The Truth about the Trinity 


The Truth about the Trinity 

Because it has been taught and believed as “gospel” for centuries, unearthing the actual roots of the Trinity doctrine can be unsettling for many. Yet, unless beliefs are examined and at times challenged, we may find ourselves in a lifetime of error and never know it. Here are the facts about an ancient doctrine that long predates the New Testament – about a doctrine that was borrowed from mystery religion with no foundation in the sacred Scriptures! 

A fundamental teaching and “test” doctrine of both Catholic and Protestant groups [or, “Churchianity”] is the Trinity. The Trinity tenet is probably best expressed by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, England as “…the belief in the Godhead of the Father and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Three co-equal and co-eternal Persons in One Living and True God … in unity of this Godhead there be Three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.” 

“Spirit” is misconstrued as the superstitious “ghost” in 1611 King James wording. The term “ghost” is an erroneous translation of the Greek pneuma, which is better translated as “spirit.” There is no word in the Greek language for “ghost.” The closest Greek word, phantasma, occurs twice (Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:49, translated spirit) which means “apparition, specter, phantom,” but is never used to describe the RUACH HAQODESH (Set-Apart Spirit). 

Churchianity teaches that this special Power, this Spirit that emanates from the Father and is shared by the Son, is a person called the Holy Spirit, which together with the Father and Son makes up a Trinity.

Trinity Missing from the New Testament 

Under the subject of Trinity, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th edition, 1974, vol. 10, p. 126, Micropedia) makes this eye-opening statement, “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did [YAHUSHA*] and His followers intend to contradict the Shema of the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Yashar’el: [YAHUAH*] our [ELOHIYM] is One.’” (Deut. 6:4).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia gives this surprising admission: “The term ‘Trinity’ is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it…In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason.” (Trinity, vol.5, p. 3012). 

The Britannica adds: “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies… . The Council of Nicaea, in 325, stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the ‘Son is of the same substance…as the Father,’ even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit…By the end of the 4th century…the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.” 

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, vol. 14, p. 299, acknowledges: “The formulation ‘one G-d in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century….Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” 

The issue came to a flash point at the general church Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., called by Constantine. Two church leaders in Alexandria – Arius and Athanasius – had been in open dispute over whether the Father and Son were equal. 

Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical history, early in the conference offered a compromise resolution that described the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Supporters of Athanasius realized that the compromise would destroy the doctrine of the Trinity, and was essentially a vote for Arius, who maintained that the Father was superior in some ways. 

Emperor Constantine stepped in, rejecting the compromise of Eusebius. But the Trinity idea did not become doctrine until the year 379 when Roman Emperor Theodosius established Christianity as the state religion. Hence, the Roman Catholic Church, and its doctrine of a Triune deity, was born. 

Trinity Discounted Early On 

In the early years following the resurrection of the Messiah, the Trinity doctrine was not accepted by a number of educated, sincere Scripture-believers. One source informs us about a Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician, who “…was unable to accept traditional formulas defining G-d as ‘Father, Son and Holy [Spirit]’ – one G-d expressed through three personalities. He put his doubts into print and stirred up a furor of indignation. The New Testament nowhere conveys the doctrinal formula as such; it was shaped by church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries…agents of Protestant leaders took Servetus to Champel the next day and burned him at the stake until his body was totally reduced to ashes.” p. 65, Strange Facts About the Bible, Webb Garrison. 

Erasmus is noted for his editing of the Greek New Testament, a work of exemplary scholarship. “In preparing the first edition of his Greek New Testament in 1516, the Dutch scholar used the best and oldest manuscripts available to him. For purposes of scholarship he compared Latin and Greek versions by printing them in parallel columns. Ancient copies did not include at 1John 5:7 a reference to the Trinity, standard in medieval copies of the Latin Vulgate. Guided by the principle that the oldest copies of a work are likely to be closer to the original than later copies, Erasmus omitted from the Greek side of His New Testament the allusion familiar to readers of the Latin Bible. The use of parallel columns made the omission immediately obvious,” p. 258, Strange Facts about the Bible. 

A Babylonian Survival 

As these authorities have revealed, the Trinity doctrine is not based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures, but is fashioned piecemeal from selected verses that are said to allude to a Trinity. 

