Get reFilled 1 John 1:9
"If we confess STATE our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse purify us from all unrighteousness"

Proving the Trinity (Elohim / I AM)

An example of how things in life tend to reflect God's nature (RGB in colour, protons/neutrons/electrons in atoms). It's funny that electrons kind of even take a similar role as the Holy Spirit. Obviously there are quarks and colours like ultraviolet, but they can't be perceived by us in normal circumstances and go beyond the 'hint' of the comparison. As it just so happens, protons and neutrons are also composed of three quarks each.

It goes even further as 'purple' (a colour often associated with royalty) is a non-spectral colour unlike violet; our brains simply have to utilize extra code somewhere in the DNA to simulate it.


ELOHIM basics

Before getting into Unitarianism (which is sometimes called Biblical Unitarianism, because they feel the need to 'sell' the idea like anything that places "Biblical" as a prependism) it's important to go through the proofs of the trinity; of which the Original Language Texts are essential to understand if certain words are verbs and their corresponding grammar. It's also important to keep in mind that the doctrine of salvation is not consistent between Unitarians and Trinitarians; this means that both parties can have conflicting 'proofs' among themselves when trying to prove the same notions. Understanding the trinity is NOT a requirement of salvation because that would add a unique caveat not found in the Bible or any salvation passages; new believers also lack Bible Doctrine (fruit) to begin with so they don't have the capacity to be expected to know such things.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babies crave the pure milk of the Word, in order that you grow into rescuing (your thinking)

1 Peter 2:2 ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθήσατε, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε εἰς σωτηρίαν

Therefore with that in mind, any arguments from Unitarians or Trinitarians mandating salvation to the understanding of the trinity or requiring works are incorrect -- especially considering many Trinitarians get the doctrine wrong. It is very dangerous to say that Christ isn't God though, because that implies Christ (God) isn't the one paying for your sins... a sinless 'being' cannot pay for sins unless they are both God and both man.

The trinity is best described as three AND one not three IN one. Using the term 'three in one' would actually be on par with Unitarianism since it converts God into one (person): if three ARE 'in' one, they are literally one (i.e. a chimera with three attached heads). Malcom X on refuting the trinity makes the point that three IN one would be 1 / 3 (one divided by three), going on to explain the God of the Bible is 'divided among Himself' as a result. Three AND one allows for 1 + 3 = 4. This ultimately bypasses both Islamic and Biblical Unitarian arguments against the trinity as well.

Religion Denies and Distorts

There's a strange traditional representation that the Orthodox/Catholic Christians like to use that apparently developed during the time of the "Church Fathers", however it contradicts what the Bible says because it denies the fact that each member can share the same essence with the "is not" statements, and also melts all members into a single triangle:

Another very interesting point is that the demons appear to use triangles to mock God in numerous cases of alien abductions or other such 'shows' they put on for people. If the demons are using triangles in that way, it's probably best to stay away from what could probably be described as a 'trigonometry chimera'. God is NOT melted together, He is three distinct members that share identical essence.

Another aspect of demonic reversal is how 'essence' or entire verses will replace Christ with "substance". This is probably one of the most degrading things you can find in the Bible, and in the case of Hebrews 11:1, it remains to be one of the worst translated verses in the entire Bible:

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1 στιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων

Hupostasis is actually for Christ being the GOD-MAN, so this should never ever be translated as 'substance', and the rest of the verse has nothing really to do with it either (but that's getting far into another topic).



SON (Jesus Christ)

SPIRIT (Holy Spirit)

Proving 'Trinity' in the Old Testament

First instance in Isaiah is the repetition of 'three' via holy holy holy:

Isaiah 6:3 And one cried to another, and said: "holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory".

Isaiah 6:3 וְקָרָ֙א זֶ֤ה אֶל־זֶה֙ וְאָמַ֔ר קָד֧וֹשׁ׀ קָד֛וֹשׁ קָד֖וֹשׁ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת מְלֹ֥א כָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ כְּבוֹדֽוֹ׃

This is also later repeated in Revelation as well:

Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they did not rest day and night saying: "holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come".

Revelation 4:8 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ᾽ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες: ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

The Unitarian counter-argument is to claim that the English article pronouns aren't plural, so this couldn't possibly be referring to the trinity. The grammar (phonology/morphology/syntax) of Hebrew and Greek isn't even remotely close to English's, so this isn't an appropriate argument against the Bible unless you think the Bible was originally written in English. English and Hebrew grammatical articles aren't even analogous.

