The Bible, Divine Simplicity, & The Trinity in Conflict

Introduction

Most Christians today are familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is a long held and often considered “traditional” doctrine of Christendom. That is, the belief that the Father YHWH, the Anointed Son Yeshua (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are all one being of which make up the entity that is the Almighty God. Many Christians in fact regard it as such a central doctrine, that to not believe in it, means that one is not a true Christian.

In this article, I will not be addressing the arguments for or against the Trinity from a ‘hermeneutical’ scriptural basis, for I have already written an article on that subject, called “Is Yeshua God? A Scriptural Examination“.

In this article, we’ll be looking at the “philosophical” construct of the Trinity, and I will endeavour to explain how it came about, and why it is my opinion that it does not hold up to scrutiny and in fact contradicts, not only the scriptures, but how it is also self-contradictory.

The Philosophical Trinity

The origin of the philosophical terms and frameworks that have been applied to the Bible to create the Trinity doctrine originates from three metaphysical lines of thought in tandem with what is known as “Classical Theism”.

One such thought is known as “Divine Simplicity”, another being the Greek Neoplatonic philosophy of “hypostases”, and the third being Philo’s Platonic concept of “Logos”.

What is Divine Simplicity?

The belief of Divine Simplicity, which gets it basis from scriptures such as Malachi 3:6, asserts that God as the infinite unchanging being that comes before all other things.

All things thus that God contains, that is, his qualities; love, justice, power (etc), are also “God incarnate”.

Unlike in humans who “have love” but “are not love incarnate”, Divine Simplicity states that God ‘literally’ is love in itself cardinally, for he can not have a “quality” that exists distinct from Himself as a “being”, for that would make the object in itself of infinite origin apart from God, either resulting in some form of polytheism, or one would have to claim God “invented” love, justice, and all his other qualities which he possesses, which would then imply there was a point in time that He did not have those things.

It is explained as thus by the Christian writer Irenaus of the 2nd Century A.D:

“For our tongue, as being carnal, is not sufficient to minister to the rapidity of the human mind, inasmuch as that is of a spiritual nature, for which reason our word is restrained within us, and is not at once expressed as it has been conceived by the mind, but is uttered by successive efforts, just as the tongue is able to serve it.

But God being all mind (sensus), and all word (logos), both speaks exactly what He thinks, and thinks exactly what He speaks. For His thought is word, and word is mind, and mind comprehending all things is the Father Himself“. – Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 2 Chapter 28

Divine Simplicity also states that “God cannot change”, so that he cannot “gain anything new” to himself, for he already contains “all things and all knowledge”, and neither can he lose anything, for that would mean he would no longer be all knowing nor all powerful.

This line of thought has been attributed by some to originate in Greek monotheistic theology, whilst others would claim it was the Jews who first came up with the philosophy, who then passed it down to the Greeks, but of course, there are conflicting sources.

“In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea can be stated in this way:

The being of God is identical to the “attributes” of God. Characteristics such as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc., are identical to God’s being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance; in other words we can say that in God both essence and existence are one and the same.

Varieties of the doctrine may be found in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophical theologians, especially during the height of scholasticism, although the doctrine’s origins may be traced back to ancient Greek thought, finding apotheosis in Plotinus’ Enneads as the Simplex”. – Divine Simplicity, Wikipedia

“The central insight of classical theism is divine simplicity, according to which God does not consist of a combination of different elements, but is absolute and singular. There is no difference between God’s essence and existence. Unlike entities, God does not contain potentiality, It is pure existential actuality; and all existence except God is a limited state of the unlimited existence of God’s absolute singularity.

All existence emanates from and rests on God independently of time, for God is the timeless absolute source and ultimate condition of all existence. Classical theism holds that God is both immanent and transcendent to all of existence. According to classical theism, God is singular and has such qualities as immutability, impenetrability, and transcendence of time“. – Classical Theism, Wikipedia

God’s “Hypostases”

The second element to the Trinity, originates from a Greek line of thought, which in turn also may have further origins back to post-Babylonian period Greek-Jewish mystical thought, and possibly even Indian Vedic philosophy and religion, is the Neoplatonic metaphysical philosophy of “hypostases”.

“Hypostases”, explained in the most simple manner, are said to be either the “underlying reality” of something in Neoplatonism. And in other systems as “metaphyiscal components” of which makes up ones fundamental “substance”, “essence”, “material” or “existence”, or an ultimate collective both physical and non-physical manifestations.

“Hypostasis (plural: hypostases), from the Greek ὑπόστασις (hypóstasis), is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. But it is not the same as the concept of a substance. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and “the one” was addressed by Plotinus. In Christian theology, the Holy Trinity consists of three hypostases: Hypostasis of the Father, Hypostasis of the Son, and Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit

Pseudo-Aristotle used hypostasis in the sense of material substance. Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles, or hypostases, each one more sublime than the preceding. For Plotinus, these are the Soul, the Intellect, and the One.

Hypostasis is the individual aspect of ousia (substance), this means ousia is the parent characteristic that is shared by the hypostasis under it. Ousia can be shared by numerous hypostasis, as hypostasis is the individual expression of that ousia (substance)… Ousia is what makes a rock a rock and hypostasis is the various kinds of rocks;”. – Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)

In Christianity, it is thought based on the textual evidence we have at hand, that these philosophies were first introduced sometime in the 2nd century A.D, by certain Christian thinkers (including those who were later branded heretics), such as Valentinus the Gnostic, and others, such as Tertullian and Origen. All of whom were amongst those who introduced the idea that God and his Son, shared the same “substance” (or material) and “essence”, making the Son one of God’s “hypostases”.

Of course, contrary to popular belief amongst Trinitarian apologists, these early writers did not quite see as Yeshua being fully God himself, nor co-eternal or co-equal, in the way later Trinitarians do.

The application of hypostatic metaphysics first became intergrated into the attempt of understanding the Father and Son’s natures without breaking the rule of Jewish and Christian monotheism quite early on.

The motivation being, how to understand that the Son can be called either “god” or “a god”, without contradicting the notion that we are to believe that there is only “one God”, and trying to also persuade the Pagans of other religions as well a sceptical Jews, that the Christian faith was not self-contradictory.

The founder of Neoplatonism… In his metaphysical writings, Plotinus described three fundamental principles: the One, the Intellect, and the Soul. His works have inspired centuries of Pagan, Jewish, Christian, Gnostic, and Islamic metaphysicians and mystics, including developing precepts that influence mainstream theological concepts within religions, such as his work on duality of the One in two metaphysical states...

Plotinus’ philosophy had an influence on the development of Christian theology. In ‘A History of Western Philosophy’, philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote that:

‘To the Christian, the Other World was the Kingdom of Heaven, to be enjoyed after death; to the Platonist, it was the eternal world of ideas, the real world as opposed to that of illusory appearance. Christian theologians combined these points of view, and embodied much of the philosophy of Plotinus. […] Plotinus, accordingly, is historically important as an influence in moulding the Christianity of the Middle Ages and of theology‘”. – Plotinus, Hypostasis (philosophy and religion), Wikipedia

“Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son, and holy spirit“. – Early Christian Writings

“Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God… These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the [Gnostic] heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him On the Three Natures. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes, Plato and Aristotle. – AHB Logan: Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), On the Holy Church: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95

“Homoousion… is a Christian theological term, most notably used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus (God the Son) as “same in being” or “same in essence” with God the Father… The term ὁμοούσιος (Homoousion) had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics were the first to use the word ὁμοούσιος, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence…. Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use ὁμοούσιος in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not”. – Homoousion, Wikipedia

“The neo-Platonic trinities, such as that of the One, the Nous and the Soul, are not considered a trinity necessarily of consubstantial equals as in mainstream Christianity. However, the neo-Platonic trinity has the doctrine of emanation, or “eternal derivation”, a timeless procedure of generation having as a source the One and claimed to be paralleled with the generation of the light from the Sun. This was adopted by Origen and later on by Athanasius, and applied to the generation of the Son from the Father, because they believed that this analogy could be used to support the notion that the Father, as immutable, always had been a Father, and that the generation of the Son is therefore eternal and timeless“. – Nontrinitarianism, Wikipedia,

Such metaphysics provided many early Gentile Christian thinkers of all kinds, ranging from Logosians, Proto-Trinitarians, Gnostics and Modalists, with tools and frameworks to combat the accusations of their opponents who mocked their faith, and against others who advocated that polytheism was acceptable, even for a Christian, on the supposed basis that the New Testament advocated the worship of “two gods” (Father and Son).

Therefore, it was asserted that there was one God, of whom the Son “came out of”, and thereby was not technically a “second god”, but “of the One God”, whilst still being a distinict “second individual”.

As such, by the application and interpretation of scripture through such metaphysics, it is has been asserted by many ancient and modern Christian theologians both, that God has “three hypostases” or “parts” of himself which make up his entire singular being; Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and is a fundamental part of both early, and modern day Trinitarian thought as we know it.

Logos

The final philosophical piece is the usage of the Greek term “Logos”.

In John 1:1, in most Greek Bible manuscripts, Yeshua is called Logos, or “Word”.

The term can mean many different things, from simply a spoken word, to also metaphysical meanings if used in the context of Greek philosophy.

Whilst the “Logos” (“Debar” in Hebrew, “Memra” in Aramaic) in ancient Judaism was long understood to be simply either God’s literal speech or a message from God delivered by another, in Greek philosophy, “Logos” often referred to mind, knowledge, reason and wisdom.

The means of how this word and its notions first ended up in Jewish and later Christian thought, was by means of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (the Tanakh). “Logos” was used as a term to replace the original Hebrew term “Debar”, as in Greek language it was the closest approximation to mean “speaking” or “words”, as it was used in such a way by the Greeks, and continued to be used as such by Christian writers also.

Throughout historical and ancient Judaism, it has long been understood that “the Word” (also known as the “Memra” in the Aramaic Targum 100B.C – 1A.D) could at times be referred to something which was some kind of agent of God which was used to carry out his will, and according to classical Jewish writings, was even used during the creation the world. Some early Second Temple period Jews connected this idea with the “Second Power” sometimes also called “YHWH-Lesser”, but in what form that took isn’t entirely clear.

From the 3rd Century B.C and onward, several Jewish writers associated figures such as Enoch, Michael the Archangel, Melchizedek, and Metatron (chief of the angels) with the “Two Powers” idea, sometimes along with Messianic notions.

“In Wisdom the Lord created… And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them”. – Genesis 1:1, 27 Targum Jerusalem

“In the Targum the Memra (Word/Logos) figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God’s messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity…

…As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God, so also is it in the creation of the earth and in the execution of justice….” – Memra, Jewish Encyclopedia

“Maimonides regarded the Shekinah, like the Memra, the Yeḳara, and the Logos, as a distinct entity, and as a light created to be an intermediary between God and the world; while Naḥmanides, on the other hand, considered [the Shekinah] the essence of God as manifested in a distinct form. So in more modern times Gfrörer saw in “Shekinah,” “Memra,” and “Yeḳara” independent entities which, in that they were mediators, were the origin of the Logos idea…”. – Shekinah, Jewish Encyclopedia

“Name of an angel found only in Jewish literature. Elisha b. Abuyah, seeing this angel in the heavens, believed there were “two powers” or divinities… Meṭaṭron bears the Tetragrammaton; for Ex. xxiii. 21 says, “My name is in him…. The early commentators with good reason identified the prince of the world with Meṭaṭron”. – Metatron, Jewish Encyclopedia

“…the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council… a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal)… The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form… During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox…“ – Michael Heiser, Two Powers in Heaven

Philo of Alexandria, a 1st Century A.D Jewish philosopher, mystic, and theologian, adopted Greek philosophy in much of his work, so much to the extent that he was actually considered to be a practitioner of “interfaith” or “syncretism”, and as such was rejected and seen as an outcast or traitor to the Jewish faith by many later Jews, as were many of the Alexandrian school (a school of religion and philosophy in the ancient world that was known for blending many belief systems together).

He is thought to be one of, if not the earliest person to apply the Greek philosophical concept of the term “Logos” to the “Word”, as to mean “Mind”, along with the Greek concept of the “Demiurge” (a lesser creator god in the Greek pantheon).

Philo was heavily influenced by the Greek idea of God’s “complete transcendence” from the physical realm, and his supposed inability to interact directly with creation, of which could be supported via scriptures such as 1 Kings 8:27, and thus Philo became convinced of the Platonic idea of God needing a mediator or second agent deity to act in his place, a “Demiurge”, of which Philo identified as God’s “Logos” and “Wisdom”, in connection with the personified Wisdom of Proverbs 8, and likely the early pre-Philo Targum renditions of Genesis 1 concerning “the Word” and “Wisdom” acting as an agent in God’s place.

However, it’s also important to note, that it’s not quite fully understood or known how much the Greek thinkers were also influenced by the Jewish rabbis and sages in turn, and they may have borrowed more ideas from the Jews than is often given credit – the trade of knowledge being more “equal” than it was a one way relationship.

In this, the notion of a mediator of which was “Word” or “Logos”, as well as God’s transcendence from the physical realm, both of which already long pre-dated Greek thought in Hebrew scripture, may or may not have had a direct influence on these Greek thinkers than vice versa.

There have also been many claims of the supposed “Jewish origins” of some aspects of Greek thought in Jewish and Christian history, though, much of it is also argued to be glorified myth, as a means of Jewish propaganda and as a justification for Jewish mystical practices adopted from both Babylon and India, which were later passed down to both the Jews and the Greeks, which would have otherwise been labelled as unlawful or heretical.

“What this Jew said merited admiration and showed philosophical erudition…These Jews are derived from the philosophers of India… Now this man, who had been the guest of many people, had come down from the highland to the seashore [Pergamus]…And as he had had intercourse with a large number of sages, he imparted to us more knowledge of his own“. – Josephus on Clearchus of Soli, Contra Apionem

“The myth of the Jewish origins of philosophy and science is an ancient tradition dating from the Hellenistic period. It originated with pagan scholars, as part of the Greek-Hellenistic myth of the eastern origins of wisdom. Hellenistic-Jewish scholars acquired this theme from them, developed it further and transmitted it to the Church Fathers. In time, this myth achieved great popularity among Jews, Christians, and Muslims”. – The myth of the Jewish origins of philosophy in the Renaissance: from Aristotle to Plato by Abraham Melamed

When it comes to Philo’s Greek-Judaic hybrid theology, it isn’t always clear whether he deems the Logos to be created, uncreated, a part of God, a second god, an angel, or something else, and is debated amongst scholars and philosophers down to this day, just as it was by ancient Jews and later early Christians after the 2nd Century.

Regardless, many of his quotes appear to place the Logos in a position of being a “supreme messenger” of God, which was in line with the already pre-existing concepts of the Two Powers, and the “Word” (or Memra) as cited in the Targums (100 B.C) and other Jewish writings:

“The divine Logos, the eldest of his angels, is assigned the task of interpreting and unfolding the commands of the Most High. For the Father of the universe has sown representations of them like seeds throughout the world, and it is the function of the Logos, as his eldest son, to bring them to birth and to interpret them to the world… And the Logos, being the interpreter of the Ruler of all things, translates his intentions to the subject who receives them. This office the Lawgiver assigns to the second God, the angelic being, who is greater than all the others“. – On Dreams, Philo of Alexandria

“He (Moses) teaches us that there are angelic powers round the Creator, and that the Logos is the eldest of them, by means of whom everything in the world has been made… And [the mind] is said to be the brother of the Logos, the eldest of the angels, since through it the universe was made; for prior to the generation of the world there existed the intelligible world, the model perceptible only by intellect, whereof the world, perceptible by the external senses, is an imitation. And the Logos is the ambassador, sent to this model world, for the world perceptible by the external senses is a copy of the intelligible world“. – On the Confusion of Tongues, Philo of Alexandria

“The world itself, the structure of the world, the most beautiful of created things, its sole and only Demiurge, is the Logos of the most high God… And [the Logos] is the mind of the Eternal, for to the mind alone is it permitted to look without hesitation at the only-begotten real existences and to scan the incorporeal. But the mind is also the image of God, even of that God whose image the high priest is“. – On the Creation, Philo of Alexandria

By a century or more after Philo’s death (roughly 50 A.D), many Gentile Christians inspired by his works or similar lines of thought, came to see the Word, Wisdom, and the Son, as one and the same entity, and thus asserted the Son must have been born initially from God’s very own “mind” or “thought”.

And it is no surprise, given how similar many of Philo’s words are, in comparison to the descriptions of Yeshua as the Word of God of whom the world was created through in the New Testament according to Apostles Paul and John – though it is notable that the New Testament writers never cite or credit Philo for their theological ideas, and they are even often opposed to Greek philosophers, such as the Stoics and others (Acts 17:18, 1 Timothy 6:20, 1 Corinthians 4:6), of whom Philo himself was often directly influenced and inspired by.

In this respect, there may be elements of authentic independent Jewish theology and Greek philosophy ‘both’ in Philo’s works concerning the Word, as can be seen clearly cited in other pre-Philo Jewish works and scriptures, of which are completely absent of any Greek ideas – hence, he felt justified in attempting to synchronize which parts he thought matched.

“Philo wrote that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos is the chief among them, the next to God, demiurge of the world. Logos is immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn son. Being the mind of the Eternal, Logos is imperishable. He is neither uncreated as God is, nor created as men are, but occupies a middle position. He has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one.

Philo probably was the first philosopher who identified Plato’s Ideas with Creator’s thoughts…. An Architect’s design before the construction of a city serves to Philo as another simile of Logos….

Logos has the function of an advocate on behalf of humanity and also that of a God’s envoy to the world. He puts human minds in order. The right reason is an infallible law, the source of any other laws. The angel closing Balaam’s way (Numbers XXII, 31) is interpreted by Philo as manifestation of Logos, which acts as man’s conscience” – Wikipedia, Philo, Logos

“It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra (Word), which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term “Logos,” which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence…

The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo’s “divine thought,” “the image” and “first-born son” of God, “the archpriest,” “intercessor,” and “paraclete” of humanity, the “arch type of man”, paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation (“the Word become flesh”) and the Trinity.

The Word which “the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power” appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, “Adversus Hæreses,” i. 14)…” – Memra, Jewish Encyclopedia

Elements Combined to Attain the Trinity

All of the components of the above mentioned philosophies alone, of course, do not all break God into a “triune being of three persons”, nor do they state that Yeshua is a part of or one in the same as the Almighty God. Rather, the introduction of these metaphysical ideas were only the ‘foundation’ which in turn branched out into the formation of the later Trinity doctrine that we are familiar with today.

So how do we attain the philosophical Trinity from those components? It is achieved by these methods, three (do allow me some poetic flair):

1. Since Yeshua is “begotten” or “born from God’s mind and substance”, then Yeshua “has to be God”, for according to Divine Simplicity, “God cannot be divided” or “muted”, and so if Yeshua ‘literally’ was “born out of God”, in the sense that a woman gives birth to a child who is literally made up of its parents DNA (aka “substance”) then he would have to be a “part of God”, and therefore in turn “God Himself”.
2. Because God cannot change, he must have “always been a Father”, and therefore the Son must also be eternal for one cannot be a Father without a Son, but that there is only one eternal being and that is God, therefore the Son is also God as the Father is God.
3. God thus has “three hypostases”, and they are; “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”. Through this framework, they externally apply the (assumed) nature of God, that is; “his hypostasis”, onto Yeshua and the Holy Spirit.

We see this explained thus, by several 4th Century Church theologians, who argued this as their case for the Trinity:

“In parents and children there would be found an image and an equality and a likeness if the age difference were lacking. For the child’s likeness has been derived from the parent, so that the likeness may rightly be called an image…. In God, however, the conditions of time do not obtain, for God cannot be thought of as having begotten in time the Son through whom he has created the times. Hence it follows that not only is [the Son] his image, because he is from [God], and the likeness, because the image, but also the equality is so great that there is not even a temporal distinction standing in the way between them“. – Augustine of Hippo, (430 A.D)

“How can they suppose that the word ‘substance‘ which is found in many places of Scripture ought to be debarred from use, when they themselves do yet, by saying that the Son is ‘heteroousios‘, that is, of another substance, admit substance in God? It is not the term itself, then, but its force and consequences, that they shun, because they will not confess the Son of God to be true [God]. For though the process of the divine generation cannot be comprehended in human language… Rightly, then, do we call the Son ‘homoousios‘ (of the same substance), with the Father, forasmuch as that term expresses both the distinction of Persons and the unity of nature”. – Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Christian Faith Book 3, Chapter 15 (378 A.D)

As the scriptures have always spoken about the union of “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, it then was easy to use the (assumed) nature of God’s three hypostases, and then name them “after” terms already found existing in the Bible to make it look as if the Trinity was derived from it.

Protestant Trinitarianism – A Three Headed God

In Protestantism, the three hypostases are simply understood by most to be “three persons in one being”, and the exact “understanding” of such a theology is often incredibly different from Christian to Christian on just what these “persons” or “personalities” are or how they are manifested.

More often than not, most Protestants tend to view them as literal distinict people within the Godhead sharing a single essence, essentially best described as a three-headed God.

This view considers the Son to have his own distinict conciousness and persona from the Father as opposed to being a “part” or “expression” of the Father’s singular mind. In this some see him as a “real son” of God, but they would still hold him to be a co-eternal co-equal part of the same “being” and “Godhead”, sharing a singular essence.

