The trinity

These are my findings can some one please explain to me ifand were i have gone wrong in my findings on the trinity.
Thankyou
God Bless

WHY DON’T I BELIEVE THE TRINITY

John 1v1 – 3 says
In the beginning was the WORD
The WORD was with God
And the WORD was God
V 14 tells us that the word is Jesus Christ

The new testament was written in the Greek, the original Greek word for the word “WORD” is logos which means mind or purpose, wisdom of thought an idea.
So if you read that section of scripture how it was written it would be
In the beginning was the “thought or idea”
And the “thought or idea was with God
And the “thought or idea was God
So you can see that in the beginning god had a thought or idea and that thought or idea was Christ, it was God because it was in his mind he thought about it constantly.

If you then look at verse 18 of that exact came chapter it says No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
No one had seen God except Christ which means, that Christ couldn’t have been God because If he was then that verse would be a lie, because everyone who had seen Christ would have seen God.
Even the believers of the time of Christ believed he was the Son of God he wasn’t actually God v 49 Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

John 10v30 says I and my father are one
This verse would seem to prove the trinity in saying that Christ was God
BUT….Psalms 82 v 6 says that all who hears the word of God is a God, does this mean that if the trinity is correct then all of us who have heard the word of Gods are all God, so there would not be any need for salvation because we would all be God and seems as 1 Tim 1 v 17 says that God is immortals that means we would all be immortal.
No it doesn’t the Hebrew word there for god is God Elohim- which means mighty one, or the might or power of God has filled them.
So God and his son are one because Christ is full of Gods might or power.

A couple of questions
Can God die?
Answer no he cant God is immortal (1 Tim 1v17, and 1 Tim 6v16)
So how can God be Christ if Christ died, but God cannot die?
Can God be tempted?
No he is immortal can so cannot sin, and cannot be tempted
But Luke 4v2 says that Christ was tempted if Christ was tempted how can be God because God cannot be tempted.
More questions
If God and Christ is the same person who ran the World while Christ was one the earth In a MORTAL body, he didn’t have the power to rule the world, because he was mortal.
Who ran the world while Christ was in Mary’s stomach, Christ couldn’t have done it.

Quotes that show the trinity doesn’t quite add up
God
Christ

John 3v16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1 Tim 2v5 – One God One Mediator (mediator Christ) 2 people.
John 13v1 - Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
John 17 – Christ is praying to God…If God and Christ are the same person then Christ is talking to himself.
John 17v6- 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 20v17 –Christ not yet ascended to his father
Matt 19v16-17 – A man kept calling Christ good and “Good Master”, Christ replies with there is none Good but one that is GOD
Mark 14v36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
John 5v30 – I seek not mine own will, but the will of the father which hath sent me.
John5v19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Romans 3 v 24

Mark 13v32 - But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
The day that Christ returns to set of his kingdom is known only to God even his son doesn’t no, so how can they be the same person.

I believe you might be a bit confused here. GOD, known as the "GODHEAD" is the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in ONE aka "Godhead". The body of Christ is the Church (us believers)>

Originally Posted by Chadi

I believe you might be a bit confused here. GOD, known as the "GODHEAD" is the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in ONE aka "Godhead". The body of Christ is the Church (us believers)>

Chadi , it sounds like to me that he has very valid reasons for what he is saying, and he gave plenty of scriptures to show why he believes that way,, The only thing that i see that is confusing is the trinity doctrine ! Trinity equals worshipping 3 gods, one of which don't even have a name > the holy spirit.

The Heavenly Father our Creator has a name in Hebrew the letters of His name = YHVH in english, and the Son our Saviour The Messiah in Hebrew the letters of His name = YHVS' in english,, some people pronounce YHVH > Yahweh ,, and YHVS' > Yahushua or Yahshua ,, YHVH sent His Son in His name, so the Son's name is not much different from that of His Father,, even though it seems that no one is positive how to pronounce the actual Hebrew names for them,, They do have names,,

But in all of my studies i have never found a name for the holy spirit,,

Thankyou OneHeart4Jesus i agree with you there, people who believe the trinity always seem to come up with stuff about God the father and God the son and God the holy spirit, but as far as i can see those names areent even mentioned in the bible.

Here is a little bit more further study that i ahev done, read trough it and try to decide waht you think.

Sry it is so conjested and hard to read but im in a hurry i have to goto church.

The Trinity


The idea of the Trinity is not one that is found in the Bible. Far from being part of the same being, God and Christ are quite separate. Consider the following verse, 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". A mediator is a go-between. For Christ to mediate between God and men he must be separate from God, just as he is separate from the individual people he mediates for; if Christ was part of God then this verse would be nonsense.

1 Corinthians 8:6 also speaks plainly of God and Christ as separate: "But to us there is but one God, the Father, ... and one Lord Jesus Christ". If God the Father and Christ were part of the one being, why would these words have been written? If they were part of the Trinity, why is there no reference to the Holy Spirit here? The only reasonable answer is that God, the Father is a totally separate being from Jesus Christ.
There are two passages from the New Testament that are often used to prove the Trinity, John 1 and Luke 1:35. In reality, both of these show that the Trinity does not exist.

John 1:18 plainly states that "No man hath seen God at any time". It does not say " No man hath seen God the Father" at any time, but that no man has seen GOD at any time. It is obvious from the Gospels that people saw Jesus: therefore Jesus cannot be God, or any part of God. The verse goes on to say "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Some other translations of this passage, which are based on other Greek manuscripts, have "the only begotten God" where the KJV has "only begotten Son". The Greek words for 'son' and 'god' in this context are very similar, and it seems likely that 'son' becoming 'god' was a simple slip of the pen when the early manuscripts were copied. The phrase 'only begotten God' is also at odds with the doctrine of the Trinity. Something that is begotten has a definite beginning and a cornerstone of the Trinity is that 'God the Son' has always existed.