The simple fact is the doctrine of a Trinity was not initially taught by the early church. The teaching was contrived to replicate the trinitarian beliefs of incoming pagan converts. Abundantly common in pagan religions is the concept of a trinity. Early converts from paganism generally had worshiped a triad of deities. (see pp. 10-11) 

In his book, The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop traces the origin of the Trinity idea to the mother of all pagan concepts, Babylon. Summing up a lengthy study of historical evidence, Hislop concludes: “Will any one after this say that the Roman Catholic Church must still be called Christian, because it holds the doctrine of the Trinity? So did the Pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians, so do the Hindus at this hour, in the very sense in which Rome does.” (p. 90). 

From the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Trinity, p. 458) we read, “Although the notion of a divine Triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In Indian religion we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother and Son in mediaeval Christian pictures.” 

The Trinity doctrine incorporated a pagan concept embraced long before Christianity by ancient heathens of foreign lands. On page 595 of The Story of Civilization (vol. III), noted historian Will Durant provides these revelations, “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it… The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity.” 

The pagan emperor Constantine favored Christianity because of his mother’s influence. To avert a developing schism among Christians in his realm, he called for a council to unite all Christendom into one religion. 

To forestall the growing acceptance of Arianism, the “Nicene Creed” was developed which is even today a part of the liturgy of Catholic, Lutheran and other churches. The first Nicene Creed did not establish or affirm a Trinity. Only later revisions added the concept of a Trinity. 

“Oneness” Concept Influential 

Another teaching that was gaining ground about that time was “Monarchianism,” in which all three (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) constitute only one essence as well as one person. We know this teaching today under the term “Oneness,” which is taught by various Pentecostal churches.

The Oneness teaching goes back at least to the third century where its chief exponent, Sabellius, proposed that the Father was the Creator, who became the Son at Bethlehem, and then became the Holy Spirit when the Son ascended. 

This teaching would have us believe that the Messiah YAHUSHA prayed to Himself when on earth, and that YAHUSHA raised Himself from the dead. But the Scripture says the Father raised (Greek = anistemi) Him up. (see Acts 2:24; 2:30; 2:32; 3:15; 3:26; 13:30; 13:37) 

Sabellianism teaches that all three are one in person, successively assuming the role of Father, Son and presently acting as the (Holy) Set-Apart Spirit. This doctrine no doubt influenced the Trinity concept as disseminated today. 

Scripture Reinterpreted for the Sake of Trinitarianism 

The doctrine of the Trinity began as part of the Nicene Creed of 325, which was altered and amended over the years. To accommodate the pagan converts who worshiped a Trinity, the teachings of the Scriptures were reinterpreted to harmonize with established pagan beliefs. 

Hislop’s Two Babylon’s explains these: “In the unity of that only G-d of the Babylonians, there were three persons and to symbolize that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day.” A footnote points out that the Egyptians also used the triangle as a symbol of their triform divinity. (p. 16) 

The Trinitarian concept gained acceptance as the Jewish converts were overwhelmed by the growing number of heathen who were taken into the church, bringing with them pagan doctrines nowhere found in the Scriptures. Pagan converts could more easily identify with Christianity and become a part of it by simply changing the names of their deities. Those who worshiped a Trinity could find one in Christianity. 

Yashar’el was notably different from virtually all other religions in that they worshiped one Mighty One. The Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites, Zorastrians, Hindus and others worshiped a triad of major deities in a worship YAHUAH expressly abhorred. In the very first of the Ten Commandments He thundered that we are to have no other deities before Him. 

Christianity began to accept many pagan doctrines, only the names were changed to appear “Christian” (for example, the pagan Roman Saturnalia became Christmas; Assyrian fertility worship of the goddess Ishtar was brought over to create the Easter {“Ishtar”} celebration; Semiramis, the “Queen of Heaven” worshiped by the Babylonians, was transformed into the Madonna worshiped by many today {“Madonna” means “my lord” from Latin mea + domina}; pagan sun worship became manifest in the Christian halo, etc.).” 

The Roman Catholic church states: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion…Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is G- d, the Son is G-d, and the Holy Spirit is G-d, and yet there are not three G-ds but one G-d.’ In this Trinity…the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.” 

The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

The Trinity is considered to be “one G-d in three persons” with each believed to be without beginning, having existed for eternity and are all equal, each being not lesser or greater than the others. Members of the National Council of Churches all espouse a belief in the Trinity. 

Scripture clearly shows that YAHUAH is the supreme Mighty One in the heavens. There is no one equal to Him. 

Paul wrote: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of the Messiah is YAHUAH,” 1Corinthians 11:3. 

He said in Ephesians that there is one “Father of all, who is above all,” 4:6. The Savior Himself said, “My Father is greater than I,” John 14:28. 