However, this view is more often than not looked down upon by majority of “traditional” or “classical” Trinitarians, as it is seen as a form of “Tri-theism” or even Polytheism, which the earliest Trinitarians at the Councils of Nicaea (325 A.D) and Constantinople (381 A.D) rejected and condemned.

Catholic Trinitarianism – The Three-fold Mind of God

The Roman Catholic and in turn Orthodox understanding of the Trinity doctrine is very different to the more commonly known Protestant doctrine.

This form of Trinitarianism evolved over time after the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church (325-787 A.D), and it adheres more closely to the original Neoplatonic philosophy that the Trinity was first derived from, and then was even further developed by Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas in the 1200s.

Is it said by this school of Trinitarianism, that God has no son at all, as we would use the term “son” as to mean “child”. And the Father is not a literal father. In fact, neither the Father nor Son, are real ‘people’ or individuals at all.

Instead, the three hypostatic “parts” (but are not actually parts) or relationships, or “psychological roles” of the Trinity are seen to be as God’s “singular consciousness” making up his entire being in three unified ways of existence or being.

‘The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word ‘Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God.’ – Hanson Lecture.

Hanson explains hypostases as ‘realities’, ‘entities’, ‘ways of being’, and ‘modes of existing’ but says that the term person is misleading. Person, as used in English, where each person is a distinct entity with his or her own mind and will, is not equivalent to the concept of hypostasis in the “doctrine of God as a Trinity“. – Hypostasis (philosophy and religion), Trinitarian Doctrine, Wikipedia

“Thomas wrote that the term “Trinity” ‘does not mean the relations themselves of the Persons, but rather the number of persons related to each other; and hence it is that the word in itself does not express regard to another‘. The Father generates the Son (or the Word) by the relation of self-awareness. This eternal generation then produces an eternal Spirit ‘who enjoys the divine nature as the Love of God, the Love of the Father for the Word’.” – Thomas Aquinas, Nature of the Trinity, Wikipedia

This has been explained as an analogy in the manner of humans having three mental components within themselves, as the distinction of “Thinker”, “Thinking” and “Thought”:

• “The thinker” (or the conscious person and source of rationale)
• The “thinking” (the act of thinking or reasoning about something)
• The “thought” (a thought that is in one’s head or comes to one’s head, an idea, fleeting image, or “seeing something” in the mind).

For example, if I (the Thinker) want to think of a green cake, I can “see” a green cake in my mind, and it will not be a pink cake unless I will it to be so. That then becomes “my Thought” which is an “image” in my mind”. Whereas if I wish to “Think about something” in an intellectual sense, then that is the act of “Thinking”, as opposed to “Thought”.

Being applied to God, his concious mind is broken into being three “interrelational hypostases” of himself. All of which would simply be himself, perfect, co-eternal and co-equal. Himself, as a thinker (conscious being), is equally also his thoughts, and his active thinking. His mind is his essence, his essence his mind, the “persons” of the Trinity not being as seperated by substances, or as distinict objects or individuals, and rationales, but are relationships in God’s being in how he exists, thinks and concieves.

By today’s standards, this would likely be more associated with psychology than it would hypostatic “essences” or “substances” or “realities”, but the classical Trinity ties these psychological notions to God’s one essence and substance – for his mind is not seperate to his body or vice versa.

These concepts in turn are directly connected to Philo’s Platonic concept of “Logos of mind”, the Word being of the mind of God.

Through this, the Father is the “Thinker”, whereas the Son becomes the “Thought” (or the “image in God’s mind” that he has of himself, from which they interpret the meaning of Yeshua being “God’s Image”), and the Holy Spirit is his act of “Thinking”. All three of these components making up the being and individiual of God.

To a traditional or classical “orthodox” Trinitarian, a “person” of God is not actually a “person”, but a ‘component’ or “set of relationships between the actions of God’s mind” which ‘makes up’ God “as one person” or individual as we would call it in the everyday sense.

In some (not all) forms of this classical Trinitarianism, each “component” is also said to be “like” an individual person, as all three are sharing in one united conciousness in their independent operations, as per Divine Simplicity. Being “perfect echoes” of the singleness of God, like a man standing in front of a mirror, but the mirror being so perfect it also duplicates the conciousness of the man itself within the reflection or “image”, but yet being the one same single conciousness, not independent personalities or copies.

Hence, their meaning of “three persons in one” in our common sense of language is actually “three pieces that make up one person” or “three subsistences making up one mind”, and yet somehow remaining “distinict”, these “three pieces” being ‘as’ “persons”, whilst all being part of the one mind and person of God.

And thus, classical Trinitarians assert their claim that they are not Modalist, Tri-thiests, nor Polytheists, for Modalism claims there is only one “subistence” or “person” switching between roles or manifestations of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Tri-thiests believe in three seperate individual minds sharing one body, and Polytheists would believe in three seperate gods co-existing altogether.

An Eisegetical Fallacy

It should be noted, first and foremost, that the “theology” or “theory” of Divine Simplicity, and even the idea of God having “three metaphysical components that make up his one being”, I would say, is not really “bad” in itself.

Mankind is always seeking to understand both himself and God, and it is natural that man will try to understand God through means of self-examination, since man is “made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:27), though a finite one at best. Though, we do have to beware we don’t slip into “gnosticism” or “hesychasm” (the idea of attaining “secret spiritual knowledge” via “internal self enlightenment”), and projecting ourselves upon God and making him in ‘our’ image.

Whilst it’s not described verbatim in the Bible, and it is not something I personally subscribe to the notion of (especially since the concept of “hypostases” originate from Greek and Eastern mystical religions), for sake of argument, we can say for a moment it is true, and that God has metaphysical hypostatic parts of himself.

In this sense, I personally have no problem in one “theorising” that God has “metaphysical components” that make up his single being and mind. And we can even say these components are one with his substance and essence, making in a sense, a body of things which is also one thing.

When it comes to the Holy Spirit, I think this is somewhat of a fair theological and philosophical evaluation, when we consider the Spirit is entirely the power and essence of God and his mind, and yet is not the Father, but “proceeds out of” and is “sent by” the Father, without God himself having decended upon the Earth (1 Corinthians 2:11, John 15:26, 1 Kings 8:27). We also see that the Spirit is said to “not speak of itself” but only what it is told to say, which might imply that despite being of the power and mind of God proceeding out of him, it somehow also has its own independence (John 16:13). We can rationalise then, it’s possible that some of God’s operations can somehow be divided into “subsistences”, and in this respect, when it comes to this act of the Father and his Holy Spirit, has support via a clear and easily understood reading of scripture.

However, what I do have a problem with, is when we take it further and begin to “systemise” God into an assumed framework, and then to treat other things this way without explicit Biblical implication, naming all thee of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to be these (assumed to be existing) “hypostases” of God, and going as far to claim through this that God has no real or literal Son, and that neither is he a real Father.

I hold firmly that it is achieved, not through or from the teaching of scripture itself, but by fallacious associations via the ‘transformation’ of plain, harmonious, and coherent Biblical terminology, based upon a glaring eisegetical premise, through the lens of which they then read the Bible, as if it was the Bible’s own native language and context, when it is not. A practice of extreme eisegesis.

The Bible and its overall New Testament narrative, clearly was not written to be a complex mystical Neoplatonic textbook of riddles and secret allegories for highly educated philosophers, but rather was written in the language and context of everyday Jews, who were speaking plain meanings (with exception to parables and prophecy); and these plain speaking passages simply tell us Yeshua was the Son of God, and that between them they had a real loving relationship, and there’s nothing inherently mystical or allegorically implied about that.

The practice of “eisegesis”, is taking an external or non-Biblical idea and “reading it into” the text, and changing the native definitions and language of the Bible’s words to suit one’s own ideas.

There is no problem in ‘theorising’ that God has these so-called “hypostases” (be they one, two, three, or more) that make up his entire being or mind, but there is absolutely a problem if we then begin to assert that theory as divinely inspired doctrine, even though it’s anywhere not stated or expressly taught in the Bible, and then to go even further to name those hypostases “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”, even though the Bible itself doesn’t tell us that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are his “hypostases” (if he even ‘has’ so-called “hypostases”).

To do such a thing is merely the pride and arrogance of men, and their “so-called knowledge” as the Apostle Paul would put it (1 Timothy 6:20).

The doctrine of the Trinity is in a large part due to eisegetical circular thinking:

“This scripture at Matthew 28:19 is talking about the three hypostases“
“But where does the Bible define or say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are His hypostases?“
“It doesn’t, but the Trinity doctrine explains that the definitions of these words are his three hypostases, so therefore the meaning of Matthew 28:19 is about the Trinity of God’s three hypostases….“.

And that is not the only act of eisegetical assumption that is made. But this premise also presumes God’s limitations and abilities, and to thereby try and define both Him, and the nature of his Son.

It is extremly presumptuous to try and claim that if Yeshua is begotten out of God, that he has to be God himself due to being “of his substance”, and that he cannot “his literal son” because “God cannot beget a literal son as a seperate being from himself”.

Says who? Certainly not scripture.

So we must also take note, that the entire premise that God’s Son “must be” one of his “hypostases” or “substance”, purely comes from presuming what God’s nature is, and what his limitations are, and therefore placing God in a box which is labelled; “God cannot beget a literal lesser son”. And containing God in such a box has no justifcation whatsoever.

Hence, there is no need to play into and debate over such Neoplatonic metaphysical word games in the attempt to prove or disprove the notion of God’s Only-Begotten being his temporal subordinate, for scripture does not define God’s limitations nor nature by such schools of thought, and so trying to out-debate an individual in ‘accordance’ of the ‘rules’ of said school, is a fruitless and meaningless endeavour.

Instead, it is better to address the very heart of the matter, and deal with the presumptuousness at its roots and hence defanging the snake of its venom.

• “Don’t answer a fool in his same foolish way so you’re not thought of being just like him… Remove from fools their reasons [to speak], and take their proverbs out of their mouths”. – Proverbs 26:4, 7

Nevertheless, to be prudent, we shall continue onward to examine this line of thinking, to expose its internal inconsistencies.

Internal Inconsistencies & Scriptural Contradictions

Firstly, we’ll be focusing on the Catholic-Orthodox form of the Trinity and its component philosophies (Divine Simplicity, Hypostases, Logos, etc), for it is the “original” Trinity doctrine of the Church, of which all other variations later stemmed from – and therefore it is important to examine the very root of all Trinitarian thought.

To start out, we must remember, that if this theology is true, it must remain internally consistent within itself, and with scripture both.

By the three part metaphysical structure proposed by the oldest Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical councils, God is “made up” in totality of three hypostases; Thinker, Thought and Thinking – which are both his “mind” and his “body”, to use such carnal terms.

Therefore, according to the Classical Trinity, Yeshua as the “Son” is merely “one of” those hypostases, and therefore he is either the Thinker, the Thought or the act of Thinking. And we are therefore to understand, that each component is completely reliant on the other in order to function.

The “thinker” without a “thought” has nothing to be “thinking” about, a “thinker” without “thinking” cannot think “thoughts”, a “thought” cannot exist without a “thinker”, and likewise “thinking” cannot be done without a “thinker”.

This is in fact affirmed by Trinitarians, who use the scripture at John 5:19, which says Yeshua can “do nothing of his own accord”, but can only do what he sees the Father do:

• “So Yeshua replied, ‘Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does‘”.

We must also bear in mind, that all three components must adhere to Divine Simplicity, and each piece must be totally unified together with no contradictory or otherwise opposing distinctions or seperation in nature or activity.

Can A Thought Have An Independent Will to It’s Thinker?

There is a key question we must ask; can we really say that a “part” of oneself that is required for consciousness can in itself be conscious?

If we apply this to a human being, and we were to “send one of our hypostases” out into the world as a seperate person (in the way God sent his Son to the world), then we would either have to take away from ourselves either the Thinker (absent of Thought and Thinking), the Thinking (absent of the Thinker or Thought), or the Thought (absent of the Thinker and Thinking).

Does “the thinker” reward, give aid to, or appoint with authority; the “thought” or the “thinking”, as to treat it a “person” in of itself? Does the “thought” talk back to the thinker of its own volition in a self-aware manner, in a way that it can contradict or go against what its thinker wills?

Are we to understand as a people right now, that our thoughts are also people in themselves? Well no, of course not… and classical Trinitarianism says the same!

So how is it that the Son, Yeshua, speaks with his Father when on Earth, and the Father responds in an active conversational manner that was heard audibly by the Apostles on Earth when they were with him? Why is one “non-person” speaking to another “non-person”?

If the Son does not have his own independence of personality, individuality, or conciousness, but is merely the “subistence of thought” of God in his own mind, and the Father is “subsitence of the thinker”, is God not in control of his own thoughts seeing that his thought has a different will to the thinker that conceived of and begot the thought?

• “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” – Luke 22:42
• “If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak from myself“. – John 7:17

Can a thought without its thinker make its own independent decisions and judgements?

• “Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son… And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” – John 5:22

Can the eternally unified thinker, thought, and thinking be at one time segregated, and only later be unified in function where it was not previously?

• That one [the Spirit] will also glorify me, because it’ll receive things from me and then announce them to you. For everything that the Father has is now mine, and that’s why I say that it’ll receive things from me and then announce them to you“. – John 16:14-15

Is God really not in control of his own perfect self-image, which is also Himself?

Without one another they are nothing, each hypostasis on its own is incomplete, all are required to work in unison to have a fully functioning person, for none of these things alone have “their own consciousness” but all three combined ‘are’ a person of consciousness, but only when together.

Therefore, when two are taken away, or one decides not to cooperate with the other, all that is left is either mental retardation, insanity, or death.

If we truly wish to claim Yeshua is a fully conscious person who is God in the flesh, and not succumb to polytheism or tritheism where each one hypostatic subsistence is its own conciousness, then he has to be God in “totality”, the full Trinity, as to be the being that is the Father, Son and Holy spirit at the same time.

Some Catholic Trinitarians I have spoken with on this matter say that is exactly so! But according to other Trinitarians, they say that is the heresy of Sabellianism! Which says the Father came down into flesh and merely “roleplayed being a son with a seperate will” of a Father in Heaven.

Whilst “metaphysically” Trinitarianism and Modalism are not the same, one of the core ‘priniciples’ of why the early Christians opposed those such as Sabellius and Praxeas, was that of the denial that the Son was distinict from the Father in his “individuality”, the denial that God had a real “Son”.

It was not that the Modalists only had “one pyscho subsistence” as opposed to “three pyscho subsistences” which was the problem. These early Christians were not angered by the notion of some petty difference in the “mechanical understanding” of God’s nature, but that the Modalists only believed in one “rationale”, just as the Trinitarians now do. And thus, this makes Trinitarianism, just another form of Sabellianism with a new coat of paint.

The mechanics are different, but the ultimate end result is the same, that there is only “one being” not two, and this was the very issue the early Christian apologists had with Modalism:

“But although I must everywhere hold one only substance … I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from him who executes it… ‘He [God the Father] created and generated [the Son]…. But you [Modalists] will not allow him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of his own in such a way that he may be regarded as an objective thing and a person…. Now if he [the Son] too is god, according to John, (who says); ‘The Word was god’, then you have two beings.” – Tertullian, Against Praxeas

“…they imagine the Son of God to be the utterance of the Father deposited, as it were, in syllables, and accordingly they do not allow him… any independent hypostasis… And such an animated Word, not being a separate entity from the Father, and accordingly as it, having no subsistence is not a Son, or if he is a Son, let them say that God the Word is a separate being and has an essence of his own…..”. – Origen, Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 1

And If we want to claim as some do, that the Son’s mind which had a seperate will from God’s was only the “human part” of the Son, then we are forced into the “heresies” of Nestorianism or Apollinarism, that the human Yeshua’s mind is not part of God’s mind.

A God of Divided Substances?

Trinitarian apologists state that because of the Divine Simplicity, Yeshua must be God because of being begotten of God’s substance or essence, lest God be dividable.

As we know, Divine Simplicity demands that “God is purely simple”, in that “God is one”; “God is unchangable”, “God is undividable”, “God ‘is’ his own thinker”, God ‘is’ his own thought”, “God is one in all respects”.

However, taken to its absolute logical conclusion, this then means that God’s personhood itself also must also be one with God’s Simple substance and essence, and in turn his essence and substance one with his personhood. One in Absolute totality.

Hence, if the Father is “unbegotten”, then his entire Being, Essence, Substance, Person(s), Image, and Name must also be unbegotten. For the Father is unbegotten, in turn the Father is all one with his substance and ‘is’ that substance, in turn then that one substance is all unbegotten, for that substance ‘is’ the Father in perfect Simple Oneness.

Thus, if Yeshua is God then he must also be one with the Simple Oneness of substance and essence, and in turn the oneness of personhood and name. But this deprives God of either Fatherhood, or Yeshua of Sonship, they, again, become as one being as in Sabellianism, and then there is neither Father nor Son, but simply “God”.

Whilst there might be a justifiable distiniction between Father and Son as subistences within the substance, just as for example, we know the Holy Spirit proceeeds from the Father and is sent to us, without being the considered Father or fullness of God himself on Earth, the Holy Spirit is not considered as some “begotten” element or aspect of God, and so the problem isn’t fully solved.

This proves to render a great difficulty in Trinitarian theology for those who say the Son’s substance or personhood is begotten from God the Father’s unbegotten substance and personhood, for how can a begotten person be “part” of God’s oneness, which if from the Father, can only be all unbegotten? If God is truly one, simple, undivided and unchangable, then he can only be all unbegotten, or all begotten in substance, essence, person and name. In this respect, it is like trying to mix oil and water.

Alternatively, we can simply admit that the philosophy of Divine Simplicity isn’t all what it is cracked up to be, and we can simply admit we don’t and can’t fully understand God’s nature. But in this respect, we then lose the ‘entire’ foundational premise and rule of ‘why’ the Son “must” be God himself from his begetting, and so collapses our house of cards.

In fact, it was for this reason, that Church history informs us, that the universal or majority view up until and even during a great period within the 4th Century, was that though the Son was somehow “begotten” from the Father, he was not completely eternal, and was no longer of one being, essence or substance with the Father, for, this would make him “God”, a position which was considered blasphemous:

“…there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject to the Maker of all things…

…from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos… for he can be called by all those names, since he ministers to the Father’s will, and since he was begotten of the Father by an act of will; …just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled… If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them; ‘The LORD created me the beginning of His ways for His works’…

…when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union…. we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter…. we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic Word of God… Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will”. – Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho

“…[I] derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father …But although I must everywhere hold one only substance … I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from him who executes it… Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person; ‘At the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways… moreover, before all the hills did He beget me’. That is to say; ‘He created and generated me” – Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapters 2-13, 19, 25-26, 30

“God… has not always been Father…There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son… the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created“. – Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3

“We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father“. – Origen, Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chapters 5-6

This traditional view of the church fathers, was also one of the main arguments of the Arians back during the Nicene controversy, where they attempted to appeal to such a tradition regarding his seperation from God’s substance, even if he was to be of a begotten origin, these being the Acacians (Homoeans), Eusebians, and Semi-Arians (Homoiousians).

However, due to the fact that the Trinitarian parties were attempting to use philosophical notions of Divine Simplicity to assert the Son co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (even against the previous traditions and statements of the aforementioned church fathers), this further polarised the positions of the debate, resulting in the more ‘extreme’ Arian sects (the Aetians and Eunomians), who declared the Son to be created from nothing (heteroousian) and not from the Father’s substance.

Both Arian positions however were addressed by their opposing parties in a manner very revealing:

“What other reason can there be for their unwillingness to have the Son spoken of as ‘homoousios‘; of the same substance, with the Father, but that they are unwilling to confess Him the true Son of God?

This is betrayed in the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia [the Arian]. He writes:

‘If we say that the Son is True God and uncreated, then we are in the way to confess him to be of one substance (homoousios) with the Father!’

When this letter had been read before the Council assembled at Nicæa, the Fathers put this word in their exposition of the Faith, because they saw that it frightened their opponents; in order that they might take the sword, which their opponents had drawn, to smite off the head of those opponents’ own blasphemous heresy”. – Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Christian Faith Book 3, Chapter 15 (378 A.D)

What this quote exposes, is that of both the notions; that Yeshua was God, and remained to be within the substance or essence of God after his begetting, were ‘not’ mainstream views of the Christians of that era, for if it was, then both the argument of Eusebius, and the confession of Ambrose would be empty and counter-intuitive.

It was the Arians that forced their opponents to admit they were making the Son out to be God and one with his substance by declaring the Son to be eternal, thinking it would ‘defeat’ them – for surely, ‘nobody’ would ‘dare’ admit to such a confession!

This was an ‘apologetic’ on part of Eusebius. But if their Trinitarian opponents ‘always’ thought Yeshua to be God, this argument from Eusebius and the Arians of the time, would have been meaningless, because they would have known that their opponents would say; “Well duh, that’s what we believe!”.

But it was an argumentation point from Eusebius, because this Christology of the Son’s literal eternality being espoused at Nicaea was so ‘shocking’ to most Christians at the time. The ‘power’ of Eusebius’ attempt of argument relies upon the fact that this statement of the Son’s “eternality” and “oneness of substance and essence” was out of the ordinary to the Christian majority and established tradition.