"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 also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) Let us suppose that this passage does speak of the Trinity. It would seem then that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Christ, which would give a trinity of "God the Father & Holy Spirit, God the Son, and God the Redundant"! The more logical interpretation of this passage is that the Holy Spirit is simply the power of God.

Christ stands out in the Bible as being a sinless individual; this is a truly great achievement for a man. Sin is simply acting contrary to the will of God - therefore for Christ's sinlessness to be an achievement he must not be part of God

You are both correct, the Trinity is not found in the Bible. What is found in the Bible (specifically the gopsels for that matter) is when Jesus speaks of the Father saying "I am in the Father and the Father is in me". Then, He also speaks of the Holy Spirit which is the spirit of GOD Himself. I believe in a way it is normal and understandable to be a little confused or say, mind boggled for that matter. After all, GOD is infinitely powerful and complex beyond our understanding. Of course, GOD gracefully has given us all the wisdom we can ask for while on this earth :)

Yes chadi I agree with you that there are such quotes in the bible for example.

John 10v30 says I and my father are one
This verse would seem to prove the trinity in saying that Christ was God
BUT….Psalms 82 v 6 says that all who hears the word of God is a God, does this mean that if the trinity is correct then all of us who have heard the word of Gods are all God, so there would not be any need for salvation because we would all be God and seems as 1 Tim 1 v 17 says that God is immortals that means we would all be immortal.
No it doesn’t the Hebrew word there for god is God Elohim- which means mighty ones, or the might or power of God has filled them.
So God and his son are one because Christ is full of Gods might or power.

But as you can see this quote dosent really proove the trinity. There are simle explanations to many quotes like this one.

John Chapter 17
1 These things spake Yahshua; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee:

2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life.

3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true Elohim, and him whom thou didst send, even Yahshua Ha Mashiyach.

4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.

5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.

7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee:

8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine:

10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.

11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.

16 They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word;

21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.

24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

25 O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me;

26 and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them.

Notice in verse 11 it says 'that they may be one even as we are one' , One as in unity of mind purpose and will. Not one body Not one person Also notice that the holy spirit is not mentioned.

If you are really interested in how the Doctine of the Trinity was developed read the following link ... it's too long to print here. There was a big controversy over the Trinity in the early church (as discussed in this article). The Trinity as understood today One God in 3 Persons was began at the Council of Bishops in Constantinople in AD 381. Here's their statement...

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit the became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].57 With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

The author of the Article does a good job of recapping the discussion about the Trinity in his Conclusion and the final section on Relevance for the Modern Believer

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...rinhistory.htm

`scuse me, I`m intersted too, sort of a newbie question, I have been studying voraciously for only a couple months :

WHY is the concept of the trinity within the New Testament only neccessary to describe the relationship between Jesus Christ and God, but unnecessary when describing the Messiah and God within the Old Testament?
The confusion doesn`t seem to come up until the NT authors (not Jesus) tell us so, and everyone knows Jews don`t believe in the Trinity, but apparently they don`t have to?

I only ask because the Trinity explanation appears to have come about a couple of hundred years after Jesus, and It seems in the OT they never actually described the coming Messiah as God but merely the son of. Also, apart from a few places where a "plurality" is hinted at, such as in Genesis with the line "Let us", they constantly Hammer us with a singular God. literally they must speak of God in the singular over a thousand times.

Heck, maybe I should be on a Jewish board for this one.

How the Theory Of the Trinity Got Started


"The Lord Our God is One Lord"

ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY
The original teachings of Christ shone forth with wonderful radiance into the darkness of the Roman world. The Gospel in the beginning was preached in plain terms by simple men, and it was received with gladness by the meek of the earth. The twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, as long
as they lived, were the guardians of faith, keeping it pure from human traditions and Pagan influence. Few Christians realize how rapidly corruption entered the church after their death.

We are told by historians that the church conquered the world, but in reality the world overcame the
church. As the Gospel message increased in popularity, hordes of Pagans entered the church, bringing with them Pagan ideas. Great catechetical schools were formed; ritualism took the place of Bible study; and costly buildings replaced the catacombs. The pastors of the flock, once noted for self-sacrifice and piety, became wealthy lords over the common people. The sacred heritage
of the Bible was buried in creeds, superstition, and forgotten languages; and the ruling powers eventually made it a capital crime to translate the Bible into the common tongue.

Sola Scriptura was the rallying cry of the great Reformation, when the Bible was exalted by Protestants as the sole guide of faith. The Catholic doctrine of tradition as an equal authority in religious matters was at that time firmly rejected. Evangelical Christians ever since have relied (theoretically) on the Bible alone as the source of revealed truth, but in practice they seldom
measured up to that high standard.

Thus “historic Christianity,” “historic Protestantism,” and various other euphemisms for tradition are frequently cited in the writings of Protestants as authority for doctrinal positions. We hear them saying that nothing more can be known about basic Christianity than is outlined in the conflicting creeds of established churches; and that to assert any really different opinion about
the Holy Scriptures now would be presumptuous, for so many generations of pious Christians could surely not be wrong.
This traditionalism is a serious error. The necessity for upholding the Bible as the only touchstone of truth is manifest throughout church history, particularly as we consider the various Christian teachings on the nature of the Deity—a subject which, though certainly of cardinal
importance, has been one of the most hotly debated issues in the history of the church.

