[39] The Top Ten Trinity Busters


'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.'  - Galileo Galilei

The History of the Trinity

Newton returned to the works of the men who had formulated Trinitarianism: Athanasius (Anaesthesius might have been a better name for him), Gregory Nazienzen, Jerome, Augustine....  The conviction possessed him that a massive fraud, which began in the 4th and 5th centuries, had perverted the legacy of the early church  (Life of Isaac Newton - Richard Westfall).

Isaac Newton by Michael White is another good biography. The Trinity doctrine was debated and adopted by the early church at the church council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The debate was between Arius who opposed it and Athanasius who proposed it. Arius lost the debate and the corruption started. Emperor Constantine enforced the Trinity doctrine ruthlessly as was explained by Archdeacon of Westminster Frederick Farrar, Chaplain to the Queen Victoria. He wrote:

Constantine heartily accepted the [Athanasian] Creed. He presumably retained the opinion which he had so forcibly expressed, that the dispute was verbal and superfluous, and he would have probably preferred the creed proposed by Eusebius of Caesaria had there been and chance of its acceptance.....The one desire of the Emperor was for peace and unity, and he determined that henceforth the Arians, or Porphyrians should be put down. The books of Arius were to be burnt. No one was to read them under penalty of death. He [Arius] was banished, as were also Theonas and Secundas, the only Bishops who would not forsake his cause (p489, Lives of the Fathers Volume 1, Adam and Charles Black, 1907).

Now the above persecution is the lot of a Christian. Constantine had no idea what he was really doing. But his tactics were from the darkness, not from the light. Given that it has always been the fate of those who know the divine truth to be persecuted by governments rather than being accepted by them, it is apparent that Arius was correct. In fact the council of Nicaea was a convening of the heads of the fallen church of FDS1. For the Roman Catholic church became a false religion on 84Nisan14 - see U115.

Newton discovered that this fraud extended to deliberate corruptions of the bible itself. So that the King James version of 1 John 5:7 even today is:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one (1 John 5 - King James Version).

Newton observed that: It is not read thus in the Syrian bible. Not by Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanas, Nazanianzen...Augustine, Beda and others. 

The Greek Interlinear version is:

7 Because there are three giving testimony (1 John 5 - UBS 3rd edition, Nestle Aland 26th edition)

The underlined part in the King James Version of 1 John 5:7 above is therefore a fraudulent addition to the Holy Scriptures by, well, Satan basically.

Newton found a second corrupted text at 1 Timothy 3:16. The KJV has:

16 And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Timothy 3 - KJV).

The word 'God' is not in the original Greek, rather it is 'Who'. The Greek Interlinear version is:

16 And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in spirit, was seen by angels, was proclaimed among Gentiles, was believed in [the] world, was taken up in glory (1 Timothy 3 UBS 3rd Edition, Nestle Aland 26th Edition).

The Definition of the Trinity:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, the trinity section of which can be found at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm defines the trinity as follows:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed:

 "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." 

In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

This is illogically defined and therefore not defined and therefore non existent (any pure mathematician will see that as Newton did). There are 3 inconsistencies in the definition:

1. That God is three independent beings who are one being
2. Jesus is God and the father is God. So the Father is the Son
3. The Son is uncreated

1 It is not possible for three oranges to be one orange.
2 It is not possible for a Father to be a Son, this contradicts the definitions of both father and son. The son is defined as an offspring of a father not an 'onspring' as it were.
3 Sons are by definition created by their fathers, a son cannot be uncreated.

The trinity is a Hotel in North London with a South London Postcode (There is no such Hotel). The trinity is an odd number which is divisible by two (There is no such number). The trinity has a size that is three times larger than one yet equal to one (There is no such size).

A son has to be created, and so since the trinity defines a son as being uncreated, it defines nothing.

Three does not equal one, since the trinity defines three as being to one, it defines nothing.

At this point any reader who has studied either Mathematics or Logic will not need to read any further to know that the trinity just does not exist. 

Basically the Trinity is defined as a number that is both less than two and more than two. Obviously there is no such number. The Trinity is like a hotel in North London which is situated South of the Thames. Obviously there is no such hotel. But when the poor uneducated, logically uninitiated, spiritually naive, churchgoer complains, saying: How can this be? He is told by his priest: Aha! that is the mystery of God. God can put a hotel which is in North London in a South London postcode. God can make a number that is larger than 2 actually be less than 2. At which point the poor naive churchgoer gives up and says to himself. Wow! I will never understand God, I had better leave the understanding of him to my priest. This of course is the precise effect that the priest wants. Now he can continue to play God to his congregation.

