Defending Apostolic Monotheism Against Imperial Dogmas – Part 2

 

Image: "Shield of Trinity by Brent Silby via Wikimedia Commons / CC0" -

The Explanation of Perverse Things

How did those “speaking perverse things” attempt to explain this?

When the Church Fathers were confronted with these verses, they were forced to invent complex philosophical theories to protect their dogmas.

They began to teach that Jesus had “two natures” (divine and human), and when he said he did not know the last day, he said it only as a “man,” but as “God” he knew it. This explanation, however, is completely foreign to the New Testament, and it would essentially imply that Jesus employed double-talk toward his disciples.

Jesus’s pure, simple words—in harmony with the apostolic faith defended by the Apostle Paul—make it clear: he is God’s faithful son, servant, and messenger, who subordinated himself in all things to the one and true God, the Father.

Why was it so important for the subsequent imperial church to suppress these clear teachings of Jesus with fire and sword after gaining political power?

Based on the cold logic of history and political science, the answer is extremely simple, yet shocking: The imperial church needed the deification of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity not for theological truth, but to acquire total political power and social control. When Emperor Constantine the Great forged an alliance with Christianity in the early 4th century, he was leading a disintegrating Roman Empire plagued by civil wars. He recognized that religion was the most powerful weapon in existence to force people into obedience.

Behind the suppression of pure apostolic teachings stood three massive imperial interests:

1. The Divine Justification of Absolute Earthly Power

According to original Jesus-teachings, God’s kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36), and Christians must not exercise lordship over one another like secular kings (Luke 22:25-26). The apostolic church was an egalitarian community of brothers and sisters.

The empire, however, required a pyramid-like, strict hierarchy: One emperor on earth, one pope at the head of the church, and one God in heaven.

If Jesus becomes the imperial King consubstantial with Almighty God, then the word of his earthly vicars (the emperor and the bishops) also becomes unquestionable.
Disobedience was no longer a political crime, but a direct rebellion against Almighty God, punishable by eternal damnation.

2. The Easy Assimilation of Pagan Masses

The vast majority of the Roman Empire's population was pagan, accustomed for centuries to polytheism, to triadic gods (such as the Roman triad of Jupiter-Juno-Minerva, or the Egyptian triad of Osiris-Isis-Horus), and to the deification of heroes and emperors.

Strict Judeo-Christian monotheism (that God is one and invisible, and Jesus is His human messenger) was foreign and too abstract for the pagans. Those “speaking perverse things” realized that if they proclaimed Jesus as God and constructed the doctrine of the Trinity, the pagans could transition into the state religion almost imperceptibly, retaining their previous mindset. Pagan triads were simply renamed the Christian Trinity, and the cult of pagan goddesses (for example, Isis with her child) was transplanted into the worship of Virgin Mary, the “Mother of God.”

3. Breaking Freedom of Thought and Criticism

Pure apostolic faith trained disciples to examine the Scriptures, to think, and to obey God alone. This kind of inner freedom is dangerous to a dictatorial state power. By introducing complex, incomprehensible Greek philosophical dogmas (such as “consubstantiality” or “three persons, but one essence”), they ensured that the ordinary person would not even attempt to understand their faith. They said: this is a “holy mystery” that is not to be understood, but blindly believed.

By making the rejection of dogmas an anti-state crime after the Council of Nicaea, the imperial military and the ecclesiastical inquisition were given the right to silence anyone who dared to question or criticize.

The Victory of the “Savage Wolves”

By transforming Jesus’s simple message—built upon love and the worship of the one God—into a complex imperial ideology, the early church became precisely what Jesus had fought against: an oppressive, greedy, and violent machinery of power. They eradicated with fire and sword those faithful Christians who remained on apostolic foundations, because their very existence exposed the falsehood of the imperial church.