Trinitarianism a Gradual Development

The concept of a trinity was widespread throughout the Pagan world. In Japan there was a three-headed divinity called “San Pao Fuh”: in India the trinity was called, “Eko Deva Trimurtti,” “One God, three forms.” The Babylonians also had a trinity, as did the Pagans of Siberia, Persia, Egypt, and Scandinavia. Long after the apostles died, the teaching that God is a trinity began to be introduced into the Christian church. It was championed chiefly by the educated converts from Paganism and resisted by ordinary believers. “The victory of orthodoxy was a triumph of priests and theologians over the indeed deeply rooted faith of the people....”* That the Father and the Son are equal, however, was at first denied by all. Early church writers, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Arnobius, and Lactantius. were very explicit in affirming that the Heavenly Father alone is the supreme God and that Jesus is
completely subordinate to his authority and will.
* * [ [A Adolf H Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma, trans. E. K. Mitchell (Starr King Press), l 957, p. 266. (A Trinitarian source.)]

During the early years of the fourth century, a heated controversy raged between the Arians (named after Arius, their leader and the Trinitarians, led by Athanasius. The Arians maintained that Jesus is a created being, pre-existent, though having a beginning in time, a son in the normal sense of the word, and subordinate to the Father. The Athanasian party argued that the Son is
fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Fearing that religious dissension might disrupt the political unity of the Empire, the Emperor Constantine summoned a general council of bishops to settle the dispute. Meeting at Nice in 325 A.D., the council upheld the teachings of Athanasius and formulated the Nicene Creed. Arius was excommunicated and banished, along with those of the bishops who held out against the decision of the majority and the threats of the Emperor.

The basic Trinitarian position was finally forged at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, where the Holy Spirit was declared to be a divine person, although Harnack states that in the third century the majority of Christians believed it was merely a divine power.* At the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, and again at Chalcedon in 450 A.D., Jesus was asserted to be eternally both
human and divine, a unity of two natures. The Council of Ephesus, incidentally, added Mary as a supplement to the Trinity, declaring that she should be received and honored as Theotokos, “Mother of God.”
[* Ibid., p. 266.]

Thus the controversy on the nature of God was settled, or so orthodox historians would have us believe. And thus, we are told, the Holy Spirit guided the church into an understanding of the truth. In point of fact, however, these councils, settled very little. Other councils met as well and upheld Arianism! The fortunes of both sides seesawed according to the politics of the Empire.
Whenever the Arians were dominant, they persecuted the Trinitarians; and when their fortunes were reversed, the Trinitarians persecuted them. The eventual result was not so much the outcome of rational debate and pious scholarship as of power politics and shedding of blood. By
the start of the eighth century, Arianism was externally suppressed, for the Trinitarians, (* McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, Vol. 1, p. 392, 1895. A Trinitarian source.),
proved to be more efficient in killing the Arians than the latter were in killing them. Thus was orthodoxy established. And the most avid defender of holy tradition cannot deny that, had the Arians been militarily successful, their position would have become the standard of orthodoxy instead of that of their opponents.


The Trinitarian consensus, imposed by force of arms, related more to a formula than to the actual
substance of belief. The doctrine of the Trinity was simultaneously declared to be a deep mystery,
which nobody can understand, and a dogma which must be accepted to obtain salvation. Artists pictured their beliefs with varied representations. Some portrayed the Deity as three separate men, looking alike; others, as three men distinguished. Still others represented it as three heads on one body, or three faces on one head.

Evangelical Modifications

Since the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Trinitarian position has come under searching criticism throughout the world. To meet these attacks, evangelicals have been modifying their doctrinal formulations. Thus Dr. R. A. Torrey, recent Superintendent of the M oody Bible Institute, has advanced a subordinationist view, stating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons, co-eternal but not co-equal. The Father, according to Dr. Torrey, is superior to the Son, and the Holy Spirit is subordinate to both.*
[* R. A. Torrey, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), 1910.]

Another area of modification by contemporary Trinitarians is relative to three gods in one or “three persons in one substance.” Walter R. Martin, of the Christian Research Institute, modifies this point with the following definition:
Within the unity of the one God, there are three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these three share the same nature and attributes. In effect, then the three persons are the one God.
Similarly, in an essay entitled “The Triune God,” published by Christianity Today,* the term “substance” used in the Athanasian Creed is modified. This Creed was affirmed by Catholics and Protestants for many centuries. However, this essay concedes that the formula of the trinity often read “three persons in one substance (Greek, treis hypostaseis en mia ousia, and Latin, tres personae in una substantia )”
[* Samuel J. Mikolaski, “The Triune God” (Christianity Today), p. 5.]

There is, thus, no uniform Christian position on the nature of God. Reliance upon human tradition has been a great source of difficulty to many Christians who are earnestly seeking to understand God’s Word. The divinely inspired Scriptures are the only valid evidence for
Christian belief, and any objective appraisal of their teaching must include all scriptures pertinent to any subject, i.e., the earnest student of God’s Word must be willing to harmonize the Scriptures, not merely selecting those verses which seem to support his position while ignoring the rest. Only thus can a Christian be “a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.”—2 Tim. 2:15

In summation, the following facts regarding the origin of the Trinity are irrefutable:
1. The word “Trinity” nowhere appears in the Bible.
2. The word “Trinity” does not even appear in Christian literature till the beginning of the third century. Even then, it meant something very different from the interpretation now given to the word. Tertullian, the first to use the word, believed that only the Father was without beginning.
The Son, according to him, had a beginning, and his pre-human existence was of the angelic nature. The oneness of the Father and the Son was a oneness of purpose and will.
3. Trinitarians themselves are forced to concede that the doctrine of the Trinity was not completely forged until the fourth century.
4. There is not even a hint of the Trinity in the Old Testament. The Jews, God’s chosen people
from old Testament times, have never held this belief. In all of the voluminous rabbinical writings (Talmud) which date from Old Testament times, neither the Trinity nor any similar concept is once mentioned.

