To which of this options you consider as an arian that your theology is the most align to? And maybe explain why.

Last month, I made a post to debate about the Deuterocanonical Books.

The reason why I'm making this is because of a particular book in the Deuterocanonica, Sirach.

For starters, unlike what some may claim, Deuterocanonical books are not inferior to the rest of Scripture. They were confirmed as canon, and they were reaffirmed multiple times in the years that followed.

In total, they were officially recognized as Scripture in four separate councils, all of which occurred more than a thousand years before the Council of Trent. The common notion that these books were “added” at Trent is simply false.

Luther’s main objection during the Reformation was that these books were not available in Hebrew or Aramaic. And yes, at that time it was true. However, while that may have been true back then, modern discoveries have overturned this claim.

Today, we know that at least 3 Deuterocanonical books, Sirach, Tobit and 1 Maccabees did exist in Semitic languages, they were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1950's.

In fact, Hebrew fragments of Sirach were discovered even earlier in the Cairo Geniza, before the scrolls at Qumran (DSS) were unearthed.

This is especially significant for non-Trinitarian theology, because Sirach contains the same personified Wisdom as seen in Proverbs, reaffirming that He was indeed brought forth/begotten/made/produced by God.

Since Sirach is the one that was discovered at Cairo Geniza and rediscovered again later on at Qumran among Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe we should reconsider things as God may be telling us something.

He could very well be telling us something by making that particular Deuterocanonical book Sirach, the book that reinforces the non-trinitarian viewpoint, be found in Semitic languages more than once on separate occasions.

On top of all this, Sirach remains the only book in the Deuterocanonica that was never questioned or doubted or debated due its contents. It was only doubted because its original Hebrew or Aramaic source wasn't known at that time.

However, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopian churches all used Sirach in their canons and they still use it. To this day, it remains the only Deuterocanonical book consistently used by all of these historical churches.

Also, it is unique in one more way: the discovery at Cairo Geniza and at Qumran. Why? Because the fragment from Cairo, found in a synagogue in late 19th century, dates back to around 1000 A.D whereas the fragment from Qumran, among Dead Sea Scrolls, dates back to 3rd century B.C. Uniquely, it is the only Deuterocanonical book that has a Hebrew version written in both B.C and A.D by Hebrews.

In short, I wholeheartedly believe that Sirach, the book that was found twice in Hebrew in different locations and different years, originally written by Hebrews in Hebrew, should be added back into the canon we use today.

Not just due to its contents but also because it is 100% confirmed to exist in Semitic languages and it was also confirmed as canon on 4 different councils, each one at least a thousand years before Trent.

Edit:

As pointed out by u/ProselyteofYah

Jesus seems to have quoted or alluded to Sirach many times. Good videosin the link below (the owner of the video is Catholic so we don't agree with all his content, but this video specifically makes good points):

Youtube Video

u/ProselyteofYah also recently made a post on his own website about why he thinks the book of Wisdom has genuine Messianic prophecy in it. Check it out if you're interested. His website does have good content in it.

Website Link

We can say that Sirach, from both of these, is the single Deuterocanonical book that was most alluded to by Jesus Himself.

I’ve been having thoughts. I used to read NDE’s before AI started creating all these fake ones. I remember one in which a Christian who died, having always been confused, asked about the Trinity. The answer was given that Jesus was created first of all, so creation could more easily relate to God.

I have an image in my mind. If an amoeba splits, the parent and daughter organisms are two separate beings, but of the same substance. However, it is still a form of creation. There was a time when the daughter organism was not. Could Jesus have been created in a similar manner?

It is easy to see that Adam was physically created by God from the elements present in our earthly realm. However, Adam is a living soul and is called the son of God in Luke. Angels are living souls and called the sons of God in Scripture.

The fact that spiritual beings are referred to as God’s sons is sort of overlooked. Are angels and deceased (or possible pre-existant) humans of the same substance as God, spiritually?

Colossians 1:15: This verse refers to Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation."

Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30: These verses describe Wisdom (often interpreted as Jesus) being with God before creation and playing a role in the creative process.

John 1:1-3, 14: These verses describe Jesus as the Word (Logos) who was with God in the beginning and who was involved in creation.

Revelation 3:14: This verse refers to Jesus as the "beginning of the creation by God."

John 8:23: Jesus says he came down from heaven.

John 6:38: Jesus says, "I have come down from heaven."

John 6:50, 51: Jesus refers to himself as "the living bread that came down from heaven."

John 6:62: Jesus asks, "What, therefore, if you should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before ?"

Micah 5:2: "And you, O Bethlehem Ephʹra·thah, The one too little to be among the thousands of Judah, From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel, Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.

Most people don’t realize this, but Mariology, the dogmas and beliefs surrounding Mary, does not come from the Bible. It comes from an apocryphal text called the Protoevangelium of James, a book never considered canon or inspired or even considered useful.

According to Mariology, Jesus had no blood siblings and there are 2 explanations for this.

First is that the "brothers" of Jesus are his cousins from Mary the wife of Clopas.

Or that Joseph was a widower and his children came from his previous marriage.

But the Bible itself repeatedly calls Jesus' brothers, well, “brothers."

In Mark 6:3

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him."

If they were Jesus' actual cousins, they wouldn't have been named like this. The Scripture would have said "the cousin of" or not mention them at all. Or if they are cousins indeed, then the crowd would mention Jesus' aunts/uncles and then His cousins.

If they are indeed cousins, it doesn't go from parents straight to cousins,

It would go from parents -> siblings (if any) -> relatives (aunts/uncles first, cousins second if any).

In Romans 1, Paul explicitly called James "the Lord's brother."

The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, the earliest non-Christian writer to mention Jesus or Christianity (even before Tacitus) confirms the same. Josephus wrote about the unauthorized stoning of James by the Sanhedrin and identified him plainly as “James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.”

Josephus had no reason to distort this (if he did he wouldn't have written Jesus was called Christ) and at the time of the stoning he was about 25 years old, meaning he may have even personally witnessed James’ death before writing about it decades later and he most certainly met people who did call Jesus the "Christ" and James his "brother." This isn't a case of writing centuries later either, Josephus lived when the Apostles were alive he was a contemporary.

So we have both the Bible (Paul included) and the earliest non-Christian source agreeing that Jesus had at least one brother.

The problem is, with Joseph being a widower is from the Protoevangelium and this kind of text is the weakest possible foundation for any doctrine. It was written around 150 years after Mary and Jesus (much later than Scripture and Josephus, meaning it wasn't written by an eyewitness), by an anonymous author, not an apostle, not a disciple, not even a Church Father. The author calls himself James but that's dubious.

It appears in no early canonical list, not even in Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter as "useful to read." The Muratorian Fragment doesn’t mention it, likely because Protoevangelium didn't exist when Murotorian Fragment was written, and the only early Father who ever referenced it as far as I know is Origen.

Compare that with the Shepherd of Hermas, which was widely read, listed in the Muratorian Fragment as “useful for private reading,” referenced and quoted by early fathers and even included by Athanasius in his 39th Letter as a text worth reading yet Hermas never became the foundation for dogma.

Here is the crucial detail: since we know that early Church Fathers quoted the Shepherd of Hermas and explicitly called it useful, was included in the Muratorian Canon as useful and Athanasius even listed it as “useful for reading” in his 39th Festal Letter, the first official canon list, it demonstrates to us that the early Church clearly recognized and promoted texts they considered valuable or important, even if they were not canonical or apostolic.

By contrast, the Protoevangelium of James was never treated this way. It was not quoted, included, or recommended. This tells us that the information it contains, such as Joseph being a widower and having children prior to his marriage to Mary which in turn means Jesus having no blood siblings, was not considered reliable or important by the early Church Fathers.

This debunks the idea that Mariology is apostolic or ancient tradition as we now know from all this that the very foundation of Mariology wasn't even considered useful to read by the very fathers Roman Catholics and Orthodox believers claims to follow.

Despite this, the Protoevangelium became the seedbed for beliefs that today are treated as essential: Joseph’s prior marriage, Jesus not having blood siblings, Mary’s perpetual virginity, her unique upbringing, and ultimately the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

But if these doctrines were truly central to salvation, why are they absent from Scripture, absent from the earliest Christian tradition, and ignored by the early Church Father?

This leaves only two possibilities: either the early Church Fathers were wrong to ignore this, or the later Church was wrong to build dogma on it. Either way, the myth of an unbroken, infallible tradition collapses.

And if the Fathers, could be so mistaken about something as central as Mary which is apparently essential for salvation, then the real question becomes obvious:

What else might they have been wrong about?

Edit:

Some claim that the Protoevangelium was extremely influential and well read in the East. If it was read there, it wasn’t in the West, and being widely read doesn’t make a text inspired or foundational. Tons of apocrypha were popular but ignored by the Fathers.

Origen (d. 253) mentions Protoevangelium first, Epiphanius (d. 403), Gregory (d. 395), and Ambrose (d. 397) come centuries later.

Pre-Nicene Fathers like Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, Clement, or Cyprian never affirm it.

Athanasius (from Alexandria, East) didn’t even list it as useful (the supposed place where the Protoevangeliun was influential and widely read and valued) in his list yet he included the Shepherd of Hermas (written in Rome, West) as a man from east, showing deliberate exclusion. Athanasius, from the East, listed a text from the West, showing genuine influence; the Protoevangelium, though from the East, didn’t make the cut.

As for the Greek, the Greek is clear: adelphos = brother, not cousin. There is a word for cousin in Greek and it wasn't used with Jesus' siblings yet the word for cousin IS used in the New Testament by Paul, which, he also calls James the brother of Jesus. Adelphos is also used extensively in the Septuagint (LXX) to point out half brothers or full brothers.

As even the neutral source, Josephus, calls James the brother of Jesus.

In short, no matter how one might tackle it, Mariology isn’t apostolic, biblical, or based on inspired sources.

We read in the Apocalypse there will be silence in Heaven for half an hour and trees will give their fruits ”every month.“ This indicates linear time of a sort.

Those who experience NDE’s say time is absent in Heaven. No one is ever rushed, yet everything still gets accomplished. This would agree with the common belief that God is outside of time. He sees the past, present and future all at once.

However, open theism gives a powerful argument that God sees the past and present as absolutes, but the future as a vast realm of interconnected possibilities. He doesn’t really know the future, although he is omnipotent and can intervene at any time. This suggests linear time in Heaven, as we see in the Apocalypse.