The Trinitarian response in turn likewise, confesses this, for we see Ambrose essentially reports that their answer was; “fine, we’ll say he’s God then if it will shut you up!” Just so that, as admitted by Ambrose, “to win against and frighten their opponents”. Not because it was true, or what they “always believed”.

Hence, as opposed to the popularised historical notion that we’re inoculated with today, that “the Arians invented a heresy” resulting in the Christological debates of Nicaea, it was the idea that Yeshua was and remained to be eternally one with God’s substance and essence, which was the cause of theological and philosophical uproar. And for good reason, since on the basis of the established doctrine of Divine Simplicity which all Christians of the time believed, this would take the Church back to the heresies of Sabellianism (Modalism).

As astutely put forth by 4th Century Arian theologian, Eunomius of Cyzicus, he explains:

“If therefore the character of Unbegotten is not a bare imagination, nor used by way of deprivation, as the last reasoning has shown, nor is this character of Unbegotten applied to God in part only; for he is without parts. Nor is it applied to him as allowing somewhat different from him, within him, that is Unbegotten; for he is simple, and uncompounded, nor is any [internal] thing different from him beside him, for he is One and alone, he must himself be the Unbegotten Substance….

For if any one would determine that he has somewhat common with another, or does communicate to any one his own substance, it must be either by division and separation, or by coalition. But whether of these two ways be asserted, the notion will be intangled with many absurdities, or rather so many blasphemies. For whether it be by division and separation, he must be no longer the Unbegotten, being now by this division become what he was not before, nor indeed incorruptible, while this division is destructive of that perfection of incarnation.

Or whether it be by that coalition which he admits with another, this coalition depending on that wherein they both partake, the character of substance must be common to them both, and if so, the name also must be common, [and each be called the Unbegotten Substance]“. – Eunomius of Cyzicus

In reply to this argument, many Trinitarians will simply defer to the “divine mystery” and argument of the “unknowableness of God”.

For example, 4th century Trinitarian apologist Basil of Caesarea in his writings; Against Eunomius, makes the statement that it is wrong to claim “God’s essence was unbegotten” as “God’s essence was unknowable”, and thus we must rid ourselves of any notion of “materialism” or “temporality”.

Yet simultaneously this ignores the entire fact of the matter, that the only reason Yeshua was claimed to be co-equal and co-eternal with God in the first place, was ‘because’ of the assumption of God’s nature and essence in relation to the comparison of human sons being from the material substance or DNA of their fathers. And Basil himself even defers to this position as one of this arguments.

What these Trinitarian apologists do in this respect, is speak out of two sides of their mouths at once. It’s ok for ‘them’ to define the nature of God’s substance and essence via Divine Simplicity to prove the Son must be equal God due to being out of God, but whenever a Non-Trinitarian tries and use the logic of the Divine Simplicty of God’s entire essence and substance being absolute and undivided to thus prove Yeshua cannot be of the same One substance or essence due to his differences, suddenly it is to “make assumptions about God’s unknowable essence” and “how his begetting works”.

The philosophical Trinitarian argument we must not forget is that; “God’s essence is mysterious and unknowable”, whilst at the same time trying to claim “God’s essence and substance is simple, undividable, with distinct parts, making Son different and yet part of God’s essence and substance”.

The Trinitarian argumentation thus gets caught in a “catch 22”, an oxymoron. One cannot claim they know the mechanics of God’s power, essence and substance, whilst also saying it’s unknowable.

Either the nature of substantive begetting within the paradigm of Divine Simplicity proves Yeshua to be co-equal to God in ‘simple totality’ making the Son the Father and vice versa, or we must claim we do not and cannot know God’s nature at all, thus rendering the argument of the nature and mechanics of the Son’s begetting also unknowable, and thus we become mute as to claims of his supposed co-equality and co-eternality, and all we are left with are the defined and obvious differences between the Father and Son as portrayed in scripture.

God has no Image?

In relation to another Divine Simplicity argument, Athanasius, a famous Trinitarian apologist of the 4th century even goes as far as to argue that “the Son must be God, because he is God’s image, and the only image of God can be God, for only God can reveal God, and only God can know God, and no lesser being than God can be God’s perfect representation”.

This line of thinking is backed up by scriptures such as Matthew 11:27 and John 6:46, that only the Son has seen and knows the Father and thus can reveal him, and that “nobody is like God” (Jeremiah 10:6, 1 Samuel 2:2, Psalm 86:8), and him being an “Image” (or likeness), therefore must make him God.

However, if only God can reveal God or be his image, then this means nobody should know God but God Himself, and thus God cannot be revealed to anyone at all, nor any of his revelations or will, or commands to us. And thus in this respect, there can be no “image of God” (which means a representation or copy of the original, not the original item itself), but only the Father, or, the image of God would have to be the full and perfect image of the entire Trinity itself, which again results in a form of Oneness or Sabellianism.

In turn, this would also mean the Son is unknowable also, for only the Trinity can can know the Trinity, is the essence of the argument.

Thus, the Apostles would not be able to write about God nor Yeshua for us, nor their revelational message to us, because it would be inadequate for a human messenger to write such revelations, for a “mere man man cannot express God”. If however, humans can write down the things Yeshua said, this means humans are ‘capable’ of saying and repeating the very things Yeshua said, with their own mouths and pens, merely by being told what to say.

In this respect, what is more more “link in the chain” to say God revealed himself personally to Yeshua, so that he could pass on what God truly was to us, in the manner the Apostles passed on in writing what Yeshua was and said?

In fact, Yeshua says so himself in John 10:14-15 and Matthew 11:27, where he says his followers know him in the “same way” he knows the Father:

• “…my sheep know me, just as… I know the Father“.
• “…and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

We see here, men can ‘know’ the Son, in the same way “one person of the Trinity” knows “the other person of the Trinity”, and that men can know the Father just as the Son does if he choses to reveal such to them, which shatters the notion that “only the Trinity can know the Trinity” or that only God can know God.

Thus, Yeshua himself as God’s only-begotten Son who knew him from the bosom, can be said in turn to be recipient of God’s own revelation, by having the power, words and works of God operate in him, to then be expressed to others, just as Yeshua passed on the revelation of God’s teachings and spirit to his followers telling them they’d do “greater works than he” (John 14:12).

This is all the Son ever did on Earth to be qualified as the Father’s image and representation. By his own admission, he acted as God’s conduit and mouth (or Word) to his listeners, telling us the things he was “told to say”, which were “not from himself” (John 12:49), the Father “doing his own works through him” (John 14:10). By this he was “God’s image”, that is, God’s presence made manifest to us in flesh in agency.

The entire ‘point’ to having an “image of God”, is that it is not God, which in turn enables us to see the “unseeable”. As Apostle Paul states, Yeshua is the “image of the invisble God”, note “invisible God”, not “invisible Father” (Colossians 1:15).

It is just as the pagans would use idols to depict their “images” (which is the meaning and context of the original Greek word) of their own unseeable gods of the Heavens. The pagans knew the idols themselves were not their gods, but they did believe that these images they used acted as conduits in which their gods could enter. The Son in this respect, was a ‘living’ conduit.

“1504 eikṓn (from 1503 /eíkō, “be like”) – properly, “mirror-like representation,” referring to what is very close in resemblance (like a “high-definition” projection, as defined by the context). Image (1504 /eikṓn) then exactly reflects its source (what it directly corresponds to). For example, Christ is the very image (1504 /eikṓn, supreme expression) of the Godhead (see 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15). 1504 (eikṓn) assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn” (R. Trench). 1504 (eikṓn) then is more than a “shadow”; rather it is a replication (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 226; see also Lightfoot at Col 3:10 and 2:21)”. – HELPS Word-studies

“From eiko; a likeness, i.e. (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance — image“. – Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

This in turn is the cultural context the scriptures are in part writen in reference to, in tandem also with the notion of humans also being made God’s image or “likeness”, and so are we in some notion, representatives of the divine in contrast to the animal kingdom, and likewise shall we also bear the image of the Heavenly Son (who in turn is God’s image) in the future (Genesis 1:27, 1 Corinthians 15:49). If all contexts of “images” and “likeness” is to mean one must be God, then this makes all of mankind God also.

Likewise, if the argument of the requirement for a “perfect image” and “literal likeness” means only God Himself can be his own “image” and revelation, then by means of God’s Divine Simplicity, He cannot be said to have an image at all (lest it was illusionary and not substantial), and all we would see is the undividable wholeness and essence of the Father (and Son and Holy Spirit) himself, of which no man can see (Exodus 33:20).

A God of Infinite Persons?

When examining the notion of the Son being the “perfect image” and “perfect thought” of the Father’s own self, we encounter yet another paradox.

As Divine Simplicity also demands the Son’s will and thoughts must be identical with the Father’s will and thoughts, for the Son ‘is’ the thought of the Father, which is not compartmental of only some thoughts, then he must be the image of all God’s thoughts, that the Image of God be an echo of the Father.

But if the Son is the perfect echo and replication of the Father, as his thought of himself, then his thought must also contain his thoughts, as to be looking into a perfect mirror, for that Image to be ‘perfect’ and replicate of the Father in every way, as Divine Simplicity without mutability and compartmentalisation demands. Making the perfect image of God contain also, the perfect image of God ad-infinitum, perfect Images upon perfect Images, as to be two mirrors facing one another, and as a result infinite persons are made.

In this respect, no longer is God three “persons” in one, but now, ‘infinite’ “persons” in one. The Father thinking himself as to be a Son, who thinks himself a Son, upon a Son, upon a Son, forever.

The only way to prevent this is that his ‘perfect’ Image, his own thought of himself, is not perfect, but muted, and to not contain his thought of his thought of thinking of himself.

A God That “Changed”?

Another internal inconsistency, is that both the Trinity and the incarnation, causes God to change, which again according to Divine Simplicity, is against the rules.

However, we are told in scripture, that the Son did change in his state and mode of existence.

• “Thus, the Word became (ginomai) flesh and camped among us as we gazed upon his glory, which was the glory of the only-begotten next to the Father. And he was filled with kindness and truth” – John 1:14

If the law of Divine Simplicity is true, and God merely “is” and “cannot change” and is “without temporal parts”, then the very fact that one of the single Hypostases came to Earth, not to “possess” or “imitate”, or “become an illusion of” but, to truly “ginomai flesh”, breaks this law.

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means “become” (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb “to be” (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means “to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place” (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109). – HELPS-Word Studies

This same word in fact is used of Yeshua’s first miracle, where he changed water to wine, and thus makes it very clear that the Logos of God truly changed and transformed into something else:

• When the master of the feast tasted the water now become (ginomai) wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom”. – John 2:9

The Trinity therefore, would be forced to claim that a part of God left his Heavenly combined state to take up its own conscious independence and literally transformed in its fundamental nature. And it’s even worse if we consider the non-compartmental nature of God in that the persons would all share one essence and substance, and therefor ‘all’ of God would be forced to change, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which again, forces us into some form of Modalism or Oneness theology.

