DOWNLOAD to SAVE as a PDF Doc to read OFFLINE.


In part 1 of this study we covered three heretical ANTI-CHRIST doctrines in their chronological order as the ORDER in which they crept into the church. We saw how the doctrine that Almighty God Himself became the Son as being the first heresy concerning the NATURE of Jesus that crept into the church. Obviously, the Judaizing Christians were the first heretical Christians. But this series of studies is focused on the nature of Jesus DURING the days of his flesh and the NEW NATURE of Jesus AFTER the cross and resurrection.

Trinitarian Christians have often quoted Tertullian as the “father” or the founder of the “teaching” of the Trinity Godhead. And while it is true that later on in life, Tertullian did eventually teach a FORM of a Trinity God, he did NOT teach that Jesus was CO-EQUAL and CO-ETERNAL with Almighty God the Father.

Let us now begin part 2 of this study by taking a closer look at what Tertullian ACTUALLY taught so that you can see for yourself that what Tertullian taught at FIRST was the Apostles’ doctrine. But then Tertullian slowly changed and evolved in what he believed over the course of time debating over who Jesus is in relation to the Father. Here are some quotes taken from the writings of Tertullian. The emphasis is mine. What I highlight is yellow is the INTENDED truth according to Jesus and his Apostles. The color yellow also represent the Son of God during the days of his FLESH BEFORE the cross and resurrection. The church was called the WAY before they were called Christians. Now, what I highlight in green is false teaching. And what I highlight in blue is the sound Biblical truth. The color blue also represents the now highly exalted Son of Man, Jesus, AFTER God glorified him and made him Lord, according the Acts 2:36. And what I highlight in orange refers to Almighty God the Father.




“Hold fast in the meantime this persuasion, while I examine a question which comes in our way. For I already hear it is said, that many other things as well as crowns have been invented by those whom the world believes to be gods, and that they are notwithstanding to be met with both in our PRESENT usages AND in those of EARLY saints, and in the service of God, and in Christ Himself, who did His work as MAN by no other than these ordinary instrumentalities of HUMAN life. Well, let it be so; nor shall I inquire any further back into the origin of these things.”

Here we see, that at FIRST, Tertullian believed what Jesus and his Apostles teach us in the New Testament, which is that during the days of his FLESH, Jesus was full HUMAN and had no divine nature of his own.

Then in the same book in chapter 9, Tertullian is teaching against Christians wearing CROWNS as an OBLIGATION having explained to them that wearing crowns is not taught by the Apostles of Jesus. Tertullian teaches that Jesus did NOT obtain his crown of glory until AFTER the cross and resurrection, which agrees with what the Apostles of Jesus teach us in Hebrews 2:9.


“...perhaps also with gems and gold, so as to even rival that crown of Christ which He afterwards obtained. For it was after the gall He tasted the honeycomb and He was not greeted as King of Glory in heavenly places till He had been condemned to the cross as King of the Jews, having first been MADE by the Father for a time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and honor.


So then, at first, Tertullian taught the Apostle’s doctrine, which is that God made or formed Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary a little lower and inferior to the angels to suffer the cross. And then, because of the OBEDIENCE of His human Son, God CROWNED the human Jesus with honor and glory AFTER the cross and resurrection.

Let me say that again. At first, Tertullian believed that Jesus was a MAN with no other than ORDINARY instrumentalities of HUMAN life. And at first, Tertullian taught that it was AFTER the cross and resurrection that the HUMAN Jesus was CROWNED with glory and honor by his God and Father. And Tertullian says this is what the EARLY saints taught

So then, at that time in Tertullian’s life, he believed and taught a human Jesus whose God and Father is the Divine Spirit. Also, notice that Tertullian taught that Jesus was PROMOTED by God after the cross to be SET in heavenly places, which agrees with what the Bible ITSELF teaches us.

Same book as above in CHAP. XV.

For Christ Jesus has made us even kings to God and His Father. What do you have in common with the flower which is to die? You have a flower in the Branch of Jesse, upon which the grace of the Divine Spirit in all its fullness rested--a flower undefiled, unfading, everlasting, by choosing which the good soldier, too, has got promotion in the heavenly ranks.