“Elohiym” Means Plural – More Than One- Not “Three” Many recognize that the Trinity teaching is confusing and in the words of the Encyclopedia

Americana is “beyond the grasp of human reason.”The Scriptures clearly teaches a plurality in the Old Testament, for the Book of Genesis begins with “In the beginning G-d [Hebrew ELOHIYM] created…” The word Elohiym is from the Hebrew Eloah with the “im” suffix denoting the plural. Elohiym is a Hebrew collective noun, masculine in gender. It has the same plural concept as words like family, group, school, board, and council. Each of these collective nouns takes a singular verb. We say the family is home. The group is small. The school is on vacation. These collective nouns are all composed of at least two individuals or perhaps more. But the collective noun usually takes a singular verb. We are not told the exact number making up a family, group, or school. So it is with the Hebrew word Elohiym. 

Genesis 1:2 reads: “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of ELOHIYM moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen. 1:2) 

Trinitarians seize upon the word Elohiym, then finding that it means a plurality – more than one – they immediately conclude it must mean three, a Trinity! 

Spirit Is a Force 

Spirit is translated from the Hebrew ruach and occurs 389 times in the Old Testament. It is rendered spirit 237 times in the King James Version. The Companion Bible says that the basic idea running through all the passages is “invisible force.” In whatever sense the word ruach is used, it means an unseen force except by its manifestations. It can be compared to a physical force like magnetism, gravity, and in our modern age, electricity and radioactivity. The Scriptures likens spirit to wind. 

In the New Testament Greek text spirit is pneuma and carries the same meaning—in Greek it means to breathe. (“Pneumatic” tires are filled with air; “pneumonia” affects the lungs—the air- exchanging organs.) Both words have as their basic meaning, “breath,” but the sense extends beyond that primary meaning. Spirit is from the Latin spirare (translation of the Hebrew ruach, which means to breathe). Spirare is found in the word “respiration,” which is the process of breathing. 

Is it any wonder that following His resurrection, YAHUSHA gave the RUACH HAQIDESH (Set-Apart Spirit) to His disciples when “He breathed on them,” John 20:22? Heavenly power came from His nostrils, not a person! Both ruach and pneuma mean “wind.” They can also mean the invisible, vital force in living creatures, or a dominant feeling, attitude or disposition. Spirit can refer to the invisible world, including YAHUAH and His angelic creatures as well as the evil, satanic realm. It can also refer to YAHUAH’s holy, active, or life-giving force or power. 

All of these meanings have the sense of an active vitality that is invisible to human eyes. We cannot see spirit just as we cannot “see” wind, gravity, radio waves, electricity, or magnetism. But we can see what it does, the results of its activity. We can often see the effects of the special power of YAHUAH’s Set-Apart Spirit, too. 

Early Fathers Knew the Essence of the RUACH HAQODESH (Set-Apart Spirit).

Many of the early “fathers,” including Justin Martyr of the second century, taught that the RUACH HAQODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) was an “influence or mode of operation of the Deity.” Hippolytus ascribed no personality to the RUACH HAQODESH (Set-Apart Spirit). In the creation, the RUACH (Spirit) of YAHUAH, or YAHUAH’s Power, went forth from Him and accomplished His will. 

The RUACH HAQODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) was the power, the force, the vitality emanating from ELOHIYM that moved and acted upon the face of the waters. The RUACH (Spirit) was not a separate person moving on the waters. 

“Proof” Texts to Support Trinity 

An attempt to “prove” a Trinity is 1John 5:7. However, newer Scripture translations have corrected this spurious verse. The Catholic Jerusalem Bible says in a footnote to 1John 5:7, “Not in any of the early Greek manuscripts, or any of the early translations, or in the best manuscripts of the Vulgate itself.” This bogus text reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 

The Companion Bible states that this verse was not found in any Greek manuscripts before the 16th century but was first seen in the margins of some of the Latin copies; from there it crept into the text. Modern translations do not include this verse in the main body of their text but may have a footnote stating that this verse is spurious. It is plainly a forgery inserted by some Trinitarian zealot during the Dark Ages. 

Matthew 28:19 is often used to promote the false Trinity, which reads as follows: 

“Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy [Spirit]:” (Matt. 28:19). Abundant evidence exists that this verse was also not in the original texts (Jerusalem Bible is one such source). 