Because of this clear theological conundrum, in order that it could be said that “God’s thought of Himself” could “incarnate” into flesh without changing, or even affecting the rest of his undividable nature, it is said that a part of Himself had to take on a new hypostasis, a hypostasis of flesh:

Within Christology, two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Hypostasis of Christ: monohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has only one hypostasis; dyohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has two hypostases (divine and human) – Hypostasis, Wikipedia

This is where the idea of “fully man, fully God” first originated, the “hypostatic union”. That Yeshua had both a human nature, and a divine nature at the same time, a theological postition known as “Dyophysitism”.

However, even this attempted solution to such Christology is problematic…

If we are to claim that Yeshua had a fully independent human mind, body, soul and spirit on Earth (as Trinitarians do), whilst still also somehow being the one and same unchangeable God in all ways, then only either possession of a human shell (making the human Yeshua either mere man controlled by God, or nothing but an illusion or puppet act) or God changing his own nature would be the only logical conclusions.

These ideas then open up too many doors for the liking of Trinitarians, to the Christologies of Adoptionism, Apollinarism, Docetism or Polytheism.

Such problematic theology led to the condemnation and excommunication of the Trinitarian Christian theologian Apollinarius of Laodicea in the 4th century during his attempts to debate with the Arians, for claiming Yeshua’s human body was but puppeted by the “mind of God” (this belief later being labelled as “the heresy of Apollinarism”), whilst Nestorious in the 5th century was condemned for claiming Yeshua had two distinct and separated natures or hypostases combined together within his being (this belief labelled as “Nestorianism”).

Both of them sought to reconcile the clear problems presented by Trinitarian and Dyophysitic Christologies, and yet both of them as a result were excommunicated from the Church, as they were logically forced to deny either the full humanity or full Deity of Yeshua, being unable to reconcile or accept the cognitive dissonance of the idea of him being fully man and fully God without inducing an oxymoron.

If the Son on Earth was truly to be human in every way and yet remaining to be God, we must ask:

• What is a mind, soul and a spirit?
• Does God have his own soul, mind and spirit?
• If God has a soul, mind and spirit, and ‘is’ spirit, and not made of parts, is his soul, mind and spirit not one with his singular substance and essence?
• Is the human Son’s soul, mind, and spirit God’s soul, mind and spirit?
• Did God’s own soul, mind and spirit change to become human?
• If unchanged, did God acquire his own human soul, mind and spirit?
• Where did the human soul, mind and spirit of the Son come from?
• Was part of God’s own soul, mind or spirit created? If created is it truly a part of God?
• If uncreated and eternal, is part of God’s eternal soul, mind and spirit human?
• If uncreated and eternal then are we to subscribe to the Platonic concept of eternally pre-existent souls?
• Does God now have two souls, minds or spirits in Heaven, one immortally human and the other eternally divine?

We hence see that we are forced into a conclusion, that Yeshua surely cannot be God based upon the premise and rule set of the philosophy of Divine Simplicity as put forth by the Church, because it requires a change in both substance and hypostasis, either by transformation or by gain. If God is immaterial and then “becomes material” is that not in itself either a change or acquirement by definition?

To get around this argument, a Catholic friend I have spoken to, would compare the incarnation of Yeshua to the created voice that spoke to Moses from the burning bush (Exodus 3:1-6).

In this they say:

“God was in Heaven the whole time and did not change”, but ‘created’ an audible voice and the appearance of a man on Earth in order to communicate with humans, in the same way we communicate today through phones or internet chat rooms. They are created devices that imitate a person’s voice box and transmits sound with video”.

Now, I have no problem with that explanation in regard to explaining how God audibly spoke with Moses and other people on Earth without them actually “seeing and hearing Him”. However, this is not an adequate explanation of Yeshua’s incarnation if he is to be God, for we are told that, as I aforementioned, Yeshua “became” flesh, the Greek word used being “ginomai”. The Son was ‘truly’ present in his ‘own’ being on Earth.

However, to say that it was no different to say it was of the creation of the voice at burning bush, as proposed by my good Catholic friend, in my opinion is not too far off from those who subscribe to “Docetism”, which denies Yeshua truly came in the flesh, but claims that he was a spirit on Earth pretending to be a man.

To claim Yeshua was “puppeting flesh” or creating an externalised component of flesh, whilst not personally coming down from Heaven into the physical realm and actually “transforming (changing) into 100% human flesh, bone, blood, soul, mind and spirit”, is what John called a “teaching of the antichrist” (2 John 1:7).

Suddenly we find ourselves in some kind of Gnostic or Cerinthian theological territory.

Is Mary a God-Woman?

If indeed, God became incarnated into flesh, and was truly 100% man and 100% divine at the same time in hypostatic union, and the two natures were in fact one nature and not distinct or separated, then the flesh of Yeshua would truly have to be God’s “own flesh”, and not merely a created thing to be possessed or puppeteered by God.

However, scripture informs us, Yeshua was of the “seed of David” and the “seed of a woman” (Matthew 1:1, Acts 13:23, 2 Timothy 2:8, Genesis 3:15), that being, considered a true son and descendant of David from a woman’s womb. This means that Mary, according to scripture, could not have merely been a “carrier” or surrogate mother of Yeshua, but a true mother, a true conciever to authenticate the Messianic inheritence and lineage. This is only possible if Yeshua’s human body inherits the genetics from Mary herself. We also must take note that Yeshua would have been made from Mary’s ovum, as we are told it is truly her who “concieves” of this child via aid of the holy spirit, to then give birth to him (Luke 1:31).

As such, we deduce, that the virgin conception, was done via the power of God’s spirit transforming the Son’s previous Heavenly nature into a fertilised embryo of Mary, or perhaps as a sperm cell inside of Mary’s existing ovum.

This then results in Mary’s ovum embryo and DNA, which plays a part in the formation of the Son’s flesh, which is also part of her own body, to be then 100% God, for no part of Yeshua’s flesh can be said to be separate from God, lest one accepts a form of Nestorianism or Apollinarism. This in turn makes Mary herself in part or in whole, 100% God in her own flesh also.

Afterall, if God begetting a Son makes that Son God, then Mary begetting a “God-Man” of her own substance and womb would surely make her a “God-Woman”. In this respect, the Catholic veneration phrase “Mary mother of God” is logically taken to it’s absolute literal height!

As such, if Yeshua’s body is to be truly and hypostatically God, then so too must Mary’s body, if the Son is to be indeed truly the seed of David and a woman.

A God That Was Muted?

Divine Simplicity states God cannot be “muted”, meaning, he cannot lose power, authority, knowledge, or be subject to anyone or anything else in any way, shape, or form. This includes spirits, people, powers, and even metaphysical concepts, such as time and space. All things are ‘from’ God, God is not bound by anything else, but all things are bound to Him.

This then, would mean if Yeshua was God, he contradicts Divine Simplicity in scriptures such Hebrews 2:7–9 and Philippians 2:5-8 where Yeshua was made “lower than angels” and “emptied himself”.

To be “lower than angels” and to be “emptied” we only have so many options to choose from to interpret the meaning.

It either means he had to have been:

1. Less than divine at this point
2. Less powerful than the angels
3. Having less authority than the angels
4. Pretending to be lower than angels by “acting humble”

If we claim Yeshua was lower than angels only by means of “subjecting himself to the law” and to death, in an expression of humility, but not positionally or in his nature of being, then Yeshua was not at all made lower than angels, but he was merely “acting” like he was lower than angels.

However, looking to the full context, we read as such:

• “‘You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.’ Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Yeshua, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone”. – Hebrews 2:7-9
• “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in [the] Anointed Yeshua, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be robbed, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross“. – Philippians 2:5-8

We see that we have two angles. It does involve humility, that much is true, but it also involves a loss of authority and power according to the book of Hebrews. We are told that in being made lower than angels, that he “did not have things in subjection to him”.

However, God must ‘always’ have ‘all’ things in subjection to him. Divine Simplicity states this to be so. He cannot lose power, he cannot lose authority, he cannot change.

Yeshua, on the other hand, had to be “crowned” by God, in order to attain the subjection of all things, informing us that formally these things were not in subjection to him. He was truly in every sense “lower than the angels” when on Earth, in authority, in nature, and in power. It is why he had to rely on the Father, his God, to achieve all things (John 14:10).

Yeshua on Earth was bound to time. He had to sleep at night, wake in the morning, meet people at certain hours, and wait for events on certain days. He did not time travel or teleport in these instances. On Earth, before his death, he was fully subject to temporal existence.

Furthermore, Isaiah 7 tells us that when born of a virgin on Earth, Immanuel, that is, Yeshua, had to also “learn what is good and bad” through experience, and had to choose whether to be good or bad, which informs us that when Yeshua came to Earth as a baby, he was not all knowing, but he had the mind of a baby, he had lost prior knowledge, and had to submit himself to concepts higher than and outside himself:

• “Now, YHWH will give you a sign. Look! A virgin will get pregnant and then bear a son whom you must call, Immanuel. He’ll eat butter and honey before he is sure whether he wants to be wicked or good. ‘But, before the boy can know good from bad; By resisting wicked persuasions, he will choose to do what is right…. “. – Isaiah 7:14-16
• “And Yeshua grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man”. – Luke 2:52
• “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered”. – Hebrews 5:8

Therefore, if Yeshua was God, and was “God’s Wisdom itself incarnate” (Proberbs 8), then how is it that he had to “grow in wisdom”? Cardinal Wisdom cannot “gain more wisdom”, for it IS Wisdom. It also would mean a part of God became “muted” in his Almightiness, something Divine Simplicity does not allow.

If the Son is God’s “perfect thought of himself”, then he must also contain ‘all’ of his thoughts, including wisdom, knowledge and intelligence, yet, we know that the Son had to aquire such things and even claimed the Father knew things he did not (Matthew 24:36).

An “Unbegotten Begotten” Thought?

The Bible tells us Yeshua is “begotten” (John 3:16).

If Yeshua represented the “thought” of God as his “hypostasis”, according to Divine Simplicity even that “thought” or part of God would have to be “unbegotten”, infinite, for it demands all of God’s thoughts have always existed and are not independent of Him.

To “come about in time” even as a thought, goes against the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, of which is one of the foundations of the Trinity doctrine itself. For remember, “the Father always had to be a Father”.

Therefore, the only way around this is to invent another definition for the word “begotten”, and that’s exactly what Trinitarians do. It is claimed, by them, that the word “begotten” (meaning “born from” to “come about”) is not literal.