If someone is convinced this is a coincidence, then we have to consider repeating it three times specifically has no unique attributes otherwise (not to mention the Hebrew has a paseq on the first repetition to notify you); in the sense you're not going to get "holier" by repeating the same thing. The only other option would be to assume that it's absolutely 'meaningless', which degrades the Bible.

Genesis 1 initiates clauses with ELOHIM and then has a discreet END STATEMENT to clarify which person is in action. This is unique to Genesis 1 and explains why ELOHIM is repeated so much, otherwise there would be no point and quite frankly it would be bizarre otherwise. Don't believe me, look at how each verse in Genesis repeats ELOHIM (אלוהים) over and over:

Genesis 1:1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Genesis 1:2 וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

Genesis 1:3 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃

Genesis 1:4 וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָא֖וֹר כִּי־ט֑וֹב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃

But wait -- 'Elohim' is used pluralized in other areas of the Bible and should be written as 'Gods', like in Genesis 35:2, so if we say that ELOHIM were to be pluralized we would be conflating God with foreign 'gods':

Genesis 35:2 And Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him: "get rid of the foreign gods you have with you; and purify yourselves and change your clothes".

Genesis 35:2 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יַעֲקֹב֙ אֶל־בֵּית֔וֹ וְאֶ֖ל כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִמּ֑וֹ הָסִ֜רוּ אֶת־אֱלֹהֵ֤י הַנֵּכָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּתֹכְכֶ֔ם וְהִֽטַּהֲר֔וּ וְהַחֲלִ֖יפוּ שִׂמְלֹתֵיכֶֽם׃

Not so, completely different grammar is used for that elohim, and there are no END STATEMENTS. I think Unitarians forget that Hebrew has more than one way to write "gods" than English -- and this would be obvious if they even spent one second to look at the original language texts and/or realized you can't apply English syntax to other languages.

This also eradicates the claim that the pluralization is simply a matter of court formality, emphasis, intensification (which makes zero sense honestly); not to mention Genesis 1 looks very weird with ELOHIM starting every verse with end statements that are meaninginelss unless associated to each person in Isaiah 6:3.

Now if the ELOHIM that's used in Genesis 1 was conjugated in the same way as Genesis 35:2, then yes, the Unitarians would have a valid argument but it's not. So, Unitarians have to 'assume' that Hebrew pluralization works exactly like English pluralization because they have no concept of how other languages work.

Proving 'Trinity' in the New Testament

John 10:30-31 I and the Father are one, I AM. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

John 10:30-31 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν.

Here Christ is claiming deity which is why the Jews went to pick up stones:

Note: the Unitarian counter-argument against Christ saying 'one' in John 10:30 is that He and God are 'one in purpose', rather than three distinct persons with the same essence. Why wouldn't they also stone the Apostles if they were 'one in purpose'? And finally they completely ignore the fact Christ used a plural pronoun on Himself which isn't viewable in English.

Another counter-argument they make regarding "I AM" is that "I AM" is used everywhere in the Greek and therefore how could Christ be claiming Exodus 3:14 if everyone else says it? Okay, but "I AM" in the Greek has different grammar, there are many ways to write it, and there's a thing called CONTEXT. If Christ uses plural pronouns with mentioning the Father and the Holy Spirit, obviously it's a specialized meaning. You could just as well say "how could God be calling Himself "I AM" in the Hebrew if "I AM" is used like regular speech by everyone else?" You cannot apply English-language logic to Greek.

But wait, Paul says those who plant and water are also 'one' so that render's Christ's claim void:

1 Corinthians 3:8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1 Corinthians 3:8 ὁ φυτεύων δὲ καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, ἕκαστος δὲ τὸν ἴδιον μισθὸν λήμψεται κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον κόπον.

Well, what do planters and waterers of the Word have in common? They both have the Holy Spirit which is the very thing that separates a believer from an unbeliever. The doctrine of becoming 'trichotomous' once you believe is Bible 101. Therefore, we are 'one' with God's essence through the Holy Spirit and ultimately having our sins paid-for, Christ extrapolates:

John 17:21-23 That they all may be one; as you Father, are in me, and myself in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me.

John 17:21-23 ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν, ἵνα ὁ κόσμος πιστεύῃ ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας. κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν. ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν, ἵνα γινώσκῃ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας καὶ ἠγάπησας αὐτοὺς καθὼς ἐμὲ ἠγάπησας.