Isaac Newton used arguments such as these to King James when he persuaded the King to waive his obligation as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge to sign an attestation to the Trinity (Newton - Cohen & Westfall, Isaac Newton - Michael White, The life of Isaac Newton - Westfall) for Newton's own arguments.  There is no Trinity in the Catholic Church sense. This is not a trivial matter. In the days of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) both the Catholic Church and the Church of England were infected by this deception. This meant that every Christian in England was an idolater of a non existent illogical contrivance of man (or of Satan). Newton knew this and it caused him very serious psychological problems indeed. He thought he was in the position of Elijah, the only one left who had not bent the knee to Baal, a false God. Paul explains:

2 God did not reject his people, whom he first recognized. Why, do you not know what the Scripture says in connection with Elijah, as he pleads with God against Israel?
3 Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have dug up your altars, and I alone am left, and they are looking for my soul.
4 Yet, what does the divine pronouncement say to him? I have left 7,000 men over for myself, [men] who have not bent the knee to Baal.
5 In this way, therefore, at the present season also a remnant has turned up according to a choosing due to undeserved kindness (Romans 11)

The remnant in Paul's day were the Jews who became Christians, by virtue of their understanding of the scriptures, and their faith in Jesus. Newton believed that the Christians in his day were facing the same problem that the Jews both in Paul's day and in Elijah's day were facing. He was right. 

The Trinity is a Brainwashometer

Aristotle's influence over the field of Science, by virtue of the weight of his authority and reputation, was so powerful that it actually retarded the growth of science for almost 2,000 years. His law of motion was:

Any object in motion will not continue in motion unless acted upon perpetually by an outside force. (Aristotle)

This law was widely accepted until Isaac Newton came up with his first law of motion which said precisely the opposite, namely...

Any object in motion will continue in motion perpetually unless acted upon by an external force. (Sir Isaac Newton)

The point we are making here is not that Newton made a massive contribution to physics when he invented Newtonian Dynamics. It is that by raising the status of dead academics or theologians to that of human God's we become idolaters of them, and we freeze mankind's advancement. We fossilize our understanding. Unquestioned human authority has no place in sincere scientific or in theological research. It was not the scientific brilliance of Aristotle's daft law of motion that held it in acceptance by mankind for 2 millennia. It was his status, his reputation, his authority, his stature in the pantheon of mummified idols worshipped by the mediocre mafia of science and theology.

There was a fantastic episode of Star Trek Next Generation (Season 6, Episode 11, Chain of command II), where Captain Jean Luc Picard was captured by the Cardassians and tortured for information by Gul Madred. The procedure that the Cardassians employed was very simple. They shone 4 lights at him and asked him: How many lights do you see? He said: Four. Gul Madred falsely represented that there were 5. The aliens would then give him pain and torture every time Picard said that there were 4 lights, and then ask him the question again. To cut a long story short he never broke and continued to represent throughout the entire process that there were precisely 4 lights. When he was rescued by his ship mates they all congratulated him on his unbreakable will power and strength and told him what a great captain he was, and what a wonderful example to the crew he had set. But Jean Luc confided to one of the crew just how much he desperately wanted to convince himself that there were 5 lamps. He said that he was minutes away from cracking and agreeing that 4 was 5. Of course once he agrees to that, he has lost his objectivity and it is game over. You can get anything you want from him. The plot is an adaption of George Orwell's 1984 where O'Brien tortures Winston by holding up 4 fingers in front of his face and then insisting that there are 5.

The trinity is therefore a 'Brainwashometer'. If the victim is prepared to believe that one is three and that a father is his own son and that a son is uncreated, then he is prepared to believe anything at all and so he is fully brainwashed. Once he is in this condition, his logic is removed, his objectivity has gone, he is mentally defenceless, so he or his family can be pumped for money, sex, status, worship, whatever the priest wants.

So by making the trinity doctrine the central doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith, that church was auto selecting brainwashed people. The control freak only wants brainwashed people. He cannot permit free thinkers to enter the congregation, they might see through his little game and liberate his brainwashed victims. It is a pleasure to be able to reveal the truth behind this despicable mind game that the Roman Catholic Church has relied on for 1700 years. 