There are four Scriptures in the Old Testament where plural personal pronouns are used in referring to ELOHIYM. The Trinitarians say these prove a Trinity, although the word Trinity itself does not appear in any of these verses: 

“And ELOHIYM said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” (Gen. 1:26)

“And YAHUAH ELOHIYM said, Behold, the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:” (Gen. 3:22) 

“Go to, let US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Gen. 11:7) 

“Also I heard the voice of YAHUAH, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for US? Then said I, Here [am] I; send me.” (Isa. 6:8) 

There is nothing in these verses that would lead us to accept the doctrine of a Trinity. The use of these plural pronouns (us, we, our) in referring to deity only shows plural Mighty Ones. 

YAHUSHA told Phillip, “He that has seen Me has seen the Father,” John 14:9. Other verses demonstrate that YAHUSHA is the very image of the Heavenly ABBA Father, that He is the express image of His person (Heb.1:3, Col. 1:15, 2Cor. 4:4). He is the other half of this plural majesty in the heavens. 

The appearance of the Set-Apart Spirit is likened to a dove, Matthew 3:16. Genesis 1:27 clearly says man is to be made “in the image of ELOHIYM.” If the Set-Apart Spirit is a third person of a Trinity, man would also look like a bird in some aspect or appear in the image of a feathered dove! 

Grammatical Gender Mistaken for the Literal 

Another so-called “proof” often presented to show that the Set-Apart Spirit is a sentient being is that the personal pronouns He, Him or His often refer to the Spirit in the English Scriptures. 

John 14:17 is misused to force a personality aspect on the RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit): “[Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees HIM not, neither knows HIM: but you know HIM; for HE dwells with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:17). 

The use of the personal pronoun WHOM in this text is unwarranted, reflecting simply the translator’s prejudice. Which better renders the Greek neuter form. The Greek pronoun is auto, and refers back to Comforter (Greek = Parakletos), which is a noun of masculine gender, and apparently the reason translators provided the “Him” and “He” pronouns. 

Understand that nouns in most European languages have gender. To English-speaking peoples this is a rather peculiar characteristic of their languages. For example, in German “plate” is masculine. In French “knife” is masculine and “fork” feminine. It would be as logical to insist that “plate” and “knife” are persons—because of masculine usage in German and French—as it would be to claim that the comforter is a person because Parakletos (comforter) is masculine in Greek. Pronouns must agree in number, case, and gender. 

English is not nearly so sophisticated in its grammar. 

The Greek word for spirit (pneuma) is neuter in gender and properly should be translated it. Some translations do not follow the the King James in referring to the Spirit as He but more properly as it. These Scriptures are the Diaglott (a literal translation from the Greek), Rotherham, Literal Concordant, and Goodspeed, among others. Pronouns referring to spirit are also neuter. But those referring to the Father and the Son are masculine. 

In contrast to the Greek, Hebrew nouns have no neuter gender. In Hebrew, nouns are either masculine or feminine. Therefore, while ruach (spirit) is masculine in gender, according to rules of Hebrew grammar, the religion of Judaism does NOT look upon ruach as a person, but as a POWER or FORCE. 

Personification Doesn’t Make a Person 

It is not uncommon for the Scriptures to personify objects or events by giving human characteristics or living attributes to them. Paul says in Romans 5:14, “Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses…” Death metaphorically sits upon a throne, ruling as a king. 

Paul gives sin the attributes of a person in writing, “For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (Romans 7:11) Are we to understand that sin deceived and slew Paul? Hardly! Paul did the sinning. He broke YAHUAH’s law and was then condemned to death. Paul is using a figure of speech, giving sin a personality. 

Similarly, Paul personifies the Greek word agape (translated charity, love), giving it physical attributes as well: 

“Charity suffers long, [and] is kind; charity envies not; charity vaunts not itself, is not puffed up, Does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil; Rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Charity never fails: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.” (1 Cor. 13:4-8) 

Paul knows that love is not a person, but by giving agape love personality he is able to show the great power and influence love can exert in our lives. The animation of a thing in the Scripture does not make it a person. 

The Scriptures is rich in figures of speech, metaphors, and similes. Note the following examples of personification in the Scriptures where inanimate objects are given living attributes: 

“Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed [each other]” (Ps. 85:10) 

“Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven” (Ps. 85:11) 

“Let the floods clap [their] hands: let the hills be joyful together” Ps. 98:8) 

“Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when YAHUAH of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.” (Isa. 24:23) 

“The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.” (Isa. 35:1) 

“Sing, O you heavens; for YAHUAH has done [it]: shout, you lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, you mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for YAHUAH has redeemed Jacob, and glorified Himself in Yashar’el.” (Isa. 44:23)

“For you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap [their] hands.” (Isa. 55:12) 

“And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in HIS strength.” (Rev. 1:16) Does using the pronoun “his” make the sun a person? 

