7-9). He was showing them the Father in the Son, God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim.3:16). "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily and ye are complete in Him" (Col.2:9-10).

If Jesus, as the 2nd person of the Godhead, was representing to the world the 1st person of the Godhead, then you need to explain why He did not also represent the 3rd person in the Godhead? Did God the Holy Ghost get miffed about it and decide to come Himself (John 14:16; Act 2:1-4)?

If Jesus is God the Son, as is contended, why didn't He represent His own attributes of deity? This is the inherent confusion of Trinitarian doctrine.

According to John 1:18 and Ex.33:20 the scriptures teach, "no man hath seen God at any time" and that "no man shall see me and live," yet certain Old Testament saints such as Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders saw the God of Israel (Ex.24:9-11; 33:11). Was Moses a false prophet? Did God deceive them? Is the Bible contradictory? N& We must simply rightly divide the Word of Truth. John 4:24 teaches, "God is a Spirit." Certainly no one can see the Spirit of God. You can't see a Spirit, but the Father was seen because Jesus was the Father manifest in the flesh (Isa.9:6; 1 Tim.3:16). He is the express image of the invisible God (Heb.1:3). In the Old Testament the invisible God could and did manifest Himself in various, temporary visible forms that man could see, although no man could see directly the invisible Spirit of God. What the Bible calls God, was and is God and none else. In the New Testament, God permanently manifested Himself in the flesh and revealed Himself fully through Jesus Christ. There is no God visible outside of Jesus. He was not just God appearing in the form of man, but He was God clothed with a real human body and nature. Like many people today, Phillip did not comprehend that the Father is an omnipresent, invisible Spirit, and that the only way anyone could see Him would be through the person of Jesus Christ. Phillip didn't ask Jesus simply to show them something about the Father, he said, "Show us the Father." There was Phillip and the human body of Jesus, eye to eye and nose to nose. Jesus looked him in the eye and said, "he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." He was the visible image of the invisible God (Col.1:15).

According to John 1:18, no man has seen "God" at any time. So your own logic says, (1) men have not actually seen God, (2) but they have actually seen Jesus, (3) therefore, Jesus is not actually God. Was Jesus actually God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim.3:16), or was He just representing God? Was Thomas wrong, upon seeing Jesus, to address Him as his Lord and God (John 20:28)? Did Jesus deceive Thomas when He told him, "because thou hath seen me, thou hath believed" (vs.29)? So, we can understand that when Jesus told Phillip, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:7-10), it was because He actually was the Father manifest in the flesh. He didn't just simply represent the Father to us, He was the Father. There is nothing complicated about it. God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), and He robed that Spirit in a fleshly body and called that body His Son. The God or deity that was in Him was the Father and that is what made Him God.

ONE GOD - ONE PERSON (1 Cor.8:6)

How does God emphasize His oneness as opposed to pagan deities, yet still exist as a plurality? Why do the Jews reject a Trinitarian concept of God, yet insist on absolute monotheism? Was Moses, who saw God face to face, wrong to believe in one God in contrast to a theology of persons? Although Moses dwelt with Jehovah God, Heb.11:26 tells us that his God was Jesus.

You teach 1 Cor.8:6 mentions two persons, but why not three? Why is there no mention of the Holy Ghost? So, even if this passage is interpreted as teaching a separation of persons, which it does not, it wouldn't teach Trinitarianism, but would convey Binitarianism.

If the word "and" separates persons then there would be at least four persons in the Godhead. God Himself, and our Father, and the Lord Jesus (1 Thess.3:11), plus the Holy Ghost equals four persons.

In reality, the apostle Paul was emphasizing the two roles of God and the importance of accepting Him in both roles. Not only must we believe in God as our creator and Father, but we must also accept Him as manifest in the flesh through Jesus Christ. This is why if you know Jesus, you Know the Father; if you see Jesus you see the Father; if you hate Jesus, you hate the Father. 2 John 9 states, "he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." It is also true that if we deny the Son we are denying the Father, but if we acknowledge the Son we have acknowledged the Father also (1 John 2:23). Why? Simply because the Father is manifest in the Son.

GOD IN CHRIST (2 Cor.5:19)

2 Cor.5:19 says, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." Where does the scripture teach that God was in three persons? The apostle Paul is teaching us that we are reconciled by the death of Christ to that deity which was resident in Christ. What God was in Christ? If Jesus is the incarnation of only one of three divine persons then, according to this verse, we are not reconciled to the Father or the Spirit. It would teach we are reconciled only to the God that was in Christ which was God the Son.