Just for fun, we list umpteen scriptures that prove that Jesus was not God and that the Holy spirit was not Jesus and not God...

Buster 0

The holy spirit led Jesus into the Wilderness to be tested by Satan:

1 Then Jesus was lead by the spirit up into the Wilderness to be [peirazw] tempted/tried/tested by Satan (Matthew 4).

But 6 verse later Jesus quotes the law of Moses at Deuteronomy 6:16 saying...

7 Jesus said to him, Again it has been written: "You shall not tempt [the] Lord your God."  (Matthew 4 GLT)
7 Jesus said to him: Again it is written: You must not put the Lord, thy God to the test (Matthew 4 LWT)

If Jesus was God, then the Holy Spirit has led Jesus into sin, since God must not be tested. The Holy Spirit cannot do that. So Jesus is not God.


 32 For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him, but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come (Matthew 12).

So the holy spirit and the Son are not co-equal and are different beings.


15 He said to them: You, though, who do you say I am?
16 In answer Simon Peter said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 In response Jesus said to him: Happy you are, Simon, son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did (Matthew 16).

So God revealed it not Jesus, so they are two different spirits.


23 He said to them: You will indeed drink my cup, but this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father (Matthew 20).

So God and Jesus have separate possessions.


18 Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God (Mark 10).

So God is good and Jesus is not, so they are different people with different characters and different levels of righteousness.


36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24).

So God knows things that Jesus does not know. So they have no 'unity of Godhead'.


1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God. Exercise faith also in me (John 14).

Two different beings to put your faith in.


28 You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming [back] to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am (John 14).

So the two of them are not co-equal then.


42 saying: Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let not my will, but yours take place (Luke 22).

So God and Jesus have two different wills. So there is no 'unity of Godhead'.


41 Therefore they took the stone away. Now Jesus raised his eyes heavenward and said: Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
42 True, I knew that you always hear me; but on account of the crowd standing around I spoke, in order that they might believe that you sent me forth (John 11).

So God sent Jesus forth, and God himself remained entirely in heaven whilst Jesus was on the earth.


9 You must pray, then, this way: Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (Matthew 6).

Jesus himself was entirely on earth and God was entirely in heaven when he said this!

Buster11 (we were enjoying ourselves so much)!

46 About the 9th hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27).

One cannot easily forsake oneself can one! The Father was God of the son. The son was not God of the father. This was one of Sir Isaac Newton's anti trinity arguments.

As a final argument, if it is true that Jesus and God are the same person, then Jesus talked to himself in public, and prayed to himself in private and so was in fact a schizophrenic. This is plainly a false insult both to God and to his Son.

Buster12 (and another thing...)

16 The one alone having immortality [aqanasian], dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no one of men has seen, nor is able to see (1 Timothy 6).

Literally aqanasian means 'without death'. So God has not died and will never die. Whereas of course Jesus has died. Therefore Jesus is not God - QED.

Buster13 (why stop?)

5 So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him: You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.
6 Just as he says also in another place: You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.
7 In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear.
8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered;
9 and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him,
10 because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5)

One cannot be a priest of oneself. Jesus must be a different person to God in order that he can be God's priest. Just as Melchizedek was a different person to God. God became Jesus' father again by saving him out of death, by resurrecting him.


23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.
24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power (1 Corinthians15).

How do you hand over something to yourself?

Buster 15

10 I was cast on You from the womb, from My mother's belly, You are My God (Psalm 22 - GLT)

David is speaking as Jesus here (hence JP Green uses a capital Y for 'you'. Jesus does not say: I am my God. He says: You are my God.