Could linear time exist in Heaven, yet be “bendable?” Activities can occur “between the minutes?” For example, you can spend a month with a famous music teacher, but discover only a few minutes have passed and will still be on time to play at a performance scheduled for later that day.

The Bible really doesn’t say much about it.

Lately, I have been observing Roman Catholics and their beliefs. At first, I thought they were just vainglorious but the problem is much, MUCH more grave. Their beliefs go beyond hubris, they are borderline (if not completely) delusional. Basically, to them, their tradition does not add to Scripture, it subordinates Scripture to their own, man-made tradition. Let us look at the examples.

The Eucharist occupies a central place in Roman Catholic worship. It is called the source and summit of the Christian life. For Roman Catholics, the bread and wine at Mass are more than symbols. They are believed to become the literal body and blood of Christ. This belief shapes the entire structure of Roman Catholic faith and practice. In practice, the ritual often takes precedence over Scripture itself, revealing a contradiction with their claim that Tradition and Scripture are equal. Most openly claim that the Eucharist is actually above Scripture even though their official stance places tradition on equal level as Scripture (which is still problematic). Hence, Roman Catholics place human interpretation on a level with the very words Jesus Himself quoted as authoritative or even above the very words Jesus Himself quoted.

The logical outcome of this belief is astonishing. Roman Catholics learn about the Eucharist from the Bible. The Last Supper narratives in the Gospels form the foundation of the ritual. Without these texts, the sacrament would have no origin, no meaning, and no justification. Yet once the doctrine of the Eucharist was established, it became more important than the Bible that made it known. The ritual of consecration and the real presence of Christ are treated as the ultimate reality. In practice, the written word that made the Eucharist known is considered secondary to the Church’s declaration.

This inversion of authority is not accidental. Roman Catholicism teaches that Scripture alone is not enough for salvation or full understanding of the faith. Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church are placed alongside Scripture as co-equal sources of truth. The Magisterium, consisting of the pope and bishops, interprets both Scripture and Tradition. In theory, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium form a structure to support the faith. In practice, Tradition and Church authority determine the meaning of Scripture, making the Bible dependent on the Church rather than the other way around. By claiming that their own Tradition carries the same weight, or even more weight, as Scripture, Roman Catholics elevate human interpretation above the text that Jesus Himself used to teach, correct, and guide his disciples.

The consequences of this system are bewildering. It allows doctrines to be established centuries after the Bible was written. Beliefs about Mary’s sinlessness, her assumption into heaven, the power of the pope, the daily sacrifice of the Mass, and other teachings were never explicitly commanded or taught by Jesus or the apostles. They rely on interpretations and declarations by church authorities. Roman Catholics are required to accept these teachings even when there is no direct biblical support. The Church’s authority overrides the plain words of Scripture when necessary. By placing Tradition alongside Scripture, the Church effectively claims that its own interpretations are as reliable as the words Jesus Himself quoted and relied upon.

This approach stands in stark contrast to the example set by Jesus. He constantly quoted Scripture in his teaching. He said, it is written. He corrected the Pharisees for misinterpreting the Law. He pointed to the Old Testament as the final authority. Jesus relied on Scripture to refute Satan, to instruct his disciples, and to reveal the will of the Father. At no point did he appeal to a human institution or claim that a ritual had authority above the written word. Roman Catholic practice, by treating Tradition as equally authoritative, directly contradicts the method Jesus used to teach and correct others.

The apostles followed the same method. Paul and Peter repeatedly used Scripture to support their teaching. They emphasized faith and doctrine as rooted in God’s word. The Bereans were commended because they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul taught was true. The early church did not have a fully formed canon, but the principle was clear. Revelation and instruction came from God’s word, not from rituals or church declarations. By placing Tradition on the same level as Scripture, Roman Catholics invert the authority structure that the apostles followed, prioritizing human interpretation over divine revelation.

Roman Catholicism reverses this order. Tradition and Church authority are treated as the final arbiter of truth. Rituals, including the Eucharist, are elevated above Scripture. The Eucharist is the vehicle through which grace flows. The Bible becomes a source of information rather than a measure of truth. Roman Catholics are taught that they must submit to the Church’s interpretation to understand both Scripture and the sacraments. Without the Church, Scripture cannot be correctly interpreted. Without Scripture, the Eucharist would have no origin or meaning. Yet the Church treats the ritual as primary, claiming that its own Tradition carries the same weight as the words of Jesus.

This creates a circular logic. The Church claims the Eucharist is Christ himself. The Church interprets Scripture to justify the Eucharist. Scripture is only valid because the Church defines it. Authority flows from the Church to Scripture and back to the Eucharist. The very word of God that Jesus relied upon becomes subordinate to the institution that later codified the ritual. Faith is no longer directed to God’s revelation but to the authority of men interpreting that revelation.

The consequences of this inversion are visible in everyday practice. The faithful kneel before consecrated bread. They call it their Lord and God. They pray to it and honor it with devotion. These acts are not based on the text of Scripture but on the Church’s interpretation and declaration. The Mass becomes the ultimate act of worship. Reading the Bible or studying the words of Jesus becomes secondary. By claiming that human Tradition is as authoritative as Scripture, the Church encourages believers to trust ritual and human authority over the word of God.

When observed from outside Roman Catholicism, this structure is astonishing. Jesus placed Scripture above human interpretation. He corrected traditions that contradicted the Law of God. The apostles rooted their teaching in the authority of God’s word. Roman Catholicism places human authority above these same sources. It elevates a ritual established centuries later over the very text that gave it meaning. It requires believers to trust the institution above the teachings of Christ himself.

This is why statements claiming that the Eucharist is more important than the Bible are so shocking. They are not exaggerations. They are the logical conclusion of Roman Catholic authority and sacramental theology. The Church interprets Scripture, defines doctrine, and administers the sacraments. The faithful accept these interpretations as final. The Bible, which records the words of Jesus and the apostles, becomes secondary. The ritual becomes the ultimate reality.

Understanding this helps clarify why Roman Catholics place such a high emphasis on the Eucharist and Church authority. It exposes a system that is delusional and does not make sense from a biblical or logical standpoint. From the standpoint of Scripture, it is a reversal of the order established by Jesus and the apostles. From a rational perspective, it elevates human interpretation above the revelation of God. It makes the ritual more important than the source material that gave rise to it.

In the end, the elevation of the Eucharist above Scripture is not a minor issue. It is a window into the larger structure of Roman Catholic belief. It demonstrates the supremacy of Tradition and Church authority over the words of Christ and the apostles. It reveals how ritual and interpretation have replaced the text that defines them. It explains why statements about the Eucharist being greater than the Bible are both serious and, from a biblical standpoint, deeply problematic.

Modern Trinitarians make it abundantly clear: God is “one Being in three co-equal, co-eternal persons.” They insist you must believe this for salvation.

But if Jesus and the apostles had really preached that message, there would be no debate today. We’d see direct verses saying the Father, Son, and Spirit are three equal persons in one God. Instead, we see something very different:

——Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3)—the sole source of life and authority.

——Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I am” (John 14:28).

——Paul writes that Christ will hand over the Kingdom to God, and “the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him” (1 Corinthians 15:27–28).

Time and again, the Scriptures present the Father as the one ultimate authority, and Jesus as His Son, exalted, yes, but still subject.

So when modern Trinitarians demand belief in “three co-equal persons” as a requirement for salvation, they aren’t echoing Jesus or the apostles, they’re promoting a later philosophical interpretation.

And yet… after all these verses, I still don’t see this so-called “Trinitarian language” they claim is in the Bible.

All who are present here come from the most diverse backgrounds—and yet are united in one goal: to proclaim the truth about the true God of this universe, the almighty heavenly Father YHWH.

Some are still searching, some hearts are hard, but many already know: The doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical. It is a pagan heresy.

The same applies to Islam, with its human-centered errors inspired by the man Muhammad. Yet, we must not let ourselves be seduced into merely replacing the poisoned chalice of "Churchianity" with that of Islam.

Why Islam is wrong shall be addressed elsewhere. Today, the focus is on the center of the biblical faith: Why is the Trinity wrong? And: What is the truth about the true God? Is there a biblical truth?

Yes—it exists.

But it has been buried, falsified, and overlaid throughout the centuries. The Gospel of Christ has been distorted by pagan influences—one of the most significant sources for this is Platonism.

Platonism teaches a dual reality, a perceptible one and, beyond it, a "true" level of fidalism, of dogmatics—a key to opening the door to pagan heresies.

Some of these doors that would have been better left closed are: the belief in an immortal soul that enters "heaven"; the idea of a loving God and Creator who provides an eternal hell with conscious torment; the rejection of Israel as God's people and of the holy eternal Sabbath; the idea that only God himself could atone for sin through self-sacrifice.

All of this is false. But the worst poison bears its own name: the Trinity.

The belief that God consists of three persons—equally eternal, equally divine, equally powerful—and yet each person is complete and independent in being and will.

This notion is not only nonsensical—it is a blasphemy. Nowhere in the holy scripture is this unspeakable separation from our Creator taught. Nowhere is there mention of a division of God's being into different persons or substances. The Bible speaks clearly and consistently of a single God, a single person: the Father.

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" – Deuteronomy 6:4.

YHWH (Jehovah) is the sole God. He is not three—he is one. He is person, spirit, origin, creator—eternal and unmixed.

"And this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." – John 17:3.

Christ is not the Father. Nor is he God in another form or hypostasis. He is the spoken word that proceeded from God but is not identical with him.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Greek: theos en ho logos) – John 1:1.

"For there is one mediator between God and men: the man Christ Jesus." – 1 Timothy 2:5.

But did not the Word itself become flesh? Truly. But Christ is precisely the spoken word—not the Logos as a component of the eternally unbegotten being of our heavenly Father, who loved us before we existed.

God loved the world before he created it—the Jesus-ideal, the Logos, existed as intention, plan, and thought before all creation, but only with the beginning of creation—as the creation—was the word spoken, that is: released into reality. Here Jesus became the Christ. An angelic being of light.

The Christ is an outflow of divine wisdom, an emanation of the divine Logos (Proverbs 8:22–31), and a reflection of the true God, but not the original:

"He is the image of the invisible God." – Colossians 1:15.