Since this passage does not teach a plurality of persons in the Godhead, all you can do is propose an alternative. Your logic of comparing 1 John 4:15 to 2 Cor.5:19 shows you are willing to strip Christ of His deity in order to maintain a Trinitarian concept of God. Any teaching which concludes that God being in Christians doesn't make them God anymore than God dwelling in Christ makes Jesus God is absurd. Are you willing to say that in you dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily as in Col.2:9? Can you honestly affirm that, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father" as Jesus did in John 14:9? Anytime you use scriptures that speak of the incarnation of God in Christ and compare this to God dwelling in Christians, then you find yourself faced with insurmountable problems incapable of being upheld.

2 Cor.5:19 proclaims, "God was in Christ." Oneness doctrine teaches the God which was in Christ was the Father, because this is what the Bible teaches (Mal.2:10: 1 Cor.8:6; John 14:9-10; John 10:30; Isa.9:6). The holy scriptures never taught the divine Spirit in Jesus was a divine Son Spirit as you believe.

JESUS' INHERITED NAME

Danny, we do not teach the Father "is" the son, but that the Father is "in" the Son. Please let this sink in. The importance of this has been explained on pages 7-8.

Concerning your illustration, if the term true gospel preacher were applied to Mr. Harper and also to Mr. Black, yet there was only one true gospel preacher (John 17:3) could you imagine the havoc Mr. Harper would instigate if he stood up among his brethren and said, " I am the only true gospel preacher and there is none else" (Isa. 45:21-23; Deut 32:39). Just what should be concluded? That Mr. Harper and Mr. Black are the same person, or that Mr. Harper has an ego problem? Then, when Mr. Harper goes a step further and says, "When you have seen me, you have seen Mr. Black" (John 14:9), either Mr. Harper is Mr. Black or he is ready for a straight jacket.

How can you honestly state the one referred to as "God the Father" is never referred to as Jesus in the New Testament? Well, first you need to explain what is wrong with the Old Testament record? What is the matter with Isa.9:6? As I have already stated, this is one plain reference in the Old Testament where God is called a Father in reference to the Son. Here Isaiah says Jesus is the Father. Does not this deal a death-blow to the theory, that the Son is a separate person, eternally distinct from the Father? The New Testament scriptures also bear this out (John 10:30; 14:9-19; Col.2:9; 1 John 5:20).

Heb.1:4 This teaches us the Father's name is Jesus since the Son received it by inheritance. Your name is Brown simply because your father's name is Brown. That is why the name Brown was given to you. Jesus did not have a human Father as you did. The eternal Spirit Fathered the flesh (Luke 1:35), making Him both God and man. The Spirit gave the flesh His name. The only distinction in the Godhead is Spirit and flesh, and not between separate and distinct persons.

Eph.4:4.-6 This has already been explained on pages 11-12, but I might add this is another dilemma of Trinitarian doctrine because it states that in addition to the one Lord, and one Spirit, and one Father, that there is one God which makes four persons in your Godhead. If there is only one God, and only one of your four persons is God, then you have three persons who are not God and couldn't even be in the Godhead. In reality, there is one Lord (Eph.4:5) who is Jesus (Act 9:5). The apostle Paul said in 2 Cor.3:17, concerning the one Spirit, that "the Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit." There is one God, the Father (1 Cor.8:6) and according to Isa.9:6, Jesus is this mighty God and everlasting Father.

Zech.14:9 The Old Testament prophesied there would come a time when Jehovah would have one name and this one would be made known (Isa.52:6). Jesus means Jehovah-Saviour. This is why the angel said to call His name Jesus, "for He (Jehovah God) shall save His people from their sins." The name of Jesus is the name of God that He promised to reveal, and it encompassed all the other names of God within its' meaning. That is why at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven, earth, and under the earth (Phil.2:9-11; Isa.45:22-23). According to Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon (Bauer's) page 572, "That when the name of Jesus is mentioned every knee should bow" (emphasis mine). Either the Father is Jesus, or His knee would also bow to this name.

FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD

Col.2:9-10 States "for in Him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead (according to your definition on page one: Deity or the state of being God) bodily. And ye are complete in Him" (not them). This scripture proves without a doubt the deity of Jesus Christ. Now all you need to do is believe what Jesus said concerning the deity which was in Him. He said it was the "Father" that was in Him (John 14:10) and not a separate divine Son Spirit.

