You are on page 1of 6


Trinity Deception Part 75

God knew from the very beginning of time itself that his firstbegotten son would sacrifice

He planned for it. It's why Christ is called the Word “made flesh.”

Yet, it cannot be said that it was God's will that murderers would some day hang his
begotten son on a pole and kill him, even though he foresaw it. What kind of Father
desires that for his child?

Many insist that God did want this to happen. They point to how Christ did pray and,
after asking for the cup of the crucifixion to pass from him, ended the prayer with, “not
my will be done but yours?” Doesn't this prove that it was God's will?

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my
will, but thine, be done.
Luke 22:42

We know from this prayer and from what ultimately occurred afterward that the
crucifixion was in some way God's will. Yet, the question is exactly what was the
Father's will in this matter? What motivated him to allow his son to be brutally crucified
even after his son expressed his own desire not to go through it?

The unsupported conclusion is to assume what was in the mind of the Father when he
allowed this horrific event. There more than a few who make this amazing claim, that
they know exactly what was going on in the mind of God.

Many preach that God wanted the crucifixion all along. That in fact, they say, that is why
God created a body for Jesus and then ordered him to Earth to enter and dwell in that
fleshly body and then give himself to the murderers. God thirsted for innocent human
blood, they surmise. That is why it was “God's will.” He could not be sated in any other
way according to modern take on things. Our sins so angered and infuriated the Father
that someone had to pay in blood and, what's worse, it had to be innocent blood.

Since only God is innocent, those who preach this reason among themselves, only God
could die for sins. So, in the case of modalism, God came down to earth himself after
preparing a body in Mary's womb for the express purpose of satisfying his own lust for
innocent human blood. In the case of trinity, God sent an extension of himself, a second
person in the Godhead triad, down to earth.

And the blood of animals for sin wasn't doing the trick, they teach. It just wasn't
satisfying to God. God's anger had to be appeased. Justice for the sins of mankind had to
be paid by the death of an innocent baby, born in a manger. When that baby grew up and
learned what his purpose was (to be a sacrificial beast on an altar) he first cried to his
Father in prayer and asked that this not be so, but then concluded “not my will be done
but yours” thus sealing his fate because, according to this doctrine, this was not only
God's will (that he die horribly on a cross) this was the only reason that Jesus even
existed on the earth.

They have no scriptures whatsoever to support this view.

Shall I not call them on it?

Shall I not demand an explanation as to why they would so slander our Father and our

We know that Christ prayed “not my will be done, Father, but yours.” Yet, exactly why
was it the Father's will?

Many say, “because he so loved the world and he so wanted to save them that he was
willing to commit the murder and human sacrifice of his innocent son.”

This God they depict is a despicable creature.

What parent loves the world so much more than his own child that he straps his child to
an altar and uses the child as an human sacrifice to appease an angry God?

I cannot say enough about this. It's why the world hears the modern Gospel and many
recoil in horror at a sick God who would do such a thing.

No, they don't know what was in God's mind. They don't know why it was “God's will.”

Yet, we can study the history of the Old Testament and God's character when dealing with
mankind and we can see God's will in this matter clearly.

It has always been God's will allow his creatures to have free will. Even those who were
about to capture and murder his son.

God does not meddle, uninvited, into the affairs of man. He does not deprive you of your
free will. If you want to go be a serial killer, he's not going to stop you. Apparently, the
same rule holds true even if you are intent on killing God's prophet, or even God's own

Many atheists slam God for this very reason. They want to blame God for all the murder,
rape, and atrocities that mankind perpetrates. First because God is all knowing and can
see the future. Second because knowing the future God created these despicable human
beings to begin with. Finally because God did nothing to stop them. He's “complacent”
as far as they are concerned.
Yet, without free will does God have children? No. In the absence of free will all God
would have is little meat puppets whom he makes dance to his tune with his Godly
strings. God's love extends to mankind in such a way that he wants man to acknowledge
him and to obey him freely.

If God forces men to obey, taking away their free will, then are men really obeying?
No, they would not be obeying. Their obedience would just be programming at this
point, they would obey because they have no choice in the matter. This is the kind of
world the atheist would create if they were God (apparently).

We do know, however that God does not take away the free will of those who crucified
Christ. It is not in God's nature, nor his design, nor is it in his will to interfere and take
away free will.

There is only one exception where God might interfere and stop someone from doing
something horrible. It's when God has mercy on the one who cries to him and prays and
asks him to protect them from the evil doer. God may make an exception to his non
interference policy because, in this case, he's no longer “interfering.” At this point a free
will creature has cried to him and asked for protection, it can't be regarded as
“interfering.” Saying that is interference in free will is like telling someone that stops a
person from killing a child that they are “interfering” with the murderer's personal liberty.

There is one statement Christ made that disproves the whole theory that “God so loved
the world” that he allowed an angry mob to take his son and murder him. Christ said,
that if he so wanted to, that he could pray to his Father and God would send legions of
angels to rescue him from being crucified.