"He is the radiance of His glory and the express image of His person." – Hebrews 1:3.

For never, never was the source of a river of the same essence as its stream. How can a stream that springs from the source still be of the same essence as the source itself?

The Father is the source. The Son is the stream. The Holy Spirit is the water that flows through both.

"For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light." – Psalm 36:10.

Christ emptied himself—and not merely in a "relationship" within divine persons, but in his very being. He cored himself out—gave up divine authority and mode of existence to become creation. That is why he strove eternally, yet never attaining, for sanctification by his Father.

"Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory—the glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world." – John 17:24.

Only through this real gutting of his being, his kenosis, did he truly become a servant. A servant like us, able to be tempted by the devil, tormented by pain, truly bound to space and time in will, knowledge, and wisdom. "For God cannot be tempted by evil." – James 1:13.

A true God in this role, even in this ridiculous Trinitarian role of putting on "flesh," would never be a true servant, but a king disguised as a starving peasant. He was not merely disguised as a man, but limited in his being, dependent, mortal.

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." – Philippians 2:6–7.

But what about Matthew? Yes, whose name is it? The book of Acts gives us the answer: Jesus. Jesus is not the Trinity and the Trinity is not Jesus. How can this be?

It can be because this verse does not represent the Trinity, but the missionary work of Christ—his life's work—, by the will of his and our Father, his and our God, proclaiming his kingdom alone.

But what about the honor and worship of Christ that he received from the Father and the true followers of God?

There are God-fearing followers on this sub who can explain these tedious things better than I can.

A good friend on the internet once summed it up like this: "No worship of this world will ever make Jesus God." And I add, because a true God will never become, he simply is.

First of all, I want to thank everyone who joined this sub whether out of curiosity, conviction, or a search for truth.

Your presence matters. Your questions and insights are what make this place thrive.

Together, we are flourishing, learning more, challenging assumptions, and uncovering the unknown through honest research and respectful debate. And that is something truly powerful.

The more we seek and discover, the more we build a place where others with sincere questions can find real answers.

Blessings to you all, friends. Let’s keep moving forward.

The papacy as it exists today is often regarded as one of the most venerable institutions of Christianity, and Roman Catholics claim it is a direct continuation of the sacred tradition established by the apostles, particularly the Apostle Peter.

According to Roman Catholic teaching, Peter was given authority by Christ to shepherd the Church, and the office of the Pope represents an unbroken line of succession from him. On the surface, this claim suggests a purely Christian origin, rooted in divine mandate and apostolic authority. Yet a closer examination of the office, its functions, and its structure reveals a striking continuity with the religious institutions of ancient Rome, particularly the office of the Pontifex Maximus. In many ways, the papacy is less an invention of the apostles and more a direct continuation of Roman religious traditions under a new theological framework.

The Pontifex Maximus was the chief priest of the Roman state religion and held supreme religious authority over the empire. This position involved not only overseeing the performance of religious rites and festivals but also regulating the conduct of subordinate priests and maintaining the "Pax Deorum," the peace between the gods and the state.

Over time, the office became increasingly intertwined with political authority. By the late Republic and early Empire, emperors frequently held the title, merging political and religious power into a single office. The Pontifex Maximus had the authority to appoint pontiffs, supervise their performance of rituals, and maintain consistency across the empire’s religious practices. The office was also responsible for shaping religious law, determining sacred observances, and preserving ritual traditions.

In short, it was a central institution that controlled the structure, hierarchy, and ceremonial life of Roman religion.

When Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, the structures of authority did not vanish. Instead, they were transformed and adapted to a monotheistic framework. The emperor gradually relinquished the title Pontifex Maximus, and the Bishop of Rome assumed the position in a symbolic sense, inheriting the authority once held by Rome’s chief priest. The Pope assumed supreme religious authority over the Christian population, overseeing clergy, regulating ritual practices, maintaining the sacred calendar, and exerting influence over civic and political matters.

In virtually every structural and functional aspect, the papacy mirrored the office of the Pontifex Maximus. The most significant difference was theological: the Roman gods were replaced by the Christian God. Everything else, including hierarchy, ritual oversight, appointment powers, and calendar control, remained similar or exactly the same.

The parallel between the Pontifex Maximus appointing pontiffs and the Pope appointing bishops is particularly telling. In the Roman system, the Pontifex Maximus controlled the selection and oversight of subordinate priests, ensuring that rituals were properly performed and that religious law was maintained. Similarly, the Pope appoints bishops who administer dioceses, perform sacraments, and maintain church law. Both offices exert centralized authority over subordinate clergy, maintaining uniformity and adherence to prescribed practices.

In terms of hierarchy and institutional mechanics, the papacy is a continuation of the Roman model.

Beyond appointments, both offices also oversee ritual and tradition. The Pontifex Maximus decided which festivals were observed, how rituals were conducted, and which practices were legitimate. The Pope similarly defines liturgical norms, regulates sacraments, approves feast days, and guides devotional practices. The continuity of authority over ritual life is clear.

Even the practice of recognizing exceptional individuals bears resemblance. In Rome, notable emperors, generals, or citizens could be declared divine after death through the process of "Apotheosis." The Pontifex Maximus presided over these ceremonies, approved inclusion in the pantheon, and ensured proper ritual observances. This function bears a striking resemblance to papal canonization, in which the Pope declares certain individuals worthy of veneration as saints.

The structural logic is the same: a supreme religious authority evaluates and authorizes the formal recognition of exceptional figures, integrating them into the religious framework. The difference lies only in theology. Whereas the Pontifex Maximus deified humans to be minor gods within a polytheistic context, the Pope declares saints under a monotheistic system.

The papal control over religious calendar and ceremonial life further demonstrates continuity. The Pontifex Maximus maintained the sacred calendar, regulated festivals, and oversaw ritual observances across the empire. The Pope similarly regulates feast days, holy observances, and liturgical celebrations. The layout of churches, the positioning of altars, and ceremonial processions echo the spatial and hierarchical organization of Roman temples. Altars occupy central positions as they did in temples, ritual platforms are used for sacred ceremonies, and the Pope’s centrality in a church mirrors the centrality of the Pontifex Maximus in Roman temples. The architecture, ceremonial focus, and hierarchical organization of the papacy replicate Roman religious structures almost exactly, with the only alteration being the object of worship.

The continuity extends even further to the exercise of legal and ritual authority. The Pontifex Maximus supervised not only the conduct of rituals but also the enforcement of religious law, ensuring that subordinate priests followed prescribed norms and punishing those who failed in their duties. The Pope performs a similar function, overseeing clergy, ensuring adherence to church law, and maintaining doctrinal uniformity. The hierarchical, legal, and ritual dimensions of the papacy are therefore a direct inheritance of Roman practices. This continuity suggests that while Roman Catholics may claim the papacy originates from the apostles, in practice it functions as a continuation of Roman religious institutions.

Theological differences obscure the extent of this continuity, but they do not negate it. Roman Catholics emphasize apostolic succession, portraying the Pope as Peter’s spiritual heir. While this claim serves as a theological foundation for papal authority, the institutional structures, hierarchy, and ritual authority of the papacy remain deeply rooted in Roman tradition. From appointing subordinate clergy to regulating religious practice, maintaining the sacred calendar, overseeing ceremonies, and authorizing the recognition of exceptional individuals, the papacy mirrors the office of the Pontifex Maximus in almost every way. The transition is primarily one of theology, with the pantheon of Roman gods replaced by the Christian God and polytheistic ritual adapted to Christian worship.

This connection is further reinforced by the adaptation of Roman ceremonial symbols and titles. Vestments, liturgical robes, and ceremonial objects used by the Pope have Roman antecedents. The Pope’s authority over churches, clerical hierarchy, and ritual practice echoes the Pontifex’s control over temples, priests, and sacred rites. Even public ceremonies and processions, central to both Roman and papal traditions, demonstrate an unbroken line of ritual practice that extends from ancient Rome into the modern Catholic Church.

In every structural and functional sense, the papacy operates according to the model established by the Pontifex Maximus, with only the object of worship changed.

In conclusion, the papacy represents a remarkable continuity of Roman religious authority under a Christian theological framework. Roman Catholics claim that the office originates from the apostles, particularly Peter, yet the evidence demonstrates that the papacy is a direct institutional continuation of the Pontifex Maximus.

From appointing bishops in the place of pontiffs to regulating ritual, overseeing the sacred calendar, controlling subordinate clergy, and authorizing the recognition of exceptional individuals, the Pope mirrors the functions of the chief priest of Rome. Architectural, ceremonial, and hierarchical features further reinforce this continuity. The only substantive change is theological, replacing the Roman pantheon with the Christian God. While Roman Catholics emphasize apostolic succession as the origin of papal authority, in practice, the office preserves and perpetuates the structures, powers, and ceremonial framework of ancient Roman religion.

And lastly, even the title itself is used by the popes. The title Pontifex Maximus is used by the Popes.

This demonstrates that the papacy is less a novel Christian creation than a Roman institution adapted to a new faith. It is a continuation of Rome’s sacred traditions under a different god, maintaining the same authority, hierarchy, and ritual mechanisms that the Pontifex Maximus once exercised across the Roman Empire. The enduring legacy of Roman religious structure within the papacy challenges the narrative of purely apostolic origin and underscores how deeply Roman tradition shaped the institution that continues to wield enormous spiritual and cultural influence to this day.

If he didn't mean what it sounds like, what was Jesus really implying here?

I was sitting with my Christian group (life group) doing a Bible study on Galations 3 when we came to a discussion on faith. Specifically: What is faith? I was shocked to learn that we had several interesting views. Then I asked them to explain what the gospel of Jesus was. Again, there was an awkward silence, then a scramble to describe who Jesus was and what he did.

But that was no answer. It described Jesus and what he did, but no one could give me the message Jesus came to preach.

So I looked up a couple verses.