Instead, Trinitarians in essence claim Yeshua is “unbegotten but also begotten at the same time”. In accordance to their hypostatic philosophy; “begotten” means he’s ‘from’ the Father, who is the “eternal thinker of the eternal thought”, in other words “eternally generated”.

This in the essence of its principle is to say that the Son is not truly and literally begotten, but rather, is only “proceeding” or “projecting” from the Father from whom he is eternally conjoined with in the Godhead. But at this point, what difference therefore is there between the Son and Holy Spirit, which is also said to proceed out of the Father and is sent down to Earth? (John 15:26, Genesis 1:2). Is the Holy Spirit also then to be considered a “second begotten son”? If not then there must be a difference between proceeding and begetting, and that difference is what we must define via Biblical terminology.

After coming to this realisation, I decided to see if the Catholics or Orthodox had an answer this riddle, and upon my investigation all that was produced were historical church quotes that equally share the same bewilderment as I concerning this obvious contradiction:

“We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand“. – John Damascene, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 8-9

“You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God.” – Gregory of Nazianzus, Fifth Oration, 7-8

The reason they are confused and cannot define the difference between begetting and proceeding, is because at the ‘heart’ of the matter, whilst they try to differentiate with words alone, in mechanical principle, they are saying that the Holy Spirit and the Son are the same, and so either God has two begottens, or he has no begotten.

Truly, as the saying goes; “The Emperor has no clothes”.

To claim absolute Oneness and Simplicty, even the “generated” thought or Son, must also be ungenerated, if it is to be truly “one” in entirety with God’s wholeness, in which, the Father is considered to be ingenerate. This is why the Holy Spirit is not considered to be begotten, yet simultaneously is proceeding out of the Father as some kind of subsistence, as “his breath and power”, even ‘if’ it also somehow has its own independence when in operation.

This is probably why the Catholic Church has retroactively added the doctrine of the “filioque” to the Nicene and Constantiople Creeds, the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from ‘both’ the Father and Son, to have the notion that the Spirit is some kind of power of God which is proceeding from two persons, to avoid the complication of trying to deal with the paradox of trying to define the difference between eternal generational begetting and eternal proceeding from the Father – yet still doesnt really solve the issue because the two terms still exist and are considered to be “somehow” different mechanisms.

The filioque is a doctrine that the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects as heretical, as it contradicts both the original Ecumenical Creeds of the Church concerning the Trinity, and the scriptures which speak of the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone and put ‘upon’ the Son. And ironically, both the Catholics and Orthodox accuse one another in “supporting Arianism” concerning their differing versions of the Trinity and rejection/acceptance of the filioque.

No matter what words are used to avoid these contradictions, the entire notion of “eternally begotten” is in reality, playing a game of word salad with semantics, to create a distiniction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian mind, which isn’t really there, and is but, as the ancient Arians said; “veiled Sabellianism”.

As opposed to the later Creeds and Councils of the Churches, we see no one verse in scripture telling us that Yeshua is being “eternally begotten” or “eternally generated”, or even “eternally co-existent”. Even Origen says as such in his famous theological commentary of John’s Gospel, that the statement of the Word’s being “with God” in the beginning, gives us no context of “time” when or “where” that “beginning” was, and thus does not tell us of eternality:

“In the statement “The Word was with God” we are not told anything of the when or the where…” – Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2, Chapter 5

All uses of the word “beget” in scripture have unanimously been used to refer to either; an act of “creation”, of a new person being “born”, or “made”, or having a “point of beginning”, or of adoption, and all these terms were also often instrinsically connected in later early Christian writings, even when speaking of the begetting from substance:

“There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son… the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated.… the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning — I mean His Wisdom, which was then born and created… the Father, should be older, and on this account, nobler, than the Son of God”. – Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapters 3, 18

“For we thus understand ‘I begot thee before the morning star’ with reference to the first-created Word of God…”. – Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus

“It appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that “all things were made through him [the Word]”, must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word, the Word accordingly being older than he [the Holy Spirit] …We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father“. – Origen, Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chapters 5-6

Eternal generation is an idea born (or begotten, I couldn’t help myself) outside of scripture, and applied into the Bible on the ‘assumed’ metaphysical premise that “Yeshua must be eternal”, even though we have scriptures stating otherwise, such as Proverbs 8, which describe the begotten Son in the role of “Wisdom”, as “the earliest of God’s creations brought forth” as an “aquirement” to work at his side:

• “YHWH acquired/created/made (qanah/ktizó) me the beginning of his way, for/before (qedem/eis) his works/creations (miph’al/ergon) of long ago. From ancient times I was founded/installed/poured out (nacak/themelioó) from the start, from times earlier than the earth…” – Proverbs 8:22-23, 30

Only are these scriptures denounced to be “metaphorical” by Trinitarians ‘after’ the fact of externally asserting their Trinitarian theology ‘upon it’, rather than ‘from it’. But when understood in their natural meanings and contexts, scripture as a whole says no such thing.

Therefore, harmonisation of the Biblical texts tells us that being “begotten” is a term used in the exact same way as it is throughout the rest of the Bible, a reference of literal sonship.

This is the most logical reason to why Yeshua is called the “First Born”, implying that there were others “born” after him, in the same or similar manner that he was born (with exception to the form of “only-begotteness”, of which is unique to the Son), and why he is serving his Father, whom he calls “his God” (Isaiah 49:3, 5, John 20:17, Revelation 3:12).

Glorified Flesh of a Metaphysical Aspect?

As the Son of God was said to be glorified and one with God, and then that he shared that same glory with his followers so they too could become one with him and God (John 17:22), the Trinity doctrine forces one to conclude that this only speaks of the Son’s humanity being glorified and therefore sharable with his human followers, for God shares his own glory with none (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11). This sharable glory of his humanity then, not being eternally innate, but given.

But it’s important to recognise that the glory the Son shares with us, is not merely of immortalised flesh or nature, but of authority and relationship. To be “one with God” and “one with Lord Yeshua”, just as they are one.

To seperate the human glory from the divine glory, would be to seperate both God’s relationship with his “Son”, and his authority into two parts; human authority, and divine authority, making the incarnate humanity of God in need being granted and rewarded of its own individualistic authority, despite God already having divine authority as an individual. But God has no need of an “additional glory and authority” in order to have right to rule as an incarnate man, for God’s authority is still innate no matter what form or state he is in. Authority not being a “nature”, but an eternal state of right and office because of ‘who’ he is.

It would be merely, giving a mere “nature” or “material”, not a person or individual, glory and authority, in order to justify the notion that humans can be given the same glory and authority by their adoption, intergration and inheritence into the family and brotherhood of this “glorified human nature”, but not independent individuality.

And likewise, the granted human glory to Yeshua, would then be segregating his relationship, making his “human sonship” to God distinict from his divine Sonship of God, and now God has two seperate only-begotten sons, one we are brothers with, one we are not, and this, yet again, leads us to notions of Nestorianism, Cerinthianism, or Adoptionism.

Sons and Brothers of Metaphysical Aspects?

As each “person” of the Godhead in the classical Trinity is not actually a “person”, but a metaphysical “aspect” or “subsitence” of God that makes up his one mind, this means that neither the Father, nor Son, are actual “personalities” or individuals.

As such, when Son calls God his Father, this would mean that one ‘non-individual’ ‘non-sentient’ subsitent entity is talking to another ‘non-individual’ ‘non-sentient’ subsitent entity. Meaning, nothing is talking to nothing, since the “individual” who is God, only exists via the combination of the subsitences, the “persons” of the Godhead, forming a singular product of God’s conciousness.

As such, for Yeshua to be God in flesh, as forementioned, the ‘full Trinity’ must be incarnate as a man, not the Son alone, which again is another feature of ancient Sabellianism and Oneness, the Father incarnating into flesh merely acting as a son in his behaviour. And some Catholics who I have spoken to on this matter, indeed have confessed to me, my conclusion is correct, that the man Yeshua, was not only God the Son, but the ‘entire’ Trinity, for each “person” of the Godhead is not concious or an individual in itself.

This begs us to question, just who was Yeshua calling (being the ‘entire’ Trinity in his individuality) his God and Father in scripture in his prayers? And just who was talking back to him out of Heaven? Does the Trinity have another God and Father? And is that Father just yet another “metaphysical person of subsitence”, or a real literal father?

Or is only the “human part” of Yeshua speaking here? Making his mind yet again, seperate from God and resulting in a Nestorian or Adoptionist view of the incarnation, and that this human Yeshua is actually calling the ‘entire Trinity’ consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, his God and “Father”?

Furthermore, we must then question how this affects us, and ‘our’ relationship with God and his Son.

Yeshua is the “first of many brothers”, him being the Son of God, and us who believe in him becoming his brothers and sisters, sharing that same Father (Romans 8:29, John 20:17). So when we are called his “brothers”, and we call God our “Father”, are we then only brothers and sons of “metaphysical subsitences” and not real individuals or family members? Or are we truly and literally sons and daughters of God who is truly and literally a father to us? If so, then are we not truly the literal brothers of the Son of God who in turn must be a literal son of his father?

The Catholic friends I have spoken to regarding this question, have told me, that the “literalness” of fatherhood applies to ‘us’ only, but not to Yeshua the metaphysical Son of God of whom we are “brothers” of.

To say that neither the Son or Father of the Godhead are real individuals independently, but only together combined are the one real literal individual with conciousness, who then prays to Heaven calling someone up there their Father, and then calls us his brothers of that Father above; whom to us is a literal father and also our literal brother, and not merely a metaphysical relationship as it is between the Father and Son, I can only say is the most incredible display of mental acrobatics and double standards of reasoning I’ve ever seen in my life thus far.

Sons and Brothers of God?

When we take these issues further, we also them must ask ourselves, are we brothers and sisters of God? Or childen of God? For it surely cannot be both! And do we dare make ourselves co-equals and co-heirs with God himself?

Again, applying this only to the “human part” of Yeshua, places us in the same issues as before, concerning Nestorianism and Adoptionism.

Originiating With A False Premise

The key to understanding how we arrived at the Trinity in the first place, is understanding the initial premises which were put forth, which laid out the foundation of the doctrine.

As mentioned earlier, the four main components were; eternal fatherhood, substances, logos, and the hypostases philosophy.

These are false premises in that:

1. The Bible does not mention hypostases or parts of God
2. The Bible does not tell us Yeshua is the same substance as God, nor does it mention any substances
3. The Bible does not tell us God is incapable of begetting a literal Son seperated from his own being
4. The Bible does not tell us the Image of God has to be God himself or his exact and perfect replication in all ways
5. The Bible does not tell us that in order to be eternal and unchanging in Himself, that God always had to be a Father who always had Son
6. The Bible does not tell us John’s concept of Logos is a reference to Platonic concept of Logos

The Fallacy of Eternal Fatherhood

To assume the eternal Fatherhood of God as our basis for the Son’s eternality, is to take the principle of Divine Simplicity, that is, God’s “unchangeableness”, to its absolute ludicrous extreme.

