The Trinity is defined by the Athanasian Creed as "three divine persons,

Father, Son and Holy Spirti, in One God". It is therefore defined as the

central doctrine of the Christian religion. It is claimed by its supporters

that it is entirely based on the Holy Scripture and was taught by Jesus and

his apostles. Some even claim that it is taught in theHebrew Scriptures or

Old Testament.

Trinitarians admit that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible but

say that the teaching is clearly evident. However Isaac Newton, who was not

only a great scientist, but also a profound student of Holy Scripture,

quoted the apostle Paul's words reported in 2Timothy 1:13, "Keep holding the

pattern of healthful words that you heard from me". He said that it was not

enough to say that an article of faith can be argued from Scriptures. It

must be expressed in the same form of healthful words in which it was

pronounced by the apostles". - The Religion of Isaac Newton, page 54, 55

Yahuda Ms 15.1. fol. 11r.

The Trinity cannot be contended by using only "the pattern of healthful

words" which were used by Christ and his followers. As the Jesuit priest

John L. Mc Kenzie, SJ, says in his Dictionary of the Bible: "The Trinity of

persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and

'nature' which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not

appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the results of

long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and

'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians". - New

York, 1965, p. 899.

To my question whether you believe Christ to be God the Creator, you

answered, "Yes, that is what the Bible says" and "the Bible has Jesus doing

things that only God can do - like creating the Universe. Colossians 1:16

says that "by him all things were created" and "that the fullness of God

dwells in him". (verse 19)

You do not say from which version of the Bible you quote, but the New

Revised Standard Version (NRSV) does not say "by him", but "in him" which is

literally what the greek text says. However, the Good News Bible (GNB)

reads: "for through him God created everything ...". This concords with the

other Scripture you cited, namely Hebrews 1:2: "God has spoken to us by his

son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the

universe".

Now I think you must see that "in him" followed by a passive voice or

"through him" is not the same as "by him". "In him" or "through him" implies

that some one else did the work of creating using the Christ as his agent.

The GNB makes this very clear by translating it as "through him God created

...".

This indicates that God alone is Creator and the Son is his agent through

whom the universe was created. This agrees with Proverbs 8:22-30 which has

wisdom (understood by early church fathers as the prehuman Christ or Logos)

saying: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his works, the first of his

acts of long ago ... Then I was beside him as a master worker". (NRSV) This

clearly shows that the role of the Logos was not that of Creator which

belongs only to the Father, but of "master worker" ("master craftsman",

NKJV; "architect", GNB). An architect or master worker usually performs his

works under the direction of another, and it is that one, not the architect,

who is accredited with the work. For example, 1Kings 6:2 (NRSV) says: "The

house that Solomon built ...". Now when you read those words do you see in

your mind's eye Solomon, trowel in hand working alone on the Temple building

site? Of course not, the material work was done by others, but it is Solomon

who is said to have built the Temple. Likewise although God created the

universe through (or "in") his Son, creation is ascribed to God, not to the

Son. In fact Genesis 1:2b states: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our

image ...'".In the light of Col. 1:16 and Prov. 8:22-30 we have to desume

that God was speaking to his Son. But note he says "Let us make" (heb.

"asan"), not "Let us create" (heb. "barah").

So when the Son's participation is spoken of the verb create is carefully

avoided, but the next verse (27) the verb "create", in the single number, is

used to indicate that only God create man, "so God created man in his image"

. So whereas both Father and Son were involved in the making of man only God

is credited with man's creation. The word "creator" is never applied to

Christ (or the Logos) in the Bible and the verb create never has Christ (or

the Logos) as a subject.

To say that "Jesus in his prehuman existence was created by God" may be the

arian position as you observe, but it also happens to be what the Bible

teaches. Proverbes 8:22 has "wisdom" saying: "The Lord (YHWH in hebrew)

created me". (NRSV) However, I do not consider myself an arian because my

belief that only Father is true God comes from reading the Bible not from

reading the writing of Arius. It is also interesting that many of the 2nd

and 3rd century church Fathers taught a doctrine almost identical to that of

Arius, but were not considered by their fellow believers tobe heretics. Does

notthis show that doctrinal changes had taken place by Arius' day? It is

also interesting that the mayority of the bishops convened at Nicea were,

more or less, of the same view as Arius but were overruled by Costantine's

officious interference and his threats of exile for dissidents.

In order to deny that "firstborn of all creation" means that Jesus was

created by God, despite this is what he says in Proverbs 8:22, you say that

"in ancient society the firstborn had certain privileges of rank and

authority in the family". However, to say this is to miss the point. The

meaning of firstborn is first child of its parents any extention of this

meaning derives from the original, not the contrary. Another point to seems

to have escaped your (and others') notice, namely that the firstborn is

always first of a group, a family or whatever, of which he is always part.

You yourself cite Colossians 1:18 which calls Christ "firstborn from among

the dead". Now, did Christ die? Of course, the answer must be yes, he died

for our sins. So Christ, for part of 3 days, was one of the dead (see Rev.

1:18). He was therefore one of the group of whom he is firstborn. It also

means that he was the first from among the dead to rise never to die again.