THE FATHER OF GLORY
IS THE ONE SUPREME GOD

Whenever the Scriptures use the word “God” in the sense of Supreme Deity, they refer to the Father alone. Thus in prayer Jesus calls his Father “the only true God,” excluding himself (John 17:3). The Bible, in fact, refers to the Heavenly Father as Jesus’ God (John 20:17). The Apostle Paul, contrasting the Christian position with the heathen worship of many gods, states that “to us there is but one God, the Father,” although he attributes to Jesus a lesser position of Lordship (I Cor. 8:6). For despite his present high position of exaltation and divine favor, our Lord Jesus is inferior to the Father and eternally subject to him, as the Apostle expressly states:
But I would have you kno w, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.—1 Cor. 11:3
Then comes the end, when he [Christ] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father... But when he says all things are put under him [the Son] it is manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued to him [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject to him that put all things under him, that God [the Father] may be all in all.—I Cor. 15:24,27,28
We, of course, do not deny, but rejoice to affirm, that Jesus Christ is now a divine being, worthy of our worship and adoration.
The appellation “God” may be properly ascribed to him. But even while the Scriptures refer to Jesus as a “God,” they do so in contexts showing his distinct inferiority to the Father. And notice that it is not simply Jesus as a man, but Jesus as a “God” who is thus shown to be subordinate.—
Heb. 1:1-9

The beautiful oneness of the Father and the Son is declared by our Lord to be the same oneness
that shall exist between himself and his church, as he prayed:
"Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, as we are... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as you, Father are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and you in me...."—John 17:11, 20-23.

The only scriptural support for the idea of three divine persons mysteriously being one God is the dubious passage of I John 5:7,8:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and
the blood: and these three agree in one.
The words underlined above are not found in any of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, nor in any of the ancient translations. That they are not a genuine part of the original text is the unanimous verdict of contemporary scholars, evangelicals included. Even as it stands, however, the forgery is a poor one, asserting that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are bearing
witness in heaven that Jesus is the Christ. Who in heaven would be ignorant of such a thing? The proposition is pointless. No wonder Trinitarian scholars readily concede these words are spurious.
The claim is often made by Trinitarians that, since there is only one God, and since Jesus is referred to in the Scriptures as God, then the Father and the Son are the same God. This argument totally ignores the usage of the Greek and Hebrew words from which the English word “God” is
translated.
The word “God” in the New Testament is most frequently a translation of the Greek word theos.
It is sufficient to state here that this word does not always apply to Supreme Deity. Satan, for instance, is called theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4, which reads, “In whom the god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of them that believe not....” The same word is used of Herod in Acts 12:22, where the people of Sidon and Tyre shouted after his oration, “It is the voice of a god (theos), and not of a man.” They surely did not mean to say that Herod was the supreme God.
Whether the Father or the Son is meant by any particular use of theos in the New Testament is generally left to the reader’s judgment, the person referred to being indicated by context and sentence construction. An exception to this is John 1:1, where the Greek definite article i s used to
distinguish the Father as “the God” from the Son, who is called “a God.” The Greek language, it is true, contains no indefinite article corresponding to the English “a.” But the indefinite article is implied by the context and, therefore, must be included in the English translation. Benjamin Wilson gives the correct rendering in his Emphatic Diaglott:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.”
The unbiased reader should have no difficulty understanding these words.
True, a few Trinitarians stress Colwell’s idea that, whenever a definite noun in New Testament Greek precedes the verb, the definite article is usually omitted, but that when the noun follows the verb, the article is retained. This rule, though not valid, simply throws the whole question open.

According to Colwell’s rule, the English translation is to be made according to whatever preconception the translator brings with him to the text, for whether a noun is definite or not cannot be grammatically ascertained. Thus if one believes that the word theos in the clause, ”and
the Word was a god,” is definite (referring to the God), he will translate the words, ”and the word was God,” or,“and the Word was the God.” But if he believes the noun to be indefinite, he will translate the clause, “and the Word was a god.” The superiority of “and the Word was a god,” is that it makes the passage consistent. If one translates the verse in the Trinitarian manner, he is
involved in a contradiction, for how can the Word be “with God” if he is the God with whom he is? The context of John 1, consistent with the rest of the Bible, shows clearly that the Word was “a god,” not “the God.” For a more detailed examination of Colwell’s rule, see the Appendix.
In response to John 1:1, Trinitarians sometimes argue that John 20:28, where, according to the Greek text, Thomas calls Jesus, “the Lord of mine and the God of mine,” proves that Jesus is the supreme God, because he is there called “the God.” But even the devil is called “the God” in 2 Corinthians 4:4, which says that “...the God of this world has blinded the minds of them that
believe not....” The use of the article by itself proves nothing; what is significant about John 1:1 is the contrast between the Father, who is called “the God,” and the Word or Representative of the Most High God, who is himself Appellations of Deity in the Old Testament
The word “God” in the Old Testament is generally a translation either of elohim (with its variations eloah, elah, and el) or Jehovah, (the Anglicized form of Yahweh). Once it is a translation of Adonai (Hab. 3:19), properly rendered “Lord,” and once of tsur, a rock.—Isa. 44:8
The assertion by Trinitarians that, because Jesus and the Father are both called elohim, they are, therefore, the same Being, is a very poor argument, displaying only the weakness of the position they are trying to defend. Notice the usage of this word in Scripture:
ANGELS CALLED ELOHIM
You have: made him a little lower than the angels (elohim), and have crowned him with glory and honor.—Psa. 8:5
ABRAHAM CALLED ELOHIM
And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying to him, Hear us, my lord: you are a mighty
(elohim) prince among us....—Gen. 23:5,6
MOSES CALLED ELOHIM
I have made you a god (elohim ) to Pharaoh.—Ex. 7:1
JUDGES CALLED ELOHIM
His master shall bring him to the judges ( elohim ).—Ex. 21:6
THE CHURCH CALLED ELOHIM
I have said, You are gods ( elohim ); and all of you are children of the most High.—Psa. 82:6. Elohim signifies a mighty one, prince, ruler, or judge; and since it is scripturally used to refer to men and angels, as well as to God, its use in referring to our Lord Jesus Christ does not in any way prove his equality with God.

