The Tri-Unity Of God


I can see how the Tri-unity of God could be misunderstood. Man tries to figure out God by relating Him to human experience. What human experience cannot comprehend it tends to deny or reform to something that can be understood. In doing this, people replace revelation with reason, reason that is limited to finite human limitations. It is only normal that the nature of God would be a mystery. Some have denied the tri-une nature of God, ascribing it to paganism. Still others have misrepresented it as tri-theism as in Mormonism which teaches the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct Gods. This leaves us with three Gods instead of one; although Mormonism accepts multiple Gods of unknown number. The Watch Tower Society misrepresents the tri-unity of God as the christian three headed God. But the doctrine of the tri-unity does not teach three Gods in One. Tri-unity is actually a better term for the doctrine of what's more commonly known as the Trinity. The United Pentecostal Church also has trouble with the Christian definition of tri-unity. They seem to understand our concept of the tri-unity as three Gods. They think of God as one person who fulfills the role of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; much like a man can be a husband, a father, and a boss of some company. This would be easier to understand from our point of view, but revelation does not support that idea.

A good definition of the Tri-unity would be, that within the nature of the one, single, true, God, there is the distinction of three persons; Father, Son ( Word ), and Holy Ghost; without dividing His substance nor confusing the persons. This is admittedly a concept that is foreign to human experience. God can speak in His being; i.e. the One true God, or He can speak from His persons; i.e. Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father. Neither one is the other in their persons. Yet somehow, they are all three one and the same God.

There may be a few examples that we could use to explain this although none will ever help us fully understand the tri-une nature of Deity. Let us take light, for example. Light is both particle and wave in its make-up. Particle is not wave, neither is wave particle. They behave in different ways. Yet being two separate and distinct units they are nonetheless the same essence of light. Also within white light there is a spectrum of seven colors. You, no doubt, have seen a rainbow. The seven colors are not seven separate suns. These seven colors, being many, and distinct are nevertheless one single light source. Another example would be water. Water can exist in three states; Solid, liquid, and gas: or Ice, water, and steam. Cold water sinks. Ice, on the other hand, floats. Steam rises into the air. Steam is hot, ice is cold, water can be either or. You can walk on ice but not on steam or water. As you can see, there are different properties and functions and applications here. But we are only talking about water. One solitary substance not three. I also noticed that a banana can be divided into three separate sections lengthwise. These are three separate and distinct portions all made of the exact same stuff. All three portions combine to form one single banana. The three persons of the God-Head work in different ways but are of one substance; i.e. One solitary God.

Having said this, however, is not the same as saying we can figure out the tri-une nature of Deity. But to accept it on the basis of revelation is a matter of faith. To reject it in spite of revelation is a matter of unbelief. Let's look at scripture now and see what the Bible teaches concerning the Tri-unity. By way of introducing this portion of our study let's turn to I Jn.5:7. In the Kings James Version it says, " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I am aware that this particular verse has been said by its critics not to be originally part of the earliest manuscripts and was probably an addition to the text. This is why other versions of the scriptures have omitted this verse. It must be pointed out, however, that this assumption is a matter of opinion. It is an assumption that must be accepted by faith. For it can not be known to have not been part of the original autographs due to the fact that the original autographs do not exist. Therefore this statement can not really be confirmed nor denied. Because it is not found in many manuscripts may only mean that it was omitted from those as it is from versions in our day.

I Jn. 5:7 is not without out its evidence of belonging to the text. For example, let me quote the I Jn.5:7 note from the Defenders Study Bible, page 1416. " This verse is the famous " Johannine Comma, " as it has been called, and it obviously carries the clearest and most explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the Bible. However, it is only found in manuscripts of the Latin Bible and in four Greek manuscripts so is believed by many Biblical scholars to have been a pious addition or marginal annotation by some unknown ancient copyist...On the other hand, since it does fit perfectly in the context, it also seems that this verse could well have been in John's original autograph, and then been expunged from most of the accessible manuscripts at the height of the Arian controversy in the fourth century...It would seem much more likely for Origen or Arius, both of whom rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Biblical inerrancy, or one of their followers in the third or fourth centuries to boldly excise the offending verse...Despite the weight of scholarly opinion to the contrary, the internal evidence, as well as the testimony of the Latin manuscripts, and such later authorities as Erasmus and the Reformers...strongly argues that the Johannine Comma was actually written by John in his epistle and should still be regarded as part of the true text."

Notice two things mentioned in the above quotation. The author, Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research in El Cajon, Ca. mentions two basic points that I wish to comment on. First he says, " It would seem much more likely for Origen or Arius...or one of their followers in the third or fourth centuries to boldly excise the offending verse." This statement has evidence to support it due to the fact that during that time, the verse was cited by Cyprian in 255A.D. showing that the verse existed at that time. Thus it could very well have been omitted from many manuscripts of that day. The verse was used again by writers in 380, 385,439, and 534 A.D. Cassiodorus who was involved in translating scriptures mentions it in in 480 A.D.

Dr. Morris also appealed to internal evidence, that is, evidence for the verse in the scriptures themselves. Not only does it fit with the Biblical doctrine of the Tri-unity but it also fits the Johannine style of writing which is peculiar to him among the New Testament writers. At this point it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that Jesus was not called the Son into eternity past. He was called the Son at His incarnation. Therefore the title "Son" is one that refers to His incarnation. For example, " And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore [ for this reason, or for this cause ] also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." - Lk.1:35. The apostle John, however, addresses Him by His Preincarnation title which is the "Word of God". This is peculiar to John. Note, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - Jn.1:1. It is not until after the incarnation ( Jn.1:14 ) " the Word was made flesh..." that John calls Him " the only begotten Son..." vs.18. In keeping with this usage of the word " Word " we find John again writing, " That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"- I Jn.1:1. Also in Revelation 19:13, " And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called the Word of God."

Is it unreasonable to believe, then, that John would write, " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:" instead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Not at all. Dr. Morris has made some great points in his note on I Jn.5:7 and it shows great spiritual character on his part to defend the verse and not just run with the crowd; no matter how sincere they may be. We are not so much to exalt sincerity or scholarship as we are truth.


But as we look at this verse we see three persons; One called the Father, one called the Word, and one called the Holy Ghost. The Bible also addresses these three as separate persons or entities but not as separate Gods. For example, Jn.1:1 " The Word was with God " The Word was not only God Himself but was with God. If I am with someone there must be another someone there for me to be with. This idea is born out again in Jn.17:5 " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Jesus was obviously praying to another other than Himself. He also uses the preposition "with" again. I with You. Also in Hebrews 1:5-6, the scriptures read, " ...I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son. And again, when he bringeth the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Note the words " I will be to Him " and " He will be to me ". I and Him are two separate persons, I, being the Father, and Him, being the Son. We see one person who is stationary ( the Father ), and one person in transition ( the Son ); i.e. when He ( the Father - stationary ) brings the first begotten ( the Son - in transition ) into the world He ( the Father ) instructs the angels to worship Him ( the Son ).

Jesus Himself spoke of that transition in Jn.6:38, " For I came down from heaven..." Also in Jn.6:51, " I am the living bread which came down from heaven..." And again in Jn. 8:23, " And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." The incarnation is how the Son of God came into our world. Are we to assume that during the 3 years or so that Jesus walked on earth that there was no God in heaven. Imagine Satan entering into heaven and God not being there. The book of Job tells us that Satan still has access to heaven

The United Pentecostal church claims that Heb.1:6 is conversation between the divine nature of Jesus, and His Human nature. They separate Jesus dual nature into two persons. However, where God says, " Let all the angels of God worship him " He cannot be addressing His human nature, for the human nature is not to be worshipped. Only the Divine nature. So we have the Divine Father, speaking to the Divine Son at the incarnation and saying that the angels of God should worship Him. It would not make any sense for the Divine Son to tell the angels to worship the human Son. The Father was obviously addressing the Son. The fulfillment of this scripture is in Lk.2:13-14 where "All the angels of God worship[ped] Him (Jesus)", " Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest..." The Son being worshipped and praised by the angels is again addressed as God.

Also during the baptism of Jesus we see three persons. Lk.3:22 says, " And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." Here we see the Father speaking from heaven, " In thee " ( the Son ) " I " ( the Father ) am well pleased." We see the Holy Ghost, who is not the one doing the speaking, but the one in the act of descending from heaven. Notice it was after the descent of the Holy Spirit that the Voice came from heaven. Jesus was the one of whom the voice was speaking, and the Holy Ghost was not the Son, for He came upon the Son. It is clear that there are three distinct personages here. Neither can it be said that the receiving of the Holy Ghost was only the human nature being anointed with His divine nature. For the Word of God was already God when He was manifested in the flesh. He was " God with us " from His birth. So here we see the Son of God standing in the Jordan river upon the earth, already anointed with the Holy Ghost, and yet some one is still in heaven speaking. There are inescapably three persons here.

In addition we see Jesus saying, " He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone;" - Jn.8:29. This is not a referral to His human nature being sent by His divine nature. He spoke of the Father as another person; the One who sent, not the One who came. The One who sent, was the Father. The One who came, was the Son. The human nature of Christ was not saying, ' the divine nature hath not left me alone, or God hath not left me alone. Somebody was with the Son; human or divine, and that someone was the Father. The United Pentecostal Church, which is not to be confused with Pentecostals, but broke off of the Assembly of God Church, believes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all the same person. Whenever, therefore, the Son makes such statements as the one above, they say it is Jesus human nature conferring with His divine Nature rather than God the Son conferring with God the Father. The Father is always the Father, the Word is always the Word, and the Holy Ghost is always the Holy Ghost. One does not become the other. But the three always remain the One true God.

Furthermore, Jesus spoke of sending another Comforter. John 16:7, " Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." Jesus spoke of the Comforter, or Holy Spirit as being someone other than Himself. Also in John 16:13-14, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." When the Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus, He is not testifying of Himself. Therefore we see that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same person.

Jn.15:26 clearly identifies distinction in the Godhead. " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: " Again we see the Spirit being sent by the Son from the Father. The Father is not coming back as the Spirit. Even though we see them as three distinct persons, they are still inseparable as the one true God. It is not either, or; but both.

During His crucifixion Jesus cried, " Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." - Lk.23:34. It is obvious that the Son was making intercession to the Father, for the Son was able to forgive them Himself. See Lk.5:20-25; 7:48-49. Therefore He was making intercession to someone, other than Himself, Whom He addressed as Father. This fulfilled the scripture in Is.53:12, " ...And made intercession for the transgressors."

In the baptismal formula of Mt.28:19, it is written, " ...Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Being as how the verse says, Baptizing them in the name
( singular ) it would have been just as easy to say, In the name of God. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not so much names as they are titles. But the meaning of "name" here means 'authority' for no actual name, i.e. YHWH or Yeshua (the hebrew word for Jesus) is given. When one baptizes in "the name" of Jesus, he baptizes by the authority of Jesus and that authority is laid down in this verse. Therefore we baptize new converts in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost which is the method outlined in this verse authorizing the church to baptize. For some reason, it was specifically broken down into three parts; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for these three constitute the One God. This indicates that the Nature of God is a plurality in unity; "name" (sing.) the Father, Son & Holy Ghost (three distinct persons). Not three Gods in one, but three persons each of which is the same One, True God. So we must see the distinction of the persons and yet the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are indeed still one God.

Examples of plurality in unity in the Biblical text are strong. Gen.1:26 says, " Let us [pl.] make man in our [pl.] image [sing.], after our [pl.] likeness [sing.]. Comparing verse 26 with 27 we see, " And God said, Let us [pl.]...So God created man in his [sing.] own image." Note Gen.3:22 says, " And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us [pl.]...vs.24, So he [sing.] drove out the man." Again we find in Gen.11:7-8, " Go to, let us [pl.] go down, and there confound their language..." vs.8, " So the LORD [ sing. Jehovah] scattered them...vs.9 ...because the LORD [sing.] did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD [sing.] scatter them..." Is.6:8, " Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I [sing.] send, and who will go for US [pl.]." I believe this to be conversation within the Godhead. Another example of this is found in the New Testament in Jn 17:21; " That they all may be one [not each other but composite unity]; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..." The Son speaking to the Father or conversation within the Godhead.

Now it is argued that the " us " can be explained by what's termed as a plurality of majesty. This was a term that kings had used as they sought to rule their subjects with a divine right thus linking themselves to deity by using the term us, or we, instead of I, or me. This supposedly indicated that the king was acting on behalf of God with God's approval. So why would God need to use such a thing as plurality of majesty when He Himself is God? Does He need to link Himself to Deity to claim a divine right to authority?

The term, plurality of majesty, was an english anglo-saxon word that did not come into existence until the 13th century A.D. Gleason Archer, a leading Hebrew scholar, writes, " No where in the pre-christian near east do we have any example of the first person plural being used for the first person singular. Therefore, in this case [ Gen.1:26 ], the "our" must have been intended as a true plural even though it refers to a singular God." Ezra 4:18 is a verse that some use in an attempt to refute what Gleason Archer wrote. It says, " The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me." Verse 11 says that the letter was sent to king Artaxerxes. This, however, has nothing to do with plurality of majesty. The plain understanding of this scripture is that king Ataxerxes was speaking collectively of himself and those who were assembled with him. Who was the "us" with him? Some one read the letter to him vs.18. Someone made a search of the records vs.19. And it is not unreasonable to expect that there were others present. In any case, " us " is a plural and the king was not alone. But with whom could God have been with before the creation who could co-create with Him? The answer, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. In addition to these verses,Eccl.12:1 says, " Remember now thy Creator(s) in the days of thy youth..." The word "Creator" is plural in the Hebrew. The word "Maker" in Is.54:5, " For thy Maker(s) is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called " is also plural in the Hebrew text.

Turning to Deut.6:4 we read, " Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." Elohim is a plural word. The Hebrew could put this verse this way, " Jehovah [sing.] our Gods [pl.] is Jehovah [sing.] in unity." The word for unity is used in the Hebrew and not the word for absolute oneness. For an application of this meaning let's turn back to Gen.11. In verse 6 it reads, "...Behold, the people is one..." That did not mean that they were each other but rather that they were united. Also in Gen.2:24," ...and they twain [two] shall be one flesh." When Jesus said, " I and my Father are one;" - Jn.10:30, He did not mean He and the Father were the same person any more than Adam and Eve being one flesh were the same person, or each other. But the scriptures declare Jesus and the Father to be the same God. We have a plurality in unity.

Why is it, then, that the Jews did not pick up on this sense? How do we know that some of them didn't? But basically I think the answer is very simple: they just weren't ready for it yet. For example, Jesus said to His disciples, " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear them now."- Jn.16:12. The time was simply not right for Jesus to disclose to His disciples those things that they wouldn't be able to take. In Israel's case, they lived in a polytheistic world. There were pagan gods for trees, rivers, fire, weather etc. But there were also national deities. Israel's God was Jehovah, the Philistines god was Dagon, the god of Babylon was Bel etc. Everyone seemed to have their own god. These were personified as idols. Israel fell into idol worship and worship of other gods periodically. Even as great a king as Solomon, in all his wisdom, and in spite of the fact that God had appeared unto him, fell into this trap. Therefore the people were not ready to receive this revelation of God as we have it now, nor was the time right for the people to know God in this way.

Nevertheless, the Old Covenant did teach the Tri-unity and it could be plainly seen by discerning students of the Word. For example, Is.48:16 says, " Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." The One being sent is the speaker in this verse. In verse 12 of the same chapter, the Speaker says, "I am the first, I also am the last". In verse 13 He claims to be the Creator and goes on to say that the Lord GOD, a second person, and His Spirit, a third person, has sent me. Many of the ancient rabbi's pondered this purality in unity and did write about it.