By the same logic "firstborn of all creation" means that he is part of the

group (creation) of which he is the firstborn. It implies that he is both

first in time and rank. God has made him head of all thing but as 1Cor.

15:27 point out God is an exception to "all things". So Christ has a

firstborn son's privileges and rank because he is just that God's firstborn

Son! If you can show me a scripture where a firstborn (of whatever group) is

completely distinct from the group, I will be happy to consider it.

Furthermore if "firstborn of all creation" apply only to rank then surely

the Father (not to mention the Holy Spirit) should also be called "firstborn

of all creation". Do you agree? Why then is only the Son called so?

But even if we were to limit the meaning of "firstborn" in Christ's case to

rank alone it would still imply a subordinate position to the Father in so

much as in ancient society the firstborn son did not hold the supreme

position within family arangement, that belonged to the father alone.

You also cite Colossians 1:19 "all the fullness of God dwells in him", as a

proof that Jesus is God from all eternity and fully equal to God the Father.

But does it prove that? Not if we take into consideration the context. "For

in him, the complete being of God, by God's own choice, came to dwell".

(NEB) So whatever the full import of 'the complete being of God (or fullness

of God)' dwelling in Christ is, it has not always done so because Paul spoke

of it as being by God's own choice. Choice or decision implies the moment of

making such a choice or decision, a beginning so far from teaching that

Christ is God from all eternity it teaches the opposite, namely that there

was a time when such fullness did not yet exist in him. So the Son, unlike

the Father, is not "from everlasting to everlasting ... God". (Paslm 90:2)

Furthermore Colossians 2:7 says that this same fullness will dwell in

christians through Christ. Does this mean that Trinity will become polinity?

You admit in your letter that there is a distinction betwenn the Father and

the Son and that the NT preserves that distinction. As I pointed out in my

last letter "ho Theos" is used only of the Father, never of the Son. Infact

the word "Theos" (not "ho Theos") is used of the Son unequivocately only in

John'sGospel. It is never used in the synnoptic Gospels. But did John intend

to say that Christ was YHWH when he said : "the Word was God"? No, because

after saying that the 'Word was with (the) God' he carefully left out the

definite article when saying "the Word was God". Also in verse 18 it clearly

says that 'no one ever seen God'. Now if Christ were what he intended to

teach in verse 1 why would he then say that "no one has ever seen God" since

many men saw Christ?

Furthermore since the greek makes a distinction between "ho Theos" and

"Theos" in John 1:1 why do most english language (as well as italian)

translations not show this distinction in some way. Is it not rather

dishonest on their part to translate both as "God" as though they were

identical in greek. A few exceptions are, among others, NEB and Moffat's;

the latter has "the Logos was divine". Isaiah 9:6 fortless that the Messiah

"is named ... mighty God". But that did not induce the people of Israel to

expect Yahweh in person, so why should it induce us to eqaute Christ with

Yahweh.

This brings me to the point where you say I was going "beyond what John

10:34 says". I never said that the unjust judges were literally gods or that

Bible says this, but only that if humans could be called gods because they h

ad been invested with authority by God, the the calling of Son God ("Theos")

doesnot imply equality with God the Father ("ho Theos"), or what he is

Yahweh. I submit that the very few times "Theos" is used of Christ does not

eqaute him with the God ("ho Theos") but denotes his qualities and rank

above all others, but done the less subordinate to God. (John 14:28; 1Cor.

11:3; 15:28)

It is interesting that in investing Moses with authority God said: "I have

made you as God to Pharaon, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet". -

Exodus 7:1 (NKJV). Does that make Moses Yahweh or equal to him? Also in

Psalm 8:5 angels are called "elohim": "gods". (See note on this one in NRSV

where is gives as possible translation "divine beings" or "angels". The

quotation of this psalm in Hebrew 2:7 translates "elohim" as "angels". See

also LXX.) This shows that angels can also be called "gods"; if angels can

be called "elohim" without the psalmist being accused of politheism why can

the Son not be called "God" without his being equated with Yahweh?

In answer to my reference to McKenzie's Dictionary you argued that "if the

'word was a divine being' in the words of the Dictionary, would that not

mean yhat the Logos was also God?" In answer I would again refer you to note

on Psalm 8:5 (NRSV) where the same expression "divine beings" is applied to

ones who are understood to be angels. Soagain I submit that the Son's being

defined as a 'divine being' (McKenzie's translation of John's anarthrous

"Theos") does not equate him with the God with whom he is said to be, either

in person or in rank.

If Jesus were in the truest sens "God", that is equal to his Father, how

could he call the Father, in prayer, "the only true God"? (John 17:3) The

Trinity may affirm that God is both one and yet three, but I am afraid the

Bible doesn't. It only says: "The Lord is God, the Lord is one!" (Deut. 6:4;

see also Mk 12:29) It never says "The Lord -or God - is three". If the

Trinity were true this would seem a sin of ommission on the part of the Holy

Spirit, don't you agree? So why not accept only what the Bible says, that

the Lord (YHWH in hebrew) is God, The Lord is one, and John statement that

his gospel was "written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the

Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31)

and leave it at that?

In order not to write too long a letter I have held back further comments on

your letter, if you wish I would be only too happy to do so in another

letter.

Sincerely, Matteo Pierro.