Therefore if all of this did refer to being 'one purpose' it starts to break down once you include John 17; since it relies on knowing the Holy Spirit is in us, not a "purpose".

In 1 John 5:7-8 deity for Christ is mentioned once again:

1 John 5:7-8 Because there are three [I AM] who testify: the Spirit (Holy Spirit) and the Water (Father) and the Blood (Son): and they three are one essence [I AM].

1 John 5:7-8 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

Note: the Unitarian counter-argument against 1 John 5:7-8 is that it has text added not present found in the original language text which causes them to seize up and ignore what the verse is saying. And that's correct, the added bits SHOULDN'T be in there -- which is hilarious since this is the ONLY time Unitarians care about the original language when it can conveniently serve their confirmation bias, which later they'll switch back to using the KJV to support their argument with wordplay. They then go on to say that the context was just for believing that Christ is the son of God, and the 'three' which testify are not persons but literal substances (spirit, water, blood), it's so Satanic to reduce God to substances again. Literal water and blood are also never used by the Bible's analogies, Christ never paid for our sins with literal blood*. The argument doesn't hold up because plural pronouns are used and the 'testifying' of persons is also plural: μαρτυροῦντες.

For reference here's the difference in English translations with the KJV and NIV, added text highlighted in red:

1 John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:8 (KJV) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:7 (NIV) For there are three that testify:

1 John 5:8 (NIV) the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

For reasons not worth getting in to here, the added text is weird and clearly shouldn't be there; not too unlike Mark 16's added ending.

*Christ emphasized this by saying 'it is finished' BEFORE physically dying, thus eradicating the usage or requirement of physical blood.

And then of course we get to where Christ straight up says before Abraham, He existed in eternity past. And watch, Christ switches the pronouns to SINGULAR to match the singular Hebrew "I AM THAT I AM":

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them: "Truly truly, I say to you: before Abraham was born I am I AM"

John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς: "Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί".

Exodus 3:14 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

And if we swing back to John 10:30-31, you'll see how the pronouns are plural when Christ was speaking of both the Father and Himself:

John 10:30-31 I and the Father are one, I AM. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

John 10:30-31 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν.

Note: the Unitarian counter-argument against John 8:58 is to... create their own translation! If the Bible doesn't say what you want it to in the original language text, make a new translation like the Jehovah's Witnesses do with the NWT.

Their translation is garbage because they've removed ἐγὼ (the repetition of both ἐγὼ and εἰμί is to say: "I am that I AM THAT I AM", their translation reduces this to just one "I am" and then they add "the one" which doesn't exist in the original language.

John 8:58 (Unitarian REV) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am the one."

So if we were to translate their botched English translation back into the Greek it would look like this:

John 8:58 (Unitarian Satanic Reversal) εἶπεν αὐτοῖς: "Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι εἰμίἕν."

Mirrored Attributes (Jesus Christ is God)

#1 Jesus Christ (God) never changes; which also indicates that Jesus Christ always existed, for if you didn't always exist, you would 'change' with a point of origin:

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with who does not change, neither shadow of turning.

James 1:17 πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, παρ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

Hebrews 13:8 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐχθὲς καὶ σήμερον ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

Note: the Unitarian counter-argument against Hebrews 13:8 is that 'forever' and 'yesterday' do not imply a past. Except... aionas can and does refer to a past just like it does in Luke 1:70. The Unitarian position falls apart because we would also have to assume the prophets didn't "exist in the past".

Luke 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began

Luke 1:70 καθὼς ἐλάλησεν διὰ στόματος τῶν ἁγίων ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος προφητῶν αὐτοῦ

#2 Jesus Christ (God) is 'the first and last'

Isaiah 41:4 Who has wrought and done it calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last: I Am He.

Isaiah 41:4 מִֽי־פָעַ֣ל וְעָשָׂ֔ה קֹרֵ֥א הַדֹּר֖וֹת מֵרֹ֑אשׁ אֲנִ֤י יְהוָה֙ רִאשׁ֔וֹן וְאֶת־אַחֲרֹנִ֖ים אֲנִי־הֽוּא׃

Isaiah 41:4 (LXX) τίς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐποίησεν ταῦτα ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὴν ὁ καλῶν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ γενεῶν ἀρχῆς ἐγὼ θεὸς πρῶτος καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ἐγώ εἰμι

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last

Revelation 1:17 Καὶ ὅτε εἶδον αὐτόν, ἔπεσα πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ὡς νεκρός, καὶ ἔθηκεν τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ λέγων· μὴ φοβοῦ· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος

Note: the Unitarian counter-argument is that 'any' titles can be applied to God or man, and therefore something very specific that only ever gets applied to God "the first and last", is somehow different for Christ.