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give
me more than twelve legions of angels?
Matthew 26:53

If what they were saying is true and God created Christ specifically to “die” so that the
world could be “saved” then there is simply NO WAY what Jesus said could be true.

Because they teach that was his only purpose, the only reason he existed, and the only
reason God wanted him here to begin with! Why would God stop the entire ball rolling
just because his son got cold feet? It could NOT be true under this teaching. It couldn't
be said that God “so loved the world” if, after Christ cried to him for help then God sends
legions of angels to stop the crucifixion.

Either Christ would be lying (or in error) about how God would send the angels to save
him, or the author who said “God so loved the world” he sent his son to die on a cross
was lying (or in error). Apparently, according to Jesus, God's love only extends to the
world, to save it, so far as and as long as his son doesn't object? God planned all along
for the crucifixion it was the only thing that would save the world, yet God would let the
world die if his son cried to him and asked him to.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3: 16

God so loved the world that he sent (commanded) his son to the world to preach to them
about their common salvation and what was being offered to them.

John 3: 16 does not say that God so loved the world that he said to Jesus; “Son, I want
you to go down to Earth, I've already prepared a body for you in Mary's womb, and I
want you to submit yourself to be crucified so that you can “pay” for all the sins of the
whole world and satisfy my unquenchable thirst for innocent human blood.”

When God's son was born and he came of age the Father so loved the world he sent his
son to them. To preach righteousness and teach them how to be Holy like their Father was
Holy, knowing fully well that the world, like the pigs they are, would trample the pearls
his son cast their way and then turn and rend him.

Let's consider the biggest and most problematic questions regarding the popular spin on

Namely that in heaven, according to trinity, the three members of the Godhead are
“coequals” and neither one outranks the other.

Why is this problematic? We know it was not the son's desire nor will to die on a cross.
He said so with his own mouth. “...let this cup (crucifixion) pass from me, but not MY
will be done but yours.”

A lot of preachers preach that God “sent” his Son to the Earth with express orders to die
on a cross and that when it came time to do it, the Son was still not on board with it and
was praying that it would pass.

They say, “well it was a moment of weakness on the Son's part.”


Isn't that a marvelous thing, when you consider that they also preach the Son was
“almighty?” How does an Almighty being have a moment of weakness?

The trinitarian has no answer for why God the Father was ordering God the Son to do
anything (prior to his descending to the Earth in fleshly form). They are supposed to be
“coequal” with neither one outranking the other.

The modalist has even bigger problems, for now, they have God Himself, who has
switched “modes” and become a man, now praying to himself saying “not my will be
done but yours.” It defies all logic and at the very least paints God as a flim flam artist,
pulling the wool over our eyes. The prayer would have to be all for show, because of
course Christ's will would be God's will, Christ is the very person of God, just in a
“fleshly mode.”

Even trinity has this same problem as well because they teach that God the Father and
God the Son share “the same will.” So, the prayer “not my will be done but yours
Father” is meaningless and nothing but a sham.

Yet, the problems go even deeper than this.

There are those who argue, “well Christ left behind his status as almighty and became
just a man” in an attempt to explain how an Almighty being has a moment of weakness in
the garden. Yet these same people will also have Christ going around saying “I am the
great I am.” The way they depict it, Christ, the second member of the Godhead, woke up
one morning and discovered he was no longer in heaven, but was now in the body of a
new born infant in a manger, and “finding himself recreated (fashioned as a man)” he
humbled himself and became a servant to the cross.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Philippians 2: 6
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and
was made in the likeness of men:
Philippians 2: 7
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross.
Philippians 2: 8

So, they teach that even though Christ was equal with God, while he was on the Earth he
did not claim his equality (even though at the same time they have him claiming to be
equal with God, so much so that they will point to how the Jews nearly stoned Christ for
claiming to be equal with God). They have him both not claiming his equal status while
at the same time offering the Jews' reaction as proof that he did just that.

Then, they have Christ “finding himself” fashioned as a man. This is a second member
of the Godhead. How does he suddenly “find himself” as a human being?

They preach that God “sent” him down to Earth to die on a cross (apparently against his
will by the way he prayed for that cup to pass from him). Christ “became obedient” unto
this death after he “found himself” in the shape and form of a human. Again, according
to them, Christ was just obeying the initial command that was given before he came to
Earth. They forget this entirely when they say that “in heaven” they are “coequal” and
only when Christ is on the Earth does the Father outrank him. If this were true, how does
Christ end up on the Earth to begin with?

They preach that he wanted to come. That he loved the World as much as the Father did.
Yet, then why would scripture say that God “sent” him and yet when he arrived he prayed
that he didn't have to do it? As we've seen “a moment of weakness” makes no sense
whatsoever. He's the Almighty (according to both trinitarians and modalists alike) he has
come here of his own will, to be “obedient” unto himself, and to “die” for sins, how can
he be conflicted? It's what he came here for!

And to the modalist, he who believes that Jesus is just another “mode” of God almighty,
we have to point out that, if this is true, his claims that he was “sent” here by someone
else would be complete and utter lies.