W
e have already looked at the fact that the Bible ascribes Deity to Jesus, and of course there is not much argument over the Deity of the Father. It may be pointed out, however, that Mormonism teaches that God was not always God; but was a mortal man at one time as we are. He eventually worked His way up to Godhood. This is held out to others as being possible to them too. For example, " The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's..." Doctrine and Covenants, Sect.130:22. " God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...", The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith, pg.335; Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, pg.3. " As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become." Lorenzo Snow, former president of the Mormon church, Millenial Star, Vol.54 also The Gospel Through the Ages by Milton R. Hunter, pg.105-106.

Unfortunately for the Mormons, the Bible is not the only book to contradict this teaching. The Book of Mormon itself contradicts this teaching. In the book of Mormon, Alma 22:9-10, says,
" And the king said, Is God that Great Spirit...And Aaron said unto him: Yea, He is that Great Spirit." Also in Alma 18:26-28 the book of Mormon reads, "...Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God..." Again, in Alma 31:15, " Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever." ( Past, present, and future ). Also in Lectures of Faith, for example, Sect.5 they write, " The Father being a personage of Spirit, glory and power...:"

This certainly flies in the face of what the Mormon church teaches. How do we reconcile that with further statements such as, " Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is." - Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, pg.123. Or the statement, " Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the eternal Father was once a mortal man...He became God." The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, pg.104. Numbers 23:19 says, " God is not a man..." Ho.11:9 "...For I am God, and not man." Furthermore it is written, " ...From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." And again, " I am the LORD, I change not."- Mal:3:6.

As for becoming a god ourselves, the Bible says, " ...Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." - Is.43:10. So even though the Mormon church passes itself off as christian, we see that they have radically departed from the biblical doctrines espoused by mainstream christianity.

I may point out that there are others who are masquerading as charismatic christians who are teaching doctrines akin to those espoused by Mormonism, specifically that we are little Gods with the power to create our own realities rather than to follow the course that God sets before us and abandon ourselves to the will and faithfulness of our great Creator. Those who teach such things should not be allowed to interpret charismatic christianity to non-charismatic christians for they are not the same thing. There are many charismatic christians who would reject such doctrines when they heard them.

Thus the Mormon concept of God does not view God as a tri-unity within Himself, but as a God among three that comprise a trinity. This robs God of a very unique characteristic. Therefore, when the Mormon says he believes in the trinity, he has a very different definition of what, to him, trinity means. God is furthermore not unique for there are others like Him as we too someday will be a God just like Him. Unique means, one of a kind. The Mormon God is one among many. In that respect there is a serious challenge to the deity of God the Father. But another interesting thing is that now the Mormon church appears to be admitting what orthodox Christians have maintained all along; namely, that they worship a different Jesus. The Sword Of The Lord, a conservative Christian periodical, published a quote from the Calvary Contender, 11/1/98 in which Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley speaking on 6 June in Switzerland said, " The traditional Christ of whom they [orthodox, or mainstream christianity] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." As head of the Mormon church, I assume he is speaking for the Mormon church.

But we have seen that the Father is total, absolute, eternal, unchanging Deity. We have also seen that the Son is Deity. But what about the Holy Ghost? First it must be pointed out that the Watchtower Society denies that the Holy Ghost is a Divine person. In fact, they deny that He is any kind of person ( cognizant being ) at all. Funny how they will confess Satan, which is spirit, to be a person but will not do so for the Holy Ghost. That the Holy Spirit is a Divine person is not hard to see. First, let's see how the scriptures describe Him. The scriptures assign personal attributes to Him.

 
Consider the following:

1. He teaches Jn.14:26
2. He bears witness Jn.15:25
3. He convicts Jn.16:8
4. He guides Jn.16:13
5. He hears Jn.16:13
6. He speaks Jn.16:13
7. He declares Jn16:13
8. He receives Jn.16:14-15
9. He can be blasphemed Mk.3:29
10. He can be grieved Eph.4:30


In addition to these traits He is addressed with personal pronouns, i.e. Him, His, He etc. Jn.16:7-15 as well as other places. One exception to this is found in Ro.8:26 where the scriptures read,
"...But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." The flaw in using this verse to deny the Holy Spirit as being a person is both in its grammar, and understanding of what the verse is saying. First, the pronoun, "itself", refers back to the noun ( the person i.e. the Holy Ghost ). In doing this, the pronoun, "itself", takes on the gender of the noun. Therefore the verse can also be translated " the Spirit Himself ". We are not unfamiliar with such usage in our every day speech. For example, ' It's my mom '; the word, "it's", meaning She. Or it's my dad, or when a woman has a baby, it's a boy. The noun defines the gender of the pronoun. Second, we are talking about someone making intercession for us. To do this he would have to be familiar enough with us to be able to represent us to another party. This expresses intelligence not an impersonal force. Third, the word, "itself", which, by the way, is not an improper translation, no more denies the personality of the Holy Ghost than the words, " that holy thing " - Lk.1:35, denies the personality of Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is also sovereign and exercises authority. The sovereignty of the Holy Ghost is seen in the following verses: Concerning the differing gifts of the Holy Spirit the scriptures say, " But all these worketh that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." - I Co.12:11. This shows that the Spirit works according to His will, and also that He has a will. In addition to this it indicates the making of a sovereign choice. It is this sovereign choice that the Holy Spirit exercises when He calls to service and appoints a calling, or mission, to the one of His own choosing. Acts 13: 2,4, " As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost departed..." Here we see, the Holy Ghost chose the work, He chose the workers, and He sent them forth.