The 'Holy One' is a simultaneous reference to Jesus Christ and God:

Psalm 89:18 For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.

Psalm 89:18 ὅτι τοῦ κυρίου ἡ ἀντίλημψις καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Ισραηλ βασιλέως ἡμῶν

Psalm 89:18 כִּ֣י לַֽ֭יהוָה מָֽגִנֵּ֑נוּ וְלִקְד֖וֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל מַלְכֵּֽנוּ׃

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 2:27 ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν.

Wow. It's pretty damning once you can see the Original Language Text and there's no more room for English wordplay. Jesus Christ is God.

Addressing (Bulk) Unitarian Arguments

Here are a collection of arguments that have been paraphrased from multiple sources, along with responses to each corresponding argument. A good portion of them have also come from the infamous

Argument #1: God is one, not three in one

Response: God is actually neither "one person" or "three in one". God is three AND one simultaneously which is where the confusion stems; with each member having the SAME essence.

As mentioned previously, the "God is one (person)" doctrine is what is supported in the Qu'ran in the original Arabic, but you will not find "God is one" anywhere in the original Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic.

Argument #2: the trinity began with the Arian controversy in 300 A.D.

Response: since the 'trinity' can be proven in the Old Testament with the Hebrew texts, and the fact Christ was condemned by the High Priest for claiming deity in Mark 14:61-64, it does not matter what councils proclaimed or argued what (in fact Unitarianism is a modern phenomenon as fewer and fewer people can interpret the original languages the Bible was written in). Especially since the Council of Nicea got a lot of trinity doctrines wrong anyways like "three in one" and their silly triangles.

Argument #3: the trinity cannot be understood and is incomprehensible

Response: The concept of the God being three distinct persons each sharing the same essence is not difficult to understand if you have the 3 + 1 formula. It's true it may be difficult for us to comprehend just as it's difficult for us to comprehend the fact that God is infinite and never had a 'beginning' like we do. Since our nature is not like God's, we struggle to understand Him without anthropomorphisms which is why they're often used in the Bible. This is also why it's tantamount to study the Word of God in the original language texts to get His mind in yours, then it won't be so "incomprehensible" and you can shed demonic influence.

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways says the LORD.

Isaiah 55:8 כִּ֣י לֹ֤א מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי֙ מַחְשְׁב֣וֹתֵיכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א דַרְכֵיכֶ֖ם דְּרָכָ֑י נְאֻ֖ם יְהוָֽה׃

Argument #4: the word 'trinity' is not found in the Bible

Response: Correct (and there are a lot of 'words' that don't exist in the Bible to which traditional Christianity has ascribed), however 'Elohim' in the plural form along with God using plural pronouns are found everywhere in the Bible. So you could simply say Elohim or "holy" three times if you didn't want to use the English word 'trinity'.

Personally I don't like the word 'trinity', but it's just what the majority of Christendom has decided to use.

Argument #5: Eternal life is dependent on understanding who God is

Response: If someone believes that Jesus Christ paid for their sins, that's ALL that's required for salvation. Being able to 'understand' the Bible (in this case understanding God / trinity) comes post-salvation, that's the whole *point* of the spiritual life post-salvation. You cannot understand God if you don't know Him, especially as a brand new believer. The analogy to new believers as 'babies' is not a coincidence, being a spiritual baby you will get most things wrong and won't understand until you study and build a mental profile.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are you saved through faith belief; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, in case any man should boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον· 9  οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται.

If we had to believe God WASN'T three distinct persons with the same essence 'for salvation', don't you think that would be mentioned? Furthermore, every Unitarian, KJV-onlyist, Lordship salvationist, Calvinist (...) are going to be in for a rude awakening after death once they realize they failed to learn the original language texts.

Argument #6: The Bible states (in Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29) the Lord God is one Lord.

Response: this is arguing purely in English and not consulting the grammar from the original languages, none of which say God is one (as in one person). Futhermore, Mark 12:29 is actually one of the worst verses for Unitarians as it serves as a catalyst bridging everything (covered prior) together.

Mark 12:29 (Douay-Rheims) And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God.