I do not have a quote for you, but the early church writers understood and taught that the Holy Spirit coming down as a dove was the “Christ” or the ANOINTING that RESTED on the Son of MAN, Jesus at his baptism. So when the early saints, as in the very Apostles of Jesus said, “Christ came in the flesh”, they INTENDED their words to mean the ANOINTING from God came down from heaven in the form of a dove to dwell in the flesh of the Son of MAN, Jesus. And that is exactly what the Bible itself teaches us in simplicity. God DWELT in the Son of MAN Jesus who could do NOTHING of himself, according to John 5:19. And according to John 14:10, it was Almighty God the Father who dwelt in the Son of MAN, Jesus. So then, it was the Holy Spirit who came in the FLESH and not a so-called pre-existing God the Son who came in the flesh by BECOMING flesh.

Here are some other quotes from Tertullian that teaches us that at FIRST Tertullian taught AGAINST the teaching the idea that God is a Trinity Godhead. Tertullian even calls those who teach the idea of God being a Trinity as being heretics.





Now, if the soul possessed this uniform and simple nature from the beginning in Adam, previous to so many mental dispositions (being developed out of it), it is not rendered multiform by such various development, nor by the triple form predicated of it in "the Valentinian trinity" (that we may still keep the condemnation of that heresy in view), for not even this nature is discoverable in Adam. What had he, that was spiritual? Is it because he prophetically declared "the great mystery of Christ and the church?" "This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman. Therefore, shall a man leave his father and mother, and he shall cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh." But this (gift of prophecy) only came on him AFTERWARDS, when God INFUSED into him the ecstasy, or spiritual quality, in which prophecy consists…

(The heretics whom we have referred to) deny that nature is susceptible of any change, in order that they may be able to establish and settle their threefold theory, or "trinity," in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because "a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles."...

Now, that there does exist within us naturally this independent authority (to autexousion), we have already shown in opposition both to Marcion and to Hermogenes. If, then, the natural condition has to be submitted to a definition, it must be determined to be twofold--there being the category of the born and the unborn, the made and not-made. Now that which has received its constitution by being made or by being born, is by nature capable of being changed, for it can be both born again and re-made; whereas that which is not-made and unborn will remain forever immoveable. Since, however, this state is suited to God ALONE, as the ONLY Being who is unborn and not-made (and therefore immortal and unchangeable), it is absolutely certain that the nature of all other existences which are born and created is subject to modification and change;

So then, at first, Tertullian taught the Apostle’s doctrine that Jesus was fully human FIRST, and then, after the cross and resurrection the human Jesus was PROMOTED and God CHANGED his human nature to become the Divine nature of immortality. The phrase “divine nature” is only used ONE time in the Bible found in 2 Peter 4:1. And WE are given many precious promises to ALSO be made partakers of the DIVINE NATURE of Yahweh. So then, Jesus being given divine nature does not make him to be Almighty God Himself in the flesh as Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostal Christians dogmatically demand.

In this next quote, Tertullian shows us that the theory of the Trinity Godhead came from Greek PHILOSOPHY.

CHAP. XXIII.--The opinions of sundry HERETICS which ORIGINATE ultimately with PLATO.

The hive of Valentinus fortifies the soul with the germ of Sophia, or Wisdom; by means of which germ they recognize, in the images of visible objects, the stories and Milesian fables of their own AEons. I am sorry from my heart that Plato has been the caterer to all these heretics

…Now, to procure belief in all this--that the soul had formerly lived with God in the heavens above, sharing His ideas with Him, and afterwards came down to live with us on earth, and whilst here recollects the eternal patterns of things which it had learnt before--he elaborated his new formula, maqhseis anamnhseis, which means that "learning is reminiscence;" implying that the souls which come to us from thence forget the things amongst which they formerly lived, but that they afterwards recall them, instructed by the objects they see around them. Forasmuch therefore, as the doctrines which the heretics borrow from Plato are cunningly defended by this kind of argument, I shall sufficiently refute the heretics if I overthrow the argument of Plato.”

In other words, the pre-existence of Jesus was BORROWED from Plato and Greek philosophy of their gods. So again, at first, Tertullian did NOT believe in the LITERAL pre-existence of the Son of God in the eternity past.

Let us continue reading some more quotes from the writings of Tertullian from the same book linked above.

CHAP. XXVIII. (Or chapter 28)

But there is no divine saying, except of the one true God, by whom the prophets, and the apostles, and Christ Himself declared their grand message.

In other words, Jesus TAUGHT us about the one true God and NOT that Jesus declared himself to be the one true God. Here is another quote from that same book.