Nor is there any validity in the assertion that, because elohim is plural in form, its application to God in the Scriptures indicates that there is more than one person in God. Psalm 45:6, “Your throne, O God ( elohim ), is for ever and ever,” is explained by Paul as a statement addressed by the Father to the Son (Heb. 1:8) . If elohim referred always to more than one person, there would
be more than one person in the Son! In the verse quoted above (Ex. 7:1) Moses is called elohim by God. Was Moses plural? Certainly not, for the word elohim, like our English word “sheep,” can be either singular or plural, as the occasion demands.
Unlike elohim, however, the word Jehovah is applied only to the Father,* never to the Son. The translators of our common Bibles have done us a great disservice in leaving the word untranslated only four times, where the context would seem to permit nothing else. In the vast
majority of instances it is translated either LORD or GOD. In our common versions, nevertheless, it can be easily recognized, since it is always printed in small capitals (GOD, LORD), while regular print is used to designate translations from other words (God, Lord).
* Or an angel speaking in his name. (Ex. 3:2,4,14;Judges 6:12, 14; Zech. 3:1,2)

The argument presented by Trinitarians is that both the Father and the Son are called Jehovah; therefore, they are both the same God. But the scriptures they cite to prove that Christ Jesus is Jehovah do not sustain their claim.
We are told that in Jeremiah 23:5,6, our Lord Jesus is called Jehovah, for that prophecy respecting Messiah reads, “And this is the name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS ( Jehovah-Tsidkenu ).” They fail to point out, however, that in Jeremiah 33:16 the church, pictured by Jerusalem, is called by the same name: “...and this is his name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness ( Jehovah-Tsidkenu).” Certainly the church is not a part of Jehovah. To bolster their prejudice, the translators had the words printed in capitals in the first instance, but tucked it away with small letters in the second. Jehovah-Tsidkenu could more properly be translated, “Our Righteousness of Jehovah” — a fitting title for our Lord Jesus, who in execution of the Father’s will has become the source of justification for believers in his name. The title is appropriate also for the church, to whom is committed the ministry of reconciliation, the great commission of bringing sinners back into harmony with God.—II Cor. 5:20; Rev. 22:17*
*For other examples of the use of Jehovah in a compound word, see Gen. 22:14; Ex. 17:15;Judges 6:23.24.
Another citation—used to prove that Jesus is Jehovah is Isaiah 40:3, which reads, “The voice of him that cries in the wilderness, Prepare you the way of the LORD ( Jehovah ), make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” This prophecy is quoted in the New Testament (Matt. 3: 3) and applied to John the Baptist’s work of preparing the Jews to receive Christ. But we remind the reader that Jesus came expressly to do the Father’s work, as he said, “My meat is to do the will of
him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34J. Jesus was the Father’s instrument in the
accomplishment of his gracious plan. Therefore, in preparing the Jews to receive Christ, John the
Baptist was preparing the way for the accomplishment of the Father’s work.

The prophecy of Isaiah 40:10 is regarded as sure proof that the Son is Jehovah: “Behold, the Lord GOD ( Jehovah ) will come with a strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him.” But notice here that the Father only is called Jehovah; Jesus is referred to as his “Arm.” Likewise, in Isaiah 53:1 Jesus is called the “arm of Jehovah.”
We are asked to believe that, since Jesus is our great teacher, he must be Jehovah, for Isaiah 54:13 reads, “And all your children shall be taught of the LORD ( Jehovah); and grea t shall be the peace of your children.” But Jesus himself merely claimed to be the Father’s representative,
saying: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."—John 7:16,17
"...whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said to me, so I speak."—John 12:50
"For I have given to them the words which you gave me....—John 17:8
"All things are of the Father and by the Son." (I Cor. 8:6). It is no difficulty to us that both the Son
and the Father are given credit for creation (John 1:3; Isaiah 40:28) ; for Paul explains that the Son, as always, was the Father’s honored agency: “God ...has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds... “ (Heb.
1:1,2). Similarly, both the Father and the Son are called “Savior,” because the Father himself originated the work of atonement when he “gave his only begotten Son.—John 3:16

Those who insist on referring to Jesus as Jehovah, rather than the Son of Jehovah, are not able to make good sense out of many passages where Jesus and Jehovah are most clearly distinguished.
The Second Psalm (vss. 7,8) furnishes a good illustration:
I will declare the decree: the LORD ( Jehovah) has said to me, You are my Son; this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I shall give you the heathen for your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.
If the Son is Jehovah, he received his inheritance as a gift from himself! The above citation clearly calls the Father Jehovah, in contradistinction to the Son. In Psalm 110:1, likewise, we read, “The LORD (Jehovah) said to my lord (Adon), Sit you at my right hand, until I make your
enemies your footstool.” That the Adon here referred to is Christ there can be no doubt, for he himself so states (Luke 20:4244). The Son, indeed, is a great Lord; but his authority and power come from Jehovah God, for the Scriptures plainly teach that Christ is Jehovah’s servant.—Isa. 42:1; 53:11

Another text chiefly relied upon by Trinitarians to prove that the name Jehovah belongs to Jesus is Zechariah 12:10, in which Jehovah says:
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

Since Jehovah refers to Messiah, the one who is pierced, as “me,” they simply cite Revelation 1:7
and consider their proof complete. The thoughtful reader, however, will at once notice a discrepancy: the speaker in this verse refers to Messiah as both “me” and “him” in the same sentence. An error, apparently, has crept into the text. A number of ancient manuscripts gave a more consistent reading; thus: “...they shall look to him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him...“ The text, thus corrected, definitely does not teach that Messiah is Jehovah.

