Proof of the Trinity Error

Jesus is identified as someone who is necessarily not the one God

The Evidence

A mediator is by definition someone who mediates for two parties. And by definition he is neither of the two other identities in question but mediates between those two identities whether these two identities are single persons or groups of people. In this passage, we have a clear declaration that Jesus is not to be identified as the one God. And neither is he to be identified as the one group of "men" for whom he is mediating. There is one God and that one God here is distinguished from Jesus who is the mediator between this one God and the one group of men. He is also not the group of men for whom he mediates and neither can he be one of the group of men for whom he mediates. And he isn't. He is between these two identities and by definition cannot be either of these two other identities. In other words, this passage tells us the identity of this one God is an identity other than Jesus Christ since Jesus is the mediator between that one God and the one group of men. In the very same way, the men for whom Jesus mediates is an identity group other than Jesus Christ since Jesus is the mediator between that one God and that one group of men. Moreover, we are told that the mediator between God and men, is the "man" Jesus.

The Trinitarian Response

The Trinitarian response 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).

Essentially, Bowman is arguing that if one argues that Jesus cannot be the one God then to be consistent one must also argue Jesus is not a man. This sounds good on the surface doesn't it? But is it even true? No, it is a clever word trick.

This kind of word game trickery has duped many people. Most people actually fall for this kind of word trickery. Now we will see precisely how this word trick works and why it is a farce.

"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).

Exposing the Trinitarian Trickery

1. Nullifying Scripture for the sake of Tradition.

This Trinitarian response is simply designed to nullify Paul's words. It is common knowledge, both in the secular world, and in the Bible, that a Mediator is by definition, neither of the two other parties by identity for whom he mediates. This necessarily means Jesus simply cannot be the "one God" whom Paul mentions in this verse. Hence, Trinitarians need a way to nullify Paul's words and rob them of their meaning for the sake of their Trinitarian traditions.

2. The Basis of this Word Trick

This contrivance is nothing but a crafty ruse to distract you from what Paul actually said and attempt to nullify the fact that a mediator is in fact by definition neither of the two parties by identity for whom he mediates. Notice the Trinitarian response goes, "If you say..." or "If you argue..." and suggestively implies this is in fact your argument. But carefully observe what Bowman said above. He is suggestively implying that if someone argues that if Jesus is not the one God then one must also argue Jesus is not a man to be consistent. Now notice in the table below what Bowman has secretly introduced into the argument at hand.

1 Timothy 2:5
	Party 1	Party 3	Party 2
Identities in 1 Tim 2:5	One God by identity	Jesus the Mediator	Plural "Men"
What Bowman Introduces	"God"	Jesus the Mediator	A Man

Notice how Bowman secretly and suggestively introduces the notion that Jesus is mediating between the one God and "A man." But this is not the argument. Paul is not taking about Jesus mediating between the one God and "A man" nor is anyone making this argument. Nobody has to consistently argue that Jesus is not "a man" if they argue that Jesus is not the one God because nobody is saying Jesus mediates for "a man." Paul is clearly saying, however, that Jesus mediates for the "one God." The argument is that by definition Jesus cannot be either of the other two identities in question. And he isn't. What are the two identities in question in this verse for whom Jesus is mediating? Are these two parties, (1) the one God, and (2) "a man" as Bowman is suggesting? No! The two parties are: (1) the one God, and (2) plural "men." And this is the basis of the word trick used by Bowman.

It is vital that you see the basis of this word trick. Bowman's argument introduces an idea neither present in Paul's words nor present in the argument which non-Trinitarians are making. The argument is that Jesus cannot be the "one God" because by definition a mediator is a third party who is necessarily by definition neither of the other two parties by identity. The consistent argument then is to say that Jesus is ALSO not the "men" in this verse for whom Jesus mediates. But Bowman's response is designed to confuse people because if accepted as valid it suggestively rather implies that Jesus is mediating between two identities: (1) one God and (2) "A man." But the verse has nothing to do with Jesus mediating between the one God and a man and nobody is making such an argument. This is the basis of this word trick and you must understand it and see it clearly.

Hence Bowman's response should really be:

If you reason that Jesus cannot be the "one God" for whom he mediates then you must also consistently reason he is not the "men" for whom he mediates either!

And the answer to that question would be, "Yes, we would consistently reason in precisely that fashion."

3. Many "Men" but only "One God"

This verse refers to Jesus mediating between two parties, (1) the one God and (2) many "men." Jesus is the third party in view. By definition, a Mediator cannot be either of the other two parties by identity. And Jesus is not either of the other two parties by identity. He is not the "one God" for whom he mediates and he is not the "men" for whom he mediates. Neither is he one of the men for whom he mediates. He is not mediating for himself.