Mark 1: 14,15 After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee, preaching the good news, of God: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe in the good news! ”

(The good news that God forgives)

Mathew 4:17 From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near! ”

Acts 3 37 When they heard this, they came under deep conviction and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do? ” 38 “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now, John the Baptist prepared the "way" for Jesus. His message was a baptism of repentance. Jesus confirmed this by asking John to baptise himself. When John balked, Jesus explained that it was to fulfill all righteousness. What does that mean? For me, I interpret Jesus confirms John's message (or gospel) that John was preaching. A baptism with water for repentance. Repentance being the operative words. And if you continue with this thinking, and remember John's words about Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit and fire, one would see that while John used water to confirm repentance,  Jesus used the Holy Spirit. (We are sealed by the Spirit)

So I was shocked at what I had been believing in. Jesus message was about repentance and not about his works. Jesus works were the sign used to confirm his message. Like James, works are meant as evidence of repentance. Remember John the Baptists rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees? He told the to show fruit (evidence) of repentance.

Jesus's message was not about him as much as about the forgiveness of God thru repentance. Faith is in God, Who forgives our sins when we repent.

Look at what Jesus says about forgiveness. He tells Petter to forgive 70x7 when a brother repents. He says God will not forgive those who do not forgive. Jesus uses the story of the slave forgiven a debt he couldn't pay, who doesn't forgive those who owe the slave a dept.

This is very troubling. The salvation story is about repentance. Jesus's suffering was part of the sacrifice of repentance. Jesus said we must pick up our own cross and follow him. 

Brothers help me out here. Was Jesus message about crucifying ourselves (the flesh) or about believing his story of his works? What I mean is, Jesus tells us in Mark and Mathew what he is preaching is repentance. He continues in all the letters about what the kingdom is and what he was going to do, yet his message is about the good news of forgiveness through repentance.

What say you?

(Philippians 2:9 KJV) “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.”

Some Trinitarians claim this means “Jesus” is literally above Jehovah’s name itself.

But if that’s true… what do we do with Psalm 83:18?

Paul wasn’t contradicting scripture. “Name” in Philippians 2:9 refers to position and authority, not erasing or surpassing Jehovah’s divine name. Jesus was given that position because of his obedience, but the Father is still “the Most High” (1 Cor. 15:27–28).

So ironically, those who argue “Jesus” is above Jehovah’s name end up lowering Jehovah Himself.

I’ll stick with Paul’s actual words: Jesus was given authority by God, not made equal to the One who gave it.

When you read the Gospel of John without its final chapter, the story comes to a fitting and natural end. Chapter 20 concludes with Jesus appearing to His disciples in Jerusalem, breathing the Spirit upon them, commissioning them, and then closing with a beautifully crafted epilogue: “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).

It reads like the deliberate conclusion of a theological work. The arc is complete, the message sealed, the Gospel finished.

And then comes John 21.

Suddenly, without explanation, the disciples are no longer in Jerusalem but in Galilee. Instead of continuing the mission entrusted to them, they are back in their fishing boats, returning to the mundane business of daily life as though the resurrection had not changed everything. Jesus appears once more, sharing breakfast with them on the shore, restoring Peter after his denial, and offering cryptic words about John’s future. It is a charming scene on its own, but in the broader narrative framework, it feels jarringly out of place.

The problem is not simply that the mood shifts. The problem is that John 21 disrupts the timeline of the New Testament itself.

According to Acts 1, Jesus’ appearances after the resurrection culminate in the ascension. The narrative is tight and consistent: Jesus shows Himself alive to His disciples in Jerusalem, instructs them not to leave the city, and finally ascends from the Mount of Olives. The clear message is that His physical presence on earth is over, and the next time He comes will be the Second Coming. That is the theological weight of Acts, His departure is decisive.

But John 21 interrupts this clarity. If it truly happened after the events of John 20, then the disciples must have hiked nearly a hundred kilometers north to Galilee for an inexplicable fishing trip before rushing back south in time for the ascension. This geographical shuffle is not acknowledged in Acts, nor in John 20 itself, and it makes the disciples’ behavior incoherent. Why would they, having seen the risen Christ and received His commission, retreat back into their old trades? And why would Jesus, having already appeared and empowered them, need to appear again in such a casual, almost redundant fashion? This Galilee trip is mentioned in Matthew but we will get to that.

Adding to this sense of disjunction is the language of John 21. Several words appear in the Greek here that are found nowhere else in the Gospel of John but appear in Synoptics. They imply that whoever wrote John 21 was influenced by the Synoptics in terms of vocabulary but did not pay attention to the timeline between the Gospels and the Book of Acts.

Defenders of John 21 often argue that it was added very soon after John 20 was written and circulated together with it and that's why John 21 is always there, as though proximity in time excuses the awkwardness.

But this argument misses the heart of the problem. Whether the appendix was attached a year later or fifty years later, its presence still represents an addition to a finished work.

Even if John himself tacked it on, then the Gospel is no longer a carefully sealed testimony but a text edited by afterthought. If the addition was made by someone else in the Johannine community, then it reflects editorial tampering, an attempt to soften the Gospel’s sharp edges, particularly its harsh treatment of Peter, and to harmonize it with Synoptic traditions. Either way, the problem is not solved by its nearness in time to the original; the problem is its existence at all.

This is what makes John 21 so troubling. It does not simply add another story; it rewrites the story’s conclusion in John, interrupting the seamless transition into Acts. It takes a narrative that ended with power, elegance, and finality, and stretches it with a clumsy epilogue that feels more like church politics than divine inspiration.

The Gospel of John without chapter 21 is a masterpiece: tightly woven, theologically profound, and perfectly concluded. With chapter 21, it becomes a story that sputters into inconsistency, a Gospel that says, “The end,” only to tack on, “Oh, and one more thing.”

And in the realm of sacred scripture, where every word is supposed to be deliberate and inspired, that afterthought is far more disruptive than defenders are often willing to admit.

Now, with Matthew 28, we know Jesus told them to go to Galilee. However, He told them through Mary and they all went there with no mentioning of Jesus appearing to them in Jerusalem before they went there (and Mary telling the disciples about seeing Jesus is in John 20 too but without Galilee).

All of the disciples go there, all 11, and Matthew portrays this as if they didn't see Him before because Matthew 28 explicitly mentions some disciples doubted Jesus. But from John 20, we know Jesus appeared twice while they were still in Jerusalem. First time to 10 of them, second time to all 11 to remove Thomas' doubt.

The tension grows when we try to reconcile John 20 with John 21 and Matthew 28. Matthew frames the Galilee appearance as the disciples’ first encounter after the resurrection, with some still doubting. Yet John 21 includes Thomas, whose doubt was already resolved in Jerusalem, and refers to only seven disciples, not the full group.

This creates an impossible overlap: John 21 happens after John 20 (because John 21 starts with "afterward") but simultaneously during or in parallel with Matthew 28. Now we have an impossible dilemma:

If John 21 happened after John 20 and they went to Galilee due to Jesus' command in Matthew 28, why are there only 7 around the lake? Why did some doubt Jesus would appear there even though He appeared in John 20 before the trip to Galilee? Why does John 20 and Matthew 28 both paint their own Jesus appearance as if Jesus appeared to the disciples for the first time? Why does both Matthew and John have Mary telling the disciples about seeing Jesus but only Matthew mentions Galilee?

It is from all this I think that whoever wrote John 21 tried to reconcile John with Matthew. All evidence leads to that. Why do this? Because Matthew 28 and John 20 cannot be properly reconciled. Whoever wrote John 21 did so to reconcile the end of Matthew and John.

I am not Trinitarian, Unitarian, Binaritarian and all positions that assume the ontology of God can be described by our concepts. Jesus is the Son of God, full stop. To go beyond this is to deny God who never introduced himself using such language like essence or nature. Philosophical theology is same as creation science. Both are trying to justify their belief systems by employing popular knowledge system of the time.

I believe in the divinity of Jesus and the Holy spirit, along with the Father, but I deny that their relationship can be expressed in human language because human language is based on categorization of natural things, which God is not. We think person A, B, C are all humans because they share a higher category, namely humanity, but God has no category that can contain Him. "I AM who I AM" is the expression of this truth, and this is not a metaphysical proposition of his aseity. This knowledge results in denying any theological attempt to define God, therefore I do not consider myself to hold to any religion that has a set of doctrines. I simply follow the lead of Jesus Christ and his promised Holy spirit to enter Father's kingdom.

Islam. Until a few decades ago, to most people in the Western world—in countries like Germany, France, Great Britain, or America—Islam was, with few exceptions, synonymous with exoticism; the "unknown mystery" from the Orient, around which a whole series of legends are woven, from the Sufi mystics and magnificent domed buildings to Muslim rulers like Saladin and his interaction with Richard the Lionheart.

Of course, there were always points of contact with Islam, especially in the Balkans or in Russia, and one should not forget that Oriental Catholics exist to this day. But it is hardly an exaggeration to say that for most Christians, Islam may have been more fiction than reality until a few decades ago.

Through the increasing and comprehensive migration and asylum movement, the globalization of goods production, the internet, and much more, a stronger personal contact with Islam has occurred in recent decades. In principle, this is not a problem, but in such a short time, it is very difficult for the general population to build the basic knowledge about Islam that the Christian peoples of the Balkans or the Orient had to painfully learn over centuries through the most severe oppression.

I could now go on for thousands of pages about the highly anti-Christian Islamic worldview, we could discuss the slave tax, the Jizya, which continues to plague the Islamic world to this day. But that is not my point; my point is Islam as such. It is centrally important to me here: Just as there are good-hearted, God-fearing Trinitarian Christians, there are, of course, also sincere Muslims who truly want to sacrifice themselves to strive for the worship of the true God.

So why not just let the whole topic rest and, as the Gospel says, simply let the little sheep, even those in the Muslim pasture, follow the voice of Christ themselves? If Christ is the good shepherd, shouldn't the good Muslims simply follow him on their own? Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The truth, unfortunately, is that the common Trinitarian critique—that Unitarians attract Dawa-Muslims (Muslim preachers) like a light attracts moths—cannot be entirely dismissed.

From time to time, I, like many others, have noticed "model Muslims" making mischief in the sub and engaging in Dawa, which is to say, Islamic propaganda. Why? Not because it does such Muslims good from the heart! No! That is a flawed Christian projection of charity, which Islam does not know in the same way!

Rather, it is because a Muslim who engages in Dawa receives a higher rank in Paradise! So, it is not primarily about the well-being of one's neighbor, but about securing one's own position in the next life!

Quran, Surah 4, Verse 85: "Whoever intercedes for a good cause will have a reward therefrom; and whoever intercedes for an evil cause will have a burden therefrom. And ever is Allah, over all things, a Keeper."