You reluctantly bring out "bodily", when this is the whole crux of the matter. He is the bodily manifestation of every thing God is. All the attributes of the Godhead, or the state of being God, was in, Jesus. If the Godhead consisted of three separate and distinct persons, as your theory suggests, then they would all be resident in the bodily form of Jesus. Jesus is the incarnation of the fullness of the Godhead. He is God manifest in the flesh.

Your comparison of Eph.3:19 dealing with the fullness of God a believer can have and associating that with Col.2:9-10 which speaks of the fullness of God that dwell bodily in Christ, causes me to wonder about the sincerity of your heart regarding this subject. Insinuating Col.2:9-10 doesn't place Jesus in the Godhead anymore than Eph.3:19 places us in the Godhead is absurd. Again, you sacrifice the deity of Christ and even join hands with the Jehovah Witnesses in order to uphold the traditions of men. I don't say this to be facetious, but you want to praise Christ while you plunder Him. Paul said believers might be filled with all the fullness of God, Not the Godhead which is entirely a different matter. As believers, we are baptized with the Holy Ghost and are filled with the presence and the riches of the graces of God in Christ. Col.2:9-10 is a scripture attributed only to Jesus Christ. There is no verse in the Bible that says in any Christian dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and the world is complete in brother John Doe. No one has ever lived like Jesus. There was never any God before Him or after Him, and we are complete in Him. Why do I need a plurality in the Godhead when all I need is in Him? Would Paul have said we are complete in Jesus if we needed two more persons? N& He meant exactly what he said. Col.2:9-10 shows one God consisting of flesh and Spirit and not separate persons.

Summing up your questions: (1) Does Eph.3:19 mean Christians are God? Answer: No. (2) Does Col.2:9-10 make Jesus the person of the Godhead? Answer: Yes. (3) Now, you need to consider your own logic. If the fullness of God dwelling in Christians doesn't make them God (Eph.3:19), why would the fullness of the Godhead in Christ make Jesus God?

As long as we are asking and answering questions, you might answer this one: Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? In Col.2:9-10 I can read my proposition right from the Bible. This verse completely substantiates my position. I don't need any other scripture. If the Godhead is in Jesus, then He is complete God. On the other hand, if Jesus is the second member of a three person Godhead and each member is separate and distinct from the other and each is God, then you have three Gods anyway you look at it. Each is either full God, making three Gods or each is one-third of God making the one complete Godhead. Who ever heard of a one- third God? I submit to you that if each of them was only a third of God then while Jesus was in the grave the Godhead was only two-thirds complete. Which is your position?

GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH

1 Tim.3:16 teaches God was manifest in the flesh of Jesus Christ. Where is the verse where God was manifest in three persons? I am honestly appalled you would portray yourself as a true gospel preacher then try you best to strip Christ of His deity simply because the scriptures do not measure up to the preconceived ideas of your group. In your tract, you affirm Jesus is God, then you attempt to disprove His deity because of your refusal to believe what Jesus said concerning the Father. The deity or the divine Spirit in Him was the Father (John 14:9-10) and that is what made Him God. So all you can do is propose an alternative. Do you really believe John the Baptist manifested Christ in the same way that God manifested Himself in the flesh? 1Tim.3:16 is dealing with the incarnation, the fact of humanity and deity uniting together in the Son of God. This is the mystery the Jews could not comprehend. They could not understand how Jesus, being a man, could be God at the same time. They thought such an idea was blasphemy (John 10:33; 5:18; Matt.26:64-65; Luke 5:20-26). Danny, should we consider not using 1 Tim.3:16 as proof of the deity of Christ because John the Baptist and the apostle Paul manifested Jesus to the world? Your statement of logic is as follows: (1) John the Baptist manifested Jesus, yet John was not Jesus. (2) Paul manifested Christ, yet Paul was not Christ. (3) God was manifested in Jesus, yet Jesus was not God. I thank God this is not what I believe.

THE EXPRESS IMAGE (Heb.1:3)

You admit Jesus is the express image of the Father then deny He is the Father. Would you believe me if I gave you a photograph? (See supplemental chart #2).

Heb.1:3 The word translated "express image" means to cut or engrave and was used to describe imprinted images and pictures on coins. It's modern day counterpart would be a photograph. Arndt and Gingrich (Bauer's) Lexicon page 876, translates Heb.1:3 as the "exact representation of His (God's) nature." Since you believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct persons which compose the one Godhead, I wonder why they never seem to hang around together bodily? Every time God is seen, the "photograph" always shows one and not three (Gen.28:12-16; 32:24-32; Ex.24:9-11; Ezek.1:26-28). Any picture or vision of God showing more than one is an idol. God never manifested Himself as more than one divine being.