“Before Abraham Was, I Am”

John 8:58 is said to be another strong proof that Christ is Jehovah, for the name Jehovah is said by Trinitarians to mean “I Am” — “the Self-Existing One” — and Jesus in that verse says, “Before Abraham was I am.’ Jesus, however, does not apply “l am” to himself as a title; he uses the words as the subject and verb of an ordinary sentence, meaning simply that from before
Abraham’s time until the present he had had a continuous existence. To make “I am” a title in this sentence is grammatically absurd. For Jesus to have said, “Before Abraham was, I was,” might have been mistaken by his hearers to mean that he had existed at some time in the remote past, had ceased to exist for a time, and had come into existence again. To avoid this misund erstanding, Jesus used the words, “I am,” to imply a continuous existence. Jesus existed long before Abraham’s time: and he continued to exist after Abraham until, as the Word made
flesh he uttered those very words.
The word Jehovah, more correctly Yahweh, does not really mean “I Am” but “He Who Becomes,” as J. B. Rotherham, an authority widely recognized among Protestants, has shown.
Yahweh is the third person, masculine, singular, imperfect tense of the root hawah, the sole meaning of which is “become.” And so Jehovah, the Heavenly Father, is forever “He Who Becomes,” the unfolding one, eternally revealing himself in creative power.

THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON

The Pre-human Existence of Christ

Another principal argument of Trinitarians is derived from Micah 5:2, which reads: But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting.
They assert that, since Jehovah is from everlasting to everlasting, Jesus must be Jehovah; for in the above verse he is said to be from everlasting. The weakness of this argument lies in the translation. There is no word in Hebrew that expresses the concept of eternity. The word olam here rendered “everlasting,” more properly signifies an indefinite or extended period of time. It is
translated “long” in Psalm 143:3, the context showing that it could not possibly refer there to infinite time: “...he has made me to dwell in darkness, as those that have been long dead.” Other translators have rendered olam. in Micah 5:2 as follows:
"...whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. —Revised Standard Version
...whose comings forth have been from of old, from the days of age-past time.—Rotherham
And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity.—Young’s Literal Translation
...whose origin is from olden times, from most ancient days.—Leeser
The prophecy in this verse simply teaches Messiah’s pre-human existence. And to this interpretation the remainder of the passage agrees, for the fourth verse does not say that Messiah is Jehovah, but that he “will stand and feed in the strength of the LORD (Jehovah), in the majesty
of the name of the LORD ( Jehovah ) his God.”

The spiritual, pre-human life of Jesus was glorious, but not without beginning. He was the first
creation of God, and the only direct creation of God—the “only begotten” of the Father.
Everything else was made by the Father through his chosen instrument, the Son (Heb. 1:2). In proof that Jesus was a created being, we cite Colossians 1:15, where Paul calls him the ‘“firstborn of every creature” (Greek lit., “of all creation”). Trinitarians assert, the term
”firstborn’’ here indicates priority solely in position rather than in time. This does not harmonize
with the context. Verse 18 compares Christ with the church and calls him the “firstborn from the dead.” At his resurrection, Christ was the first in point of time to be born from the dead. The repetition of the word “firstborn” in verses 15 and 18 reveals that Paul is making a direct
parallelism between Christ’s relationship to all creation in verse 15 and to the church in verse 18.
If ”firstborn from the dead” denotes first to be born from the dead, as well as pre-eminence over all resurrected, then “firstborn of all creation” denotes the first to be created as well as preeminence over all creation. The attempt to explain away this verse as signifying “firstborn
before all creation” is an unwarranted tampering with the text. The word “before” simply is not there. They are changing the facts to fit the theory.

Jesus is the “beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14), and he is the end for which all things are made, the heir of the universe (Heb. 1:2). He is the first and la st direct creation of God. The title of “Only Begotten Son” (John 1:18) is his alone for all eternity. No other son of the Highest was, or ever will be, made directly by the Father.
The Trinitarian claim that Jesus was not begotten, but is being eternally generated by the Father, does violence to Bible language.
The very same Greek word (monogenes) translated “only begotten” in reference to our Lord in John 1:14 is in Hebrews 11:17,18, applied to Isaac, the son of Abraham:
"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall your seed be called...."
Clearly, Isaac was not being continuously generated by Abraham. And the words “only begotten” and “Son” when applied to Jesus Christ are to be interpreted in their straightforward sense.*
[* For detailed consideration of monogenes see Appendix.]

Jesus’ pre-human life (we believe he was the highest of all spirit beings, next to the Father) is referred to in Philippians 2:5-9, which we quote from the Revised Standard Version: Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the
form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly
exalted him....
The above text, often cited in favor of the Trinitarian view because of its wretched translation in the King James Version, is here shown to clearly contradict that doctrine. Jesus did not, like Satan, attempt to usurp divine prerogatives (Isa. 14:13), but “emptied” (Greek, “divested”) himself of his high position and spirit nature, becoming “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). As a perfect man he suffered Adam’s penalty in his stead, thus releasing Adam and his posterity from
the curse of death.—1 Cor. 15:21 .22
The King James Version, which reads, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” controverts the passage’s true meaning, presenting as much a problem to Trinitarians as to their opponents.
For if Jesus were already God, there could be no thought of him robbing God by attempting to be equal with himself. In support of our interpretation of this verse we cite the following:
"...Not a thing to be seized accounted the being equal with God...."—Rotherham
"Yet he did not regard equality with God as something at which He should grasp".—Weymouth
"...did not violently strive..."—Dickenson
"...did not meditate a usurpation...."—Turnbull
"...did not meditate a usurpation...."—Wilson
The word harpagmos, variously translated above, is defined by Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon as “robbery, anything that is seized, plunder.” Because Jesus did not arrogate to himself divine prerogatives, but,contrariwise, humbled himself as the Father’s servant, God gave to him at his resurrection “a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth....” (Phil. 2:9,10).