We also see the authority of the Holy Ghost in Acts 16:6-7, " Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, after they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not." We see also the Holy Ghost exercising judgement ( not punitive judgement ) but discernment. Acts 15:28, " For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." Also we see the Holy Ghost's knowledge of future events through prophetic utterance. Acts 21:11 "...Thus saith the Holy Ghost [ speaking with the same authority as " Thus saith the LORD " ] So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the gentiles." This of course did happen to the apostle Paul who happened to be the owner of the girdle, or belt. Also we see the enabling power of the Holy Ghost when he enabled the disciples to speak in languages that they had not previously learned; "...and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." - Acts 2:4. Men were the channel, the Spirit of God was the source. And He knows all the languages of the world.

While we're on the subject of authority, you will notice several times Jesus refereed to things which had been written in the word of God. In Matthew, chapter 5, we read the words, " Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time..." and the sayings of old time were " Thou shalt not kill " [ref. Ex.20:13] Mt.5:21; " Thou shalt not commit adultery " [ref. Ex.20:14] Mt.5:27; " Thou shalt not forswear [swear falsely, perjure] thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths " [ref. Deut.23:21-23] Mt.5:33; etc. See also Mt.5:31,38. The interesting thing about this passage of scripture is Jesus authority to add to the law, or Torah. Jesus answered with, " But I say unto you..." five times; Mt.5:22,28,32,34,39. To make it short, " Ye have heard " can be traced back to a certain passage in the Torah; however,
"but I say unto you ", can not be traced back to the Torah: it originates from Jesus Himself. Again, no angel or prophet of God would ever dare do such a thing. For in the law it is written, Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you..." - Deut.4:2. In order for Jesus to exercise authority over the Torah in this manner he would have to be the Author of it. That's precisely the point.

It is obviously not hard to recognize the Holy Spirit as a cognizant, Divine person. Not person in the human sense of the word, i.e. a human being, but person in the sense of an intelligent being, or conscious entity. The persons in the Tri-unity of God constitute a unique situation of which there is no earthly parallel to which we can compare it. Therefore we can't relate it to human experience. It should not be surprising to us that the nature of God is mysterious to us for He transcends us by infinity. It is therefore no wonder that we are often left asking , how, or why.

Furthermore, when we compare some New Testament verses with some Old Testament verses we see that the same verses in the New Testament that are attributed to the Holy Ghost, are attributed to Jehovah in their Old Testament counterpart verses. We already saw this same thing relating Jesus as the Jehovah of certain old testament verses of scripture and it holds true of only one other person in the scriptures; namely, the Holy Ghost. Never is a saying of Jehovah attributed to any one other than Jesus, or the Holy Ghost.

Let's begin with Isaiah chapter 6. In Is. 6:1 the scriptures read, " In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne...". Vs.3 and 5 identify the " Lord " in vs.1 as being " the LORD of Hosts ", or Jehovah. Furthermore this same Lord who has been identified as Jehovah in the same passage of scripture goes on to say in vs.9 " ...Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." " Therefore we can ascertain from the text that it is the LORD YHWH who is speaking. Yet Acts 28:25-27 attributes it to the Holy Ghost."

This is not an isolated case. In Ps.95:7-11 we read, " For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest." Notice first of all how this psalm begins." O come, let us sing unto the LORD ( Jehovah ): ...the rock of our salvation. Vs. 3, " For the LORD is a great God and a great King above all gods." Vs. 6, " O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker." Notice several things about this psalm. It speaks of Jehovah, the rock of our salvation, the great God, the Creator, before whom we kneel, bow down, and worship. As Jehovah speaks, He says, " When your fathers tempted ME, proved ME, and saw MY work. Forty years long was I grieved... they have not known MY ways: Unto whom I sware in MY wrath that they should not enter into MY rest." There is no doubt that this is Jehovah, the Creator; who led Israel out of Egypt who is speaking. Nevertheless, in Hebrews 3:7-11 this same passage of scripture is attributed to the Holy Ghost beginning with, " Wherefore ( as the Holy Ghost saith...)"

Again, let's look at another passage of scripture. In Jeremiah 31:33-34 we read," But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: after those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." See also vs.31-33 which belong to the context of this scripture. Now when we look up the reference in the new testament we read, " Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

We also see the Trinity at work in the resurrection of Christ. First of all, we see it was the Father that raised Jesus from the dead. " This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God, exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear;"- Acts 2:32-33. Again, in Ro.6:4 it is written, " ... Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father..." Also in Gal.1:1, " Paul, an apostle...by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.

Yet we see that the Jesus claimed that He would raise Himself from the dead. When asked, by the unbelieving Jews, what sign He would show to them, Jesus responded by saying, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body." - Jn.2:19,21. Furthermore He says in Jn.10:17-18, " Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of my self. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." Notice He says " This commandment have I received " and not " Power ". Jesus had the power to raise himself from the dead as He had power to lay down His life. He had the commandment as the Son to do so. Remember, His human nature was brought into existence in the incarnation whereas His divine nature existed since eternity past. Jesus, the Divine Word of God had subjected His human nature as the Son to every command of the Father. As the eternal Word of God He had the power to raise up the flesh of the Son of God which was His body. The Word of God and the Son of God are not two separate individuals, but one individual with two natures, i.e. God and man. 100% God and at the same time 100% man too. Whether by the Father, or by the Word, it was the same God in either case that raised the body of Christ from the dead.

