The only true God

This is part 6 of my Actual Good News series of articles on the topic of biblical soteriology (the study of salvation). Part 5 is available here: He was buried

Please note that I’m including many of my scriptural references in the links (which are are the underlined words throughout the article), and they also link to studies with extended details that I couldn’t fit into the article, so please be sure to click all the supporting links in order to get the full picture, as well as all the Scripture references.

As we learned in the last article in this series, because almost no Bible believers actually believe that Christ truly died for our sins and really was buried (instead believing that only His body did and was, while He Himself lived on and went somewhere else altogether, meaning He Himself didn’t actually die or end up buried at all), none of these people can be said to have been baptized into the body of Christ yet, since they haven’t truly believed what Paul said those who experience the special sort of salvation he wrote about will believe at the time they’re saved (and please go read that article if you haven’t realized this fact yet). I should also point out that coming to understand that Jesus actually fully and truly died brings one to the realization that most Christians have misunderstood the nature of God (for lack of a better term) as well, thinking that God is one being made up of three beings rather than being only one being (however that’s supposed to work — and before someone claims they believe God is actually not one being made up of three beings, but rather three beings sharing one essence, they refer to their “three-in-one” deity as “He,” not “Them,” thus demonstrating that they either don’t know how English works or that they don’t know what the logical result of their doctrine is). Because, while the Bible says that there are actually many gods out there in the universe (it would be difficult for our heavenly Father to be the God of gods if there were no other gods out there for Him to be the God of), it also tells us that there is only one Almighty God (who created all the other gods), and He has no equals or co-equals. Can Almighty God have a God above Him? Nearly everyone I’ve asked this question to has immediately and rightly answered “no” (and the one person who answered “yes” when I asked him this question needs to learn how numbers work, because if Almighty God had a God above Him, there would then be two “Almighty” Gods: 1) Almighty God, and 2) the God who exists above Almighty God), but as we’ve already seen, Scripture tells us (in many places, actually) that Jesus has a God — His Father. This means that, while any title His Father has can also now be applied to Him (the English word “God” is just a title, after all, and is not His name, similar to the way “President” is a title and not an actual name), especially when speaking and acting on His Father’s behalf as His Father’s icon (or image), and hence He can now be referred to as God representationally (just as I can show you a picture of my wife and honestly say, “This is my wife,” even though it isn’t literally my wife since I didn’t marry a photograph), Jesus can’t actually be the Almighty God literally like His Father is, because the Father is above Him, and nobody is above — or even beside, meaning equal to — the Lord God Almighty (Who is differentiated from “the Lamb” — referring to Jesus — in the Bible anyway, which should also make this pretty obvious).

And so, even though at this point (post-resurrection and quickening of Christ) one might be able to call Jesus a “god,” or even be able to legitimately call Him “God” from a relative or representational perspective — since Matthew 28:18 says that all power in heaven and earth has been given to Him (meaning authority, in this case, once again being translated from ἐξουσία/“ex-oo-see’-ah,” which is important for the same reason we learned in the last article), and Acts 2:36 even says that He’s also now been made “Lord” by God as well — Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that, to us (meaning to those of us in the body of Christ, which is who Paul was writing to), “there is but one God, the Father.” I trust you can see that Paul didn’t say, “to us there is but one God, the Father and the Son,” which means there’s just no way to fit the Son into the title of God in that verse without ignoring the rules of grammar, not to mention the point of the passage it’s included in. And likewise, even though the Father is Lord from an absolute perspective, He’s temporarily given Jesus the title (and authority) of Lord, so, to us in the body of Christ (even if only from a relative perspective), Jesus is the one we currently refer to as Lord (and not someone we refer to as God in addition to Lord, since Paul told us in this verse that, to us in the body of Christ specifically, the Father is the only one we view as God — which makes sense, considering the fact that the Father really is the only God from an absolute perspective anyway, being the only one who can be called Almighty God). Besides, as verse 5 of that chapter says, there are “lords many,” so if this passage meant that Jesus is God because He’s been given the title of Lord for the time being, then all the other lords would also be God too. (And as for why I keep saying that Jesus is only “Lord” temporarily, it’s because 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that He’ll eventually give up His reign, after He destroys death.)