Buster 16

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. (John 1 KJVi)
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. (John 1 NWT)
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares [Him]. (John 1 GLT)
18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare. (John 1 YLT)
18 God no one has seen ever; the only-begotten son, that being in the bosom of the Father, he has made known. (John 1 ED)
18 God no one has seen at any time; only-begotten god the (one) being into the bosom of the Father that (one) explained. (John 1 KIT)
18 qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ monogenh.j qeo.j o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j evkei/noj evxhgh,satoŇ (John 1 UBS4)
18 qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ o` monogenh.j ui`o.j o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro,j( evkei/noj evxhgh,satoŇ (John 1 TIS)
18 qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ o` monogenh.j ui`o,j( o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j evkei/noj evxhgh,sato (John 1 STE)
18 Qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,rake pw,pote\ o` monogenh.j ui`o,j( o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro,j evkei/noj evxhgh,satoŇ (John 1 SCR)
18 Qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ o` monogenh.j ui`o,j( o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro,j( evkei/noj evxhgh,satoŇ (John 1 BYZ)
18 Qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ monogenh.j qeo.j o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j evkei/noj evxhgh,satoŇ (John 1 NA27)
18 Qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote monogenh.j qeo.j o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro,j√ evkei/noj evxhgh,satoŇ (John 1 TRE)
18 qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ monogenh.j qeo.j o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j evkei/noj evxhgh,sato (John 1 WHO)
18 qeon oudeij ewraken pwpote monogenhj qeoj eij to kolpon tou patroj ekeinoj exhghsato (John 1 SCSa)
18 qeon oudeij ewraken pwpote monogenhj qeoj o wn eij ton kolpon tou patroj ekeinoj exhghsato (John 1 VatB)

The term only begotten (literally - only generated) God sinks the trinity completely unless you buy the concept that a son can be begotten/generated without being created which is an abuse of language. 

The Sinaiticus, the VaticanB and the Syriac Peshitta have only begotten God. The Alexandrinus has only begotten son. The Codex Bezae has John 1:17 to John 3:15 missing and comes in with the only begotten son of John 3:16 - How convenient!

The Alexandrinus is 5th century, whereas the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are 4th century codices. The Syriac Peshitta is 5th century but was translated from the Hebrew is the 1st or second century it is believed. http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?verse=John+1:18&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta

No one corrupts a text to fit a doctrine that they do not have. So it must be the Alexandrinus that was corrupted to fit the trinity doctrine.

Buster 17

The trinity defines God as being three persons in one being. But this is 3 spirits in one soul which is demonic. Also God is a spirit said Jesus, and we must worship him in spirit and truth. Jesus did not say that God is 3 spirits!

24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. (John 4 KJVi)
24 God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth. (John 4 NWT)

For more Trinity Busting Fun please visit https://www.jewishlordswitness.com/the-trinity.html

Buster 18

The trinity supporting corruptions of Colossians 2:2

2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; (Colossians 2 King James)
2 that their hearts may be comforted, that they may be harmoniously joined together in love and with a view to all the riches of the full assurance of [their] understanding, with a view to an accurate knowledge of the sacred secret of God, namely, Christ. (Colossians 2 New World)
2 that their hearts may be comforted, being joined together in love, and to all riches of the full assurance of the understanding, to [the] full knowledge of the mystery of God, even of [the] Father and of Christ, (Colossians 2 GLT)
2 in order that might be comforted the hearts of them, having been made to go together in love and into all riches of the fully being borne of the comprehension, into accurate knowledge of the mystery of the God, of Christ, (Colossians 2 Kingdom Interlinear)
2 that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, that they may know the mystery of God, [even] Christ, (Colossians 2 ASV)
2 that their hearts may be comforted, being united in love, and to all riches of the full assurance of the understanding, to the full knowledge of the secret of the God and Father, and of the Christ, (Colossians 2 Young's Literal)
2 that their hertes myght be conforted and knet togedder in love and in all ryches of full vnderstondynge for to knowe the mistery of God the father and of Christ (Colossians 2 TYN)
2 that their hearts may be comforted, and that they, by love, may come to all the riches of assurance, and to the understanding of the knowledge of the mystery of God the Father, and of the Messiah, (Colossians 2 Syriac Peshitta)
2 so that may be comforted the hearts of them, being knit together in love and for all wealth of the full conviction of the understanding, in order to an exact knowledge of the secret of the God; (Colossians 2 Emphatic Diaglott)
2 i[na paraklhqw/sin ai` kardi,ai auvtw/n( sumbibasqe,ntwn evn avga,ph|( kai. eivj pa,nta plou/ton th/j plhrofori,aj th/j sune,sewj( eivj evpi,gnwsin tou/ musthri,ou tou/ Qeou/ kai. patro.j kai. tou/ Cristou/( (Colossians 2 Scrivener- Textus Receptus)
2 i?na paraklhqwsin ai kardiai autwn sumbibasqentej en agaph kai eij pan ploutoj thj plhroforiaj thj sunesewj eij epignwsin tou musthriou tou qeou patroj Cristou (Colossians 2 Sinaiticus)
2 ina paraklhqwsin ai kardiai autwn sumbibasqentej en agaph kai eij pan to ploutoj thj plhroforiaj thj sunesewj eij epignwsin tou musthriou tou qeou patroj tou cristou
(Colossians 2 Alexandrinus)
2 ina paraklhqwsin ai kardiai autwn sumbibasqentej en agaph kai eij pan ploutoj thj plhroforiaj thj sunesewj eij epignwsin tou musthriou tou qeou cristou
(Colossians 2 Vatican B)
2 ina paraklhqwsin ai kardiai autwn sunbibasqentej en agaph kai eij pan to ploutoj thj plhroforiaj thj sunesewj eij epignwsin tou musthriou tou qeou patroj tou cristou
(Colossians 2 Ephraemi Rescriptus)
2 ina paraklhqwsin ai kardiai autw? sunbibasqentej en agaph eij panta ton plouton thj plhroforiaj thj sunesewj eij epignwsin tou musthriou tou qeou o estin cristoj
(Colossians 2 Claromontanus)