“You are the salt of the earth: but if the salt has lost HIS savour, wherewith shall it be salted…” (Mat. 5:13) Is salt a man? 

The RUACH HAQODESH’s (Set-Apart Spirit) Nonperson, Inanimate Attributes 

The invisible power or force which flows from YAHUAH is unseen, and is often treated as a material substance. The Spirit is POURED out, Isaiah 32:15, 44:3, Acts 2:17); SHED (Titus 3:5- 6, Acts 2:33); BREATHED (John 20:22); and it FILLED people (Acts 2:2-4, Ephesians 5:18). YAHUSHA Himself was ANOINTED with the Spirit (Acts 10:38) and men were BAPTIZED with it (Matt. 3:11). 

Is it possible for a person to be “poured out” on other people? If the Spirit is properly recognized as a force or energy, then the correct sense of the Spirit’s empowering the people to abide by YAHUAH’s law is understood, especially if they are filled with that Spirit poured out on them. 

We read that YAHUAH anointed YAHUSHA of Nazareth with the Set-Apart Spirit in Acts 10:38. This act is incomprehensible if we accept the pagan teaching that the Set-Apart Spirit is a person equal to the Father and the Son. Why and how could this co-equal, in-power person be poured upon the Son who was equal in power? 

If we properly understand the Spirit to be force or energy, (power) poured upon the Son, saturating Him as with oil, then we truly grasp the Scriptural meaning of “spirit” and see why YAUSHA is called the Messiah, YAHUAH’s “anointed” (anointed means to rub with oil). 

“Trinity” and Pagan Baal Worship 

Proving that a doctrine is not from the Scripture is more difficult when it has been taught as truth for centuries. The liturgies and creeds as well as repetitious songs (like “Holy, Holy, Holy, L-rd G-d Almighty”), heard and sung since childhood, have engrained the Trinity concept in minds and hearts. False concepts become accepted as bedrock truth if never analyzed or challenged. But brought before the piercing light of Scripture, the truth becomes crystal clear to the open-minded and sincere Scripture student. 

The concept of trinity does appear in the Old Testament and it should be noted that it involves the worship of the pagan deity Baal: 

“And there came a man from Baalshalisha, and brought the man of ELOHIYM bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people that they may eat.” (2 Kings 4:42) 

The Hebrew shalishsa, meaning “three”, is connected with the trinitarian Baal! Baal was influential in agriculture, where the trinity of earth, sun, and water were worshiped. 

Set-Apart Spirit Symbolizes YAHUAH’s Attributes 

The Set-Apart Spirit is an invisible, holy, flowing energy coming from the Heavenly Father and shared by His Son, YAHUSHA. This Spirit, force or power accomplishes their will. 

At times YAHUAH refers to His Spirit as a power, an attitude, a pervading force, a powerful vitality, a dynamic influence that comes from Him. His Spirit, emanating from Himself, helps us reach a standard of righteousness and so influences behavior that at times it is seen as almost a living vitality, as evident from the following verses: 

“And Yauwah said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” (Gen. 6:3) 

“But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Set-Apart Spirit, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?” (Acts 5:3) 

“The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of ELOHIYM.” (Rom. 8:16) 

Those who don’t understand this metaphoric usage, as simply an extension of YAHUAH Himself, leap to the conclusion that He is talking of another Being.

The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia explains that although Scripture uses terms like grieved in reference to the Set-Apart Spirit, the terminology should not be taken for a separate Person. “A similar concept underlies the Johannine terms teaching, reproving, and declaring, as applied to the personal Paraclete. Nevertheless, to interpret these passages as implying a person distinct from G-d and Chr-st, whose Spirit he is called, is not warranted.” (Trinity, Doctrine of, p. 19) 

Scriptural Synopsis of Set-Apart Spirit Facts 

Not all the following statements have been explained fully within this brief study, yet are important to consider in regard to a Trinity doctrine supposedly supported by the Scriptures: 

* The Greek philosopher Plato and the Alexandrine Platonists are the source of the modern trinity doctrine. 