The Son of God is not a separate person in the Godhead, but is the visible manifestation of the Father in the flesh (Col.1:15). Heb.1:3 does identify Jesus with the Father. He is the exact representation of the Father. The invisible God (Father) manifested Himself in visible flesh as the Son (1 Tim.3:16; Isa.9:6; John 1:1,14). God made an exact likeness of Himself in the flesh, impressed His very nature in flesh, came Himself in .that flesh, so men could see and know Him. He is the exact expression of the Spirit of God in the flesh. The "express image of His person" (person / upostaseos: nature, essence, actual being) Bauer's lexicon page 847. It would be illogical and unreasonable to suppose that Christ, who is the "express image" of the Father, as you admit, is not of the substance of the Father and hence the Father. Christians are not the "express image" of God, the "exact representation of His nature or essence" in the flesh. No, we cannot say as Jesus did, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). There is no verse in the Bible that says in any Christian dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily and the world is complete in brother John Doe.

WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD?

Why didn't you explain exactly just who raised Jesus from the dead? You did not state your position or attempt to explain this in your tract. Was it God the Father, or did Jesus, as a separate person, raise Himself from the grave? Did a dead God raise Himself? Surely you don't believe two persons raised Jesus from the grave? If the Father raised Jesus from the grave, did Christ purposely deceive us in John 2:19-21? If Jesus raised Himself, did God the Father make an idle boast He couldn't keep?

Mr. Brown, you need to ask yourself just how much of Jesus is God? Is Jesus a member of the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Jesus (Col.2:9) as oneness doctrine teaches? If Jesus is one person and He is God, and the Father is another person and He is God, and the Holy Ghost is another person and He is also God, then what you have is three separate and distinct persons. Each is either full God making three gods which is tritheism, or each of your persons is one-third of God making the one complete God. As I said before, whoever heard of a one-third God? So, when you teach Jesus is a member of the Godhead and each of them was a third part of God, then while Jesus was in the grave the Godhead was only two-thirds complete. If Jesus was God the Son, then the God that was the Son died. If the Son part of Him was divine, then when the son or flesh part of Him died---God died. If God died then you have dead deity. These are inherent dilemmas of Trinitarian doctrine.

The truth of the matter is God raised the body (Act 2:24). The eternal Spirit raised up the flesh (1 Pet.3:18). I submit to you, Jesus used that personal pronoun "I" in reference to Himself as the Father (John 2:19-21).

A syllogism is a statement of logic, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion. If the major and minor premises are correct, then the conclusion has to be correct. The scriptures state: (1) The Father raised Jesus from the dead (Gal.1:1); (2) Jesus said concerning His dead body that in three days "I" will raise it up (John 2:19-21); (3) therefore Jesus as the Father raised His body from the grave. Let's try it from a different perspective: (1) The Father raised the body of Jesus from the dead (Gal.1:1); (2) Jesus is the Father (John 14:9; Isa.9:6): (3) therefore Jesus as the Father raised His body from the dead (John 2:19-21). I affirm this yet Danny Brown denies it. Your syllogism on sanctification is not comparing, as the saying goes, apples to apples. Sanctification is a progressive work accomplished by the scriptures, which are not a divine being, and by the Holy Ghost. The raising up of Jesus was to be accomplished by an "I", a solitary being without assistance. Teaching Jesus as the Father raised Himself from the dead is certainly not defective reasoning as you suggest. This is simply rightly dividing the Word of Truth which keeps man-made traditions and doctrinal error, such as a Catholic concept of a Trinitarian Godhead from infiltrating God's church.

The following is a syllogism built from your proposition: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each God (page 3 of your tract); The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate persons (page 1 of your tract); (3) therefore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate Gods. I deny this, yet Danny Brown is bound by Trinitarian theology and Church of Christ doctrine to affirm it. I don't think any honest person can see how the raising up of Jesus can be ascribed to the Father and to Jesus without the Father being Jesus.

WHO IS THE FATHER OF JESUS?

You talk about a new revelation! How can you explain the 2nd person of the trinity being fathered by the 3rd person of the trinity and yet be called the Son of the 1st person of the trinity? Don't tell me, God the Father is the Father of Jesus, but God the Holy Ghost did the begetting. Danny, the one who does the begetting is the Father. Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon page 155, says "beget" literally means to become the father of, and listed Matt.1:20 as an example of it. How can you believe the Holy Ghost is the begetter of the Son, then deny the one who did the begetting is the Father? The truth of the matter is paternity was attributed to the "third person." I don't know anyone who would claim paternity when the seed was placed in the womb by someone else. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not referring to anything derogatory about the Biblical record. The problem is with the Churches of Christ and all other Trinitarians who don't know the oneness of the mighty God in Christ. The Bible teaches God the Father, which is a Spirit, (John 4:24) is the Holy Ghost. That's why in Joel 2:28, God said He would pour out His Spirit, and when that happened at Pentecost, Peter called it the Holy Ghost (Act 2:1-17). This is why the Holy Ghost came on Mary (Luke 1:35; Matt.1:20). We don't believe that was a person, but a Spirit. That which was in Mary was of God the Father, because the Father was the begetter. Jesus had one Father and that one Father was God, who is the Holy Ghost.

Now really, Danny, would you have me believe Christians are begotten the same way the Holy Ghost begot Christ? When Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of the water and the Spirit and you associate that with the literal birth of the Son of God, then you possible have more problems than I can help you with. I don't recall where the incarnation of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:35; Matt.1:18-20) and the baptism of the Holy Ghost (Act 2:1-4; John 3:5) are parallel accounts. Perhaps I need enlightened on this. Jesus was called the Son of God because He was begotten by the Holy Ghost in the womb of Mary. The one who does the begetting is the Father. You can shake your head and renounce this until the end of the age, but your denials will never alter the Word of God.

John 14:26 has been explained on pages 12-13. It's clear the terms Father and Holy Ghost are simply two different descriptions of the one God. The two terms describe the same being but emphasize the different roles He possesses. You are supposed to be proving three persons in the Godhead and so far you have not.

You need to understand that if Mary gave birth to a divine God the Son, then that means the Son part of Him was God. So, you have Mary being the Mother of God, God begetting God, and God being the Father of God which would make God the Father our Grandfather.

CRACKED NUTS

John 8:28: Rom.15:3 If Jesus was God the Son, a separate person from the Father, why couldn't He do anything to please Himself? Jesus said, "I can of my own self do nothing" (John 5:30). Was He a divine person, a member of the Godhead, yet unable to do anything of Himself or please Himself? Here again you portray one God being subordinated to another God. Where is the co-equality among the members of the Godhead? Actually, these scriptures bring out the dual nature of Jesus Christ. As a man He could do nothing of Himself, but as God He could do all things. Jesus was both fully man and fully God. One nature is human or fleshly; The other nature is divine or Spirit. When we read a statement about Jesus we must determine if it describes Jesus as a man or as God. Whenever we see a description of two natures with respect to Jesus, we should not think of two persons in a Godhead or two Gods, but we should think of Spirit and flesh. This is the key to understanding the Godhead. Once you understand who Jesus really is, the God of the Old Testament robed in flesh, all the scriptures fall into place.

Matt.10:32 This verse does not describe one God confessing us to another God or this would create the belief in two Gods. Moreover, "persons" would imply separate intelligence's in the one deity, a concept that cannot be distinguished from polytheism. This verse does show a distinction of Jesus in His role as the Son of God and His role as the Father. The sonship allows God to judge man. As the Father he will judge no man (John 5:22,27). God will perform all judgement through Jesus as the Son of God because He is the visible, bodily manifestation of God's fullness (Col.2:9). It's in His role as the Son of God that He will judge the saints and acknowledge us as faithful believers. (Matt.25:31-34).

John 14:24 Was Jesus, as a member of the Godhead, not able to speak His own words, or teach His own doctrine (John 7:16-17)? Was Jesus, as God, not able to teach His own commandments (John 12:49-50; 15:10)? Did God send God (John 3:16)? Where is the co-equality among the members of the Godhead, when one of them can't speak His own words, or teach His own doctrine or commandments? Don't they agree with each other as you implied in your tract? Your concept of the Godhead has Jesus, as God, being inferior and subjected to another person who also is God. What this verse does teach is a distinction between the flesh and the Spirit. It describes the relationship of Christ's human nature as man to His divine nature as God. As to His humanity, He increased in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52), but as to His deity, He is the only wise God (Jude 25) and the Almighty (Rev.1:8). The flesh or the humanity of the Son was inferior and subordinate to His deity. God was not inferior or subordinate to God as your doctrine teaches.