CHAP. L. (Or chapter 50) 

Heresies, indeed, for the most part spring hurriedly into existence, from examples furnished by ourselves: they procure their defensive armor from the very place which they attack.

In other words, the heresy of the Trinity arose out of the heresy of Almighty God Himself becoming the Son. Kind of like the old saying, “Out of the frying pan and into the fire.” Here is what we learn from the quote above. As Christians DEFENDED the TRUE faith, then more heresies SPRUNG up using the EXAMPLES that were meant to REFUTE the first heresy. And if you remember, the first heresy was Almighty God Himself becoming the Son. 

So then, the core argument was that nature cannot CHANGE. And Tertullian's argument against God Himself becoming flesh is that the Divine nature of Almighty God can NOT CHANGE, but human nature CAN change to become Divine immortal nature. So you can see how Tertullian’s argument against the heresy of Almighty God Himself becoming flesh boxed him in so to speak. And thus, some modification was needed to explain how God Himself could become a MAN and still remain God over the universe. And those changes or alterations in the doctrines on BOTH sides kept EVOLVING. In other words, the BELIEFS of Tertullian CHANGED and EVOLVED as he continued in his debates against the heretics of his day concerning the NATURE of Jesus.

And it was all because of the word “God” and what that word “God” means to different people. So again, at FIRST, Tertullian believed in the Apostles’ doctrine that the ONE TRUE God was the FATHER alone. Let us read the quote we just read a moment ago.

CHAP. XXVIII. (Or chapter 28)

But there is no divine saying, except of the ONE TRUE God, by whom the prophets, and the apostles, and Christ Himself declared their grand message.

Now, in the same book a few chapters later, Tertullian says that Jesus is God, but he is ALSO a MAN. But what did Tertullian MEAN when he called Jesus “God”? Let us read the quote and then interpret the words of Tertullian in the LIGHT of what Tertullian believed AT that particular time in his life.

CHAP. LV. (Or chapter 55)

Now although Christ is God, yet, being ALSO MAN, "He died according to the Scriptures," and "according to the same Scriptures was buried." With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead MAN; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself.”

Now, in the LIGHT of what Tertullian believed and taught at this time in his life, Tertullian believed that Jesus was FULLY a human being during the days of his FLESH. And then, AFTER the cross and resurrection the human Jesus BECAME a partaker or the Divine nature of immortality to BECOME a God under and subject to his God and Father the ONLY TRUE God. Tertullian believed as the Apostles believed which is that God CROWNED the Son of MAN, Jesus with glory and honor AFTER the cross and resurrection. It was AFTER the cross that Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God”. It was AFTER the cross that Jesus was GIVEN all power and authority from his God and Father.

So then, the Apostle’s doctrine is that God MADE the Son of MAN to become both Lord and Christ after the cross and resurrection. And that is what Tertullian believed at FIRST before he was deceived to believe in a FORM of the doctrine of the Trinity for a short time later on. Tertullian converted to Montanism and it is argued that it was branded as a heresy as well.

Now, there are those in the church today and throughout the entire history of the church who taught us that Tertullian is the “father” of the doctrine of the Trinity. So I was surprised as well to find that Tertullian taught almost word for word what I teach because I was NEVER taught what Tertullian ACTUALLY believed at FIRST. All I was ever that was that he taught the doctrine of the Trinity. And I just assumed that his belief in a Trinity Godhead was the SAME as the doctrine of the Trinity taught in Trinitarians church denominations of today. But when I found out that he did NOT teach the doctrine of the Trinity as it is taught today, then to me, this was confirmation from the Holy Spirit of what He had already taught me little by little from the time I was a babe in Christ. I first saw that the doctrine of the Trinity was a man-made false teaching by the Scriptures that it contradicted. Please read the study N-11. 37 Facts to Ponder about Jesus being GOD! In that study you will find no less than 37 Scriptures that cause me to ponder the MEANING of the word “God” and how the word “God” is a TITLE or a NAME that was GIVEN to the Son of MAN after the cross and resurrection.

Again, Tertullian is often quoted by Trinitarian Christians to TRY and prove that this doctrine of the Trinity was taught by the early Christians after the Apostle John died. But the TRUTH of the matter is that Tertullian did NOT teach the Trinity in the way that this doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the church today. 