The Sinaiticus, the Alexandrinus and the Rescriptus all have: musthriou tou qeou patroj $tou% cristou 

When these 3 uncial codices agree then we have the original text (3 main witnesses). The precise literal translation is: of the mystery of the God, (of) father of {the} Christ.

We today would say: of the mystery of God, (the) father of (the) Christ. 

But every single English translation denies God to be the father of the Christ. They do not like that idea at all, in circumstances where God himself said.

5 While he was yet speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and, look! a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him. (Matthew 17 NWT)

He did not approve himself you know.

Textus Receptus does mention the father but inserts two incidences of 'and' to read: of the mystery of the God and of father and of the Christ, which invents a non existent father other than God
Vatican B just omits the word father to read: of the mystery of the God (of) Christ, which could mean the God of Christ or could mean the God - Christ.
Claromontanus, the most corrupt of them all really goes for it - reading: of the mystery of the God the [one] being Christ.

This is what Paul means when he says...

12 For at present we see through an enigmatic mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known. (1 Corinthians 13)

A mirror if not seen through, just gives you a reflection of yourself. all those who read the scripture for the sole purpose of confirming a preconceived doctrine (such as the trinity) are just viewing a reflection of their own preconceptions. The art of bible interpretation is to permit the scriptures to lead you out of your preconceptions by looking through the mirror and letting the enigma of the scripture work on your mind.

Trinity Chestnuts

[1] If Jesus is not God then why does the King James Bible bible say:

2 And behold there came a leper and worshipped him saying: Lord if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean (Matthew 8).

Only God can be worshipped (or could be at that time), so Jesus must be God right? No, the Greek word prosekunei, can mean worship or simply pay homage to/do obeisance to. Obviously the leper was entreating Jesus, not worshipping him, his words show this. Another example of this Greek verb which the King James Bible also mistranslates as Worship but which plainly means 'paid homage to' is:

26 The servant then fell down and worshipped him saying: Lord have patience with me and I will pay thee all (Matthew 18).

Obviously the slave was not worshipping his master, as if such a master was God.

Newton's Destruction of the Roman Catholic Trinity Doctrine

Sir Isaac would have benefited from a modern Mathematics degree course at his university. He of course is the father of half of it, the Calculus/Analysis half. Although algebra and abstract symbolism (the other half of Pure Maths) are of more use in interpreting the bible (as far as we are aware). He would then have known, from the group theory lectures, instantly, that the Trinity, being illogically defined, is simply not defined and therefore non existent.

Newton, being a fellow at Trinity College Cambridge, was required to attest to his acceptance of the 39 articles of the Anglican Church, one of which was the doctrine of the Trinity. He was bothered about signing something which contained the Trinity that he had no evidence as to the truth of. So he applied his standard scientific and logical method to the issue of whether the Trinity was a true or false doctrine. This method is to read all of the available relevant literature on the subject, then assimilate it, think about it, kick it about, digest it and see if it makes sense, or if there is an underlying pattern or flaw in it. See if there is an underlying truth or an underlying lie. This method when applied to the bible is what we call the Jigsaw Principle.

Newton produced two knock out blows to the Trinity:

[1]    The Father is God of the son
[2]    It is defined illogically

We have covered the latter on these two. As regards the former. Newton used:

4 The Christ, who is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4).

9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners (Hebrews 1).