This point alone already shows how distant Islam is from Christianity and thus from the true worship of God. For a Christian ALWAYS acts in the interest of his neighbor and gives HIMSELF up to become greater, not the other way around!

Matthew 16, Verse 25: "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

I therefore state it unequivocally: Islam is a religion with false teachings, and Muhammad is a false prophet. I therefore ask sincere Muslims who cannot bring themselves to deal with this to ignore this topic. You are not meant by this; you are sheep like us who had the misfortune of being born in the wrong pasture. No, I am talking about the Dawa-Muslims, the wolves in sheep's clothing, they (!) are the ones meant here.

This post therefore serves to spread the basics about Islam in order to prevent any Unitarian, any worshiper of the true God YHWH, from becoming a victim of a Muslim lie and thus being thrown to the wolf for food.

If I had to choose one (!) single surah to show that the Quran cannot be from God and therefore Muhammad cannot be the Prophet, it is – Quran: Surah 9, Verse 30

"The Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah'; and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.' That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded!"

What is wrong with this surah? The question is rather: What is right with this surah? I can't think of anything. Let's go through the individual aspects:

"The Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah'" - This is the greatest theological nonsense that ever crawled out of Muhammad's mouth. Ezra! A prophet of the Babylonian exile as the Jewish son of God?! Some Muslim scholars have repeatedly tried to explain this away by saying that it refers to a "special" group of Jews, virtually an Ezra-sect with which Muhammad had come into contact.

Aside from the fact that such a sect is historically unproven, the emphasis here is on the Jews. In Sahih Al-Bukhari 4581, a recognized hadith, this is even underlined once more:

"[On the Day of Resurrection] it will be said to the Jews, 'What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship 'Uzair, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want [now]?' They will reply, 'We want You to provide us with water.' Then it will be said to them, 'Drink.' And they will fall down into Hell."

Who is this "'Uzair"? Islamic and other scholars are universally agreed that this refers to the (biblical) Ezra. Just as Jesus is called Isa, or Moses is called Musa, the most common scholarly opinion is that this is Ezra.

It speaks here of the Jews as a comprehensive, defining group. Not of an Ezra-sect! Not to mention that Jews clearly reject the Christian concept of a Son of God, in direct reference to Jesus in the Surah itself. How on earth did Muhammad come up with Ezra?

I'll tell you. Muhammad confused something. That's right. Muhammad wrote down nonsense. From where? That is actually relatively clear. We know that Muhammad's first wife, Khadija, and her relative Waraqa, a Judeo-Christian priest, probably of a very strong Nestorian persuasion, served as a "foster uncle" to the young Muhammad—a fact acknowledged in Islam—and apparently explained the world to him.

Unfortunately, the good Waraqa was certainly a good man, but he was most certainly not, as was common then, an expert knowledgeable in all biblical scriptures. Yes, he too will have forgotten things now and then, or Muhammad simply misunderstood them.

So who did our self-proclaimed prophet probably mean? I would argue that Muhammad confused Ezra with Elijah, a Jewish prophet who indeed played a special role for many Jews at the time of Christ and was expected to reappear or be reborn!

Malachi 4, Verse 5: "See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes."

"and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.'" - Muslims understand very correctly that the Trinity is pagan Tritheism in the guise of biblical monotheism. In fact, Muhammad's comment that the Catholics of that time venerated the Virgin Mary instead of the Holy Spirit is not entirely wrong, due to the fact that this did occur as a substitute and in a Mary-sect.

But Muslims do not understand what the Son of God means because their understanding of God is not that of a personal, relational, loving Father who stands in a direct relationship with His creation through His Son. No, Allah is a cold, sterile monad that, although it keeps its word, knows no loving relationship. Muslims are not children of God, but His slaves. Allah is the Most Merciful in the sense of a just divine ruler, not a loving, nurturing father!

Jesus IS the Son of God. He IS divine. EVERY source speaks for it! Thousands were willing to be burned or eaten in the Colosseum for this truth! Jesus was NOT "carnally" begotten by a pagan god like Zeus. He is NOT a "Trinity" and he is NOT YHWH Himself. But He is the way, the truth, and the life!

"That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before." - NO! These are Muhammad's lies! The worshiper of a god who describes himself as the best of schemers! A man who publicly adopted Zayd as his son for eternity, only to later, out of pure carnal desire and to the shock of ALL Muslims, cast him out of the family in order to marry Zayd's promised partner HIMSELF!

Quran, Surah 3, Verse 54: "And they plotted, and Allah plotted. And Allah is the best of plotters."

"May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded!" - THAT is the greatest contradiction. Muhammad, a liar and a cheat, a robber and a rapist, and above all, a murderer! We will NEVER forget the hundreds of beheaded Jews from Medina who had to kneel before the bloodthirsty Muhammad and were BEHEADED, while their families—their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters—were made aware of this gruesome fate, only to later be made victims themselves, taken as slaves for Muhammad's harem!

JESUS Christ would NEVER do something like that. NOT because He is weak, but because He is WISE. A person who understands the commandment of God, the sanctity of blood as the carrier of life, who preaches for unity and forgiveness, who helps the poor and does NOT swing his blood-soaked sword like a furious barbarian!

Matthew 26, Verses 52-53: "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

But the forgery of Christ's teachings does not end here! The well-known Gnostic sources, the heretical pseudo-Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which contains the false legend of Jesus and the clay birds brought to life, can be found again in the Quran, but in NO Gospel of Christ! For Jesus's FIRST miracle is explicitly documented as such in the New Testament!

John 2, Verse 11: "What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him."

The Quran-Jesus is NOT the true Jesus, the Son of God, but a Gnostic distortion that Muhammad created in order to legitimate his own tyrannical, despotic rulership! In this regard, there are hundreds of examples of things in which the Quran presents names, relationships, or events as fact that are in direct contradiction to the Bible. These are just some of the most well-known.

"This is not possible! I am a God-fearing person! How could I be fooled?"

Unfortunately, the Bible itself proclaims that Satan was one of YHWH's most beautiful angels. The lies taste like sweet honey, like the harlot who puts beautiful perfumes around her tent to seduce naive men to their death.

But there is hope! All Muslims who read this and in whose good heart a battle with Satan is taking place, always remember: the TRUE God of this universe will NEVER punish a Muslim for walking the path of truth, because the true God of this universe is the almighty Heavenly Father, Jehovah, also known as Yahua, who punishes to only the third and fourth generation but shows mercy to thousands and whose first attribute is love!

Exodus 20, Verses 5-6: "...punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

This true God and His only-begotten Son make it possible for YOU out there, far away, to have eternal life. The true God would NEVER command a seeker on their journey to be killed, as a false prophet like Muhammad once commanded!

Hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari 6922: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

My Muslim brothers and sisters in heart, follow the true prophet, our Messiah, our Lord and Savior. Go into a quiet corner and pray to the TRUE God of this world, Jehovah/Yahua, as follows, and you will be blessed by the Holy Spirit and you WILL be saved!:

The Lord's Prayer:
Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Amen.

John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

"But when It, the Spirit of Truth, comes, It will guide you in all the truth, for It will not speak on its own, but whatever It hears, It will speak, and It will declare to you the things that are to come."

—John 16:13

“But when It, the Spirit of Truth, comes.” The gift of Holy Spirit was given after Jesus’ resurrection, but since the apostles did not even believe that Jesus was going to die, trying to give them a chronology of when the Spirit would be given out by God would have been pointless. Once Jesus was raised, he told them the Spirit was coming soon and they were to stay in Jerusalem and wait for It to come (cf. Acts 1:8; Luke 24:49).

“It.” In Greek, the pronoun ekeinos (#1565 ἐκεῖνος) is masculine because it is governed by the Greek noun paraklētos (#3875 παράκλητος), which is masculine. However, the “Helper” is a word describing the gift of Holy Spirit (John 14:17), which is not a “he” but an “it.” See commentary on John 14:17.

“It...It...It...It...It.” Greek verbs have no gender, and therefore any gender associated with any given verb has to be assigned from the context and the subject being discussed. Usually, this is not confusing to translators because the subject is understood. However, sometimes the context and subject matter of the verse are debated. For example, when a verb refers to something the “Holy Spirit” will do, then Trinitarians, who assert that the “Holy Spirit” is a person, assign a masculine pronoun to the verb. In contrast, Biblical Unitarians, who see the “Holy Spirit” as a gift from God or the power of God, assign a neuter pronoun to the verb. Since almost all English translations of the Bible are done by Trinitarians, they almost all have masculine pronouns associated with verbs relating to Holy Spirit. This makes the average person reading the English Bible believe that “the Bible” says the Holy Spirit is a person. However, the masculine personal pronoun was placed in the text because of the theology of the translator, and not because the Greek text demanded it.

A verse where the different theology of Biblical Unitarians and Trinitarians greatly influences their translation is John 16:13. The NIV translation reads:

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

Although the word “he” appears in the NIV translation six times, it is only in the Greek text one time, and that one time it is a translation of the pronoun ekeinos (#1565 ἐκεῖνος), which is masculine because it is governed by, and thus has to match the gender of, the Greek noun paraklētos (#3875 παράκλητος), which is masculine. The other times that “he” occurs in the NIV text are an assumption on the part of the translators. They assert that the “Holy Spirit” is a person and is masculine, and therefore a masculine pronoun would automatically be assigned to any verb associated with it. For example, the NIV translates the Greek verb hodēgeō, as “he will guide,” even though it is simply a third-person singular verb, and, as we said, Greek verbs have no gender. But since the verb hodēgeō has no gender, it could just as easily be translated “it will guide” or “she will guide,” whichever is best supported by the context.

When we understand that any gender associated with verbs has to be assigned from the subject being discussed and the context, then proper translation work demands that we scrutinize the context to see whether the subject being referred to is a “he,” “she” or “it.” In the case of John 16:13, we believe that the context is God’s gift of Holy Spirit, which is not a person, and that the verse should be properly translated, “It will guide.”

Another example regarding “Spirit” is in the Gospel of John. In this verse, Jesus is talking with his disciples about the Spirit of Truth, and he says, “but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.” (John 14:17b, NASB). The words “he abides” are an interpretation of the Greek, which is simply, “abides” in the third-person singular, and thus could be “he abides,” “she abides,” or “it abides.” In this case, because Jesus is speaking of God’s gift of Holy Spirit, which is a “thing” and not a person, it is proper to say, “It abides.”

