The Trinity: A Mans' Doctrine

This essay is by Nick Tatakis,
the well-known leader of an
evangelistic congregation
in Sarasota, Florida. 


Snyder Bible Home   All Sermons  
Search Entire Site    Contact


"Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the Doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John 9


The Author of this pamphlet believes that a great deal of confusion exists in so many Nick Tatakis, A Sholiach from Sarasota explanations about the Doctrine of the Trinity. As he also for one was baptized into it since childhood, being ignorant and unlearned of the scriptures due to his age, was an easy target for those who lie in wait to deceive with their cunning craftiness. Eph. 4:14.

The information presented in this pamphlet is easily obtained and anyone in doubt can stop by the Library and search historical, theological and biblical evidence to challenge his position on the Doctrine of the Trinity. No one is more eager than the Author to receive any correction, with the facts proven to the contrary. Written for those who desire the sincere milk of the Word, that they may grow by it. 1st Pet 2:2.

Grace and peace to anyone who seeketh the above quotation and truth of this search in order to set his record straight and accurate. Your brother and companion in the Kingdom of Jesus, the Anointed. N. Tatakis



In order to support the theory of the Trinity, they (ecclesiastical system) strongly stand in assumptions and composition of the scriptures and based on Matt 28:19, John 14:16-17, 1 Cor 12:4-6, 2nd Cor 13:13, Eph 4:4-6, 1 Pet 1:2, Rev. 1:4-6. However, reliance is held by many competent critics, is not to be placed upon the passages of Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 3:16 and lst John 5:7, for it is commonly regarded as spurious. At least the biblical encyclopedia admits that there are spurious passages in the bible and for that I applaud them for their honesty...

While the above quotations of Matt 28:19, John 14:16-7, 1 Cor 12:4-6, 2nd Cor 13:13, Eph 4:4-6, 1 Pet 1:2, Rev 1:4-6 mentioned nothing of Trinity or a triune personality, but only because those three names were mentioned. I wonder then, how do they interpret 1 Chron 29:18, Matt 22:32, Mark 12:26? Are we to assume that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are one tripersonal entity because their names are mention in the same verse; or only this is true with spiritual entities and not with fleshly? I am afraid there is no proof of that at all if any whatsoever in scripture or otherwise, except in ancient heathen theology of the Egyptians perhaps, but Matt 28:19 on who reads it in better translation. For there is a manuscript of Eusebios of Alexandria which makes more sense and agrees with all the Bible. The passage should say "baptize them in my name" and not in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. An so we see the apostles did just that. Acts 2:38, Luke also supports Eusebios manuscript. Luke 24:47.



(Or How the Clergy Delivers His Deceptive Teachings)

The Christian faith at this period does not ground itself upon philosophy, for it here extends to a matter for above the reach of philosophical reflection. Also, but little stress, if any, is to be laid upon apparent resemblances between pagan religion and Christianity at this point - resemblances more apparent than real. The Doctrine is to be accepted by faith in the divine revelation and while it is above reason and cannot be comprehended in its depth and fullness, it does not follow nor can it be shown that it is opposed to reason...(Peopleís Biblical Encyclopedia Reference). It is rather pitiful and shame on their part to try to support and teach a Doctrine that cannot be shown or comprehended, and foolishness and ignorant on my part to accept and to believe a Doctrine that is above reason. Therefore, their teaching no doubt is unreasonable...

Oh yes, you must take it by faith, they say. There is not a shred of evidence in the scriptures to suggest such tripersonal entity as we shall discuss later on from the scriptures. Neither are we commanded to believe a Doctrine that is not spoken by any writer of the scriptures, only to believe in God, not how God is composed of - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For there is only one Doctrine, the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, who never taught a Triune God. To the contrary said, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord thy God is one Lord." Mark 12:29

I wonder why Jesus did not reveal this that the Lord thy God is three Gods in one person. We know that Jesus fears no man but tells the truth, nor regardeth any person. Matt 22:16.