John 14:28 According to Trinitarian doctrine this verse teaches God the Father, the 1st person of the trinity, is greater than God the Son, the 2nd person of the trinity. You have God greater than God. If the Son is inferior to the Father as God, then the Son could not be fully God. How can one be co-equal with someone who is greater than He is? My position is the Son refers to the humanity, and God was manifest in that humanity. Once again the distinction is between the flesh and the Spirit, the humanity and the deity of Jesus, and not between separate and distinct persons in the Godhead. It was the flesh that was human, inferior, weak, and the flesh that died. Your position is that the flesh was God, so you have a God that was human, inferior, weak, and a God that died.

Heb.9:24 Your supposed to be proving three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead. Instead you are bringing out scriptures that deal with the dual nature of Christ. The context is speaking of the sacrifice of Christ, His death and His shed blood, all of which refer to His humanity. The ''presence of God' shows a contrast between His human and divine natures. The resurrected, glorified human body of Christ entered the presence of the eternal Spirit. You need to answer your own questions. Was Jesus God? Did God enter the presence of God? Was He God on earth yet not already in His own presence (the presence of God)? Your answer conveys a multiplicity of gods. One God on earth, and a separate and distinct person who is God in heaven.

1 Cor.15:24-28 The Son is delivering up the kingdom, the Son is being subjected to the Father. You have one coequal divine person everlastingly subject to another co-equal divine person. Where is the co-equality among the persons of your Trinitarian concept of one God, if divine person #2 (God the Son) is going to be eternally subjected to divine person #1 (God the Father)? How can you harmonize your conception of God the Son being equal with God the Father (Phil.2:6), and yet have Him being eternally subjected to the Father? Will Christ cease to reign? Will His kingdom end? You have the 2nd person delivering up His kingdom to the 1st person, yet the Bible says He (Jesus) shall reign forever and that His kingdom will never end (Luke 1:33; Heb.1:8). The Biblical truth is that there is a day coming when the sonship ministry of Jesus will cease. This is the subjection of the Son, not the subjection of Jesus, because Jesus is more than the Son. He is the supreme deity. Jesus is the name of the Father and the Son. When the reasons for the sonship cease to exist, such as redemption, mediation, millennium reign, judgement, etc..., Jesus will cease acting in His role as the Son and will be God forever. He will not be eternally known as the subjected Son, but will be eternally known as the mighty God and everlasting Father. According to Eph.5:27, the answer to your question is clear. "That He (Christ) might present it to Himself a glorious church...". Jesus in His role as Son, and as His final act as the Son, will present the church to Himself, as the Father. Jesus will reign as God forever.

Heb.1:14: Act.7:55-60 Danny, it's entirely possible to sit own your own right hand. It may not be comfortable, but one can sit on one's own right hand. It is definitely tougher to stand on one's own right hand, especially the older you get. Now what I believe would be an even greater accomplishment would be for a Son to literally sit on His Father's right hand (Heb.1:14), and at the very same time stand on His Father's right hand (Act 7:55), while also being in the bosom of His Father (John 1:18). That would definitely be a neat trick. Maybe you will be so kind as to explain this. You also need to explain how Stephan "saw" God when the Bible declares "no man (including Stephan) has seen God at any time" (John 1:18), and again "whom no man hath seen nor can see" (1 Tim.6:16). Stephan did not say, "I see Jesus and God." He knew better than that because God is a Spirit and as such He is invisible. It is impossible to see anything that is invisible. Stephan prayed to Jesus, ignoring any others, because he did not nor could not have seen two persons.

What is meant by the expression "the right hand of God?" I think you know this is figurative of the power and the authority of God. In Ex.8:19, when God was cursing Egypt with plagues, showing through Moses and Aaron these miracles, the magicians of Pharaoh said, "this is the finger of God." Did the magicians of Pharaoh actually see the literal finger of God, or did they witness the power and authority of God? In Ex.15:6, Moses and the Israelites, on the safe side of the Red Sea, claimed to have seen the "right hand of God" when the waters fell in upon the armies of Egypt and they were drowned. What did they actually witness? The literal right hand of God come down and part the waters, or a tremendous manifestation of the power of God? In Luke 11:20, did Jesus, while on earth casting out devils, have a literal finger off the hand of another divine person, leaving the other being in heaven with a finger missing? Or, did Jesus cast out devils by the authority and power of God? What did Stephan actually see? He saw the exalted Christ. Stephan saw the glory of God when he saw Jesus. He saw Jesus radiating the glory of God that He possessed as God and with all the power and authority of God. This is why the scriptures affirm he called on God saying, "Lord Jesus receive My spirit." Only God the Father receives the spirits of men at death (Ecc.12:7; Heb.12:9). Stephan knew this and yet he called upon Jesus to receive his spirit. Stephan believed Jesus was God and Father veiled in the flesh. If your concept of God is right then Stephan committed his spirit to the wrong member of the trinity.