Jesus can indeed be a man and be a mediator between God and men. The reason Jesus can be a man is because there are many men and so he can mediate for many other men. There isn't any reason he cannot be a man and mediate for other men. Indeed, Paul here says explicitly that the mediator is "the MAN Jesus." However, Jesus cannot be the "one God" because there is only one God and not many Gods as is the case with men. And this is the reason Jesus cannot be the one God. There is only one of these beings called "God." On the other hand, there are many human beings.

If we said, "there is one King of the world, and one mediator between the King and all men, the man Jesus," it would be clear to everyone that Jesus is not the King. It would also be clear to everyone that there is no reason Jesus cannot be a man. And it would also be clear to everyone that Jesus cannot be the King in the same way because there is only one King and Jesus is not it. He is, rather, mediating for the one King, and by definition a mediator cannot be either party by identity.

1 Timothy 2:5
Party One	Mediator Third Party	Party Two
The One God	The man Jesus	Many Men
By definition, Jesus cannot be this identity	By definition, Jesus must be this identity	By definition, Jesus cannot be this identity

The Trinitarian response is nothing but word trickery and it is designed to try and nullify the fact that a mediator is by definition neither of the two parties for whom he mediates.

Therefore, for the Trinitarian to say "then you must also say Jesus cannot be a man either," is a complete farce because it changes what is being argued in the first place with the intention of nullifying the fact that a mediator is neither party in question. Jesus is not mediating for one man and one God. He is mediating between the one God and the one group of many men. By definition, he can't be either party by identity because a mediator is not either of the two parties by identity for whom he mediates. And he isn't either party. He isn't even one of the men in the group of men for whom he is mediating. Since there is only one God he cannot be that one God. And he isn't the group of men mentioned by Paul either. But this does not preclude Jesus from being a man. In other words, the reason Jesus cannot be the one God in this verse is because there is only one God and he is not Him. Rather he is the one mediator between that one God and the one group of men. But because there is more than one man in existence there is no reason he can't be a man. He just can't be one of the men or the one group of men for whom he is mediating. And he isn't. So we can clearly see here that Jesus is neither the many men or the one God by identity and this fulfills the definition of a Mediator. And we can also see the trickery of the Trinitarian response exposed for what it is.

Conclusion

The passage clearly shows Jesus to be a distinct identity from both the group of men and the one God mentioned in this verse. He is neither of those parties since he mediates between those parties. He is indeed a rightful mediator between the one God and man men in his risen glory. However, that is quite beside the point. Either of the two Trinitarian responses are complete fallacies because they introduce new extraneous ideas into the argument which were not there in the first place. Jesus is not mediating between divine nature and human nature but between two identities. Neither is Jesus mediating between the "one God" and "a man." Hence, the Trinitarian responses are obviously fallacious. Jesus cannot be the one God because he mediating for that one God and there is only one God in existence. Neither can he be the group of men, or one of the group of men, for he is mediating. But he can be one out of the many men and mediate for both those parties, the one God and the many men.

Hence this passage is positive proof that Jesus is not the one God.

How to Respond to Trinitarians

If you get the above response from Trinitarians, you should respond thusly:

"You are incorrect. I do not need to reason Jesus is not "a man." Paul is not talking about Jesus mediating between the one God and "a man." He is talking about Jesus mediating between two other parties by identity, the one God and plural "men." By definition a Mediator cannot be either of the two other parties for whom he is mediating and he isn't. He isn't the one God by identity for whom he is mediating and he isn't the group of men by identity for whom he is mediating nor is he one of the group of men for whom he is mediating. He can't be the one God because there is only ONE God in existence. But he can be a man because there are MANY men in existence and one man out of all men can be appointed by God as a Mediator for all other men. And it is for this reason Paul says that the Mediator is "the MAN Jesus."

If you get this response from Trinitarians:

"If you reason that Jesus cannot be "God" then you must consistenly reason Jesus cannot be "human" either."

then you should respond thusly:

"You are incorrect. I do not need to reason Jesus is not "human." Paul is not talking about Jesus mediating between divine natures and human natures. He is talking about Jesus mediating between two other parties who are identities, not natures, and those two identities are the one God and plural men. By definition a Mediator cannot be either of the two other parties for whom he is mediating and he isn't. He isn't the one God for whom he is mediating and he isn't the men for whom he is mediating. He can't be the one God because there is only ONE God in existence. But he can be a man because there are MANY men in existence and one man out of all men can be appointed by God as a Mediator for all other men. And it is for this reason Paul says that the Mediator is "the MAN Jesus."

Last Updated: March 24, 2011