Too, we see the Holy Ghost raised Christ from the dead. I Ptr. 3:18 says, " For Christ hath also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened [ made alive ] by the Spirit." Some translations say " made alive in the spirit ". I believe " made alive by the Spirit to be the more accurate. Christ never was dead in spirit and therefore did not need to be made alive in the spirit. But He was dead in the flesh and it was the flesh that was quickened and according to this verse ( KJV 1611 ) this was accomplished by the Holy Ghost. Furthermore it is written, " But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."- Ro.8:11. See also Jn.6:63.

It is expressly proclaimed in scripture that there is one God and one only. Yet there are three persons in scripture who are called God. The first is a person called the Father, and He is called God. " Grace to you and peace from God the Father..." See also Gal.1:1. Second, is a person called the Son ( or the Word ), and He too is called God. " And the Word was God."- Jn.1:1. Also in Heb. 1:8, " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever..." And then there is a third person called the Holy Ghost; and He too is called God. In Acts 5:3-4, " But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?...Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." The verse in Heb.1:8 has been mistranslated by the New World translation committee. It reads, " God is your throne..." But who is greater, the king or his throne? For example, Jesus said, " Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne..." Which is the greater, God or heaven? If the President were away in another country and the White House burned down while he was gone, would he no longer be the president when he got back? If God were Jesus' throne, then Jesus would be the King.

The translators of the New World translation, who by the way were Nathan H. Knorr, Fred W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George D. Gangas, and M. Henschel, who published the 1st edtion on 2 August, 1950, reflected strong bias against the Deity of Christ. The Watch Tower tried hard to keep the identity of the translation committe secret. They did not so much publish a translation of the scriptures as they did an interpretation of the scriptures with a Watch Tower slant. Not even the other translations that were based on the Hort and Westcott greek text (as was the New World translation), follow the same bias at this particular point to the extreme extent the N.W.T. does. This further shows a deviation from the text from which it was translated. In fact, the only religious organization to use the N.W.T. is the Watch Tower Society. No other religious group does. The only one of the N.W.T. translators who had any qualification to undertake a work of translating the scriptures was Fred Franz. But his education in language consisted only of two years of greek at the University of Cincinnatti. What Hebrew he may have known was self taught.

There is, of course, much more testimony to the Deity of Christ than to the Deity of the Holy Ghost; although the scriptures also testify to His Deity. The reason for this is the fact that Jesus said, " He [ the Holy Ghost ] shall not speak of himself...He shall testify of me... He shall glorify me."- Jn.16:13, 15:26, 16:14. The purpose of the Holy Ghost in inspiring the scriptures was not to draw attention to Himself, although God's revelation of Himself would not be complete without references to the Holy Ghost, but was to draw attention to Jesus. The purpose of this chapter was to help us to understand the question that we raised in the first chapter. You may remember that I said then that the answer would only make sense if God was a Tri-unity and that we would cover that subject later. The question was, how can both ( the Father and the Son ) be God if there is only one God. This is the reason for the chapter on the Tri-unity of God.

The doctrine of the Tri-unity is argued by it's critics to be of pagan origin and therefore unscriptural. This is not a hard point to answer. First, it is admitted that concepts of trinity are found in pagan religions, but what that means is a subject of interpretation. Dr. Walter Martin, author of the book Kingdom of the Cults said, " In order to find out if the doctrine of the Trinity is true, we do not look to see if it resembles paganism, but to the Bible, to see if God teaches it in His word. Pagans also believe in the concept of God. Does this mean that God must not be true?" We can extend this principle to other areas as well. Some pagan religions have flood stories as the Sumerians, and the Babylonians as depicted in the Gilgamesh Epic. Does this mean the flood is of pagan origin? Some pagan religions have the concept of sacrifice. Does that mean the sacrificial system of the Torah ( the Law of Moses ) was pagan? Some ancient cultures believed in resurrection, for example, it was said that Tammuz rose from the dead forty days after his death. Does this fact negate the truth of resurrection in the scriptures? There are also pagan religions that taught a virgin birth. The god Attis, for example, was the virgin born son of Nana whose blood was thought to renew the fertility of the earth. But does this mean that the Biblical teaching of the virgin birth is therefore pagan? Does this mean the blood atonement is of pagan origin? By no means. Do false Christís make the real Christ of pagan origin? Of course not. In order for something to be a false Christ, prophet, apostle etc there must be an original true one to imitate. This would go for the Tri-unity as well. I will use the term "trinity" as we relate it to paganism.

The pagan concept of trinity is not the same as the biblical revelation of Tri-unity. The pagan concept of trinity is tri-theistic: that is, three separate and distinct gods. For example, The three major gods in Hinduism are Brahma; Vishnu, whose wife is an important deity going by several names such as, Durga, Kali, Parvati, or Uma; and Shiva. The Greek triad was Zeus, Athena, and Apollo; the Egyptian triad was Horus, Isis, and Osiris in the Osiris myth. You will also notice that many times pagan trinities include a female deity; a father, mother, and son. The Persians and the Assyrians among others also believed in some concept of trinity. These concepts of trinity are not the Biblical doctrine of Tri-unity at all. Some have tried to make allot of a seeming parallel between Jesus and Hercules. Jesus was a historical figure but Hercules was a myth. Furthermore, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man at the same time. Hercules was only 50/50. That is, half god and half man. Hercules was not the same god as Zeus. They were two different gods. Hercules may be said to be no more than a corruption of the revelation of the true Son of the true God as revealed by the holy prophets of Israel.