Mark 12:29 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Mark 12:29 (NAB) Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!

Mark 12:29 (RSV) Jesus answered, "The first is, `Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;

Mark 12:29 (Unitarian REV) Jesus answered, “The most important is: Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone,

So 'which one' of the MANY English variations is it? (1) God is one God, (2) God is one Lord, (3) God is Lord alone, (4) the Lord is one? The correct answer being none of them are translated properly, and it's actually impossible to translate the genitive cases into English since we lack them. Throw all of those translations in the trash.

Mark 12:29 ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πρώτη ἐστίν· ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν

Deuteronomy 6:4 שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד׃

Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX) καὶ ταῦτα τὰ δικαιώματα καὶ τὰ κρίματα ὅσα ἐνετείλατο κύριος τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἄκουε Ισραηλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD

Isaiah 6:3 וְקָרָ֙א זֶ֤ה אֶל־זֶה֙ וְאָמַ֔ר קָד֧וֹשׁ׀ קָד֛וֹשׁ קָד֖וֹשׁ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת מְלֹ֥א כָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ כְּבוֹדֽוֹ׃

Revelation 4:8 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ᾽ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες: ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

1 John 5:7-8 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

In context, what God was saying that there are no other gods than Him, and yes there's only 'one' God (monotheism), but the pronoun and noun God used there specifically are plural. Monotheism also does not imply polytheism because all three persons share the same essence.

Now here's the kicker. In Islam you will find the Qu'ran states God is one, in regards to the pronouns and persons. This means that the Biblical Unitarianism is actually Islamic Unitarianism as the Unitarian argument can only be supported by the Qu'ran in the original language and not the Bible's:

Surat al-Ankabut 29:46 And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

Surat al-Ankabut 29:46 ۞وَلَا تُجَٰدِلُوٓاْ أَهۡلَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبِ إِلَّابِٱلَّتِي هِيَ أَحۡسَنُ إِلَّاٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُواْ مِنۡهُمۡۖ وَقُولُوٓاْ ءَامَنَّا بِٱلَّذِيٓ أُنزِلَ إِلَيۡنَا وَأُنزِلَ إِلَيۡكُمۡ وَإِلَٰهُنَا وَإِلَٰهُكُمۡ وَٰحِدٞ وَنَحۡنُ لَهُۥ مُسۡلِمُونَ

But wait... what about Galatians 3:20?

Galatians 3:20 (KJV) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Galatians 3:20 ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν.

Galatians 3:20 (ending) one God, I AM.

There is no English 'is' verb between θεὸς and εἷς in the Greek. It would be best to translate it at "one God" (God one because English reverses the order from most languages). And then (which Christ has done in many of the passages already) with ἐστιν, using it to say I AM in reference of Exodus 3:14's "I AM that I AM". In other words, Christ is claiming deity in nearly every verse in the Greek! This proves the exact opposite of Unitarianism. It's shocking at how poorly Galatians 3:20 is translated in all of our English Bibles.

Argument #7: The trinity cannot fit into the teaching from 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Response: the statement 'one God' (and 'our God is one LORD') is not the same as 'God is one'. And notice the same ending statements (with subtle alterations) are used to describe both the Father and the Son. Furthermore this actually proves the Trinity for Christ says:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Christ and the Father *are* one in the same essence, thus trinity. Using the statement 'one God' to say that the Father is one then falls apart since Christ is claiming the same.

Furthermore you also have the contradiction that some Unitarians will state "one" should refer to "one purpose", which isn't compatible with 'one God'. This is what happens when you play messy word games, and word games in a language foreign to the Bible.

Argument #8: Christ is not God, as he was a man like us

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men: the GOD-MAN Christ Jesus

Response: Jesus Christ cannot be a man in the same way we are because He's our mediator, was sinless and paid for sins where no other humans could. Therefore only the GOD-MAN title is appropriate.

Argument #9: because there is 'none else' and 'no God beside' God, the trinity cannot co-exist

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me

Response: well this argument is refuted by Deuteronomy 6:4 "our God is one LORD" and also John 10:30.

Argument #10 How can the Son be seen as the Father when the Father cannot be seen by men

John 14:9 Jesus says to him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how do you say then, "show us the Father?"

Response: this is a rather juvenile argument: Christ is the GOD-MAN and therefore Christ has taken on humanity on Himself (He did not always have His humanity before hupostasis occurred), therefore Christ's humanity is indeed seen by men. Furthermore, this anti-trinity argument is ironically refuted by Christ Himself with "how then can you say 'show us the Father'." You end up stepping on your own toes when trying to prove a concept the Bible doesn't support.