(1) John 17:21 No, Jesus was not praying for all believer to become one person any more than Jesus as God was praying to God. In this passage Jesus spoke as a man, as the Son. This is evident because He was praying to the Father. God does not need to pray. How could one God pray to another God without undeifying the God who is doing the praying? Why would God have to pray to God? Why would God have to answer God? Jesus never once prayed as God. He prayed as the flesh or the Son to the Spirit of the Father. With His humanity in view, we can see Jesus was one with the Father in the sense of unity of purpose, mind, and will. In this sense Christians can be one with God and each other (Act 4:32; 1 Cor.3:8-9).

Other passages of scripture describe the oneness of Jesus with the Father in a way that transcends mere unity of purpose, and in a way that identifies Jesus as the Father. This is a level of oneness that is beyond our attainment because it speaks of His absolute deity (John 10:30-33; 14:9). Can you say in all sincerity, that when you see Danny Brown you have seen Max Dawson? I think not, yet Jesus said this is how He and the Father are one.

(2) John 1:1.14 Danny Brown believes the God that became flesh was separate and distinct from the God He was with. You have God with God. This is a scriptural and theological impossibility. How can you teach there is only one God, then tell me this one God is separate and distinct from the God He was with? This scripture does not say another divine person was with God. It states the Word was with God, and was God. The term "Word" is from the Greek "Logos" which means a thought or concept. In other words, God's thoughts were with Him in the beginning and were a part of Him. It is impossible to separate God from His thoughts. This is how the Word could be with God and, at the same time be God Himself. The Word is not a separate person from God any more than your word is a separate person from yourself. Can you make two persons out of a man and his word? Are you two persons? The incarnation existed in the thought and mind of God before the world began. In the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (1 Pet.1:19-20; Rev.13:8). When the fullness of time was come, God put His thoughts and plan into action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ. Furthermore, if "God" in John 1:1 means God the Father, then you are affirming my proposition and the Biblical position by proving, "the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father."

Once again you portray the Godhead as an existence of separate and distinct gods, minds, and wills. One in the respect that they united together for a common purpose. By your definition to be "one in plan, one in doctrine, one in protection yet distinct in person (page 2 of your tract). This is polytheism and not the monotheism of the Bible.

(3) We believe in the existence of a supreme being before the incarnation at Bethlehem. We believe in God's existence from eternity. God existed as an omnipresent (1 Kings 8:21; Jer.23:23-24; Ps.139:7-l0), omniscient (Ps.139:1-6; Act 2:23; Job 42:2), omnipotent (1Tim.6:15; Rev.19:6; Gen.17:1), eternal (Deut.33:27; 1 Tim.1:17), invisible (1 Tim.1:17; 6:16; John 1:18), Spirit (John 4:24). A Spirit is not a person. If a Spirit is a person, then according to Rev.5:6, where it talks about the seven Spirits of God, the Godhead would consist of seven persons. If God's Spirit is a person, then the Son's Spirit is a person separate and apart from His body or flesh, so you would divide Christ into two persons (Nestorianism). Webster's defines person as an individual human body or being; the personality of a human being. God was a man or human only as He was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim.3:16). God was a Spirit before Bethlehem and that Spirit was in the body of Jesus Christ after the incarnation. That's the way the Godhead is, Spirit and flesh. The Father is Spirit and the Son is the flesh. The word person does not appear in relation to God except once in the KJV (Heb.1:3), where it means God's nature or substance. Jesus is the express image of God's person (nature or substance). If you use the Greek definition of person in Heb.1:3, and then divide God into three separate and distinct persons (substances or natures) then you have three Gods (or three divine natures) any way you look at it. You are continually present a Godhead consisting of three separate and distinct natures, personalities, minds, and wills. This reduces the concept of God's oneness to a unity of plural persons and converts monotheism into polytheism. The Bible never uses the plural word "persons" to describe God. (The only possible exception would be Job 13:10, "He will surely reprove you, if you do secretly accept persons." This verse obviously demolishes Trinitarianism if it applies to God).

(4) In Christ, God had a human body and now has a glorified, immortal, human body. God will not cease using the glorified and resurrected body of Jesus Christ. Jesus will continue to use His glorified body throughout eternity as indicated in Rev.22:3-5.