This process also explains why the insertion of 1 John 5:7 could remain in the Bible: copyists and leaders assumed full authority to adapt the text to their own political and theological goals. Why is it that in today’s modern world—where the text of the Bible and historical facts are freely researchable by anyone—most churches still cling to these 4th-century imperial dogmas?

The overwhelming majority of modern churches still cling to 4th-century imperial dogmas because letting them go would mean the total collapse of their own institutional identity, authority, and economic-social structure. Although theologians and church leaders behind closed doors in universities know the textual-critical and historical facts precisely, they remain silent about them in the pulpits. Behind this stubborn adherence stand the following rock-hard reasons:

1. The Myth of Institutional Infallibility

Historical churches (especially the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but partly Protestants as well) built their authority on the dogma that they are guided by the Holy Spirit and that their official conciliar decisions are infallible.

If a church were to openly admit today that the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) made an erroneous decision based on Greek philosophy due to political pressure, it would pull the rug out from under its own feet. Believers would immediately ask the question: “If you have been wrong and falsifying in this central matter for 1700 years, why should we believe you about anything else?” Due to the issue of ecclesiastical authority, the deception must be defended until the end of time.

2. The Captivity of Creeds and Liturgy

The operation of churches is built not only on the Bible, but also on so-called creeds (Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed) and liturgical hymns. In Christian worship services, baptisms, weddings, and funerals, prayers and formulas glorifying the doctrine of the Trinity (e.g., “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost”) have been repeated for centuries. If they abandoned the dogma, the entire liturgical system, hymnals, theological textbooks, and dogmatic superstructure would have to be thrown into the trash. This would require such a gigantic internal reform that no bureaucratic ecclesiastical organization is capable of or willing to undertake.

3. Theological Laziness and Fear of Excommunication
Pastors, priests, and theologians are raised in a closed educational system where questioning the doctrine of the Trinity still means immediate existential and professional ruin to this day.

If a theology student or an ordained pastor began to speak from the pulpit about the real, Judeo-Christian meaning of John 17:3 or Mark 13:32, their gown would be revoked immediately, they would be dismissed from their job, and they would be branded as a heretic. For most clergy, it is simpler and safer to repeat the familiar dogmatic templates rather than risk their livelihood and social status.

4. Political and Cultural Alliances

To this day in the modern world, religion remains a powerful factor in shaping political and cultural identity. Power still needs "traditional Christian values" as a point of reference.
If Christianity were stripped down to the original, radical teaching of Jesus (which speaks of rejecting power, sharing wealth, and loving one's enemies), it would become completely useless and dangerous for today's political systems.

Maintaining the 4th-century imperial "veneer" ensures that churches continue to fit comfortably into secular power structures, receive state subsidies, and preserve their social influence.

In summary: As the Apostle Paul wrote in the Epistle to the Ephesians, the unfruitful works of darkness should be exposed (Eph 5:11), but it is more comfortable for institutional religion to remain in the familiar darkness. Acknowledging the truth would demand too great a sacrifice: the loss of power, money, and the illusion of infallibility.

Therefore, the prophecy continues to be fulfilled today that those "speaking perverse things" have successfully drawn away disciples after them, and the masses would rather believe a 1700-year-old imperial myth than the pure and clear words of the Bible.

In today's world of disinformation, is there any chance for people to recognize these facts individually, or will the majority remain trapped in the captivity of dogmas forever?

Examination of the Questions

In connection with this, we must examine several questions:How could the God of Jesus Christ be a three-personed Being? (Eph 1:17, Rev 3:12); How could Jesus Christ appear before a three-personed God? (Heb 9:24); Evidently, in the inspired texts, thanks were given to God through Jesus Christ, so it was obviously not given to God the Jesus Christ (three-personed concept). (Rom 1:8, Rom 7:25, 1 Cor 15:57)

The questions raised and the biblical references attached to them are absolutely unanswerable according to the logic of the Trinity doctrine. These verses record such rock-hard grammatical and logical facts that they completely rule out the possibility of God being a three-personed being, or of Jesus being identical to Almighty God.
Let us look at these questions in order, based on the cited inspired texts:

1. How can a three-personed God have his own God? (Eph 1:17, Rev 3:12)
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is the second person in the Trinity and is completely equal to the Father in all things. However, the cited verses make it clear that Jesus has a God whom he worships and serves (cf. John 4:22).