Argument #11: because in Job 33:4 it says "the Spirit of God has made me", that simply refers to God the Father's spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit does not exist as a Godhead

Job 33:4 (1) The Spirit of God has made me, (2) and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Response: "the Almighty" is Jesus Christ. That's why you have 'the Almighty' placed there in the first place, this also goes back to Genesis 1 where the Father decrees and the Son creates. So if we were to say the trinity doesn't exist in Job 33:4, we're effectively ignoring why the alternative phrase 'the Almighty' was put there in the first place and also completely ignoring Genesis 1.

The Bible uses technical language with specific vocabulary terms. Religion like Unitarianism IGNORES these as white noise. READ what the Bible is saying for once and look at the vocabulary.

Argument #12 John 4:24 also follows 'God's spirit', therefore this is God the Father's spirit and not a third member (Holy Spirit) of the Godhead

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Response: This actually contradicts the statement of God the Father's spirit versus God being a spirit. Theos Pneuma refers to the Holy Spirit. And worshipping in the Spirit means being re-filled via the Holy Spirit. If God is a Spirit, how it this also be God the Father's spirit?

We also run into the problem of the Bible never using the phrase 'God's spirit'. For example:

Numbers 27:18 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him

Notice it doesn't say the LORD's spirit, but rather separates to simply the spirit? Therefore we cannot interpret it as God's spirit / The Father's spirit.

Argument #13: since God says he will have a 'son in the future', it means that Jesus Christ did not exist prior to his birth

2 Samuel 7:12-13 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

Response: How could Jesus have only existed at the time of His birth when He created all things:

Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers...

This is also mirrored in John 1:

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

But wait, how do we know Jesus Christ is the context of Colossians 1:16 and not 'The Father'? Context surrounding the verse points to Jesus Christ (for we are redeemed through Christ's blood and He is the head of the body).

But wait, how do we know Jesus Christ is the Word in John 1? Going straight back to 1 John 5:7, Jesus' title is uniquely stated as The Word complimenting John 1. But we also have direct verses such as Relevation 19:13:

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

But wait, isn't the Word of God (the purpose of God) a manifestation of God the Father? If we were to consider that interpretation, we would have Jesus Christ creating all things in Colossians 1:16 and a manifestation "the purpose" of the Father in John 1: which creates a chaotic schism. So, wordplay on 'name' and 'manifestation' start to become impossible to keep consistent. Also, LOGOS does not translate to "the purpose of God", this actually breaks the interpretation of the book of James.

Argument #14: If the Holy Spirit caused Mary to be pregnant, and if the Trinity exists, that would mean the Father would be the father. Therefore the Holy Spirit has to be the "power" the Father uses

Luke 1:31-32 And, behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son and will call His name JESUS. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David

Response: God has ELECTED that the Holy Spirit would perform that function (Since the H.S. operates in believers). Therefore the Y Chromosome provided by the Holy Spirit was from God.

Argument #15: the phrase God the Son is not found in the Bible (whereas Son of Man and Son of God are), therefore the Son is not God

Response: the phrase "God's [The Father] spirit" is not found either; with that logic, proprietary terms that Unitarians themselves use to prove their own point are invalid. Proprietary English words are used to describe concepts all the time, so it's not a good way to argue. Furthermore, the underlying phrases in the original language text are often quite different than what we're reading in English.

Argument #16: in John 3:16 it says that Jesus Christ was begotten; therefore he did not exist before being begotten. So Jesus Christ isn't God the Father Himself. That also means Jesus was begotten on a particular point of time.

It does NOT say Christ was begotten in John 3:16.

[Friberg] μονογενής, ές of what is the only one of its kind of class unique

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave his only uniquely born Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have life eternal

John 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Since Christ was uniquely born unlike any other human, this means He is the GOD-MAN, both God and man. He did exist prior, such as the many other references to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, like when Christ appeared to Moses in the burning bush.

Argument #17: if Christ's will is not His but the one who sent Him, how can He be God the Father?

John 7:16 Jesus answered them and said: my doctrine is not mine but His that sent me.

John 7:16 ἀπεκρίθη οὖν αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν· ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὴ ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με

Response: Son operates on the Father's decrees. If you actually knew the doctrine of the trinity from the original language texts, you'd know this!

