End of Time Report


«The Apostle John heard a voice from heaven that spoke: «Come out of her, my people (from Babylon), so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues. For her sins have piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her sacrilege». - Rev. 18; 4-5



Back to overview
The Judgement of Babylon

A Report of
Helmut Seeger


In the further course of the revelation, John saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast covered with blasphemous names and having seven heads and ten horns:

«The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet colour and richly glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls, her hand holding a golden cup full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And on her forehead a name was written, a mystery: „Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes and the abominations of the earth".

John saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus; when he saw them, he was greatly astonished. Then the angel that had lead him in spirit to the desert said: „Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman... The waters which you saw, where the whole thrones are peoples and multitudes, nations and languages.... And the woman which you saw is the great city which reigns over the Kings of the earth. (Rev.17).

Later, John further reports: „I heard a voice from heaven saying: Come out of her my people (from Babylon), so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues! For her sins have piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her sacrilege.» - Rev.18;4-5.

The warning to God’s people to flee from Babel obviously points to the «Endtime Parish» that apparently in this moment is still in the spiritual imprisonment of Babylon and is now summoned ‘to leave Great-Babylon, whose sins reach unto heaven’.

Evidently the appeal «to flee from Babylon» already at that time caused insecurity and confusion among the young Christian communities. Because initially one believed that the heretic Rome that the Christians under Nero had particularly persecuted «was the great city that ruled over the Kings on earth and was drunk by the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus». Later when the Christian church became the Roman state religion and then itself persecuted the irreligious and the deviationist´s from the „Roman-Catholic Unity Doctrine“ with death penalty, it was pointed on that the «Great-Babylon» was the papal Rome. Initially it was Joachim von Fiore, who died in 1202, thereafter the Franciscans and Dante. And after the Reformation it was Luther, Calvin, Bengel and others who recognized the Whore of Babylon in the worldly papacyBegreiflicherweise löste der Aufruf

How justified it was to pillory the papacy as the «Whore of Babylon» will be confirmed as soon as we take a closer look at the history of papacy and have extended our investigations to the first centuries of Christendom; of a Christendom that has split up into numerous lines of believe since its beginnings and that according to the parable of the Kingdom of heaven (Matth. 25) will symbolically split up into «five clever and five foolish virgins» at the end of the world


The History of Christianity:

After Christianity had begun to expand more and more despite of being persecuted by Jews, Greeks and Romans within the Roman Empire, the young Christian communities optimistically waited for the imminent return of Christ. Knowing that with the fulfilment of their mission: «Go out and teach all nations», the establishment of a Kingdom of Peace would be near at hand.

The Apostle Paul, however, - one of the driving forces behind the expansion of the gospel - must have suspected already at that time that the return of Christ would not happen so soon. Thus he restrained their impatience urgently warning them:

«Let yourself not too soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, pretending that he is God». 2. Thess. 2

Had the Christian communities at that time suspected that the proclamation of the gospel would only be concluded after two thousand years it would certainly have restrained their enthusiasm. But as it was, Christianity rapidly expanded and had soon become a political power factor in the great Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor Constantine perceived the political significance of the Christian church. Therefore, he aimed at making them the clip of the endangered unity of his empire. (Tolerance Edict, 313).

The extent of the damaging influence Constantine’s new religious politics had on Christianity is explained by Wolfgang Goeller in his commentary „The Turning Point of Constantine":

«Certainly Constantine cannot be denied a personal spirituality. His chief interest, however, aimed at politics. For the universal power that he aimed at he required a universal doctrine - a doctrine with the power to unify. From the religious politics of his predecessors he learnt how not to do it...