Let me show you what I mean by Tertullian being slowly deceived to believe that God is a Trinity Godhead by taking a look at what Tertullian himself wrote.  You have already seen what Tertullian believed at the very first. And now you will see how he ENTERTAINED the philosophical IDEA of the “Word” or the “LOGOS” being a second person in a SENSE.

Here is a link to the writings of Tertullian, who supposedly, according to the Roman Catholic Church, was the author of the Trinity. But again, even after Tertullian began to teach that God is a Trinity in a SENSE, he did NOT teach that Jesus was CO-EQUAL or CO-ETERNAL with the Father like the doctrine of the Trinity is taught today in Trinitarian church denominations. But rather, Tertullian always taught that the Son had a BEGINNING by being BEGOTTEN by the Divine Spirit who ALONE is the Father.

Early Christians Writings



Tertullian wrote in his argument against Praxeas that God was ALONE in the beginning yet not totally alone, because God had His THOUGHTS or His reason much like we as human beings who are made in the image of God carry on a conversation WITHIN ourselves. Tertullian said that in this way the Word COULD be viewed as a second person in a SENSE.

Here is a direct quote from this early Christian writer named Tertullian that some Christians refer to in order to try to support their argument that doctrine of the Trinity has always existed as a teaching of the church from the days of the every Apostles of Jesus. But yet, we do NOT see ANY teaching in the New Testament that God is made up of three separate persons in the one true God. 

My point right now is that Tertullian did NOT teach the DOCTRINE of the Trinity as it is taught today. But rather, Tertullian was merely perceiving that there SEEMED to be THREE, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He did NOT teach that Jesus was CO-ETERNAL with the Father. Tertullian believed and taught in all of his writings that Jesus had a BEGINNING. Nor did he teach that Jesus was CO-EQUAL with the Father. But rather, Tertullian taught that Jesus did the WORKS of God to SHOW us that the Father is the only true God. Tertullian taught that the Son had to have a BEGINNING and that there was only ONE who was NOT ever BEGOTTEN who was the Father alone.

Read what Tertullian wrote for yourself. The comments in parenthesis in the Times Roman font style are mine and the emphasis is mine. And this is after Tertullian began to entertain the THEORY that God is three persons.


“But since they (Referring to Praxeas and his group of believers who taught that the Father and the Son were ONE and the SAME being, rather than two separate beings) will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence.(Notice at FIRST the debate was only about TWO separate persons. The Holy Spirit was added into the debate later) Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." 


Again, we see Tertullian referring to those who error in interpreting the Scriptures. Then Tertullian goes on to say the following as what he himself believes.


As there is NO ground for this,(Speaking of God creating himself a Son at the beginning) I am led to OTHER arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone -- being IN Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was NOTHING EXTERNAL to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed IN Himself, that is to say, His OWN Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had NOT Word from the beginning, but, He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had NOT YET sent out His Word, He still had Him (Or it) WITHIN Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged WITHIN Himself everything which He was afterward ABOUT to utter THROUGH His Word. Now, whilst He was thus PLANNING and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that TO BECOME Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse

And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made "in the image and likeness of God," for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. (So at FIRST, Tertullian also believed and taught that God created everything out from Himself as opposed to God creating everything out of NOTHING) Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception.

Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor WITH you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, in A CERTAIN SENSE, the word is a second person WITHIN you, (But NOT a LITERAL second person OUTSIDE you and at your side WITH you) through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had WITHIN Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made SECOND TO Himself by agitating IT WITHIN Himself."


This is HOW God creates all things. God first FORMS the IMAGE WITHIN Himself of what He desires to create.  And WHILE the IMAGE is being FORMED in God's THOUGHTS within Himself, God may add thoughts or STRIP AWAY thoughts until He is happy or pleased with the image in His mind within Himself that He desires to bring forth into existence. Then God SPEAKS forth that IMAGE that is WITHIN Himself OUT FROM His MOUTH as His own SPOKEN word or spoken SAYING. Then God's SPOKEN Word which CAME OUT FROM God BECOMES that IMAGE that was WITHIN Himself. Jesus said that he CAME OUT FROM God in John 15:27.

John 15:27.


“For the Father, himself loves you, BECAUSE you have loved me, AND (BECAUSE you)  have BELIEVED that I CAME OUT FROM  God.”


Please read the study V-28. What Does John 1:14 TRULY MEAN?