Argument #18: If Jesus comes in His Father's name, how can He be God?

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and you don't receive me: if another will come in his own name then you'll receive him.

Response: skip down to where Christ continues:

John 5:46 For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Cherry picking for the win!

Argument #19: Jesus manifested the Father, but was not the Father

Response: Implying that Jesus manifested the Father but was not the Father essentially means the Father had to possess the body of Jesus Christ as a parasite.

Argument #20: because Jesus says the Father has taught me, He is not God.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus to them: when you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of myself but as my Father has taught me, these things I speak.

John 8:28 εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λαλῶ.

ταῦτα pronoun demonstrative accusative neuter plural from οὗτος

Eventually you're going to trip over the original language texts because plural pronouns are used, and Greek itself will use plural pronouns for context and emphasis (something that's completely foreign to English). *As per mentioned previously, God operates with different roles; being co-equal, but becoming 'unequal' where necessary BY CHOICE. This is just a repeat of that and isn't introducing a new argument.

Argument #21: because Jesus says "the Father is greater than me", He is not equal with God, and cannot be God as a result.

John 14:28 You have heard how I said to you, I go away, and come again to you. If you loved me you would rejoice because I said: I go to the Father for my Father is greater than I.

John 14:28 ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἂν ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.

Response: *As per mentioned previously, God operates with different roles; being co-equal, but becoming 'unequal' where necessary BY CHOICE. This is just a repeat of that and isn't introducing a new argument.

Argument #22: Jesus Christ manifested the Father, but was not the Father. This is proven in John 17:6 where Christ says he has manifested the Father's name.

John 17:6 (KJV) I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

John 17:6 (KJV) Ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις οὓς ἔδωκάς μοι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. σοὶ ἦσαν κἀμοὶ αὐτοὺς ἔδωκας καὶ τὸν λόγον σου τετήρηκαν.

Response: this is actually a critical flaw when interpreting older translations such as the KJV. The word 'manifest' in 1611 meant a public declaration / open statement; today our definition of the word 'manifest' doesn't generally carry that obsolete meaning. Therefore if you read a modern translation like the NIV it states "I have revealed". So it's not the Father "manifesting" Christ, but Christ declaring the Father. Other way around; which actually serves no benefit on defending Unitarianism and does just the opposite.

This further solidifies the fact that Unitarianism largely persists as a modern phenomenon like KJV-Onlyism (while the 'root' of both concepts are much older, their prolification today are due to reliance on the English language). With that said, if Unitarians can't even interpret 17th century English, how are they going to read the original language texts? Too dumb to know their own language and abandoning careful studying in favour of confirmation bias. Nice.

If God WASN'T three [and] one

If God wasn't three persons with identical essence, a lot of Bible Doctrines and concepts are completely broken and contradict one another.

#1 Interpreting the variations between Adonai / YHWH becomes confusing in the Old Testament when the trinity is removed.

#2 Salvation becomes impossible without the Son paying the Father. If God was only 'the Father', He would be paying Himself directly; which wouldn't be a payment. It's the same as taking money out of your bank account and putting it back in: you don't get paid anything despite "paying" yourself. If the Son wasn't God (same essence), then the Son *couldn't* pay the Father, either.

#3 Pluralization of 'Elohim' and other words in the original language text doesn't make sense as that means there would be 'multiple' gods if God *wasn't* a trinity (which then allows us to say 'same essence' rather than 'different gods').

#4 There's no point of 'holy holy holy' and it becomes a mindless religious statement (Matthew 6:7), the Bible never contradicts itself.

#5 We would have a contradiction with 'God is one LORD' since the Bible never says 'God is one' directly; and if we were to take the 'God is one' belief, it places God on par to Islam.

#6 Why wouldn't the Bible just use "The Father" and omit all other terminology?

#7 Only God is to be worshipped. If the trinity does not exist (therefore making Jesus Christ 'a man' and not God, and rendering the Holy Spirit to God the Father's spirit) this breaks multiple things:
A) Jesus Christ has been worshipped (Hebrews 1:6), therefore defying Matthew 4:10 & Revelation 22:9.
B) We wouldn't be able to worship God in the Spirit (John 4:23-24) since this requires "the [holy] Spirit" and not "the Father's Spirit".