If we follow through this thought to conclusion, it results in all creation, including ourselves, being eternal, and therefore God. For if God ‘had’ to have always been a Father, then he must have always had to have been worshipped by men.

If there was a time God was not worshipped by men, and that he was not the God of men, then this can be argued to say that God changed over time, and “gained a status” that he did not formally have. Therefore, to be God over men, men must have always had to exist, but this idea contradicts the entire point of God being the uncaused cause of all other things, the creator of all.

Additionally, if God is the creator, he would ‘always’ have to be the creator, which would mean creation is eternal, and therefore God.

And likewise, if all things are created by the Father, then all things have to be the cause or origin of the Father’s creative power, spirit, or energy, just as Apostle Paul states in 1 Corthians 8:5-6, that all things are “out of” (ex/ἐξ) the Father, the pre-existing eternal source of all things. If this means creation is out of God literally, as opposed to entering into existence from literally nothing, all created things in turn would also have to be of God’s substance if all things are made from God’s power, which ‘is’ his inseparable and undividable substance in Divine Simplicity.

What we are experiencing is a “modal collapse”, that God would have had to have been eternally creating the universe and mankind, in order to have been “the creator” for eternity without changing, and that all created things would have to be “part of God” if all things are created from his divine power.

This has in fact been raised as an argument against Divine Simplicity itself by some theologians. A defence however is made, in that everything always existed in God’s mind before it was created in a real physical sense, meaning he was the eternal God and creator forever, even before things were created.

It might be a reasonable argument for some, though perhaps not perfect, but for others unsatisfactory, and it is easy to see why. However… if valid, then this reasoning can still equally apply upon to Yeshua himself. If man did not always have to physically exist for God to still be the eternal creator, then neither did Yeshua have to eternally exist for God to be the eternal Father.

The Fallacy of Assuming Perfect Image

The notion that Yeshua has to be God incarnate to truly God’s image, or know God, or reveal God, is not only something not stated in scripture, but as aforementioned it also directly contradicts what the very ‘definition’ of what it means to be the “image”of something, of which means to not be that object, but an imitation, copy, representation, or replica of it.

By the very definition of being the “image of” God, implies that one is not literally God himself, or he would no longer be an image. God himself is completely invisible to us, and therefore requires another being acting in agency, who is not God, or alternatively, mere created illusion of himself, in order to have a visible or bodily representation.

To assert that, the only acceptable image of God, has to perfectly be God accordingly, is to then also state that the Image would have to be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, within a Trinitarian framework, which would result in Sabellianism. And if the Son is only called “a son” by metaphore because of being the Image of the Father, then we are only left with either, two Fathers and no Son, or a form of Docetism, if not both.

Meanwhile, all early Hebrew and later Jewish uses of the term, have only ever referred to a “likeness” to the original object, or as representation of the original object, but ‘never’ to actually ‘be’ the original object. Clearly, Seth is not Adam, and humankind is not God.

• “And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness‘” – Genesis 1:26
• “And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth”. – Genesis 5:3
• “But people, who have been formed by your hands and are called your own image because they are made like you, and for whose sake you have formed all things – have you also made them like the farmer’s seed?” –  2 Esdras 8:44

The Fallacy of Assuming John’s Logos

Another flaw, is assuming John was referring to the same concept of Logos as the Platonists, or of Philo of Alexandria, who claimed Logos was “God’s mind”, and God’s “demiurge”.

There are many various meanings to the phrase, such as “spoken word”, “expression of will”, or agency of a messenger (as it does in the Hebrew Old Testament). We see the term “logos” used throughout the scriptures in these contexts:

Therefore, John’s use of the term can be as simple as “Yeshua is the fulfilment and agent of God’s will and command”, or “Yeshua is the message of God”, and as aforementioned, we see this concept clearly in ancient Judaism, where the “Word” is said to be the agent of God who carries with him the title of God and expresses his “Shekinah”, “light” or “power”, and such a belief was held in the ancient Targums between 100B.C – 100A.D, a time from before Philo, then down to his day.

Presuming John was referring to Philo’s concept or a Platonic concept, is in turn presuming that John was a Greek philosopher. But these uses of the terms are very different in traditional Hebrew theology and scripture compared to Greek philosophy.

Furthermore, it seems apparent that not even Philo himself, believed the Logos was equal to God, even if indeed it was from the mind of God, as he made it very clear that it was an agent, a messenger, the “eldest of the angels” in regard to what he understood as Sonship.

It is very much possible that Philo may have even got his ideas of the “Logos being the agent of creation” from the preaching Christians of his time (such as John), or from the Jewish Targum and Two Powers traditions that were in existence in his day and prior, which in turn the Christians also surely drew upon.

The notion of God having a Heavenly Firstborn son, has historically been recognised as ‘distinictly Christian’ of all the Jewish sects, and for Philo to claim God has a Firstborn Son was very unchacteristic of a non-Christian Jew of this era, which could very well lend to the notion that he heard it from them – even if he didn’t identify as Christian. For we know Philo did not shy away from notions of syncretism.

In turn, these concepts may have been borrowed by some Greek thinkers when it came to the “Demiurge” and God’s need for a mediator deity to make the universe – or perhaps, the Greeks were merely intelligent and discovered a genuine truth about the universe by themselves… But Philo’s framework of syncretic Greek philosophy certainly coloured his vision, and thus he may have mistaken or interpreted the “Logos” of the Christians, Targums, and previous Jewish sages, to be the “Greek logos” of “mind”, resulting in Philo teaching this mixed cocktail of theology to others; that logos was “God’s agent”, “a part of his mind” and “another being acting as the demiurge of creation” all at once…

…a teaching which may have then eventually looped back around to some Christian circles in Greek speaking cultures, contributing to both the theological thoughts of the Subordinationist Logosians such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian, along with the creation of some sects, such as the Gnostic Valentinus (who was for a fact the first “Christian” historically to suggest that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were the “hypostases of God”, and ‘also’ so-happened to believe in the “Greek demiurge”, and that “matter was evil” just as it is said Philo did).

“Philo endeavored to find the Divine Being active and acting in the world, in agreement with Stoicism, yet his Platonic conception of Matter as evil required that he place God outside of the world, in order to prevent God from having any contact with evil”. – Philo, Wikipedia

The Fallacy of Assuming God’s Nature

It is the mere arrogance of men, who believe that they “know” God, that they were able to “figure out” his nature, what his substance was, how his mind is formed, how he thinks, or what his abilities and limitations are.

It is the absolute height of hubris to assume what God can and cannot do with his own power and being.

The limitation of the human scope is revealed easily when one takes the time to realise that we can only think of colours that that exist of which we have experienced, whilst blind people can’t concieve of colour at all. Meanwhile, God invented the colours we know, and can invent more colours that don’t exist in our reality yet.

In the same way, God can create or beget, or make a form of being in anyway he wants that is beyond the limited scope of our understanding. This means, like new colours and new ontological concepts, God is capable of begetting a Son without it being His literal substance or co-equal with Himself.

I personally find it incredible that some of the most prominant Trinitarian apologists, as we saw with Basil’s example, make the exact same style of argument against the Arians in regard to not being able to know God’s nature.

The ultimate irony, is that Trinitarians will claim “God is a mystery, and that’s why the Trinity cannot be logically understood”, all whilst making the argument that “God cannot beget a son without it being the Trinity” because of supposed “metaphysical and logical limitations”, and hypocritically denying the argument of “divine mystery” for a non-Trinitarian understanding of God’s begetting.

We can say indeed, that it’s scriptural to theorise that it’s possible God is able to send some part of his his power, mind and essence out into the Universe, and it yet having some kind of seperate “independence” from the Father (1 Corinthians 2:11, John 15:26, John 16:13), but at the same time, these notions fly in the face of the assumptions so often made by the rules made of Divine Simplicity (lest we say the Holy Spirit is also a created force of God, to maintain his Absolute Divine Simplicity), and the basis of the arguments often made to deny God has and is capable of having a literal begotten Son. If the Father is capable of sending the preceding Spirit of his power and mind down to us, whilst it also being ‘capable’ of having its own “thoughts” in the process (if we are to assume such thoughts do not refer to the Father’s thoughts in that context), surely then we can argue God can beget a real Son out from himself who has his own complete independence and is inferior to God.

The ultimate crux, is that no scripture tells us there are three hypostases to God, no scripture tells us the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are such hypostases. Nor does any scripture state that if Yeshua is literally “begotten out of the Father”, that he cannot be a subordinate lesser son or seperate being who was not always in existence.

It is the perfect example of eisegesis. External ideas and presumptions applied upon to scripture, resulting in the changing of the definitions and clear original meanings of scripture, and to be then presented to be the original meaning of scripture in itself, all whilst hypocrtically trying to accuse their opponents of having a “lack of faith” or of “trying to limit God”, when they themselves do are doing such a thing by showcasing their own lack of faith in denying in God’s ability to beget a real son, and using mental metaphysical gymnastics to avoid the obvious and simple truth of the scriptures of which states “the Father is the only True God” (John 17:3).

• “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares YHWH”. – Isaiah 55:8

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe the Trinity cannot be adequetly defended, neither via scripture, nor metaphysical philosophy, but instead highly contradicts both.

Rather, it appears to be merely a result of the evolutionary overlapping presumptuousness of 2nd-5th century men and their pet theories born from their secular world views and philosohical cultural backgrounds, which they had carried along with them as baggage upon their conversion to Christianity.

Whilst some of their philosophies may be somewhat insightful or thought provoking, there is nothing to them that can lay a solid claim to being Biblically supported or truly theologically Apostolic.

An Olive Branch to the Reader

Understandably, the Trinity is an emotional subject for some people, and many hold the doctrine in high regard, as the very “core” of Christianity. There are a great number of Christians who become, fearful, anxious or upset at the notion of such a doctrine being rejected, for the sake of their own salvation.

Because of this, I feel it’s important to state to my Trinitarian Bretheren, that I do not write to cause offence or to be “heretical”, and if people wish to subscribe to the doctrine, that is, of course, their right, the right of their Christian freedom and conscience, if they believe it to be the truth of scripture.

I can only admonish my brothers and sisters in the Anointed Yeshua, to read the Bible for what it says, and to objectively refer to its own definitions of words and their native meanings, and from ‘it’ judge all other later doctrines that were introduced into Christianity, and to be ‘honest’ with themselves and with God, if the doctrine truly makes sense or is truly scripturally Christian.

I thank you for the time you were willing to spend reading my article. I hope it has provided to be something, if not persuasive in changing a person’s views of the Trinity, to at least encourage critical thought.