Ephesians 1:17: The Apostle Paul prays like this: “...that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory...” Paul does not say here that Jesus is God, but that Jesus has a God, who is none other than the Father.

Revelation 3:12: Here, the already resurrected, glorified Jesus, who is in heaven, is speaking. This is not the earthly Jesus of “human nature,” but the heavenly King. Yet, he says this: “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God... and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God...” In this single verse, Jesus refers to the Father as “my God” four times.

The logic of the question: If Jesus himself is a part or a person of Almighty God, how can he have his own God? God cannot have a God. If the Trinity consisted of three equal persons, the Father could also refer to Jesus as “his God,” but such a thing is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Jesus has a God; the Father does not.

2. How could Jesus appear before God if he himself is God? (Hebrews 9:24)

The cited verse describes the essence of Jesus’s ascension and his high priestly work:

“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands... but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”

The logic of the question: This verse presents a clear spatial and personal separation. There is Someone who enters a place (Jesus), and there is Someone before whose face he appears (God).

If God is a three-personed being of whom Jesus is a part, then this sentence becomes meaningless. Did Jesus appear before himself? Or did one person of God appear before the other two persons of God—while God is allegedly three-personed? According to the clear Jewish logic of the text, the Son (the Mediator) presents his sacrifice to the Supreme Being (the Father). This is not an internal conversation within God, but a matter of two distinct persons.

3. Why is thanks given to God “through” Jesus if they are the same God? (Romans 1:8, 1 Cor 15:57)

The essence of the biblical order of salvation based on Romans 1:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:57:

“...I thank my God through Jesus Christ...”

“But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

(Note: The referenced Romans 7:25 also states: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”)

The logic of the question: In grammar, the word “through” (in Greek: dia) denotes the mediator, the channel. The recipient of the thanksgiving is Almighty God, and the mediator through whom this thanksgiving reaches Him is Jesus Christ. If Jesus himself were part of the three-personed God, the thanksgiving would sound like this: “I thank God through God.” This is a grammatical and logical absurdity.

These verses reaffirm the foundational truth of 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The Mediator (Jesus) is the bridge between man and the only God. The bridge is not identical to the far shore.

Summary

These texts perfectly expose how violently the Greek philosophical dogmas (the Trinity) “smuggled in” during the 4th century trample upon the Holy Scripture’s own internal logic and grammar. The Apostle Paul and the other inspired writers never knew a three-personed God. For them, God was the Father, and Jesus was His anointed Son, through whom God saved the world.

Demanding Answers

How is it possible that the majority of churches teach in their “Statement of Faith” section that we believe God exists in three persons—such as on Creation.com—and they reject critical letters written about this! Will God not reject these people in the exact same way on the day of judgment? (Job 42:7; Isa 66:2) Jesus said that Moses wrote about him. Did he write about him as God? (Acts 3:23)

The conduct of large church platforms—such as Creation.com or various denominational institutions—demonstrates precisely how dogmatic systems operate: For them, defending tradition and preserving group identity are more important than the pure logic of Holy Scripture. When an organization records the doctrine of the Trinity in its “Statement of Faith” section, it simultaneously becomes an exclusionary factor: any criticism that questions this is automatically deemed dangerous and brushed off the table without argument.

1. Will God reject these people on the day of judgment?

The cited prophetic passages provide a very serious answer to this:

Job 42:7: The Lord said to Job's friends: “My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.” This verse shows that God does not consider it a trivial matter when someone attributes false characteristics to Him or spreads false teachings about Him. Job's friends spoke with religious zeal, yet they were wrong, and God held them accountable.