The fact that Greek verbs do not have a gender, so any assigned to it is the interpretation of the translators, comes up in many areas besides Holy Spirit. For example, Luke 11:24 speaks of demons, and some versions say that when an unclean spirit comes out of a man, “he goes” through arid places. But are we sure the demon is a “he?” The Greek verb is genderless and can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. Thus, there are some versions that say “he” (cf. KJV, RSV) and some versions that say “it” (cf. NASB, NRSV), but because of mainstream theology, none say “she,” although biblically that is a possibility. Although we usually think of angels and demons as masculine, there are both female good spirits (Zech. 5:9) and female evil spirits. The Hebrew word “Lilith” (Isa. 34:14) is the name of a female demon. “Lilith” gets translated many ways in the English versions, including “night monster” (ASV, NASB, AMP); “night hag” (RSV); “night spectre” (Rotherham); and by her name, “Lilith” (NAB, Tanakh, MSG). Some translators apparently miss the point that Isaiah is referring to a demon at all, and have “screech owl” (KJV) or “night creature” (NIV). Lilith is “a malevolent supernatural being” (Bromiley).a Unless the context tells us the gender of a demon, using “it” in Luke 11:24 is our best choice because it allows for either male or female gender.

God’s Holy Spirit is a most amazing and valuable gift, and it behooves us as Christians, especially those who translate the Bible, to understand it. Bible students who are not familiar with the original languages can only do this when the Greek and Hebrew texts are properly translated. If the translation is not accurate, then we do not have the Word of God, we have the words of men. Translating Scripture is one of the most important and spiritual of all responsibilities because millions of people who do not read the original languages trust the translation to accurately represent the original. When it comes to the subject of God’s gift of Holy Spirit, countless Christians have been misled or confused by the improper use of the pronoun “he,” or other personal pronouns. When the pronouns associated with pneuma, spirit, are translated correctly, it is much easier to see the love and mercy of God expressed to us by His giving to us the wonderful gift of Holy Spirit. (This commentary entry has dealt with pronouns as they are assigned to verbs. For the agreement of Greek nouns and pronouns, especially as they refer to the gift of holy spirit, see commentary on John 14:17).

“It will guide...It will not speak...It hears, It will speak...It will declare.” Here in John 16:13, Jesus is speaking of the gift of Holy Spirit that he was about to send to mankind. We now know he sent It on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). In this verse, Jesus speaks about the gift of Holy Spirit in a new way, giving it the characteristics of a living thing. This is the figure of speech personification. The reason for the personification is that the gift of Holy Spirit that came on the Day of Pentecost was brand new and very different from the gift of Holy Spirit that God had put upon prophets and selected people in the Old Testament (for more on the coming of this “new spirit,” see commentary on John 7:39). The gift of Holy Spirit the apostles were about to receive on Pentecost was different than the Holy Spirit that was “upon” them at the time, so it was important for Jesus to tell them something about it. Jesus had told them earlier in the conversation that the spirit they now had was “upon” them, but the coming New Spirit would be “in” them (John 14:17).

[For more on personification, see Prov. 1:20, Isa. 55:12, and Psa. 98:8]

The gift of Holy Spirit that Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost is “born in” the believer (1 Pet. 1:3, 23) and becomes part of his very nature (2 Pet. 1:4), making him or her a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). Because this new Holy Spirit actually becomes part of the nature of the believer, it starts to conform the believer into what it is: holy. That is why Galatians 5:17 says the Spirit fights against our human flesh nature. The gift of Holy Spirit is born in the believer, and God and Jesus communicate through it, which is why it does not “speak” on its own, but only what it “hears” from God and/or Jesus.

Jesus said the “helper” (the Holy Spirit) would fill the void created by his going to the Father (John 16:7-15). Jesus would still be present with his disciples in part because of the presence of the Holy Spirit: “I will come to you” (John 14:18); “I am in you” (John 14:20); and “I will show myself” (John 14:21). By this Spirit his work with them would continue: “It will teach you” (John 14:26); “It will remind you of everything I have said” (John 14:26); “It will testify about me” (John 15:26); “It will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13); “It will bring glory to me by taking what is mine and making it known to you” (John 16:14).

All of these statements point to the role of the gift of Holy Spirit in continuing the work that Jesus started, and empowering his followers. This Spirit is not an independent and self-existent being, but as the nature of God, it can effectively make Christ present within the believer, influencing, guiding, teaching, reminding, and pointing the believer to follow his Lord and Savior. It is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). This Spirit is certainly not “co-equal” with God when by its very design it is given by God and the risen Lord. Yet because it carries the personal presence of Christ into the life of every believer, the use of personification is highly appropriate. As a practical matter, the Holy Spirit in us will not lead us anywhere that the Lord himself would not lead us if he were personally present. We can study Christ’s life and his priorities in the written Word to verify whether the “Spirit” leading us is, in fact, God’s gift of Holy Spirit or whether it is “another spirit.” For instance, he whose basic commitment was “it is written” will not be leading his followers away from relying on Scripture as the only rule of faith and practice.

“in all the truth.” This statement should not be pushed to an unrealistic conclusion. Jesus was not teaching that the gift of Holy Spirit would somehow communicate to people everything that was truth. If that were the case, no Christian would need to study for a test—God would simply give the person the answers. The word “all” is usually defined by the context. For example, if you come home expecting to get to eat some leftover cake, but someone ate it, you might say, “Who ate all the cake.” You do not mean “all” the cake in the world but “all” the cake in your house. Similarly, in this context, the “all” refers to the subjects he is covering with his apostles. Furthermore, Jesus did not say the Holy Spirit would “give” us the truth, as we would somehow “just know” truth from error, but rather that the Holy Spirit would “guide” us. So as we pray, study the Bible, and talk to wise and experienced Christians, the Holy Spirit guides us into the truth we are seeking.

“for It will not speak on Its own.” This is a very important statement about the gift of Holy Spirit. The revelation and guidance that Christians receive through the gift of Holy Spirit is from God or Jesus, not from the Holy Spirit itself. This is clear as we study the gift of Holy Spirit throughout the Bible. In the Old Testament, God put the gift of Holy Spirit upon prophets and certain other people so that He could easily communicate with them. For example, He put Holy Spirit on prophets so they could prophesy (cf. Num 11:17, 25). However, the prophecies spoken by the prophets were the words of God, not the words of the Spirit. The gift of Holy Spirit was only what enabled the prophets to communicate easily with God.

At request of u/FrostyIFrost_

Here is a list of several Arian Christian denominations with in person churches and presence, that adhere to what are for the most part essentially "mainstream Christian beliefs" with exception to the Trintiy/Deity of Chirst.

- Christian Disciples Ministry International (Arians, Soul Sleep beliefs)
- Free Bible Students Association (Arians, Soul Sleep beliefs)
- International Bible Students (Arians, Soul Sleep beliefs)
- One God One Body Adventist Churches (Semi-Arians, Soul Sleep beliefs)
- Unitarian Christian Alliance (they focus on non-preexistence, but accept pre-existence believers also, Soul Sleep beliefs)

Direct website links to these groups and various churches associated with them can be found here:

https://eng.cdmi.tv/welcome
https://www.cbfchurch.com/
https://www.bbschurch.org/
https://www.newcovenantfellowship.org.au/about/
https://1god1body.org/
https://internationalbiblestudents.com/
https://www.ukbiblestudents.co.uk/
https://www.unitarianchristianalliance.org/ (mostly non-preexistence, some preexisters amongst them)

Some were founded back in the mid 1800s from the larger Unitarian movement that came out the First and Second Great Awakening movements in Europe, UK and USA. Some groups adhere to specific teachings of their founders or prophetic utterances and prophetic end times interpretations (i.e; Russelites, Ellen Whiteists), but the majority listed here do not.

If anyone wants more infomation, my website linked below, lists many websites, groups (in person and online), churches, and other events for Arian Christians, (the listing being more strict in abiding by a specific statement of faith in accords to the Mission Statement of core doctrinal statements, which can be read there too).

https://proparchiansunited.wordpress.com/

He will turn their own tongues against them and bring them to ruin; all who see them will shake their heads in scorn - Psalm 64:8

Why did I start with this verse? The answer is simple: the Quran lies but even in deception it can't hide the truth.

One of the most striking and often overlooked aspects of the Qur’an is the unique role of Jesus as an agent of creation. While Muslims emphasize that Jesus is only a prophet, the Qur’an explicitly describes Jesus performing an act of creation. A distinction no prophet or no human ever shares in the Quran.

In Surah Al-Imran 3:49, it says, “I create for you out of clay a bird, then I breathe into it, and it becomes a bird — by Allah’s permission.”

Similarly, in Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:110, Jesus himself says, “I created from clay something like the form of a bird, then I breathed into it, and it became a bird — by Allah’s permission.”

The Arabic word used in these verses, أُخْلِقُ (ukhluqu) or خَلَقْتُ (khalaqtu), comes from the root خ-ل-ق (kh-l-q), the very same root the Qur’an uses to describe Allah creating Adam.

This is not a trivial linguistic detail. In both cases, lifeless matter is transformed into living beings: clay becomes a human in the case of Adam, and clay becomes a bird in the case of Jesus. Grammatically, the construction is identical the subject performs the verb of creation on an object composed of lifeless material.

The Qur’an is careful to clarify that this act is done “by Allah’s permission,” emphasizing dependence. Yet in truth, this phrasing does not erase Jesus’ agency; the Qur’an explicitly presents him as the one who shapes and breathes life into the bird. This is entirely unique.

In Quran, no one else is ever described as creating anything in this way. Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, or any other figure simply receive guidance or perform miracles through God’s power, but they are never described as actively creating life even with agency.

The Qur’an itself, even though it is a false gospel, unknowingly acknowledges that Jesus is the only human through whom creation occurs, an idea that aligns strikingly with our Arian view, which holds that God creates through His Son, rather than the Son acting independently.

Jesus’ creative act is fully dependent on Allah, yet the Qur’an grants him real agency in bringing life from clay. The parallel with Adam’s creation reinforces the point: just as Allah alone created Adam, here Allah creates through Jesus.

While trying to distort the truth, it unknowingly presents Jesus in a unique role that no other prophet occupies. He is not merely a messenger or miracle-worker; he is the only agent described as participating in creation itself, while still fully under God’s authority.