Now, we all know that people MISUNDERSTAND what people say. And this misunderstanding of what people are INTENDING to say is even more likely to happen when we communicate in writing. You may have seen the illustration where a group of people TEST this misunderstanding of what we hear by having a MESSAGE passed from person to person and then back to the first person. In other words, the first person reads a message that is written down to another person, then that person relays that message verbally to another person. And then that person does the same, relaying the message that they heard until the last person in the line relays the message back to the first person. Now, as the first person listens to that message that was handed down by word of mouth he compares it to what he read to the first person. And most of the time the message has changed so much that you have to wonder if it is the same message. And I believe that this was HOW false doctrines slowly developed in the church. The disciples of Jesus heard and or read what the Apostles taught. And when they taught others, the original INTENDED meaning was misunderstood. We have an example of this in the New Testament.

Please read Acts 18:24.

“And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 

25.  This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spoke and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 

26.  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom, when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” 

However, even after being given more teaching, Apollos became deceived and disciples began to follow the teachings of Apollos. You see, Apollos was born in Alexandria which was heavily influenced by Greek PHILOSOPHY. And it is believed by some that Apollos may have even founded the school of Greek philosophy in Alexandria. 

Now, going back to the original INTENDED meaning being misunderstood a little at a time each time a doctrine of Jesus was taught from person to person, we can see how CHANGES in the doctrine can happen. With that FACT in mind let us take for example the two natures of Jesus doctrine of that BECAME the heretical two natures of Jesus at the SAME TIME during the days of his flesh. We have today in both the Oneness Pentecoatal and Trinitarian church denominations that doctrine of two natures at the SAME TIME. But what if the whole debate originally began as just TWO natures and later it was misunderstood to be two natures at the SAME TIME during the days of his FLESH.

Let me explain what I mean by this. We have just seen how Tertullian, at FIRST, believed and defended the Apostle’s doctrine of Jesus being made a little lower than the angels DURING the days of his FLESH. So that was ONE nature of Jesus at ONE time. And then AFTER the cross and resurrection God CHANGED that mortal human nature to BECOME God’s Divine nature of immortality, which was a second nature at a DIFFERENT TIME.

So YES, Jesus had two natures, but NOT at the SAME time DURING the days of his FLESH. So to ME, there seemed to be a breakdown in COMMUNICATING the God INTENDED meaning of Jesus being called God after the cross and resurrection. Clearly, anyone TRULY seeking the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God can see that the Father is the God OF His Son Jesus whom He MADE both Lord and Christ AFTER the cross and resurrection. And that is what Tertullian believed at first. And then he slowly entertained that in a SENSE the Word could be seen as a SECOND person. And that led Tertullian to start INTERPRETING the Scriptures on his OWN.

So again, at FIRST, Tertullian maintained that all of the verses used in the Old Testament to try and prove that the Son pre-existed in the eternity past were simply TYPES and FIGURES of the Messiah who was PROPHESIED to come.

So let us read that quote before we read the famous “Trinitarian” quote from a book written by Tertullian, or SUPPOSEDLY written by Tertullian.





Nor need we inquire at more length concerning that matter, since in days bygone all the prophets have prophesied of it; as Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord God to my Christ (the) Lord, whose right hand I have holden, that the nations may hear Him: the powers of kings will I burst asunder; I will open before Him the gates, and the cities shall not be closed to Him." Which very thing we see fulfilled. For whose right hand does God the Father hold but Christ's, His Son?...


…And thus, so far, the Christ who has come was not a warrior, because He was not predicted as such by Isaiah.