If before it was necessary to be courageous to be a Christian, now many came to the church by simply following the crowd. Loss in spiritual substance and moral credibility was the result. Due to the development that the church of the empire experienced, it is obvious that it could no longer bear or want any other church next to it - contrary to the heathen religions that have always tolerated many godheads. With Christianity arose a claim for spiritual exclusiveness. This claim was soon asserted by doubtful measures. In the beginning the Christian mob agitated here and there and as time went by agitation became more frequent culminating in the destruction of pagan temples. Former pagans suddenly destroyed their own temple to demonstrate their rightful faith.

With the recognition of the church by the state, it drew not only doubtful members. It not only gained a powerful strength that was highly inappropriate for the church compared to the modesty of Jesus, their Lord. The church also attained access to culture, to the schools and science...» („2000 years of Christianity“, P. 741).

Another commentary by Wolfgang Goeller „State and church from the time of Constantine the Great“ explains us the radical change within the nationalised young „Church of Christ“ by the „Turning Point of Constantine“:

«When Emperor Constantine turned to Christianity in the beginning of the 4th century, the changes in the religious politics of the Emperor came a bit too quickly for the Christians after having endured long periods of persecution, or threat, in the least. The church was not in a position to think at length about the ifs and whens. Whoever had expected earlier that the church would merely be tolerated, was simply rolled-over by the events. An Emperor who - no matter for which motives - promoted Christianity exceeded the wildest dreams...And above all the church was to be the integration factor in the empire.

In the Edict of Religion of 380 finally the end of religious freedom was cemented. The Catholic Church was declared a state religion . Simultaneously it was precisely declared which dogmatic direction Christianity was intended: The one of the Bishop of Rome, Damasus (366 to 384). One not only had to be a Christian but a Christian with the rightful faith. Divergences or even different religions were punished as state crime. The state itself helped with the means available to them to implement dogmas and to do missionary work. In 389 the Roman Senate was forced - despite heavy opposition - to damn the old faith and to accept the new one.. After the Edict of Religion in 380 heathendom soon disappeared from the scene.» („2000 Years of Christianity“, P. 742 ff).

For the unity of the mighty Roman Empire, the recognition of Christianity may have been a clever political move but it entailed great damage to the Church of Christ. However, much more troublesome seemed the increasing misconception that with the secularisation of the Christian faith Christianity itself, the Kingdom of God and the fulfilment of all prophecies of a better future have arrived. In Meyer’s Conversational Encyclopaedia we can read the following comment in this respect:

«Chiliásm (Greek), the belief of a future thousand-year long Kingdom of God on earth arising with Christ’s visible return....
The defeat of chiliásm was sealed by the politically changed position of the church since Constantine. As soon as the victorious church had made itself feel at home on earth, it began to get accustomed to the idea that the thousand-year long Kingdom has arrived already with Christianity itself and Augustin adopted this as his elementary principle. From that time the church was simply acknowledged as the Kingdom of God and the fulfilment of all prophecies of a better future.» (Vol. 4, P. 31).

Isn’t it absurd that the early Christian communities waited patiently for over three and a half centuries for the return of Christ and the erection of his peace Kingdom, to finally learn from Augustinus (354-430) that the Kingdom of God had already long ago arrived with Christianity itself? A fatal mistake conjuring far-reaching repercussion in the development of the Church of Christ that had already been politically shamefully misused.

Jakob Kroeker writes in his book „Daniel Statesman and Prophet“:

«It is true that Rome gave the then dying world empire the name of the Kingdom of God, but created in the womb of the Church of Christ, a Christian abode for the heathen spirit and his mystical cult. The world empire was called Kingdom of God, its constitution became the organisation of the church, its cult the form of God worship, its priest regulations the exterior splendour for the representatives of Christ and the imperial administrator on earth. But from now on the church was no longer the witness of the salvation, it pretended to be the administrator of salvation, it was no longer prophet of the revelation, it acted as guardian of the revelation, it was no longer spirit creation but it stood out as universal organisation.» (P. 41)

If Augustinus had not been the fanatic enthusiast who invented the famous word „cogite intrare!“ meaning „force them to join the church!“, force them with violence! - then he would have had to recognise during his research into the Holy Scripture that his idea of the Kingdom of God is contradictory to the words of the Bible. All the more because Paul had already at his time warned against such misinterpretations when he reminded the Thessalonians not to be deluded or even tempted by the ever recurring deceitful desire «as if the day of Christ is already existing». Thus remains as possible explanation: Augustinus had succumbed to the general pressure and had considered it opportune out of purely political reasons to raise the «Roman state religion» with their largely «forcefully recruited followers» to the «Kingdom of God». He had obvious reasons for this: In a «political God state» the Roman clergy would have a much earlier possibility to expand their power as in a serving church.

The extent of the link between state and church and how shamefully the church had been misused for political purposes can be concluded from two decrees issued by the Roman Emperor Theodosius.

«In the year 380 he proclaimed a law making the Catholic Church the only state religion. Every Roman citizen from now on must be Christian. Heathendom or heresy would be a state crime... Validity was given alone to orthodoxy. In the following years Theodosius takes another step forward: He forbids conversion to heathendom. Everything that lives under Roman sovereignty has to be Christian from now on. Whoever is not Christian has already made himself guilty. Pressure from the state replaced missionary work. The state religion is born. The effects of such a law are partly ridiculous: The ministers become civil servants, any freedom of opinion and faith is suffocated, the church dogmas are governmental laws, whose offence is punished severely mostly by death. Simultaneously arose a destruction of the temples comparable only to the horrors of earlier Christian persecutions. The pagan places of sacrifice were destroyed by a raw mob assuming the name of Christ, stealing and murdering, looting and burning down anything that they doomed heretic. „Solely for the honour of God.“» („Die Kirche lebt - Der Weg der Christen durch zwei Jahrtausende / The Church lives - The Christian path through two millenia“, P. 71).


«The woman is the great city,
that rules over the Kings of the world.»

In the East of the former Roman Empire the question: «Who rules God’s holy church?» was decided: Christ the Lord of the church had no representative on earth; instead the Emperor was the supreme authority in church and state.

It seemed appropriate to grant the renewed Western Empire that had been transferred to the East-Franconian (German) Kings by the coronation of Otto the Great of the Karolingers the administrative authority over the church. Admittedly the Empire was here backed up ideally by the papal Sacerdotium (papacy) that possessed authority in their own right. In the Sachsenspiegel (the oldest and most influential law-book of the German MA) we find the following about the relationship between the two forces:

«God left two swords on earth to protect Christendom: the Pope the religious, the Emperor the worldly. At a certain time the Pope must ride on a white horse. The Emperor must hold him the stirrup so that the saddle does not move. This indicates that the Emperor with the worldy law has to obey the Pope if this one faces resistance that he may not want to conquer with religious law. So also the religious law should help the worldly court if necessary.»

«According to the opinion of the Emperor both the Pope and the Emperor receive the religious and the worldly law directly from God. Accordingly, the Emperor is equal to the Pope; both act completely independently... »

«According to the interpretation of the Roman cury (Gregory IX, Innocence VI., Bonifacius VIII.) the Pope was bestowed with two swords, namely with religious and worldly law; the Emperor receives the worldly law from the Pope, carries it out for him and is subordinate to him (this perception was explained also by comparing the relationship between sun and moon):» („2000 Jahre Christentum / 2000 Years of Christianity“, P. 307 and 981).

From now on the power obsessed papacy wooed with the Roman Emperors of the «Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation» for the «Universal Monarchy». In answer to the beginning controversy between papacy and Kingdom or Empire (investiture conflict) Gregory VII wrote supposedly in the year 1075, in 27 guiding principles a list of church law texts („Dictatus Papae“) concerning the privileges of the papal chair. In Meyer’s Conversational Encyclopaedia (Vol. 15, P. 406 f) we can read the following comment about this:

The thought that Gregory VII had made from the papacy and that had been expressed in many ways by Pseudo-Isidor has two sides: a political and a religious. All earlier glorifiers of the Papacy wanted to give the Roman Bishop the position of only a primacy of the church; however, according to Gregory’s will, he was to appear as a representative of God on earth on whom not only the religious but also the worldly laws should depend and to whom not only the authority of the Bishop but also the Kings’ majesties are subordinate. The idea is to have an all encompassing theocracy at the head of which is the Pope like a great feudal association holding all religious and worldly property, and Gregory VII and his successors acted according to this idea at the times when they banished and dismissed princes, disposed over crowns and gave away.

The Emperors had to submit themselves; England, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Aragonia, Sicily were as Kingdoms obliged to pay tax to the papal chair; had the crusades, as such already proof of papal power of the souls, been successful, the Orient would also have had to pay tribute. The Kings of the earth called themselves Sons of the Pope and were in many ways dependent on their favour and benevolence: The constitutional conditions of their countries were inadequate, the nations were fearful of the interdict, and the vassals took joy in revolting against Kings, whose right and power had deteriorated.»

Thereafter resided an arrogant and self-important Papacy that at times had completely gone to the dogs with an immense display of splendour comparable to the Egyptian Pharaohs, on brilliant thrones, enveloped by incense, surrounded by a royal household and army, like secluded idols, the tiaras resplendent with jewels and the magnificence fanned by ostrich feathers (Hans Kuehner). This secularised church leaning itself on worldly power was no longer a serving but a harshly ruling church. A division was inevitable between the inflated clergy giving itself pompous titles, such as: Your Holiness, Holy Father, Your Eminence, Reverend, etc. and the plain and simple church folk. «The increasing division between clergy and folk», Guenter Sternberger comments in his book "2000 Jahre Christentum / 2000 Years of Christianity“, «also becomes apparent in the manner the Bishops are elected. The Bishop was initially elected by the entire Christian community, from the third century onwards the election was accomplished more and more by the Presbyters of the local community and the neighbouring Bishops. The folk was merely permitted to attend the election and applause. The „elected class“ and the „royal priesthood“ (see Ex. 19;6; 1. Petr. 2; 9 and Rev. 1; 6) were divided more and more: on the one side the folk, on the other the priesthood». There was hardly any mention of brotherhood within the former Christian church any more. Pope Innocence III even explained that he was admittedly subordinate to an angel but far superior to a human being. Hans Kuehner expresses his opinion on this subject in his book „The Empire of the Popes“ and questions:

«To what extent was Jesus only means to an end to the Pope monarchs? ...What was the nature of the relationship between the Pope monarchs and the man that died on the cross and his representatives on earth that they claimed and still claim to be representatives of the God that wanted to bring peace?...Never can Jesus, the powerless, have desired a powerful church. How far had it moved away from the principle „my Kingdom is not of this world“? The Kingdom of the Pope monarchs was systematically built on completely worldly interests...» (P. 12)

After all that we have learnt from Christian history, it follows «that the great city that has the Kingdom over the Kings on earth» is nothing else but the Papacy, because during a fierce power battle lasting hundreds of years it had fought for absolute world power with the Emperors and Kings of the middle ages repeatedly asserting this claim until the time of reformation.

«The apostasy of the Germanic nations during the reformation upset the basis of the Papacy. Protestant powers emerged. They were free in relation to the Popes and that did not give them any privileges and by no means the privilege of a priesthood provided with special gifts and privileges and a visible representation of Christ» („2000 Jahre Christentum - 2000 Years of Christianity“, P. 286 ff).

But still today in an ideologically changed world in which disbelief and materialism is triumphant over Christianity, the Papacy maintains its claim on world dominion. This at least is expressed in the coronation formula used during the coronation of newly elected Popes in Rome: «Receive the tiara that is decorated with three crowns and know that you are the Father of the Princes and Kings, the leader of the world, the governor of our saviour Jesus Christ on earth whom we honour and praise for ever and ever, amen».

«And I saw the woman drunken by the blood of the saints
and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.»

Remarkable for the infamous church monarchy was that it, as a young Christian church, had for centuries suffered immense persecution had now become the greatest persecuter of heretics threatening everyone that was not prepared to accept the «standardised catholic faith» decreed by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine and the Roman Bishop:

«The Christians revealed themselves not less cruel regarding the persecution of heretics than the pagans. The persecution of Christians had barely ended when it came to severe oppressions among Christians and between Christians and unbelievers. On the one hand the numerous Christian groups fought with each other with unyielding cruelty. The tolerance that one had until now requested for oneself was now forgotten. The different sects did not even stop at bloodshedding. During the battles in 366, 137 people were killed on one single day. On the other hand the Christians also tyrannised the pagans. They destroyed their temples and statues, heresy was persecuted. The persecution of the heretics was considerably milder than that of the renegades within Christianity. The lessons of the past when Christians themselves still suffered from persecution were forgotten all too soon.» („2000 Jahre Christentum - 2000 Years of Christianity“, P. 713).

The bloody traces of tyranny, intolerance and death has been going on since the erection of the so-called «State of God» throughout the entire Roman-Catholic history. Moreover, countless millions of people were victims of the crusades, the inquisition, the witch processes, the persecution of reformed Christian-Lutherans, Huguenots, Calvinists etc. - and the thirty-year long religious war (1618-1648) between Catholic and Protestant Princes.

Is the Trinity Doctrine Pure Blasphemy?

To top their religious fornication the Roman church established from the beginning an own God known in church history as «Trinity» or «tri-unity». In „Reader’s Digest Universal Encyclopaedia“ we read the following condensed version:

«Trinity (tri-unity), Christian dogma of the unity of the divine substances Father, Son and Holy Ghost; not in original Christianity but only between the 2nd and 4th century, developed especially during the struggle against Arianism.»

Further information about the «triune doctrine» can be found in the book „2000 Jahre Christentum/Kirchengeschichtliches Lexikon - 2000 Years of Christianity - Church History Encyclopaedia“:

«Arianism: The doctrine of Arius that is condemned by the entire church as heretic. His teaching denies the unity between Father and Son. Also after the theological movement of the Arian struggle within the church this teaching survives in Germanic tribes, especially Westgothics, Vandals and Langobards. After the conquest of Western Rome they protected the Arian faith from the Roman-Catholic Church. The Arian faith had arrived from the partly Arian defined East Roman Empire via the Westgothics to the Germanic tribes as a kind of national property. Individual tribes sustained it until the 7th century.

Athanasius of Alexandria. The Greek Church Doctor and Patriarch of Alexandria (295 to 373) represented during the Arian dispute the similarity between the nature of God Father and God Son thus belonging to the forerunners of the Trinity dogma that attained validity by the councils of 325 and 381 in the Roman Church Empire....» (P. 911)

The Roman-Catholic «Trinity doctrine» has not been raised to a dogma in appreciation of its true contents but was established only after resentful resistance and ongoing hostile fights with the most detesting means: „slander, false witness, unjust charge, intrigue, dismissal, banishment and murder“ (Wegener). That only because pagan Roman Emperors, that called themselves „Christians“ but merely misused Christianity for their political purposes, wanted to reinstall quiet and peace within the fighting church.

With this we are faced with the fundamental question whether the dogma of the Trinity of God is in fact reality or whether it is pure blasphemy? To find the truth is important already because on it depends whether or not the passionate advocates of this dogma have made themselves guilty of instigating idolatry against better judgement or out of uncritical faith towards the church.

At first we should find an answer to the question why Jesus and the Apostles never spoke of a «tri-unity»? Did they in the end not even know such a Deity? The Bible at any rate does not mention it anywhere except in one unreal place in the letter of John (1. John 5; 7-8) that has, however, been removed again as forgery:

«The additional words in early editions of the Bible in verse 7 and 8: „There are three that beget in heaven: the Father, the word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are «one»“, cannot be found in the handwritings of the Greek text nor in Luther’s own interpretation.» (Jubilee Bible of 1964).

Also the Baptism formula in the gospel of Matthew:

«Therefore go and teach all nations and baptize them in (or on) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost...»,

that is repeatedly mentioned in particular as evidence for the «tri-unity Doctrine» does not testify absolutely anything in view of a «triune God». For this reason it is mentioned in the «Wuppertaler Study Bible»:

«The trinomial Baptism formula arising here for the first time is not yet an executed trinitarian creed but a liturgical formula corresponding to the three times submergence of the baptized».

What is remarkable about this Baptism formula is the fact that the other evangelists: Mark, Luke («who diligently investigated everything from the beginning!») and John do not mention it at all. Was it unknown to them? Or did they not give it any special significance?

The following words of Jesus that are frequently given as argument: «I and the Father are one» (Joh.10;30) are not convincing by any means. Otherwise the question immediately arises what is the position regarding the disciples that according to the Bible (John 17; 11-23)are also «one» with God and Jesus:

«Holy Father keep them in your own name that you have given me that they may be one like us... I pray not alone for them but also for them that shall believe in me through their word; That they all may be one, like you, Father, are in me, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that you have sent me. And I have given them the glory that you have given me, that they may be one, like we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be perfect in one and the world may believe that you have sent me and has loved them, like you love me.»

The concrete Biblical statement: «the disciples are one with God and Christ» would eventually paradoxically signify in the sense of the triune doctrine that God, Jesus and the disciples together are «one» thereby forming a «multi-unity Deity».

This is certainly an absurd idea! But doesn’t it correspond precisely to the same deceitful way of thinking with which Christian theologians still nowadays are desperately trying to support the non-biblical «tri-unity»; a teaching that was completely strange to the early Christian communities and the substance of which still has to be verified by religious researchers unto this day? Let us, however, ask the theologians of today how we are supposed to imagine a «triune God»? We will be astonished to discover that the entire clergy is not in the position to give a binding or satisfactory answer to this question. Supposedly the «divine tri-unity» whose roots have been established in Hellenistic thought is a great secret, a mystery, that cannot be grasped by the human mind and, therefore, cannot be explained to anybody. But isn’t that virtually a confession of their helplessness towards a dogma that has been taken over from heathendom and forced into a Christian tight jacket to give it a binding appearance? In the „Dictionary of the Bible“ we find the following seemingly helpless and meaningless explanation for this:

«...We will always face a last secret that is incomprehensible by the human mind that no eye has seen and no ear has heard and has not come into any human being’s heart...Because this belief as soon as it is put into words has to use the human language in order to express itself but with these words are already connected certain ideas. This makes it plausible that exactly at this point of the Christian doctrine the interpretations show considerable differences. All the more as there is not a single sentence in the Bible that simultaneously mentions the complete God of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost...» (P. 510).

The New Scofield Bible (P. 1022) gives the following comment about this:

«The three divine persons are one God, not three Gods... The triune God is certainly a big secret, something that is completely beyond the possibility of a comprehensive explanation.»

In view of so many contradictions, absurdities and mystifications that surround this ominous «triune doctrine» that has been invented by false Apostles in a chaos, we should be alert and critical and should not let ourselves be misused by the Satan and his worldly helpers «that pretend they are the Apostles without being an Apostle» (Rev. 2) and put Jesus Christ in the vicinity of the evils of Satan by making him «equal to the omnipotent God» and «one» without even having the slightest Biblical evidence for this unholy statement. Let us not forget that it was precisely Satan - Christ’s opponent and the murderer of human beings from the beginning - who rose in his heart and «wanted to be equal to the most supreme» (Esek. 28;12-18; Jes. 14;12-15), but was condemned for his pride by God and will at the end of time suffer the final «second death». (Rev. 20;10).

Since neither the Bible has a basis for the triune doctrine nor Jesus himself or his disciples have ever proclaimed a «triune God» the question arises which were the compelling reasons to implement by force and mean murder the «triune doctrine» against the will of the majority of the early Christian communities? Biblical reasons being excluded, there could have been only political interests in the foreground, namely clerical interests that were to exclusively support the expansion of power of the Roman Papacy; as explained by Rudolf Poertner in his book „Die Erben Roms - The Inheritors of Rome“:

«…According to the doctrine of the Presbyters, Arius of Alexandria, Christ was not the same as the creator but only the most supreme of all created beings. On the other hand the orthodox doctrine claimed (and still claims) that the Father and Son are the same. Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor in the world considered the conflicts concerning this question was a concern among clever theologians. The practical cohabitation of state and church has far-reaching consequences due to differing opinions. If Christ is merely a creation of God it means that his church will have to observe modesty and accept a subordinate role under worldly authorities whose mystic origin is not questioned at least by the Germanic nations of this time. Therefore it was not by coincidence that they without exception embraced the Arian belief system. Logically they did not allow the churches to grow beyond a type of national church organisation - a role with which the universal Roman-Catholic doctrine has never contented itself with and by virtue of their dogma could never do so.» (P. 23 f)

In summary it can be said that the so extensively disputed triune doctrine was only a means to an end and merely helped the power-hungry Papacy to pave its way towards universal monarchy.

It is very unlikely whether the Roman-Catholic Church will ever be able to liberate itself from the dogmas of the blasphemous triune doctrine; because the Roman Popes that claim for themselves to be «infallible» regarding religious questions cannot easily annul dogmas. This extensive decision connected with considerable consequences to reject the «trinity dogma» can and must be decided upon by each individual Catholic solely by himself.

Evangelic Christians having been largely liberated from the yoke of the Roman-Catholic false doctrines by Luther (Dogma of Mary, Saint- and Image Worship, Purgatory, Primacy of the Papacy, etc.) can more easily take the step to abandon the triune doctrine because for them the Holy Scripture is relevant for any arising religious questions, which, however, as we now know, is not aware of a «triune God».

Finally the question remains what the begotten Son himself thinks about his relationship with the heavenly Father. Contrary to the triune doctrine of Athanasius: all three persons are likewise eternal, likewise great and in reality the three Gods are one and the same God revealing himself in three different ways of being or persons always as the one same God, Christ explicitly explains: He is the beginning of creation. And his God and Father is greater than he.

These precise and unmistakable statements can - contrary to the triune doctrine be Biblically proved, for example in the message of Jesus to the community of Laodiceans:

«These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;» - Rev. 3; 14.

Or in the gospel of John:

«You have heard that I said to you, I go away, and come back again to you. If you had loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father; for my Father is greater than I..» - John.14; 28.

«My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.John.10; 27.

In the letter of the Hebrews we read:

«Therefore, holy brethren, comrades of the heavenly vocation, fix your thoughts, on Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest whom we confess, he was faithful to the one who created him, just as Moses was faithful in all God´s house. Jesus has been found worthy of greater glory (honor) than» - Hebr.3; 1-3.

These concrete Biblical statements in which Jesus liberally admits: «the Father is greater than I», point singularly to the fact that between the omnipotent God and his first-born son - the first of his creation work and the beginning of creation - there obviously exists a hierarchical order, comparable to the order of precedence existing also between Christ and the community or between man and wife according to the words of the Apostle Paul:

«The man is the head of the wife like Jesus is the head of the community and he is the Savior of his body. But like the community is subordinate to Christ, the wives should submit to their husbands in everything.» - Eph.5; 23-24.

In the letter of the Corinthians Paul refers to this order and explains to the community:

«I let you know that Christ is the head of every man; but the man is the head of the wife; but God is the head of Christ». - 1.Cor.11; 3.