It is said that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world therefore any similarities between Christianity and Hinduism show pagan origins for those Christian doctrines. This is not true. Remember, Hinduism began in India perhaps around 1500 B.C. By this time, however, all of the first 11 chapters (as well as the whole book and leading up to Israel entering Egypt and being brought into bondage) of Genesis took place; which includes the building of the tower at Babel, the confusion of the languages, and the dispersion of the peoples. As the first people migrated into India they no doubt brought with them vestiges of the faith embraced by the early believers in YHWH Elohim. Shem, Ham, and Japheth, by whom the earth was populated, as well as Noah, obviously communicated the pre-flood faith to the post flood world. All of the forgeries of the originally revealed truths were also demon inspired. Demons also know the truth but have presented counterfeits to man to lead people away from the truth. Counterfeits are designed to closely resemble the authentic. This is the strength of deception.

Paul said in 1 Tim.4:1, " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" 2 Tim.3:8 shows us that this deception is not new: " Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." Jannes and Jambres were two of the magicians in Pharaoh's court. See also 1 Ki.22:22-23. Eventually even doctrines with a close resemblance to truth can with time evolve into doctrines which less and less resemble truth. Flood legends are an example of this. But notice also that these pagan religions which are demon inspired also have idols and gods with grotesque evil faces. This further suggests a connection to demonically inspired doctrines.

To equate the Biblical definition of the Tri-unity to that of a three headed god as the Buddhist god San Pao Fuh, for example, also falls miserably short. Such a god could not separate as the Father, the Word, and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) can. Anyway, I have never ever heard a Christian describe the Trinity in this way; only those who misrepresent what Christians believe about the Tri-unity. Buddha lived approximately 563 to 483 B.C. By this time almost all of the Old Testament was already written. Psalms and Isaiah, which predate Buddha by, at least more than 150 to two hundred years, contain prophecies that describe the life of Jesus in amazing detail. Any parallels between the writings of Buddha to those of the life of Jesus in the gospels, only show a crude copy of original revelation at best. The healing ministry, the parables, His virgin birth, birthplace, death, burial, resurrection and ascension, His second coming was all foretold in the Psalms and Isaiah and the Torah of course,(other prophetic writings notwithstanding) before Buddha was even born or the gospels were ever written. It's no wonder Matthew continuously uses the phrase," that it might be fulfilled which was written in the prophets", or similar words.

You will also notice that the pagan triads are in addition to numerous other gods blending tritheism and polytheism. This also the Biblical doctrine of the Tri-unity does not do. One might ask, where did the pagans get this concept of trinity. Why not two gods or four, for example? Might it be a remnant of an original truth instead of the origin of a myth? Ro.1: 21 says, " Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." This tells us that there was a point when truth was known, but in their rejection of God truth began to evolve into error through the imaginations of men's corrupt, carnal minds. On page 18 in the Book, The Two Babylonís by Alexander Hislop, the author writes, " While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world, proving how deep rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject, which comes out so distinctly in Genesis." If the doctrine of trinity ( not necessarily the Biblical definition of Tri-unity ) was already so wide spread in the ancient world it seems more likely that these concepts were traceable back to a single origin rather than being the origin.

We can read the first five chapters of Genesis in a matter of minutes. The time span, however, took place over 1651 years according to Dr.C.I. Scofield's reckoning; that is, from Adam to the flood. Are we to assume that man's early worship of YHWH consisted of no more than what we can read in Genesis 1-5? Was this the only information they had? Or did they know much more than what has been recorded? Whatever revelation they had of God, this would be older than any religion in the world, having been passed down from Adam. In Gen.4:26 the scriptures read, "...Then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." But what all did they know about God? What did they believe?

We can note a few examples. In Gen.3:15 a virgin born redeemer is prophesied. He was to be of the seed of the woman, not the man. Paul wrote in Gal.4:4, " But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Subsequent prophets throughout the Old Testament further developed this theme that originated in the garden of Eden. There is also a beautiful picture of the Tabernacle which we don't read about until Exodus. There was a appointed time, place, and sacrifice revealed to Cain and Abel though we do not read of it. Cain and Abel "brought" their sacrifices. They apparently did so at the same time. Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. How did he know to do that? It is not until Leviticus that we read of bringing the fat; Lev.3:1-4; 4:8-10. Also, Abel brought the firstlings of the flock. How did he know to do that? It was not till the law of Moses that we have anything about that in writing; Nu.18:17. Heb.11:4 says, " By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts...". How did Abel know his sacrifice was accepted? It may be that God took it by fire. That would surely be a good way for God to testify of his gifts as God did for Elijah. You will also notice that Heb.11:4 uses the word "gifts" - plural. It seems that this was Abel's practice.

If Abel offered by faith, he must have been responding to some known revelation of God for faith must have an object to which it is relating. This revelation may have come through his parents. The important point is that Abel believed God though we do not have spelled out for us what all Abel believed about God. But we know God promised that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head. We also know that God clothed Adam and Eve with skins which he took from an animal. We also see that sacrifice played an important role in that promise to bruise the serpent's head, and that Abel saw in that a type that he believed in. So when Jesus came into the world, John the Baptist proclaimed, " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;" - Jn.1:29.