This is similar to the way that Jesus said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,” in John 17:3. Based on the rules of language and logic — particularly when it comes to the definition of the word “only” — there’s just no way to make “thee the only true God” include anyone other than the person being referred to by the singular word “thee” (σέ/“seh” in the original Greek) in that verse (not to mention anyone other than the person being referred to as “the only…”). Jesus would have had to have said something along the lines of, “thee and me, the only true God,” or perhaps, “us, the only true God” (and then left out the second half of the verse altogether), in order to be included as a part of “the only true God” there. And yes, some Christians do try to argue that, because Jesus is mentioned in the second half of the verse, this fact then somehow makes Him a part of “the only true God.” But since the verse doesn’t say, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, who is also the only true God,” this is just reading one’s preconceived theological beliefs into the verse, especially since He separated Himself from the label of “the only true God” by saying “and” in between “the only true God” and “Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (telling us that “Jesus Christ” exists in addition to “the only true God” as a separate individual from that God, and not as another part of that God). You see, to use a bit of math to clarify things, when someone states that somebody else is the only x, and doesn’t include themselves or anyone else in that x in the statement, there’s just no way to then try to argue that said person actually meant that they are also the only x, even though they didn’t say that in their statement at all, and anybody who tries to claim otherwise is demonstrating that they either don’t understand how language and logic work, or are outright lying (even if only to themselves). Still, if you disagree, please show us how anyone other than the God and Father of Jesus Christ can be squeezed into the label of “thee the only true God” without contradicting any rules of language or logic.

Besides all that, the power (authority) which God gave to Jesus couldn’t have been given to Him at all if He was already ontologically the capital-G “God,” because then He’d already have had all the authority that was given to Him, since you can’t be given something that you already possess. And just as with His assigned authority, if He was already capital-G “God,” He couldn’t be made Lord either, because He’d already be Lord from an ontological perspective.

But even beyond the fact that the traditional, “orthodox” Christian doctrine of the deity of Christ is simply illogical and unscriptural, as I mentioned already (at least from an absolute perspective, even if we could technically say we believe in the deity of Christ from a relative perspective, since any being referred to as a god can be said to be a “deity” as well, even if there’s only one capital-D “Deity”), the bigger problem is that one can’t even join the body of Christ while truly believing in this doctrine (because, again, it means they don’t believe Christ actually fully died for our sins, and was buried, but that only His body did and was; God can’t die, so if one believes that Jesus is God, they can’t believe that Jesus truly died, nor can they believe that He Himself was buried), so I would posit that the reason it’s become one of the most important ideas in the Christian religion is because Satan wanted to make sure that as few people as possible could become a part of the body of Christ and take his reign from him during the future ages, and so when he created the counterfeit religion which has come to be known as Christianity today, in order to keep people from believing the truth of the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, he made sure it was a part of one of the primary doctrines.

In addition, it’s likely that belief in the traditional, “orthodox” doctrine keeps one from enjoying the sort of “eternal life” that one experiences under the Gospel of the Circumcision as well (and if you aren’t familiar with the difference between the Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, please be sure to read Part 1 of this series where I explained it in detail), because belief that Jesus is the Son of God is required for salvation under that Gospel, and the traditional doctrine teaches that Jesus is “God the Son” (really nothing more than a title for a certain part of God; and yes, logically, that is what it has to mean, despite any protestations to the contrary by Christians who might be familiar with their official — albeit unscriptural — “orthodox” creeds and what the so-called “heresies” declared by the supposed leaders of the religion are) rather than the actual Son of God (Jesus can’t be both God and the Son of God at the same time, because, based on the rules of language, that would make Him the Son of Himself). Scripture speaks of the Son of God and the Spirit of God, but never “God the Son” or “God the Spirit.” It’s important to remember that Scripture puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and on how one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (particularly those saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision), so much so that claiming He has an identity not found in Scripture — “God the Son” — is teaching another Jesus.