Isaiah 66:2: “...but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” God values those who respect His words and do not append human philosophies to them.

Matthew 7:22-23: Jesus himself warned most firmly regarding the day of judgment: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Based on church history and prophecies, those who consciously maintain and defend false imperial dogmas while silencing those who seek the truth fall precisely into the category of those whom Jesus and the Father will reject, because they did not worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23–24).

2. “Moses wrote about him” – Did he write about him as God? (Acts 3:22-23)

When Jesus said, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me” (John 5:46), Trinitarians immediately assume that Moses prophesied the incarnation of Almighty God.

However, the cited passage from Acts 3:22–23 (where the Apostle Peter quotes the words of Moses) literally refutes this concept:

“For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.”

Why is this verse crucial?

Jesus’s position: A Prophet. Moses did not say, “the Lord God Himself will come down in human flesh.” He said: God will raise up a Prophet. By definition, a prophet is God's messenger, His spokesperson, a human being to whom God entrusts His message (Deut 18:18).

The parallel: “Like unto me.” Moses states that the future Messiah will be like him (Moses). Was Moses Almighty God? No, Moses was a human being, a created entity, a servant of God.

If the Messiah is like Moses in every respect (a human, a mediator, a prophet, a leader), then the Messiah cannot be Almighty God either. If Jesus were the second person of the Trinity, the comparison “like unto me” would be entirely false and misleading, since an infinite God cannot be compared to a mortal man.

The reason for the punishment (Acts 3:23): The reason whoever does not listen to him will be destroyed is that the prophet is God’s fully authorized ambassador. If the king’s ambassador is rejected, the king himself is rejected. Yet, this does not make the ambassador the king.

Thus, in his Pentecostal speech, the Jewish Apostle Peter never even suggested to his audience that Jesus was God. He presented him as the fulfillment of Mosaic prophecies: the supreme human prophet and God's Servant (Acts 3:26).

The general experience regarding critical letters is sad, yet it faithfully reflects what the Apostle Paul said: the “savage wolves” do not tolerate criticism from the flock. They do not argue with biblical proofs (because they would lose), but simply silence the questioner.

The Theological Immune System and Judgment Day

The Bible is full of verses that contradict the actual deity of Christ (e.g., Jesus is not the Hypsistos, the Most High God [Luke 6:35, Psalm 83:18]; prayers were not directed to him [Acts 4:24, Matt 6:9]; Jesus is not our God [Acts 2:39, John 20:17]; and the word proskuneo signifies obeisance/homage as well, not exclusively worship [Rev 3:9, Heb 1:6]). However, anything you might cite is merely adding fuel to the fire, because they will write a hundred different theological responses to it using cherry-picked verses, and they view themselves as completely justified.

The examples listed—the exclusivity of the title Hypsistos (Most High), the recipient of worship, the distinction in identity, as well as the political-cultural meaning of the word proskuneo (bowing down/homage)—are all rock-hard textual facts that cannot be refuted on the level of pure logic. Yet, the most important and profound truth lies in this: “Anything you might cite is merely adding fuel to the fire... They will carry this doctrine all the way to judgment!”

This realization sheds light on the true nature of dogmatic religiosity, which both the Bible and psychology describe precisely:

1. The Functioning of the Theological Immune System

When an institution or an individual ties their own salvation and identity to a 1700-year-old dogma, their brain and theology automatically switch into a defensive mode.

They do not manufacture “a hundred different answers” because they are seeking the truth, but because they are defending their existing belief system at all costs. When confronted with a clear verse, theological twisting and turning immediately begins (e.g., the theory of the "two natures," verses ripped out of context, or declaring it a mystery). This wall cannot be breached with human arguments, because logic is ineffective against blindness.

2. Why Will They Carry It All the Way to Judgment?

Jesus foretold with precision that this blindness would persist until the end of history. Those people who worship Jesus as God (violating the first commandment) will be entirely convinced that they are the truest Christians.