Jesus was not worshipped by the angels until he was thus exalted above them to the divine nature and glory.
“When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”—Heb. 1:3,4

“The Man Christ Jesus”

“And the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14). Jesus Christ set aside his spirit nature and became a mere man — a perfect man, to be sure, but a man, nevertheless. Nowhere do the Scriptures refer to Christ as a God incarnate in human flesh. Nowhere in the Bible is taught the extravagant
mystery of a Christ consisting of two natures combined into one person. The traditional doctrine of the incarnation is simply without scriptural support.

Trinitar ians, in fact, are forced by their
doctrine to treat our Lord Jesus as though he were two separate persons, saying it was the human, not the divine, Christ who prayed in Gethsemane, “...take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). How, indeed, could God pray to himself and
have his own prayer refused? And when Christ was highly exalted by the Father at his resurrection, they say that his human body was somehow mysteriously “invested with divine attributes.” Christ as God, they say, was always divine and, therefore, could not be exalted. Yet
they claim that this deified body remains truly human! Sympathy with our Christian friends cannot prevent us from realizing that, when treating the humanity of Christ, Trinitarianism becomes a species of (well-intentioned) double talk. How much simpler and more scripturally harmonious is the Bible declaration that Christ was
“put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit” (I Peter 3:18, R.S.V.). The King James Version reads, “quickened by the Spirit,” but the word “by” simply is not contained in the Greek text.* Paul says of Christ that at his resurrection he was “made a quickening spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). For though after his resurrection he appeared to his disciples in various human forms
assumed for those occasions, he is now a glorious divine being, “dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see ....”—l Tim. 6:16
[* The words “in the” and “by the” have no equivalent Greek words in this passage. Though the dative case of sarki (flesh) and pneumati (spirit) require a preposition in translating into English, the evident contrast between the words themselves indicates that the same preposition “in” should be used in both instances: “put to death in (the) flesh, but made alive in (the) spirit.”]
When difficulties with their teachings are pointed out,

Trinitarians often respond that their doctrine is the “historic” position of the church, that any inconsistency therewith is a “mystery” —a line of argument which could be used to support almost anything. Some even cite 1 Timothy 3:16 to prove their claim that the relationship between Christ and the Father need not make
sense:
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He* was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory."
[* So reads the Revised Standard Version. The King James Bible says, ”God was manifested,” but that is incorrect.
The most ancient manuscripts read “who”—in English read, “He who....”]
The Greek word for “mystery” means “a secret,” and so the Gospel has ever been a mystery to unbelievers, though understood by those to whom Christ is revealed. The fallacy of their argument is that in this very verse, Paul explains the mystery or secret of which he is speaking.
Neither are we seeking to detract from the glory of the risen Christ, for in him “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead (theotes, “Deity”) bodily” (Col. 2:9). The fullness of divine glory (Col. 1:19) — the plenitude of wisdom, grace, and power— make him the able executor of the Father’s wonderful plans. All power in heaven and earth belongs to Jesus since his resurrection (Matt.
28:18) . The counsels of God, before kept secret (Mark 13:32), are now entrusted to his care (Rev. 5:1-5). We look forward with rejoicing to the day when all mankind will join the heavenly chorus, singing, “Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be to him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever.” —Rev. 5: l3

THE HOLY SPIRIT

We turn next in our consideration to the Holy Spirit of God—a subject which, despite its great prominence in Scripture and the emphasis placed upon it by Christian groups, has seldom been correctly understood. The cause of this misunderstanding is not the abstruseness of the subject itself, nor the difficulty of Bible language respecting it; but, rather, it results from the continual
failure of Bible students to consider the Scripture testimony as a whole. In this subject, as in all others, we must be willing to harmonize apparent contradictions, allowing one passage to shed light upon another and avoiding hasty conclusions. Only thus will we be “rightly dividing the word of truth.”—2 Tim. 2:15
The word “spirit” in the Old Testament is a translation of the Hebrew word ruach, the root-meaning of which is “wind.” In the New Testament, also, the word “spirit” comes from a root meaning “wind,” the Greek pneuma . Because wind is an invisible and powerful force, both
ruach and pneuma came to have a much broader significance, as the following examples indicate:
"And with the blast (ruach) of your nostrils the waters were gathered together...."—Ex. 15:8
"You did blow with your wind." (ruach) Ex. 15:10
"...all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach) of life." —Gen. 7:15
"...which were a grief of mind (ruach) to Isaac and to Rebekah."—Gen. 26:35
"The wind (pneuma) blows where it pleases...." —John 3:8
"...foreasmuch as you are zealous of spiritual (pneuma) gifts...."—1 Cor. 14:12
And he had power to give life (pneuma) to the image of the beast....—Rev. 13:15
We call attention to the foregoing verses to show that ruach and pneuma do not signify personality (necessarily) but invisible power or influence. These words were incorrectly translated “Ghost” ninety-two times in our King James Bible, the translators seeking to give the
words a coloring of personality which they do not really possess. The translators of the English Revised Version changed the word “Ghost” to “Spirit” in twenty-one occurrences; and the American Revision Committee protested their use of the word “Ghost” the remaining seventy-one
times. Thus in the American Standard Revised, as in most modern translations, the term “Holy Ghost” does not appear. It should be noted also that whether or not the word “spirit” ought to be capitalized is not indicated by the original text. It is a matter of personal judgment and
preference.