Now, some like to claim that the traditional Christian doctrine regarding the deity of Christ and the other teachings connected with it is all “a mystery” which isn’t meant for us to understand, but nowhere in the Bible do we find this assertion made, so they have no scriptural foundation on which to lay this claim. Besides, if it is a “mystery” that can’t be understood, what basis do we have for believing it in the first place? Was the idea that Jesus is God prophetically told to be true to those Christians whose viewpoint on this topic won at Nicaea (yet with how the concept is supposed to work, exactly, never actually being explained, as is made clear by the fact that nobody seems to be able to do so without resorting to teaching ideas that are considered heretical to “orthodox” Christians)? I don’t recall that claim ever being made by any Christians. In fact, the reason the traditional doctrine came to be accepted by the Christian religion as truth is because the position won in a vote, not because any actual prophets at the Council of Nicaea revealed the doctrine to be true, which means that trying to defend the doctrine by calling it a “mystery” doesn’t help the position at all.

Ultimately, belief in any of the traditional “orthodox” doctrines seems to mean one hasn’t fully believed Paul’s Gospel and has not joined the body of Christ, and if something is an important teaching or practice (or is considered to be an “orthodox” tradition) among the majority of the followers of the Christian religion, it’s generally safe to assume it’s a doctrine of demons and that the opposite is true instead (particularly if it’s a major tradition, doctrine, or practice taught by Rome — for whom never-ending torment in “hell,” the immortality of the soul, and the deity of Christ are all extremely important doctrines). While Jesus’ statement that “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” was technically referring specifically to the Gospel that Jesus was teaching to the Israel of God, it is still true that very few people (relatively speaking), including Christians, ever join the body of Christ, so it likely still counts as a trans-dispensational (or trans-administrational) truth, which means that there’s no way a religion with as many followers as the Christian religion has  — more than a quarter of the human population of the planet at the time this book was last updated — can possibly be the “narrow way” that few find. Really, when it comes right down to it, there’s almost nothing that the Institutional Church gets right about God or Scripture. Although some denominations do occasionally stumble upon parts of certain truths seemingly accidentally, it’s extremely rare, and no one denomination within Christianity ever seems to get more than a few things at most somewhat right — and even then, they rarely understand even a small portion of the full implications of the parts they sort of appear to grasp. It seems (from a relative perspective, at least) that Satan works hard to keep people in these denominations from joining the body of Christ, and also to use these churches to keep the rest of the world from learning spiritual truth as well. Paul’s remonstration against Israel in his epistle to the Romans that, because of them, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations,” is today almost better applied to those in the Christian religion who give the world contradictory messages about God that keep people who think about these things from believing in such an apparently confused deity, telling people that God loves everyone unconditionally, as long as they meet certain conditions; that you are saved by grace alone and not by any actions of your own, as long as you act now and choose to become a Christian before you die; and that God is the Saviour of all humanity, yet will fail to save most of the humanity He’s supposedly the Saviour of, who will actually be tormented in “hell” without end (or will at least be burned up and permanently cease to exist if certain other Christians are correct) rather than be saved. Thanks to these lies, those who are able to recognize the hypocrisy hear these things and think, “The god of the Christian religion says one thing but apparently means something else altogether, so why would we want anything to do with this seemingly dishonest deity and contradictory religion?”

This isn’t to say that everyone who uses the label of “Christian” will definitely miss out on “eternal life,” however (although a pretty large number of people who call themselves Christians very likely will). A few of them might still experience life in the kingdom of heaven. It’s just that, due to their ignorance, they are unknowingly under the Gospel of the Circumcision instead of the Uncircumcision.

So, while “orthodox” Christians aren’t a part of the body of Christ and will miss out on heavenly blessings in the next age (and even in this age), an extremely small number of them might still get to enjoy the impending age here on earth if they follow the requirements of the Gospel of the Circumcision and don’t try to mix that Gospel with Paul’s Gospel, since it’s either one or the other. But as far as those of you who have now learned how to differentiate between the two Gospels go, you’re ready to also dig deeper into the rest of Scripture with a framework that will make it that much more clear what else the leaders of the Institutional Church might not have taught you thanks to their pre-existing assumptions about what Scripture says.

And with all that in mind, the passages we’ve looked at so far in this chapter prove once and for all that Jesus is not literally — nor can He possibly be — Almighty God, which means that any other passages one thinks might prove the traditional doctrine that He is God must be interpreted from the perspective that He’s only the Son of God instead. And, in fact, there are better interpretations for every one of the so-called “proof texts” that Christians use to try to prove their “orthodox” tradition, interpretations which don’t contradict the passages we just looked at. And so, without getting into the details, we have to always remember that just because a passage might seem to imply Jesus is God, we’ve already learned that Jesus can be said to be God representationally, and that He indeed is a god (in fact, He‘s the second highest authority in the universe at this point, higher than any god out there other than His Father, which means one could also say that He’s God from a relative perspective, even though only His Father is God from an absolute perspective), just as a passage that might be able to be interpreted as saying Jesus pre-existed His own birth as a human can, at most, be used to defend the doctrine that He was the first being created by Almighty God (presuming there isn’t another, equally possible, interpretation, which there often is), so at most these passages can be used to defend those points. However, since what I’ve already written proves our perspective on God and Christ quite definitively, while I might add more about this topic in future updates to this article, I’m going to leave it at that for now. Still, there are a lot of studies out there which go into even more detail on the topic, so if you’d like to learn what our interpretations of the various supposed “proof texts” for the traditional doctrine are, please see the list of articles and webpages listed below (before you read these articles, though, I should warn you that the majority of the members of the true body of Christ tend to not view the King James Bible quite as favourably as I do, and as such, they’re not written by King James Bible Believers; still, these are the best resources on the topic I could find by other members of the true body of Christ, so I’d still urge you to read them anyway):

In addition to the above articles (which were all written by true members of the body of Christ who also understand the difference between the two Gospels), I’m also including the following list of articles and websites which are either run by believers who don’t necessarily understand — or at least believe in — the difference between the two Gospels, or by otherwise traditional Christians who might not even be members of the true body of Christ at all, but they do contain some excellent arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity, so I’m linking to them here as well:

Let the Truth Come Out (website)

Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY?

Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?

Specific objections to “Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?”

Some further notes on the unitarian debate

Understanding the concept of agency

The Messiah: a human Davidic king or the divine God?

A Unitarian View of the Holy Spirit (part 1)

A Unitarian View of the Holy Spirit (part 2)

Is Jesus God? Answering Answers in Genesis (part 1)

Is Jesus God? Answering Answers in Genesis (part 2)

The Deity of David

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts (part 1)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: the Old Testament (part 2)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: the Synoptic Gospels (part 3)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: the Gospel of John (part 4)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: Acts of the Apostles (part 5)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: Paul’s epistles (part 6)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: Hebrews and the general epistles (part 7)

Refuting all trinitarian proof-texts: Revelation (part 8)

Trinity theories versus Scripture

Adamic Christology and the human Messiah

Mosaic Christology and the human Messiah

Elijah, Elisha, and the human Messiah

Davidic Christology and the human Messiah (part 1)

Davidic Christology and the human Messiah (part 2)

Jesus and the HANDS of God

Reasons to Believe’s Argument for the Trinity

When was the Trinity discovered?

The Incoherent Metaphysics of the Trinity

The Incoherence of the Incarnation

Past interpretations of John’s prologue (part 1 of 3)

Past interpretations of John’s prologue (part 2 of 3)

Past interpretations of John’s prologue (part 3 of 3)

The Trinity Delusion (website)

Biblical Unitarian (website)

Trinities.org (website)

If you don’t have the time to read all of the above articles right now, or just want to keep reading the rest of the articles in this series first, that’s fine. You can always come back to this page later (and please do, at least if you haven’t come to fully understand why one must reject the doctrine of the Trinity in order to be considered a true member of the body of Christ).

Part 7: Heaven isn’t what you think it is