Author Alvan Lamson elaborates on the doctrine of the Trinity and sums up what history shows about the Trinity on page 34 of The Church of the First Three Centuries: “… we must look, not to the Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of [Yahshua] and his apostles, but to Philo [the Jewish philosopher of the first century C.E.] and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was in grafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers…” 

* The apostate church about the fourth century accepted the Trinity, which was then passed on to her daughters. Acceptance of a Triune deity was influenced by the polytheistic (“having many deities”) worship everywhere extant among heathen peoples. 

* Neither the term Trinity nor its doctrine is found in either the Old or New Testaments. 

* The (Holy) Set-Apart Spirit (erroneous “Ghost”) is not a person. 

* Ruach (Hebrew) and pneuma (Greek) are the Hebrew and Greek from which we get RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) in our Scriptures. They have as their root meaning “wind or breath” in both the Hebrew and Greek. 

* The RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) is that invisible force or energy flowing from the Father and Son. It might be likened to the rays of the sun that give us light and heat. The rays are not the sun, but are the power from the sun. 

* Personal pronouns referring to the Set-Apart Spirit do not make it a person any more than YAHUSHA’s telling Peter to put the sword back into “HIS” place makes the sword a male person (Mat. 26:52). 

* The RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) can be “shed” (Acts 2:33), “poured” (Acts 2:17), “breathed” (John 20:22), “stirred up” (2Tim. 1:6), “quenched” (1Thes. 5:19), “renewed” (2Cor. 4:16)—all of which are literally incompatible with a person or being. 

* The Father and Son converse with each other, but do not talk to the Spirit. 

* Nowhere is the Spirit prayed to. If the RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) were a person, then the RUACH HA’QODESH would be YAHUSHA’s father and not YAHUAH.

Notice how YAHUSHA was conceived in the flesh: “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the YAHUAH appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, you son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Set-Apart Spirit” (Matt. 1:20). 

Yet YAHUSHA called YAHUAH His Father, not the RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit). He was conceived by and through the power of YAHUAH—making YAHUAH His Father. 

* Scripture never calls the RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) the “third person.” 

* Salutations found in the first verse or two of the Epistles by Paul, Peter, and John mention Father and Son, but not Spirit. 

In his Epistles Paul greets the brethren in the name of YAHUAH and YAHUSHA. Never in the opening of his letters does Paul ever greet anyone “in the Name of the RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart (Holy) Spirit).” Not a person, the RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) has no name as do YAHUAH and YAHUSHA. For example, Ephesians 1:2 reads, “Grace [be] to you, and peace, from YAHUAH our Father, and from the Savior YAHUSHA the Messiah. 

* The Scriptural meaning of being “one” means being in accord, harmony, of like mind, united in goals. Not being one personage. 

* ELOHIYM, used for the Heavenly Majesty, is a collective noun, and does not specifically mean “three.” It simply means more than one, a plurality. 

* Examples given in the Scriptures show the Father on a throne: Ezekiel 1:26; Daniel 7:9; Acts 7:55-56; Rev. 4:2; 5:1,7; 20:11, etc. The RUACH HA’QODESH (Set-Apart Spirit) is not given a throne (but indwells us, as it did Stephen, Acts 7:55). 

Let His RUACH (Spirit) Power Transform Your Life 

As sincere believers in YAHUAH, it is up to us to be in harmony with His will and allow the supernal power of His Spirit to motivate our actions, permeate our thoughts and elevate our desires for good. As we mature in the Messiah, we overcome our selfish, carnal, worldly desires and strive to walk in that higher, heavenly realm, allowing His Spirit to guide us. 

“According as His Divine Power has given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and righteousness, through the knowledge of Him that has called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Pet. 1:3-4) 

May you find the peace that passes all understanding as you submit to Almighty YAHUAH ELOHIYM and begin living for Him.

About the author

Gera'el Toma

A highly esteemed elder in the faith of the Natsarim, the first century believers in Messiah Yahusha, and a treasured member of the Remnant House Team.

Gera'el Toma (Gerald Thomas) is an internationally recognized and respected teacher of the Holy Scriptures as originally written in the Hebrew language.

Add Comment

Leave a Reply

By Gera'el Toma

Gera'el Toma

A highly esteemed elder in the faith of the Natsarim, the first century believers in Messiah Yahusha, and a treasured member of the Remnant House Team.

Gera'el Toma (Gerald Thomas) is an internationally recognized and respected teacher of the Holy Scriptures as originally written in the Hebrew language.

Get in touch

Quickly communicate covalent niche markets for maintainable sources. Collaboratively harness resource sucking experiences whereas cost effective meta-services.