(5) By now you must realize the word "person" connotes a human being with a human personality. God manifested Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He had a dual nature--human and divine or flesh and Spirit. He is the Father as to His deity and the Son as to His humanity. Jesus is the one God manifested in the flesh as a human person.

By the nature of your question, you are insinuating your belief that the flesh or body of Jesus was divine or God. This is an admission of having a God that is weak, a God that had to pray, and a God that died. If that flesh or humanity was God, then the Roman Catholics would be correct in calling Mary the Mother of God. I am glad this is your position and not mine.

CONCLUSION

Danny, in the statement of truth (page 1 of your tract) you said, "The scriptures teach that there are three separate persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost." I am always interested in scriptural truth, so I tried to read your tract as carefully as I could. I was a little disappointed in failing to find the scriptural basis for your Trinitarian concept of God. I searched through your twenty page tract several times to look for it. Perhaps you overlooked printing part of it.

You have assumed and asserted the Godhead consist of three persons and even went so far as to say the scriptures teach this. As of yet not one verse has been produced that teaches God exists as three separate and distinct persons. You did prove there is only one God (Oeut.6:4), but Christians already affirm this to be true. You did show there are distinctions between the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but this we also believe to be true (page 2 of this reply under "Definition of Terms"). You are supposed to prove these terms indicate three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead. This has not, nor could not be accomplished because it would imply a Godhead consisting of three separate and distinct persons, personalities, minds, wills and gods. This concept is foreign to the Bible and therefore impossible and must be rejected.

Deut.6:4 is the classic expression of one God. One God which is absolutely and indivisible one with no distinction of persons. God has made it plain that no plurality exists in the Godhead. The scriptures affirm God is absolutely one in number, and that Jesus is the one God and Father manifest in the Son. From the bible we see Jesus had two distinct natures in a way no other human being had. One nature is human; the other nature is divine or Spirit. Jesus was both fully man and fully God. The scriptures describe a level of oneness of Jesus with the Father that is above our attainment because it speaks of His absolute deity. In John 14:9, Jesus said, "he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." No matter how united a husband and a wife are, they could not make that statement. So, the oneness of Jesus with the Father means more than human relationships can attain. As God, Jesus is one with the Father in the sense of identity with the Father; in the sense that He is the Father.

It is clear the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can only denote different roles, titles, or manifestations of the one God. When the scriptures speak of Jesus as the Father, they refer to what He is as to His deity. The title Father emphasizes His role as Father and creator of all (Mal.2:1O), as the Father of born-again believers (Rom.8:14-16), as the Father of the only begotten Son (John 3:16). When the scriptures speak of Jesus as the Son, they refer to what He is relative to His humanity. God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim.3:16; 2 Cor.5:19). He is the Father as to His deity and the Son as to His humanity. The scriptures never equate the Son with deity alone or deity apart from humanity. Heb.1:8 is not calling that flesh God, but clearly refers to the deity "in" the Son. The Father in Him was the God that was there. The term Holy Ghost emphasizes He who is Holy, omnipresent, and is an invisible Spirit, actively works in the lives and affairs of mankind. It speaks of His ability to baptize, fill, and indwell human lives. The Holy Ghost is not a separate person from the Father any more than a man and his spirit are separate persons.

In conclusion, the scripture's portray God as one being with one personality, mind and will. He has one visible body, the glorified human body of Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus is the revealed name of God in the New Testament (John 5:43; 14:26; Matt.1:21). Therefore, we correctly administer water baptism using the name of Jesus (Act 2:38). The Bible message is that Jesus is the one God manifest in the flesh. God, our Father and creator, loved us so much He robed Himself in flesh to come as our redeemer, and fills our hearts with His own Spirit.

When we look at Jesus, we see the express image of God. On the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt.17) Peter, James, and John saw a cloud and heard a voice saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Finally, after the cloud was gone the Bible says, "They saw Jesus only." You may look long and hard for other persons, but when the cloud is gone you will see only one... Jesus. He is the only visible person of God. To say the name of Jesus is to speak of the everlasting Father. He has all power in heaven and earth. Jesus is "the Alpha an Omega, the beginning and the ending... which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Col.2:9-10 is a great passage of warning, instruction, and inspiration with regard to the precious truths of the oneness of God and the deity of Jesus Christ. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power." Amen!

                                                                        Sincerely in truth,

                                                      Robert Fenner

CHART #1

 

The Havoc a Trinitarian View Of The Godhead Would Create In Heaven

CHART #2