The Holy Spirit is variously described in the Bible as “The Spirit of God,” “The Spirit of Truth,”
“The Spirit of Love,” “The Spirit of a Sound Mind,” “The Spirit of Power,” “The Spirit of Grace,” “The Spirit of Prophecy,” “The Spirit of Wisdom,” “The Spirit of Glory,” “The Spirit of Meekness,” “The Spirit of Christ,” “The Spirit of Holiness,” etc. These titles all refer to one aspect or another of the mind of God and of his Son, Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit. therefore. is a
term which designates the mind of God, or any operation thereof, whether in miracle-working power or in sanctifying, enlightening influence. The following scriptures depict the Holy Spirit as—
THE MIND OF GOD:
And the LORD said, "My spirit shall not always strive with man...!"—Gen. 6:3
"But they rebelled, and vexed his [Jehovah’s] holy Spirit: Therefore he was turned to be their
enemy...." —Isa. 63:10
"Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain to it. Whither shall I go from your spirit?"—Psa. 139:6,7

THE POWER OF GOD:
"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies
by his Spirit that dwells in you."—Rom. 8:11
"For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God ...."—Rom. 15:18,19
"Then Samson went down...and, behold, a young lion roared against him. And the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid...."—Judges 14:5,6

THE SANCTIFYING, ENLIGHTENING INFLUENCE OF GOD:
"...because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to us."— Rom. 5: 5
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."—Rom. 8:14
"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by
his Spirit in the inner man...."—Eph. 3:16
"For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."—II Tim. 1:7

Our Lord Jesus received wisdom and power by an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at his baptism (Isa. 61:1;11:2,3; Matt. 3:16). Having received the Spirit without measure and conformed his life thereto, he is now able to send it forth to believers. We, receiving his Spirit, are said to have the Mind or Spirit of Christ:
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus...."—Phil. 2: 5
"For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." —1 Cor. 2:16
"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."—Rom. 8:9

The Holy Spirit Not a Person

Nothing in any of the various titles and descriptions of the Holy Spirit substantiates the popular conception of the Holy Spirit as a third God. The various designations, “Spirit of Truth,” “Spirit Page 15
of Love,” etc., are plainly used in contrast with the opposite spirit, “The Spirit of Fear,” “The Spirit of Bondage,” “The Spirit of the World,” “The Spirit of Divination,” “The Spirit of Error,”
“The Spirit of Slumber,” “The Spirit of Antichrist.” There is no more justification for saying that the Holy Spirit is a divine person than for saying that these descriptions of the wrong spirit or disposition represent one or more additional devils.
It is at least highly conspicuous that Paul omits to mention the Holy Spirit in his summary of divinity in 1 Corinthians 8:6; and in John 17:3, Jesus asserts that one must know only two persons to gain eternal life: “And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Paul opens all of his epistles (except Hebrews) with greetings from the Father and the Son only. The Holy Spirit does not send greetings because it is not a person. Nowhere in the Bible, furthermore, is the Holy Spirit called God.
We cannot overemphasize how clearly the Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the Spirit of a person, whether of the Father of Glory or of his beloved Son.

2 Corinthians 11:4 contrasts the Spirit of Truth with “another spirit” —the Spirit of Error. In 2 Timothy 1:7, the “Spirit of Power” is shown to be the opposite of the “Spirit of Fear.” Paul in Romans 8:15,16, contrasts the “Spirit of Bondage” with the “Spirit of Adoption,” saying, “For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” In 1 Corinthians 2:11, the Holy Spirit is explained by a comparison of the Spirit of God to the “spirit of a man.” The Holy Spirit is to God as the spirit or mind of a man is to man. Verse 12 of the same chapter proceeds to contrast God’s Spirit (mind or disposition) with the mentality of the world, the “spirit of the world.” The Apostle John in I John
4:2,3, shows the distinction between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Antichrist, between the Spirit of Truth and the antichristian Spirit of Error. In these verses the Holy Spirit is contrasted with influences, not with persons. These contrasts would be meaningless if the Holy Spirit were a person.

Personal Pronouns Wrongly Applied
John 14:26 is often cited to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person, because this verse has been wrongly translated as follows: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said to you.
T
he use of the personal pronoun “whom” in the above text is unwarranted, reflecting simply t he
translators’ prejudice. The word translated “whom” is in the neuter form and should have been
translated “which”; and the pronoun translated “he” (ekeinos ) in the passage is masculine to agree with the word rendered “comforter,” which is masculine even if the comforter is inanimate.
(For example, in French, a knife would be spoken of as “he,” a fork as “she.” It would be just as logical to insist that a fork is a person because the word fork is feminine in French, as to claim that the comforter is a person because the word is masculine in Greek.)

The Emphatic Diaglott gives a better rendering:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things,
and remind you of all things which I said to you."
A similarly incorrect use of personal pronouns occurs in John 14:17. The Diaglott, however,
renders it thus:
"...the Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot receive, because it beholds it not, nor knows it; but you know it; because it abides with you, and will be in you."

The use of the personal pronoun heautou,translated “himself” in John 16:13, does not at all
prove the personality of the Holy Spirit; for in this case the Greek pronoun simply follows its noun, Comforter, which is masculine. In Greek, as in many other languages, the pronoun agrees with the gender of its noun, regardless of sex or personality. One might just as well cite 1
Corinthians 13:4,5, “Charity...seeks not her (heautes) own,” to prove that charity is a person, as
to claim that the use of heautou proves the personality of the Holy Spirit.
As illustrations of the translation of the word heautou in the neuter form, in our Common Version, note the following:
"As the branch cannot bear fruit itself"—John 15:4
"The whole body...makes increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love."—Eph. 4:16
The same principle is true of the personal pronoun which is translated “he” in John 16 :13.

Sanctification by the Holy Spirit
All true Christians are sanctified by God through his Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11; Rom. 8:11). The principal means by which ,,,,,,
{{{ HAD TO CUT THE MESSAGE SHORT, IT IS TOO LONG TO POST THE WHOLE THING, BUT IF YOU WILL GO TO THIS LINK YOU CAN READ THE WHOLE MESSAGE }}}
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Acts17...dge/message/12
link to this message about the trinity , if you go there you will also find other messages about the trinity,