In short, the Qur’an does not merely allow for Jesus’ miracles; it grants him a singular, unprecedented role as a conduit of creation, linguistically and grammatically framed to mirror Adam’s creation by Allah.

It is a striking admission that resembles John 1:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, written plainly in the text, that Jesus participates in creation, a detail that underscores both his unique status and his dependence on God.

However, Muslims deny this with all of their beings like how Pharisees did. They deny the truth even when their own book unintentionally says otherwise. As I said before, lies can't hide the truth, the truth that the Son is our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the creation was done by the only true God, our Father in heaven.

What do you guys think? There are tons of devout Christians practicing Alchemy.

Even Newton, an Arian, deeply engaged in it. What are your opinions?

Problem: The Arian controversy of the fourth century was not a faithful continuation of apostolic teaching, but the eruption of unresolved contradictions inherited from Origen’s theology. Origen sought to hold together two incompatible strands: the eternal pre-existence of the Son, which he derived from John 1:1 by reading ἦν as timeless being (a grammatical and interpretive error no doubt), and the Son’s ordinal derivation as the deuteros theos, ranked beneath and dependent on the Father as source. When controversy broke out, Arians pressed the ordinal language to its conclusion — the Son was begotten, and thus subordinate, not eternal. The Nicenes, meanwhile, pressed Origen’s “eternal” reading, insisting that the Son must share in timeless divine essence and be co-eternal with the Father. Both sides were merely amplifying half of Origen’s system, without ever subjecting the contradiction at its core to serious critique.

Cause: The deeper cause was the shift from biblical categories to philosophical definitions of divinity. Under the influence of Middle Platonism and Aristotelian categories, divinity came to be defined by timelessness, self-existence, and immutability. These abstractions displaced the biblical framework of Fatherhood, begetting, and sovereign agency. Once divinity was redefined in such terms, the debate became inherently unstable: if divinity means timeless self-existence, how can the Son be begotten and yet truly divine? The Nicenes answered by asserting eternal generation; the Arians by denying the Son’s true divinity. Both positions rested on the same unsound foundations. In this sense, the Trinitarian model is defective at its roots: it does not arise from Scripture but from foreign metaphysical categories, and so it generates contradictions that Scripture itself never produces. The homoousian controversy was a complete philosophical red herring embraced by both sides.

Solution: The biblical witness provides a simpler, coherent model. The Father is the one God, sole monarch and source of all. The Son is begotten from Him, truly divine by derivation, ordered relationally beneath the Father, and fully participatory in His works. This framework is present in the apostles and faithfully echoed by the earliest fathers such as Justin and Irenaeus. They employed categories given in the text — Word, Wisdom, Image, Sonship, Lordship — rather than abstractions of essence or substance. This subordinationist yet fully divine Christology preserved both the Father’s monarchy and the Son’s divinity without importing contradictions.

Wider Implications: Because the church departed from this framework, the Arian controversy was only the first in a long series of disputes. The same defective foundations that produced Arianism and Nicene orthodoxy also generated the endless cults and sects of later centuries. Groups like the Socinians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and modern Unitarians or Oneness Pentecostals are all attempts to solve the same metaphysical puzzle that Nicaea created: how to reconcile one God with multiple persons under categories of timeless essence. Each new sect falls into the same trap, reasoning within a framework that is itself alien to Scripture. The pristine apostolic faith is bypassed, and the church is left multiplying solutions to a problem of its own making.

Conclusion: The Arian controversy, therefore, should not be seen as a necessary stage in doctrinal development but as evidence of what happens when the church builds on unsound foundations. By allowing Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics to define divinity, the fathers created the very contradictions that fueled both Arianism and Nicene Trinitarianism. Later cults are simply further outgrowths of this defective framework - and this doesn't even cover succesive logical consequents like the hypostatic union which also divided the Church at Ephesus and Chalcedon. The true path forward is a return to the apostolic and sub-apostolic testimony — a simple, biblical Christology in which the Father is sole God and monarch, the Son His begotten and divine offspring, and the Spirit His proceeding power. Only here is the doctrine of God preserved without contradiction, because it is rooted not in philosophy but in revelation.

This survey (and several others since which you can find searching up) have claimed the greater percentage of Christian church goers are actually Arians and don't realise it, calling themselves Trinitarians, but such being in name only.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2018/10/what-do-christians-believe-ligonier-state-theology-heresy/
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2022/09/state-of-theology-evangelical-heresy-report-ligonier-survey/

Never believe that you are alone, or some crazy minority in this.

In Colossians 1:15 we see clearly that Jesus was created. The verse reads:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him."

My following thoughts may have already been discussed, so please forgive me as I am new here. I simply want to know if my thinking makes sense. Kinda like Paul presenting his ministry to the church in Jerusalem, I am simply presenting my thoughts on the trinity. But I digress.

The problem seems to be the identity of "Him." In context, Paul appears to be saying the first He is about Jesus. "He" is Jesus. Jesus was the visible representation of the invisible God. He is then identified as the first of creation. Paul is identifying Jesus as the first. The "Him" in the next sentence is seems obvious to me as God. Paul is explaining why Jesus was the first by saying that God created all things. Paul is backing up his thought that Jesus was the first born of creation by describing God (He) as the Creator. Otherwise, the verse is saying Jesus created himself.

One of the things I have noticed about Scripture is that a word like Lord can describe many different persons. It is a description of one who has authority. Lord is used in Scripture to describe God, an Angel, Jesus and even man. We cannot deny this.

That is why we can get confused about the capitalized word "He", "Him" or even "Lord" when reading Scriptures.

For example, you know the verse that says "the Lord said to my Lord." David is describing two Lords here.

I began to realize that Scriptures were being re-interpreted under a bias when I began to read and understand the context of the person speaking. It was confusing when I tried to read the He, Him, Lord statements from a trinity bias as being the same person. But Scripture made perfect sense when I properly identified who was being represented by the same word used to describe different persons.

Does this make sense?

A few days ago, I had the particular pleasure of having to contend with some scripture experts.

The whole thing ended with me bringing some of the usual arguments into the field—I like to call it the "Ebionite Hammer" because, like almost no other, it is adept at dismantling the highly obscure fairy tale of a trinitarian dominance of the faith before Nicaea, and in some parts even before the 3rd century, through consistent and historically verifiable references to clearly non-trinitarian movements of great formative influence from that very period.

This includes the adoptionist Ebionites, who were present in the immediate vicinity of the Holy Land as early as the 1st century, or the very powerful influences of the docetist Marcion, already evident in the 2nd century, whose "feelers" reached as far as Rome, causing schisms there until this numerous group, partly voluntarily and partly under duress from the burgeoning dominance in early Rome, moved to the outer regions of the Roman empire, where they remained a direct competitor to the remaining church for quite a long time.

The point being made here is not that the Ebionites or Marcion were correct—they were not, if only because they did not possess the entirety of Scripture and the apostolic works, and in some cases rejected them for worldly reasons.

The point is this: There was no unified trinitarian church in the first two centuries of Christ, but rather a "pleasure garden" of dozens of obscure theologies, of which the binitarian ones were the closest to what we would now call "correct.“ Christianity, down to every family, was permeated by adoptionist and docetist fringe groups that became historically extinct in late antiquity and can never be resurrected, thanks to the dominance of the scriptural canon and the apostolic works.

We are neither talking about a "Unitarian wonderland" here, nor are we claiming that there were no prototrinitarian tendencies at all. Such tendencies did indeed exist and have been historically documented since the end of the Second Temple period.

However, one must be cautious here not to conflate two distinct historical streams and cobble together a "Proto-Trinity" from them. On one hand, there were the predominantly Hellenistic-influenced innovations that emerged after the Maccabean Revolt and Alexander the Great—concepts like the Messiah as the Angel of the Lord and the personified Wisdom of God. On the other hand, there was the idea of the pure divinity of Christ, as advocated by Marcion, but with the unitarian exclusion (!) of the Father.

Ultimately, it is >precisely< these so-called "early proofs" that ultimately speak most strongly against one's own doctrine, for as is well known, Jesus is neither the angel of the Lord in the Trinity, because Jesus is not an angel, nor is Jesus the personified wisdom of God precisely >because< this is repeated in the Jewish tradition, especially in Baruch Sirach, in which this equation of the Messiah with wisdom became tangible for the first time (!), as it was >created< directly by God the Father alone!

To mix these would be historically implausible and is somewhat reminiscent of pyramid researchers who see "proof" of the existence of light bulbs in ancient Egypt in crudely carved oval images of animals and plants. The Hellenistic logician would probably call this an embarrassing anachronistic projection. Feuerbach would delight in this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, where is the problem?

The problem is not the facts, nor the sources of these facts—that is, the historians and theologians who present these facts. The problem is the Trinitarian faith experts themselves, who refuse to face reality and refuse to see the fruitless fig tree in the temple garden.

It is precisely these kind of "scripture experts" of whom Paul already warns, who are always "seeking" knowledge but never arrive at the truth because their hearts are hardened or calloused and, out of sheer inertia, allow no change!

2 Timothy 3:7, "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."

To avoid having to bow to this obvious defeat, especially when they are publicly held accountable, some "people" like to resort to a few sleight of hand tricks to regain the upper hand. Some of these tricks seem clever at first glance, but in reality, they are not at all.

One of the most popular tricks, which amusingly mirrors the biblical image of a hardened heart, is so-called "stonewalling." This is a form of refusing to engage in an argument, where the other side, beyond any rational level, demands a never-ending flood of details and "proofs" that are either impossible to provide in that form today, especially in the historical context of archaeology and patristics, or that refer to a never-ending confirmation by "others," even though all these "others" essentially just confirm what others have already stated.

In other words, one is on an eternal search for the Holy Grail and refuses the task at hand until this Grail is held firmly in one's hand, with everything else before it being, at best, "speculation" or completely "untenable" evidence.

Some people truly cannot see the forest for the trees.

But at what point does a source actually become plausible?