"But if the Christ," say they, "who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is he who is come called Jesus Christ?" Well, each name will meet in the Christ of God, in whom is found likewise the appellation Jesus. Learn the habitual character of your error. In the course of the appointing of a successor to Moses, Oshea the son of Nun is certainly transferred from his pristine name, and begins to be called Jesus. Certainly, you say. This we first assert to have been a figure of the future. For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world aforetime) into the land of promise, "flowing with milk and honey" (that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law's discipline), but through Joshua (that is, through the new law's grace), after our circumcision with "a knife of rock" (that is, with Christ's precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock); therefore the MAN who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord's name, even so as to be named Jesus. For He who ever spoke to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always seen. For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spoke to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"--that is, the people's--"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him. "For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. (Now, when you read the phrase, “It is AGREED”, out of its context, then you can misunderstand Tertullian as saying that he himself agrees that a pre-existing Son of God spoke to people in the Old Testament as the angel of the Lord. But what Tertullian is actually saying is that it is agreed by the HERETICS that the Son of God spoke to Moses. And Tertullian is actually saying that the angel of the Lord is a TYPE or FIGURE of the PROPHESIED Messiah) Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"--that is, Christ's--"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee." Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels'' whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. For the same John is called not merely an "angel" of Christ, but withal a "lamp" shining before Christ: for David predicts, "I have prepared the lamp for my Christ;" and him Christ Himself, coming "to fulfill the prophets," called so to the Jews. "He was," He says, "the burning and shining lamp;" as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert," but withal, by pointing out "the Lamb of God," illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him 164 to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer. Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) JOSHUA, on account of the future mystery of his name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not "angel" nor "Oshea," but "Joshua." Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God--that He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ)...

moreover, He was to do acts of power from the Father: "Behold, our God will deal retributive judgment; Himself will come and save us: then shall the infirm be healed, and the eyes of the blind shall see, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the mutes' tongues shall be loosed, and the lame shall leap as an hart," and so on; which works not even you deny that Christ did, inasmuch as you were wont to say that, "on account of the works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths.




“In the next place, He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean miter, that is, (with the garb) of the SECOND ADVENT; since He is demonstrated as having ATTAINED "glory and honour." Nor 173 will you be able to say that the MAN (there depicted) is "the son of Jozadak," who was never at all clad in a sordid garment, but was always adorned with the sacerdotal garment, nor ever deprived of the sacerdotal function. But the "Jesus" there alluded to is CHRIST, the Priest of God the most high Father; who at His FIRST ADVENT came in humility, in human form, and passible, even up to the period of His passion; being Himself likewise made, through all (stages of suffering) a victim for us all; who after His resurrection was "clad with a garment down to the foot," and NAMED the Priest of God the Father unto eternity.”


So just as Trinitarian Christians of TODAY take verses of Scripture out of the CONTEXT, the Trinitarian heretics of the early church writers also took words out of their CONTEXT as well to try to support their early VERSION of the doctrine of a Trinity Godhead or three separate persons in the one true God. I say early VERSION, for you see, some of the early creeds teach us that they believed that Jesus BECAME a TRUE God FROM TRUE God.

Now, this next quote, to ME, is one of three things. It is either a FORGERY, Tertullian became DECEIVED to believe in a FORM of a Trinity Godhead working in UNITY, or Trinitarian Christians are reading INTO the words of Tertullian what they have come to believe. So if you are a Trinitarian Christian, then you will most likely “interpret” the following creed as God bringing down His God the Son into the womb of the Virgin Mary. But if you are a Biblical Unitarian Christian, then you will understand that Tertullian is speaking of the Word of prophecy that would be fulfilled and the Word made flesh would be CALLED the Son of God. And thus, to Biblical Unitarian Christians, the Word of prophecy was brought down by the Spirit and power of God into the Virgin Mary as she BELIEVED God’s spoken word of prophecy. In other words, Biblical Unitarian Christians do NOT believe in a so-called pre-existing second person of God named the Word. To us, the word on John 1:1 is the SPOKEN word of PROPHECY and not a LITERAL second person of a Godhead Trinity God as INTERPRETED by Trinitarian Christians. Let us continue with the next quote of Tertullian.



“Now, with regard to this rule of faith--that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend--it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen "in diverse manners" by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.”

Now, the reason that I say that this writing could be a “FORGERY” is that I myself see some things that appear to be ADDED because they CONTRADICT other things written in this same book. And some things definitely contradict what Tertullian believed at FIRST. I will try to point the things that seem added or out of place out to you as you read the following quotes. Keep in mind what you have already read concerning what Tertullian believed at FIRST, the Apostles’ doctrine which was that God MADE Jesus lower than the angels as his first estate and then CROWNED the human Jesus with glory and honor after the cross and resurrection.


“Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost."...

(To ME, this reads like another writer added the words who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost. And likewise, the following quote seems to have been added by the Roman Catholic Church which places church TRADITION over the Bible itself as being the RULE Christians must believe, obey, and never question. The doctrine of the Trinity is always referred to as being a MYSTERY, which is what the Roman Catholic Church does. Read the following quote and see if you see that same suspicious wording that contradicts what we have seen that Tertullian believed at FIRST)

…They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original, for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,--privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.”