Another interesting thing is that there was a place where the sacrifices were brought. When God rejected Cain's offering, He said "...sin lieth at the door." What did He mean by that? First it must be remembered that the garden of Eden had a door, or entrance. This entrance was on the east side of the garden; Gen.3:23-24. The Cherubim blocked access to the garden. So here was a kind of Holy of Holies into which the way had been blocked by Cherubim on the east side. The Tabernacle also had one entrance. This too was on the east side. Man was separated from the Holy of Holies, which represented the presence of God, by a veil which had embroidered Cherubim on it. The sacrifice was brought to the door of the tabernacle Lev.3:2. Only a suitable sacrifice would be accepted at the door; Lev.17:3-9. When Cain brought his sacrifice to the door of Eden and was rejected, God told him his sin lay at the door, not sacrifice. Heb.10:26 says, " For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." The parallels between the situation at Eden and the tabernacle are too great to ignore.

Also we see the command to Noah to bring two of every animal into the ark. But of clean animals God told him to bring seven; Gen.7:2. How did Noah know what constituted a clean animal and an unclean animal? We don't have anything regarding clean and unclean animals until the law of Moses; Leviticus chapter 11 and Deuteronomy chapter 14. And then when Ham saw his father's nakedness, it was sin. But there is no mention of any prohibitions against it until Lev.18:6-7. When God told Noah to build the ark He used some interesting words. He told Noah to " Pitch it within and without with pitch ". The first word, "Pitch" comes from the Hebrew word Kaphar which means "atonement". The second word "Pitch" is translated from the Hebrew word Kopher which means "ransom". This pictured that the place of salvation from the judgment of God would involve "Atonement" and "Ransom". For "Atonement" see: Ex.29:36-37; 30:10; 32:30; Lev.4:20,26,31,35; Ro.5:11. For "Ransom" see: Ps.49:7; Mt.20:28; 1 Tim.2:6.

Concerning the Deity of Jesus and His second coming we find that the oldest prophecy in the Bible spoken by a prophet was concerning the second coming of the Messiah and was uttered by Enoch and recorded first by Jude. "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints;" - Jude:14.

Even the Hebrew genealogies leading up to the translation of Enoch and the flood, which events seem to show the preaching of the gospel, the rapture (Enoch) and Israel preserved through the tribulation (Noah ), and a new earth are instructive. When we translate the english back into the hebrew we find an amazing message. Adam means Man. Seth means Appointed; Gen.4:25. Enos means Mortal. Cainan (Kenan as in 1 Chron.1:2) means Possession or from a root meaning Sorrow. Mahalaleel means Blessed God. Jared means Shall come down, descend. Enoch not only means dedication but comes from a word meaning Teaching; translated "train up" in Prov.22:6. Methuselah is often translated "man of the dart". But his name may also mean "When he is dead it shall be sent" or "His death shall bring (ie. the flood); it is interesting that the flood came in the same year he died. Lamech, often translated "powerful" has another meaning as well that is too often overlooked. Hitchcock's Bible Dictionary of Names, assigns to Lamech the additional meaning "Poor", "Made low". The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names, says "Reduced". His name may be translated "Poor". Then we have Noah, whose name means "Comfort" or "Rest". Now the interesting thing about this genealogy is when you put the hebrew meanings of their names together in the order in which they occur we have an amazing message. "Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow [ possession]. The blessed God shall come down teaching [that] His death shall bring [the] poor, comfort." ( Comp: Is.61:1-2 and Lk.4:18-21 ). This teaches the incarnation of God whose death would bring salvation, and rest to the world.

We must also remember that it was before the flood that God said, " Let US make man in OUR own image." This revealed God as a composite Deity. I might suggest the probability of Adam being the one who originally wrote those words which were later incorporated by Moses into the book of Genesis. As evidence for this possibility I refer to Genesis 5:1 which says, "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man..." The Bible specifically calls it a "book". This word "book" is from the Hebrew word "Sefer" which in the KJV is translated "book" 138 times, "letter" 29 times, "evidence" 8 times, etc. It is a written record as we see the second time the word is found ( Gen.5:1 being the first ) in Ex.17:14. It is also suggested that the written record is passed down from generation to generation. The book would not be a diary but a record, a letter, or evidence.

And this coupled with the fact that the scriptures say Noah was a preacher of righteousness (see Heb.11:7 and 2 Ptr.2:5) we begin to see that the faith of those very early people was quite extensive. Now I submit to you, as Paul brings out in Romans chapter 1 that there was a time when men knew God but became vain in their imaginations and wandered away from the truth corrupting it as they went. Instead of the Tri-unity of God being pagan we see it was the pagans who corrupted a previously known truth. The oldest religion in the world is that which was believed and practiced from the garden of Eden. There are none older. All of today's religions came AFTER the flood of Noah and it is only reasonable to believe that the pagans corrupted the truth and adapted it to fit their opinions of God. But the truth itself did not owe its existence to paganism. So the charge could be made that paganism borrowed from the truth of God's original revelation of Himself and terribly corrupted it. All deviations are lies and deceptions. As said the apostle Paul, "...Who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"- Ro.1:18. And again, " Who changed the truth of God into a lie..." - Ro.1:25. "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:" - 2 Tim.3:5. "

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned;" - 1 Co.2:14. This is why the pagans got it all wrong; because they could not figure it out. So they just did the best their carnal minds could come up with. Remember, in making this point, I limited myself to the time from Adam to the flood in the opening chapters of Genesis. And although we have 15 to 16 hundred years worth of history summed up into about 10 minutes worth of reading, nevertheless, careful analysis will reveal some interesting details.

The Angel Of The LORD

All Rights Reserved 2000
Permission to put in print will be given only upon written request by Pastor Alan (Alon) Ronk.

Mayim's Logo
Mayim's Endnote