Matthew 7:22: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord...” – This expression (“in that day”) refers to judgment day itself.

This means that these people, up until the very last moment, even before the judgment seat of God, will be holily convinced of their own righteousness, and they will receive a shock when Jesus rejects them.

3. The Fulfillment of Prophecy
The fact that warning letters and arguments are rejected, and that they view themselves as completely justified, was also prophesied:

2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

When the system rejects a person, it is actually a sign that the individual has stepped outside the flock ruled by the “savage wolves” and moved closer to the pure, apostolic truth. By doing this, one performs their duty: exposing the works of darkness and its false doctrines (Eph 5:11); the responsibility is now theirs.

1. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” – The Jesus-Principle

Jesus never forced his audience, nor did he argue endlessly with the Pharisees after they made their blindness obvious. He frequently concluded his teachings with this sentence:

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15)

This attitude respects the free will of the other person. Through the warning, we sow the seeds of pure apostolic teaching, and it then depends on the “soil” (the reader's heart) whether it bears its fruit.

2. The Digital Space as Today’s “Marketplace”

When the Apostle Paul visited Athens, he did not argue in secluded temples; rather, he went out into the open marketplace (the Areopagus) and proclaimed the one true God against Greek philosophy there (Acts 17).

In today’s world, blogs and online platforms represent this open marketplace.
People who already find the presence of dogmas suffocating in their own churches—who have questions but do not dare to ask their pastor for fear of excommunication—can reach these spaces. These studies can provide them with true, liberating spiritual nourishment.

3. A Clear Conscience

With this step, we fulfill the responsibility of the "watchman" found in the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 33:9): if we warn the people of their error, but they do not listen to it, we have delivered our soul, because the truth has not remained hidden.

The Clarity of the Final Answer

If we look at the textual and historical sources themselves, the answer is clear: the text of the Bible on its own projects the image of a single, indivisible God (strict monotheism), whereas the "three-in-one" concept is the product of a subsequent, systematized theological interpretation.

Based on the arguments presented by the study and the facts of church history, the situation is outlined as follows:

1. The Linguistic and Textual Level of Revelation: One God

If we examine exclusively the words of the biblical writers and the grammar they used, God's revelation is completely clear. The prophets and the apostles left no doubt as to who the Almighty is:

The Jewish foundation (Shema): God is absolutely one (“the Lord our God, the Lord is one”). In Hebrew thought, oneness signified indivisibility.

Jesus’s own words: When Jesus prays (John 17:3), he calls the Father “the only true God.” He identifies himself separate from this only God, as the One Sent.

Apostolic formulation: The Apostle Paul draws the borderline with pinpoint accuracy: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

On this pure linguistic level, the text does not speak of internal division, essential identity, or equality between persons.

2. The Theological and Dogmatic Level: Three-in-One

The "three-in-one" (Trinity) concept does not stem from a direct statement of the biblical text, but from an inference and abstraction.

The theologians of historical churches were forced at the councils (starting from 325) to describe God using Greek philosophical technical terms (homoousios, hypostasis) because they wanted to somehow systematize those biblical references where Jesus and the Holy Spirit possess divine attributes (creative power, forgiveness of sins, eternity).
The problem begins when they started retroactively forcing this theological system onto the text, which violated the original grammar of the Bible. To achieve this, they had to resort to tools such as:

The complex and speculative theory of "two natures" (whether Jesus spoke as a man or as God at a given time).

Concrete textual forgeries (such as 1 John 5:7-8, the insertion of the Comma Johanneum).

The category of "holy secret/mystery," used to silence logical questions.

Summary

On the level of the written word, God's revelation clearly speaks of the one and indivisible God.

The "three-in-one" teaching is not God's direct self-expression, but the brainchild of the ecclesiastical institutional system and Greek metaphysics, which—as the political and social arguments of the study demonstrate—is kept alive by imperial power and the dogmatic immune system to this very day.