Join Now

JOIN TODAY!

Meet new people from all over the world, make friends, change your status, upload photos, earn points, & so much more! Chat, post comments or questions on our forum, or send private emails to your friends! There is so much to do and Learn here at World's Last Chance! Join our growing Christian Community Today and receive your Free Gift!

or sign in with your account below:

eCourses Completion Status

1 Timothy 2:5 | Exposing The False Trinity Doctrine

The King James Version (KJV) is mostly used in these lessons. Click here to access the KJV online.
Click here to start the quiz

For there is one G-d [Yahuwah], and there is one mediator between G-d [Yahuwah] and men, the man Christ Yahushua. (1 Timothy 2:5)

Proof of the Trinity Error

Paul identifies Yahushua as someone who is necessarily not the one G-d [Yahuwah].

The Evidence: The Definition of a Mediator

A mediator is by definition someone who mediates for two parties. A mediator is an identity who is in the middle between two other identities. By definition a mediator is neither of the two other parties for whom he mediates. This is true whether either of those two parties are single individuals or an identifiable group. A mediator cannot be the same identity. as the other two identities for whom he mediates. This definition shows that Yahushua is not to be identified as the one G-d [Yahuwah] in this passage. Yahushua mediates between two other parties: (1) the one G-d [Yahuwah], and (2) men/humanity. Moreover, we are told that the mediator between G-d [Yahuwah] and men, is the "man" Yahushua.

The Trinitarian Response

The Trinitarian response is a word game designed to trick others and confuse the reality of the situation. It usually takes the following form:

"But by this reasoning Jesus cannot be a man, either; yet this very text says he is a man!" - (Robert Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, p.73).

Bowman is arguing that if anyone argues that Yahushua cannot be the one G-d [Yahuwah] in this verse, then to be consistent is not a man either. In other words, their argument is that you can't say Yahushua is not the one G-d [Yahuwah] or you can't say he is a man either.

This is enough to trick people but it is false.

There are two things wrong with this response. First, it completely disregards a certain fact. It disregards the fact that a mediator is by definition an identity which is neither of the other two identities for whom he mediates. Second, the argument is a deceptive fallacy because it suggestively plants the idea in your mind that the argument in question is that Yahushua is mediating between the one G-d [Yahuwah] and "a man." But that is not what Paul said. Yahushua is not mediating between one G-d [Yahuwah] and "a man." He is mediating between the one G-d [Yahuwah] and MEN. Hence, if we argue that this verse shows Yahushua is not the one G-d [Yahuwah] for whom he mediates, then we would need to consistently argue that this verse shows Yahushua is not the MEN for whom he mediates. And yes, that is what we would argue.

This Trinitarian argument is just a deceptive tactic to nullify Paul's words by confusing the facts and dupe people. Trinitarians are not interested in what Paul's words really mean. They are only interested in their doctrinal idol, the Trinity, and nullifying anything which suggests they are wrong. So, they come up with arguments like this to try and nullify the impact of Paul's words. However, as we have seen, their response is fallacious. We do not need to consistently argue Yahushua is not a man. We need to consistently argue Yahushua is not the group of MEN for whom he mediates. And he isn't. Yahushua is not the one G-d [Yahuwah] for whom he mediates and Yahushua is not the men for whom he mediates.

"False prophets also arose among the people just as there will also be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive heresies.... they will exploit you with well-turned words." (2 Peter 2:1-3)

[BREAK]

By definition, a Mediator cannot be either of the other two parties by identity. And Yahushua is not either of the other two parties by identity. He is not the "one G-d [Yahuwah] " for whom he mediates and he is not the "men" for whom he mediates.

[BREAK]

The 3 Identities are: (1) The One G-d [Yahuwah]; (2) The man Yahushua; (3) Many Men.

By definition,
(1) The One G-d [Yahuwah]: Yahushua cannot be this identity.

By definition,
(2) The man Yahushua: Yahushua must be this identity.

By definition,
(3) Many Men: Yahushua cannot be this identity.

Conclusion

The passage clearly shows Yahushua to be a distinct identity from both the group of men and the one G-d [Yahuwah] mentioned in this verse. He is neither of those two parties for whom he mediates since he mediates between those parties. G-d [Yahuwah] is someone else. Yahushua is indeed a rightful mediator between the one G-d [Yahuwah] and [all] men in his risen glory. However, that is quite beside the point.

The Trinitarian response, and variations therefor, are complete fallacies because they introduce new extraneous ideas into the argument which were not there in the first place.

Yahushua is not mediating between a divine nature and human nature but between two identities. Neither is Yahushua mediating between the "one G-d [Yahuwah]" and "a man."

Yahushua cannot be the one G-d [Yahuwah] because he mediating for that one G-d [Yahuwah] and there is only one G-d [Yahuwah] in existence.

Neither can he be the group of men for whom he is mediating. And he isn't.

Finally, Yahushua cannot be one of the men for whom he mediates – because He is sinless!

Hence this passage is positive proof that Yahushua is not the one G-d [Yahuwah].

[BREAK]


Content removed at [BREAKS] above can be viewed in the links below: