Make your own free website on



The Bible says, in Matthew 19:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, (unto Jesus) Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life. And he said unto him, (Jesus answered) Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, and that is God:

Jesus excluded himself from the status of "good," and by that same action also excluded himself from the position of "the Father." He said ONLY his Father was good! Here is a clear distinction between Jesus and the Father.

From our perspective, we’d tend to say that Jesus was good. However, from Jesus’ perspective, He insisted that there was still a difference between Yahweh and man. Yahweh, only, was "good" in that sense.

Hebrews 2:

Wherefore in all things it behoved him (Jesus) to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

Jesus was tempted to sin. God, on the other hand, cannot be tempted – according to James 1:13:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil,

Now look at Philippians 2:5-6. Those of you who normally read the King James Version may be surprised at how this reads from the Greek text. For the sake of clarity, we’ll read from the King James first, then correct it according to the Greek text. You will see the confusion the translators brought to this question.

King James Version:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

The KJV translators made it sound like Jesus equals God. But the Greek reads quite differently.

Corrected according to the Greek:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus Who, subsisting (existing under), in the form (image) of God, thought not to seize equality with God.

The Greek text says the opposite of the KJV. Jesus, the man – "the second Adam" – followed the way of humility as a servant. This was in contrast to the way of the "first Adam" who tried to "seize" godship – as in Genesis 3.

First, the serpent’s lie:

in the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened (you’ll gain wisdom), and ye shall be as gods

Then, the response:

…and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Adam fell for the line that he could be his own god (i.e. lawmaker). Jesus knew better. He resisted the temptation and rejected the serpent’s lie. Jesus succeeded where Adam failed.

Christ’s assessment of man reaching for godship is shown clearly as we continue in Philippians 2:

But (Jesus) made himself of no reputation (humbled himself), and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

Jesus could have laid claim to his royal heritage. But, instead, He chose a life of humility. He became a servant.

This makes perfect sense when you read it the way it was meant. But it doesn’t make a bit of sense if you read it straight from the King James Version. The King James translators would have us think that it was Yahweh who humbled himself before man. What nonsense! Yahweh was not humbled; He was glorified! He did not limit himself in Jesus; rather, He displayed his limitless power by raising Jesus from the dead.

And being found in fashion as a man, he (Jesus) humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The Son died. The Father didn’t.

Priestcraft has muddied the waters. They incorporated paganism into their churches, confused scripture, and sold the pagan notion of gods becoming human. They rewrote scripture and incorporated their mysteries and much confusion. Thus, the pagans were accepted into the Christian community.

We read a warning concerning this in II Corinthians 11:

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent (a religious con man) beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Now if Paul described his knowledge of Christ with a term like "simplicity," he certainly wasn’t referring to an incomprehensible "Trinity" – the antithesis of simplicity.

In verse 4, Paul continues explaining his fear for the Corinthians:

For if he (a false prophet) that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, (I fear that) ye might well tolerate him.

In other words, Paul feared the Corinthians might tolerate, or accept, the false prophets who preached "other christs." There were other christs in the world. There were false christs and pagan christs. BUT TO US THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE JESUS – THE CHRIST OF ISRAEL. Paul did not want them to tolerate serpents (religious con men).

Next: The Trinity | Back to Is Jesus God Index | Home