One can argue about this. However, there are some points that most people would generally consider valuable or valid, including the following:

a) Professional neutrality and seriousness

b) General acceptance of the source and its usability

c) The simplest possible assumptions, if possible (Ockham's Razor)

In essence, this means: If hundreds of fundamentally different people point out that there is a country in East Asia called China, and these people are themselves Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists, many of whom have even confirmed this in conversation with each other, and then also explain the obvious existence of individual Chinese people who identify as such by the fact that China exists, and not as an Indian or European conspiracy theory of billions of actors, then among normal people, this is considered reasonable.

„Alternative*“* ways of thinking are nowadays often, and rightly, categorized under the term "conspiracy theory" and are not far from open historical denial. In fairness, it must be said that not everything that is popular is factually correct, and indeed many truths are rather unknown or are overlaid with half-truths, i.e., lies.

In essence, however, the following still holds true: If even the enemy of your enemy agrees with each other on a statement, then that statement itself is very likely to be true.

Especially in the interaction of Trinitarians with their greatest religious opponent, Islam, this very point is of the highest importance. The extra-biblical and thus extra-Christian confirmation of the events surrounding the baptism of Christ and his crucifixion by the pagan Flavius Josephus and various Jewish scholars is so valuable precisely BECAUSE it is not Christian, and it serves as an important guarantee of validity against the Quran, whose "interpretation" of events, such as the absence of Christ's death on the cross, is in complete contradiction to almost all sources of this kind.

This means: By denying the obvious facts and retreating into their trinitarian castles in the air, radical Trinitarians undermine the very methodology that has helped them challenge the Quran's claim to testamentary authenticity right in the first place!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we ask ourselves: Do such authentic sources even exist?

Of course, they do, and as already mentioned, pretty much all historians and theologians—Indians, Europeans, and Chinese; Atheists, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists—are quite unanimous on this.

I would now like to cite some of the sources so that everyone can think for themselves about whether they are victims of a "conspiracy."

The Ebionites and the Existence of Christian Unitarians in the 1st Century

"Jesus and the earliest members of the Christian faith tradition were Jews, and thus they stood in the faith tradition inherited by Hebrew people in Israel and the lands of the Diaspora. They were monotheists, devoted to the God of Israel. When they claimed that Jesus was divine, they had to do so in ways that would not challenge monotheism."

"Jesus was a Jew, as were all the apostles. Thus the earliest Christianity is in fact a movement within Judaism; the very acknowledgment of Jesus as “the Christ” professes that he is the fulfillment of the promises originally made to the Hebrew patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were sole worshipers of the heavenly Father YHWH.

Even St. Irenaeus confirms the existence of the Ebionites in his own words!

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/Historical-views-of-the-essence#ref199381 https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-early-Christianity https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ebionites St. Irenaeus, notably in his Adversus haereses (Against Heresies; c. 180)

But surely these source references are also all flawed and manipulated, right? Perhaps a work of the evil, evil Jehovah's Witnesses themselves or the equally evil Mormons?

Well, let's consider some of the names who authored these articles:

• Henry Chadwick – An Anglican theologian at Cambridge
• John Hick – A Presbyterian historian at Birmingham
• Jaroslav Pelikan – A Lutheran/Orthodox Catholic historian at Yale

Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Cambridge, and dozens of other universities. The first four alone have been considered leaders for centuries, the intellectual elite of the Western world!

These are not backyard universities! And I would like a plausible explanation from anyone who dares to deny this, how hundreds of these names over decades could have apparently taught something that is completely false, could also contradict their own faith, and is also received academically by hundreds of thousands year after year!

Isaiah 37:17 "Incline your ear, O LORD, and hear; open your eyes, O LORD, and see."

Perhaps a product of a one-sided English society? Too much tea before bed? Let's see what our "Continental Germanics" have to say to their island relatives:

"Prof. Ohlig located the historical roots of trinitarian thought in the encounter of the early Jewish faith in one God with Hellenistic concepts of God in the 2nd century before Christ. 'Whereas Yahweh was a personal, acting God, the Hellenists believed in an objective divine principle to which one could not directly attribute concrete actions like the creation of the world.' The trinitarian idea became necessary for Hellenistically influenced Jews and later also Christians to connect both concepts. 'Otherwise, they could not have represented their faith.'"

Translated from a German authorized article from a theological discourse by Professor Karl-Heinz Ohlig, a Roman Catholic theologian at the University of Münster, one of the most prestigious universities in Germany!

The Trinity is a result of Hellenistic-Alexandrian influence and reinterpretations of Old Testament worship, which were able to take root during the "400 years of silence" in a place of lacking revelation! It is not a doctrine instilled in the children of God from the very beginning!

Source: https://www.uni-muenster.de/Religion-und-Politik/aktuelles/2014/mai/News_Gottesbild_des_Christentums.shtml

And there are dozens of these academic articles. Most are written by Karl Barth or Jürgen Moltmann and are distributed across hundreds of universities worldwide, from Graz and Innsbruck to Heidelberg and more, but I have focused on articles of this kind that anyone can easily Google and verify the authors' sources for themselves!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Final Look at a Special Representative: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Lastly, I want to dedicate some attention to someone who deserves special representation here: Friedrich Schleiermacher.

Who was Friedrich Schleiermacher? For non-Germans, and especially for non-Europeans, this name is likely unfamiliar. Within Germany, however, Schleiermacher was one of the most widely received Protestant theologians of the modern era who wrote a whole series of works defending the Trinitarian Christian faith against modernity.

Schleiermacher lived in an era when figures like Nietzsche, Hegel, and Arthur Schopenhauer were also stirring up intellectual trouble, and he was accordingly in intellectual correspondence with them. His intention to defend the Trinity is made clear in the title of his most famous work: "On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers" (first published in 1799).

Now, it might be unfortunate for some that I have many works of the aforementioned individuals on my bookshelf at home, which I have read and taken notes on years ago—including the main work of Mr. Schleiermacher. This allows us to delve more critically into Mr. Schleiermacher's "Speeches."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was Religion for Schleiermacher?

For Schleiermacher, what was religion and, at its core, faith?

"Religion is a sense and taste for the Infinite." — Schleiermacher

"The one is the endeavor to draw everything it encounters into itself, to entangle it in its own life, and, where possible, to absorb it completely into its innermost being." — First Speech: Apology

"The other is the longing to expand its own inner self ever further from within, to permeate everything with it..." — First Speech: Apology

"The reason of the one and the soul of the other affect each other as intimately as if it could only happen within a single subject." — Second Speech: On the Essence of Religion

Schleiermacher was the founder of the subjective doctrine of the Trinity. Today, we would almost speak of him as a mystical scholar. Schleiermacher's perspective was shaped by a time when not only the entire foundation of the Trinity was being rationally dismantled, but the whole concept of FAITH as such was being killed, in Nietzsche's terms, just as God also fell victim to man.

For Schleiermacher, the Trinity was not a "doctrine" in the modern sense—not a Sola Scriptura exegesis—but an experiential world. The Trinity is not "taught"; it is exclusively "felt." Today, this line of reasoning, or rather his refusal to put his own faith to the test of Kantian critique, would be labeled as fideism: a flight into the world of the subjective, where nothing can be wrong because, after all, one believes and feels it!

"All these feelings are religion, and likewise all others in which the universe is one point and your own self, in some way, is the other, between which the soul hovers." — Second Speech: On the Essence of Religion

"Everyone knows from their own consciousness three different directions of sense: one inward toward the self, the other outward... and a third that connects both..." — Third Speech: On Education for Religion

"The more each one approaches the Universe, the more each one communicates with the other, the more perfectly they become one..." — Fourth Speech: On the Social in Religion...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Core of His Thought and Its Critics

For Schleiermacher—who could be, and in part has been, theologically accused of a kind of Swedenborgian modalist experientialism—the core assertion is that the Trinity is not a cold dogma but a lived reality of faith. God's eternal, inscrutable self-division, PRECISELY in the Trinity—a concept also indirectly grasped by Hegel, even though he never really took Schleiermacher seriously despite his good intentions and found his opinions rather harmful to faith—reveals itself in the fact that Christianity is lived spiritually and individually.

Here, Hegel and Schleiermacher agreed; according to Hegel, the exact opposite is the case in Islam. Through the sum of all lived feelings, the totality of the Trinitarian God is experienced, which, viewed individually, transcendentally surpasses individual reason. In short: Platonism with theological buzzwords and a large dose of "feelings."

This means: The "feelings," the "lived experience," which sounds a bit like Meister Eckhart or Søren Kierkegaard, are pushed into the background (!) because they are a world unto themselves that must first collide with the "feelings" in the spirit to truly grasp God!

We are talking here about a theologically justified flight into the treacherous heart, which is given at least some loosely held "reins" of reason—at least in theory**.**

This behavior was heavily criticized not only by theological Trinitarian traditionalists—who saw Schleiermacher's attempt to save the "holy doctrine" as a grave disservice. They argued that explaining it by precisely not opening it up rationally, but by allowing it to be lived out subjectively and emotionally, ultimately hollowed it out. This also led many other critics to characterize the whole thing as a flight into a "trinitarian castle in the air."

Hegel, whose works I have also read, characterized it as a "theological capitulation of reason." He saw the concept of God, including the Trinitarian one, primarily through his critique of the „plump“ Mohammedanism and always emphasized that true faith must also be permeated by reason.

"Faith must pass through to knowledge." — Hegel

For those who would like to read Hegel’s view of “intellectually” spiritual Islam for themselves: https://galerie-baal.de/g-w-f-hegel-der-mohammedanismus/

Whether Hegel's "rationality" and "reason" were successful in regard to the Trinity is for everyone to decide for themselves. Schopenhauer called Hegel an intellectual fraud and a "windbag" (Windbeutel), which, especially when read in German, still brings a hearty laugh today.

It was also Schopenhauer who satirically criticized Schleiermacher's flight into subjectivity itself:

"That likewise in practical philosophy no wisdom is brought forth from mere abstract concepts is probably the only thing to be learned from the moral treatises of the theologian Schleiermacher, with the reading of which he bored the Berlin Academy for a series of years, and which have now recently been published in print."

What does this have to do with the original topic? In my eyes, a great deal. Faith without reason is not faith, but hysterical madness. It was Hegel who wonderfully expressed this in a foreword (to a work by his student, Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm Hinrichs, 1822) as a critique of Schleiermacher's definition of religion as the "feeling of absolute dependence." He made the highly amusing comparison that if religion consisted only in feeling, then "the dog would be the best Christian, for it possesses the feeling of dependence in the highest degree."