“What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?"...

(Again, to me, this sounds like commentary written by some Roman Catholic apologist)


“But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to 255 all the world, whilst they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: "O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;" and again: "That good thing which was committed unto thee keep." What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, "This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?" and also of that precept of which he says, "I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?" Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: "Before many witnesses" is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these "many witnesses," it matters nothing, since NOTHING could have been secret which was produced "before many witnesses."...


So up to this point, Tertullian seems to be teaching against the doctrine of the Trinity. Please read the study U-28. 1 Timothy 6:15 Who is the KING of kings? This is the passage of Scripture that Tetullian is referring to in the above quote. He is saying NOTHING can be a MYSTERY that has been put in charge before many WITNESSES. In other words, 1 Timothy 6:15 does NOT teach us that God is a Trinity Godhead. But rather, it teaches us in SIMPLICITY that the ONLY Almighty God is the Father, who is the INVISIBLE Eternal King that MADE the Son of MAN a King of kings and Lord of lords.

Let us move on to the next quote by Tertullian.


“In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there 257 should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written--yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church--"Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed."…


“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning (This is the BOAST of the Roman Catholic Church, which is another reason what SOME things written in the book seem to be added or changed. And at the very least, this book was translated with Trinitarian bias) in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.…”

“Such also "forbid to marry" he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. (Here you have to wonder if the spurious writer missed these words or the Roman Catholic Church had not been fully formed to forbid their priests to marry) Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles.”


“Challenged and refuted by us, according to these definitions, let all the heresies boldly on their part also advance similar rules to these against our doctrine, whether they be later than the apostles or contemporary with the apostles, provided they be different from them; provided also they were, by either a general or a specific censure, pre condemned by them. For since they deny the truth of (our doctrine), they ought to prove that it also is heresy, refutable by the same rule as that by which they are themselves refuted; and at the same time to show us where we must seek the truth, which it is by this time evident has no existence amongst them. (Keep in mind that the Nicene “Latin” fathers rounded up every book they could find that brought forth Scripture to prove the doctrine of the Trinity to be a FALSE doctrine. So by this time that this suspect forgery was written all the WRITTEN evidence against the Trinity had been destroyed) Our system is not behind any in date; on the contrary, it is earlier than all; and this fact will be the evidence of that truth which everywhere occupies the first place. The apostles, again, nowhere condemn it; they rather defend it,--a fact which will show that it comes from themselves. For that doctrine which they refrain from condemning, when they have condemned every strange opinion, they show to be their own, and on that ground too they defend it.”

How could the Apostles condemn and refute a doctrine that did not yet exist. The TRUTH of the matter is that the New Testament proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that God is NOT a Trinity Godhead. In the next quote, notice how the writer makes sure that “CATHOLICS” never change the Scriptures and only HERETICS tamper and alter the Scriptures. Now, to a Roman Catholic that may not sound suspicious unless they have been made aware of all the Scriptures that were tampered with and ALTERED by the Roman Catholic Church. This is yet another reason for why I see that SOME of the words of this TRANSLATION of the words of Tertullian have been tampered with and altered to support the doctrine of the Trinity.

If I am wrong on that point, then Tertullian was DECEIVED to CHANGE his belief to become a Trinity Godhead believer in a SENSE. But Tertullian always taught the the Son had a BEGINNING and the ONLY true ONE God has NO BEGINNING.


“Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption of both the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine. They could not possibly have affected their diversity of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught. As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of 262 them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you. Now, inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later process, for the express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case previous to nor home-born with that which it emulates, it is as incredible to every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as we have been, from the very first, and being the first, as it is that they have not in fact introduced it who are both later in date and opposed (to the Scriptures). One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has nonetheless laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence”

Now, my point is that the interpolations of added Scripture that is  accepted canon today was not known to Tertullian. And to me, that raises some suspicions that SOME of the words in this book were ADDED by the Roman Catholic Church or by a Trinitarian translator of the original text of this book. Please notice the closing words of this book giving Tertullian glory are being OUR AUTHOR. Who is “OUR”? To me, it is the Roman Catholic Church.