From this he reasoned that the Father was God of the Son. He could just as well have used Jesus' famous last words:

34 Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani, which means when translated: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (Mark 15).

Newton's observations and deductions came from reading most of the works of the early church fathers, (Irenaeus, Tertullan, Cyprian, Euasebius, Eutychius, Sulpitius Severus, Clement, Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Alexander of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Hilary, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo I, Victorinus Afer, Rufinus, Manentius, Prudentius, Ignatius, Justin, Augustine, Jerome etc), and from reading many manuscripts of the bible, and applying the Jigsaw Principle to them (finding an interpretation which logically harmonised them) were recorded in one of his early theological manuscripts (1672-1675):

1 The [word] God, is no where in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
2 The word 'God', put absolutely without particular reference to the Son or Holy Ghost, does always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
3 When ever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant of the Father.
4 It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father.
5 The son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which would be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
6 The son confesses the Father greater than him, calls him his God etc.
7 The son acknowledges the original pre-science of all future things to be in the Father alone.
8 The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints one with another. That is, in agreement of will and counsel.

Then Newton, who was by now the Lucasian professor of Mathematics at Trinity College, decided to go to King Charles II to seek a dispensation allowing him to remain as professor but withdraw his attestation. He prepared his arguments as above to present to the King of England to save his career. The King agreed and stipulated that all future holders of his chair were to be exempt from holy orders.

Newton believed that Godís works, his creation and Godís word, his book, the bible, were twinned. And that both were a riddle, a code to be cracked. Newton believed that cracking this code was a duty owed to God by man, in both cases (Isaac Newton, the last sorcerer - Michael White - But Newton was not a sorcerer, he was a true worshipper).

What Gordon finds so wonderful and yet so tragic, is that Newton succeeded in the case of Godís Universe in cracking the code. But he failed (notwithstanding a very valiant attempt) in the case of Godís word (he did believe that the bible was God's word). He died trying to decode the bible and find out when Armageddon was. His failure was not his fault. It was not Godís time from 1642-1727 to release that information. So what the true God did, who must have dearly desired to show Sir Isaac the whole of the holy code of the bible, was to let him see the entirety of the mechanical code behind his physical creation of the universe instead. It was all that his own justice would allow. And here God was, holding back his love for the sake of his justice. 

The date upon which mankind was first allowed to see the date of Armageddon was 1992February1, 1991Shebat21, 4600 solar days before 1290 biblical lunar days before it is to begin (Daniel 8 and Daniel 12 - see [157], [152]). This was the day upon which Gordon worked out the Exedenic Times, and it began the ĎTime of the endí. Which is the time of the knowledge of the true date of the end. And Gordon would like to say this: It was his appreciation of the perfection of the physical works of God as exhibited by Newton which convinced him that the bible, the spiritual work of God, since it shared that perfection, must be in a code.

So we have the dynamic code of the universe, as discovered by Newton. We have the genetic code of the human body, as discovered by Crick and Watson. And here at last is the grammatical code of the bible, as discovered by Gordon Ritchie, Tony Moore and Massoud Vakili as a result of the leadings of the true God, and on the realisation by Gordon that this God whom Newton showed him was perfect must have written a book every bit as perfect as his universe. A realisation which unknown to Gordon at the time he had it, had hit Newton some 300 years earlier. So here we are, the 3 groups of wonder decoders, Cambridge men in all 3 groups. Let us all therefore, with God's help through Jesus, finish the work that Newton, the Father of all three Cambridge divine code breaking groups began (Please do not ask if we are the real trinity!)

For the precise nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit - see [14]. Here is some of Sir Isaac Newton's Chronology, deduced in the late 17th and early 18th century, mainly from Daniel 9 and Daniel 12. 

1948  Second Coming of Christ
1944 End of the great tribulation of the Jews
1899 Call to return to Jerusalem
1638-9 Church of Rome's spiritual domination ends
609-800 Period during which the Roman Catholic Church (Whore of Babylon) was at its peak
70 Transgression of desolation of Jerusalem
34 AD Death of Christ
2 BC Birth of Christ
456 BC The Jews return to Jerusalem

Although begun during the 1670's Newton continued his work of interpretation until the month of his death in 1727 (Isaac Newton - Michael White, the table above is from his book).

The table above is a quite amazing prophetic achievement for a man living around 1700 AD.