In his letter Paul further writes about this hierarchical order and explains as follows:

«The last enemy that shall be destroyed is the death. Because, he «has put all things under his feet.» (Psalms. 87) But when he will say, «all things are subdued!», it is of course, that who is excepted, who put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all..» - 1.Cor.15; 26-28 (Menge).

In the Old Testament reference is also made to this order. The Psalmist writes:

«He will thus call me: You are my Father, my God and Host that helps me. And I will make him my first Son, the most supreme among the Kings on earth.» - Psalm 89; 27-28.

Psalms 45 that emphasises the «divinity of Christ» expressly confirms that the Son of God is under the Father; Christ is thus not a God next to God, this would also offend the first Commandment: «You shall have no other Gods beside me,» - but a God  u n d e r  God:

«God your throne is for ever and ever: the sceptre of your Kingdom is a right sceptre. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.» - Psalm 45; 7-8.

Jesus who was certainly conscious of his secondary position and therefore repeatedly expressed: his Father is his God, said after his resurrection from the dead unquestioned to Maria Magdalena:

«Do not touch me; as I have not ascended to my Father. But go to my brothers and tell them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God». - Joh.20; 17.

And even from heaven, utterly conscious of his mighty position, he once more points out that his Father is his God:

«Whoever overcomes I will make the pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall not leave any more; and I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the new Jerusalem, the city of my God, that descends from heaven from my God and my name, the new». - Rev.3; 12.

According to the Biblical statement God Father and God Son are not the same as Athanasius erroneously claims, but they are two different Gods of which, however, God Father is greater than the Son and the Son is subordinate to the Father according to divine order.

«I am the A and the O, speaks God the Lord, who is there and who was there and who will come, the omnipotent». - Rev.1;8 ;4;8; 11;17; 15;3; 16;7;16;14;19;6; 19;15; 21;6.

«This says the first and the last, who was dead and became alive» - Rev.2; 8.

«And John speaks of the two, i. e. the Father, the omnipotent God, and of the Son, who is the first and the last»:

«And I saw no temple therein; as the Lord, the omnipotent God is their temple and (also) the lamb (Jesus)». - Rev.21; 22.

Assuming that the triune doctrine is the Truth, this would entail serious consequences for the credibility of Jesus. Because the question immediately arises: Why did he even after the resurrection from the dead totally unfettered and sincere ask Maria Magdalena to tell his brothers: «I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God»? Did the «faithful and truthful martyr» want to leave us in the dark about his true identity or even deceive us? -Surely even those ignorant ones would not take it seriously who to this day vehemently defend their blasphemous trinity doctrine with dubious sayings and deceitful specious arguments!But wouldn’t it be a logical consequence if the advocates of the trinity doctrine were right and a triune God really existed? Even the stupid chatter of dogmatic fanatics cannot blind us to the fact that this is obviously contradictory: Jesus has after all come to earth as human being and has therefore also made his statements as a «human being». They diligently ignore in this respect that Jesus repeats and reconfirms his statement that he made on earth that «his Father is his God - and greater than he» (Rev. 3) in the «revelation, that God gave him» (Rev. 1) after his ascension, i.e. from heaven. Also from heaven in his message to the community of Laodicea he expressly states that he,

is the faithful and truthful martyr, who is the beginning of Gods creation
or the beginning (source) of the creation of God (Rev. 3;14).

In the Jubilee Bible (1964) we find the following comment about the already in the first Christian century existent conditions against Christianity that lastly paved the way for the blasphemous triune doctrine:

«From the three letters of John we can see how already at the end of the first Christian century all kinds of things appeared that could make the old Apostles afraid when looking into the future of the Church of Christ: on the one hand power-hungry community leaders that did not care about apostolic instructions, on the other hand false Antichristian teachers.» (P. 378).

Also the Apostle Paul warned about such intrigues against Christianity:

«For such are false Apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is not great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.» (2.Cor.11;13-15)


Back to overview

© Helmut Seeger