The Unitarian counter-argument to Hebrews 1:6 in this giant word-salad, is that the angels weren't actually worshipping Jesus (bowing) and so it didn't count. This is actually very similar to the mental gymnastics Catholics use when trying to defend against Matthew 23:9 where they say "well you call your biological father, "Father", so clearly it doesn't matter if you call a priest 'father'" -- the Bible is referring to your thinking! If someone physically collapses by accident in front of a golden idol that mimics "bowing", obviously that's not what's actually meant. The physical actions don't mean anything, IT'S WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. And this is why John in Revelation 22:8-9 got schooled because the physical action of bowing was preceeded by his thoughts 'worshipping' the angel by mistake. Therefore if people are worshipping Christ they would be violating Revelation 22:9. It's then continued with "how could Jesus be worshipped if He was lower than the Angels (Hebrews 2:7)", SIMPLE, because He was fully human and fully God. If you're in a physical meat body of course you're going to be lower than the angels. Would Unitarians seriously argue that a biological body is superior to an angelic body? Finally they ignore the fact WHY the Bible even brings up that Christ was lower than the angels -- why even bother saying that if Christ was "just a man" and not God; humans were always lower than the angels, so it wouldn't have significance UNLESS Jesus Christ was God AND THEN becomes lower than the angels through His humanity as a result of the biology; this absolutely contradicts unitarianism.

The Unitarian counter-argument to Matthew 4:10 is equally as bad, they claim if Jesus was tempted He's not God because God can't be tempted. Jesus Christ's Humanity could be tempted because (and now they're tripping over themselves) "He was made lower than the angels", if you're in a biological body as humanity LOWER than the angels obviously you can be tempted, else, He wouldn't be the GOD-MAN. You could just as well say "God doesn't feel physical pain", and that would be correct, but again as the GOD-MAN Christ's humanity did feel physical pain, and it was horrible.

#8 If Jesus Christ 'never changes' then He would have to be eternal. If Jesus Christ only existed after being born, then that would add a point of changeability.

#9 Jesus Christ claims "before Abraham was, I am", but that's impossible if Jesus Christ only existed as a man when born. If we were to say it was simply God the Father 'manifesting' through Christ, we would have to use a misreading of obsolete translations (i.e. the KJV 1611), AND reverse where Christ was stating *He* was declaring the Father. To recap:
A) discarding the interpetation that Christ Himself is claiming these statements, but instead through 'manifesting' the Father and not Himself
B) using an argument based on a misreading of obslete English
C) reversing what Christ said
D) ignore the fact that the Jews were trying to stone Jesus for claiming deity (re: Leviticus 24:16) E) ignore the fact that Christ is called God directly (re: Titus 2:13)

#10 if Christ is simply 'manifesting' through the Father, that renders Christ into a useless middleman. If Christ is supposed to pay for sins, how can He when the Father is manifesting through Him? You could say that by manifesting Christ the Father then pays sins by injecting Himself onto the cross through Christ... but then there's no point since the Father could do that at any point of time without having to put another being on the cross to 'pay' Himself through them.

#11 if 'all things were made by Him' (Jesus Christ) and in Genesis 1 this is reflected with stating Elohim and a clause to determine who was at work; we would have to erase all of that and IGNORE that Jesus Christ created all things.

#11 If God was not three persons with the same essence, the eternal life conference in eternity past wouldn't have occurred.


While it's possible to design an excuse for denying the trinity in the verses it appears (ESPECIALLY if you can only read English because the English has no way of representing all of the complex grammar happening that gets lost in translation), and excusable for those who haven't [yet!] learned the words Christ spoke; the deeper the doctrine goes, the more convoluted and contradictory the 'excuses' become -- to the point where you have to be arrogant and deliberately want to paint your own picture than what the NOT-ENGLISH text is saying. And in some cases the distortions either require relying on translations and deliberately ignoring original language text, or creating an excuse based on the original language text itself without presenting all of it.

Another big 'giveaway' is how the demons so consistently reverse or try to make a joke of God's nature in pretty much everything they do. This is why all religion either deforms the trinity or most commonly denies it outright.

To conclude then, Unitarianism is plagued by the following:

Here's further Unitarian web pages if you're up for the task; watch how they always use English translations and ignore the Greek & Hebrew singular and pluralization:

P.S. It may also be pertinet for the Unitarians to rename their movement to the English-language Unitarianism or the Qu'ran Unitarianism, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original language texts.

There are countless examples of 'three' in reference to the Godhead; you have to be stubborn to ignore reference after reference after reference in the original language texts. God uses SPECIFIC plural pronouns on Himself and nobody else does There are REAL-WORLD examples of God's thumbprint in the very things He created