“As if this caution were not also in the written record: that many should come who were to work even the greatest miracles, in defense of the deceit of their corrupt preaching. So, forsooth, they will deserve to be forgiven! If, however, any, being mindful of the writings and the denunciations of the Lord and the apostles, shall have stood firm in the integrity of the faith, I suppose they will run great risk of missing pardon, when the Lord answers: I plainly forewarned you that there should be teachers of false doctrine in my name, as well as that of the prophets and apostles also; and to my own disciples did I give a charge, that they should preach the same things to you. But as for you, it was not, of course, to be supposed that you would believe me! I once gave the gospel and the doctrine of the said rule (of life and faith) to my apostles; but afterwards it was my pleasure to make considerable changes in it! I had promised a resurrection, even of the flesh; but, on second thoughts, it struck me that I might not be able to keep my promise! I had shown myself to have been born of a virgin; but this seemed to me afterwards to be a discreditable thing. I had said that He was my Father, who is the Maker of the sun and the showers; but another and better father has adopted me! I had forbidden you to lend an ear to heretics; but in this I erred! Such (blasphemies), it is possible, do enter the minds of those who go out of the right path, and who do not defend the true faith from the danger which besets it. On the present occasion, indeed, our treatise has rather taken up a general position against heresies, (showing that they must) all be refuted on definite, equitable, and necessary rules, without any comparison with the Scriptures. For the rest, if God in His grace permits, WE shall prepare answers to certain of these heresies in separate treatises. To those who may devote their leisure in reading through these (pages), in the belief of the truth, be peace, and the grace of our God Jesus Christ for ever.”

Everyone of the Ante-Nicene and Nicene “Latin” fathers could never answer the Scriptures of Jesus being BEGOTTEN by his God and Father. They ALL taught very clearly that the ONE TRUE God never had a BEGINNING. And by their OWN admission of this TRUTH it is impossible for Jesus to be the ONLY TRUE God because Jesus had a BEGINNING. The Scriptures teach us that Jesus was CREATED in the womb of a woman. Please read the studies under the headings >>>O-0. Was Jesus CREATED?<<<, and >>>P-0. Is JESUS the CREATOR?<<<

For you see, you will NOT be judged by what church TRADITION teaches, But rather, you will be judged by what Jesus teaches us under the NEW COVENANT written in the New Testament.

Thanks for reading, and may God bless you richly as you continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. And to me, the truth concerning who Jesus TRULY is, according to the Bible ITSELF, is the Biblical Unitarian view of Jesus. So, for ALL of the studies on the Biblical Unitarian view of Jesus, please click on the subject heading >>>D-0. THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN VIEW of JESUS!<<<

And for the SUBJECT on the true foundation of the church, please click on the subject heading >>>C-0. THE TRUE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH!<<< This way you can just send ONE link to those who you want to share the TRUE sound Biblical FOUNDATIONAL teachings of the church that Jesus and his Apostles taught in the first century church.


Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Brother Mark.


My heartfelt prayer is that all Christians RETURN to the TRUE FOUNDATION of the church that is taught by the very Apostles of Jesus in the first century. So let us all come into the UNITY of the faith and return to what Jesus and his Apostles taught us in SIMPLICITY in the New Testament. 


To learn more TRUTH, then please return to





To me, the best way to know the ONE true God in ONE person is to know who Jesus TRULY is according to the WHOLE word of Almighty God. So please read ALL of the studies under the heading >>>N-0. WHO is JESUS ACCORDING to the BIBLE?<<< and you will see that the Bible itself teaches us that Jesus was CREATED by his God and Father. And if you have any questions related to the correct meaning of certain verses of Scripture on this subject of who Jesus is please read all the studies under the two headings >>>U-0. VERSES used for THE TRINITY!<<< and >>>V-0. VERSES used to TEACH that Jesus PRE-EXISTED!<<< These two headings have ALL of the studies that I have on who Jesus truly is according to what the Bible itself teaches us in simplicity. I compiled these three headings to make it easy for my readers to send just one, two, or three links to those you desire to help understand what the Bible itself teaches concerning who Jesus is in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. If you have any questions, please feel free to write to me. 

My contact email is MarkatAMatterOfTruth@Gmail .com.

Thanks again for reading and may God bless you richly as you continue to seek the truth of the whole word of Almighty God.


Your Brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Brother Mark.





The end.

Please pause or turn off the reading aloud feature on Microsoft Edge browser.

Click here to learn HOW to use the Microsoft Edge reading aloud feature.


Always be faithful to share, to preach, and to teach the whole gospel of Jesus Christ!