We also know that whatsoever he heard of his Father, he has made known unto his disciples. John 15:15. Furthermore we know that the mystery that was hidden from ages now has been revealed unto us by his spirit. Eph 3:3-5. Why do they call it a mystery that cannot be explained? It is it perhaps another Gospel which is not another? Gal 1:6-7 Then that would fully explain it.

Furthermore, the apostles commended us to prove ALL things and to hold that which is good, and to test the spirits if they are from God or not. 1 Thes 5:21, 1st John 4:1. If, therefore, the Doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proven or shown, it is not to be accepted in the Christian faith.



Briefly it may be said that the faith of the primitive Christians at this point, as many others, was without attempt at scientific form. The elements of the Doctrine, however, were embraced by their simple reliance upon the teachings of Christ and his apostles. It was only gradually and after a considerable period in its conflict with Judaism and paganism that the thought of the Church arrived at some kind of formal statement.

The word Trinity (Trinitas) was first employed by Tertulian (2nd century) which was only Latin translation of the Greek work (Trias), employed by Theophilus of Antioch. The so-called Christian Doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nice (A.D. 325) was an epoch in Christian history. The heresy of Sabelius and Paul of Samasota, which refused to recognize the Father as in any personal sense distinct from the Son and Holy Spirit, had been previously condemned. But Arius, who began with the Sabellian idea that the Trinity is only one of manifestation, changed his position and declared that there were three persons in God but that these three were unequal in glory in short. The Son and the Holy Spirit owed their existence to the Divine will and accordingly, were creatures of God. (See Arianism in Books of Doctrine.) The Council of Nice, in opposition of Arianism and various other theories, adopted the formal statement of the consubstantiality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, while the Doctrine of the Nicene Council was reaffirmed at various succeeding councils, and is the generally recognized Doctrine of the so-called Christian faith. (Biblical Encyclopedia Reference).



To the contrary of the Trinity, only the scriptures can have the pure truth and the final say. Therefore, if such a Doctrine as the Trinity could exist, the scriptures could not and would not contradict...

Every scripture that they use either is twisted, misinterpreted or misunderstood, as promptly 2nd Pet 3:16 reveals that they wrest the scriptures into their own destruction. Therefore, it is no wonder why we entangle with such a Doctrine.

We shall attempt to set straight some misunderstood verses and mistranslations.

First, their support in the Old Testament is based on Num 6:24-26, It is 6:3, 63:9-10, and this is because of the word ELOHIM, which in Hebrew denotes the plurality of God. Because the plural word can in the scriptures be applied to more than one, this cannot and does not mean that the one is many. This we shall prove by the scriptures.

For instance, there are many Gods so called. 1st Cor 8:5, 1st Sam 28:13, John 10:34-36, John 1:1-2, Phil 2:6, Heb 1:8-9, John 20:17. Therefore, is the Christian faith polytheistic or monotheistic? Certainly monotheistic. Remember, there are Gods so called; but to us there is but one God, the FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 1ST Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6, Mark 12:29, It is 44:8, It is 43:10-11. This plainly shows the plurality and singularity of Gods and God. Buts Ps 50:1 says "The God of Gods, even the Lord" (see Septugent translation.) While the Rotherham translation says, "EL, ELOHIM, YAHWEH has spoken." Correctly translated: "The God of Gods, ... the Lord has spoken."

Another mistranslation exists in It is 9:6, which says, "For unto us a child is born or son in given and the government shall be on his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting FATHER, The Prince of Peace." Now if one reads it in a better translation such as the Hebrew, one will see that there is an error in the translation. Apparently whoever translated it into English and even into Septugent, left out the preposition (OF) and it should read "His "His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, OF THE MIGHTY GOD, OF THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace." (See Hebrew translation.) Furthermore, we have considerable witness in the New Testament to support the Hebrew translation as corroborative and in full agreement with this statement.

Jesus came not to do his own will but the will OF HIM that sent him. John 6:38-40. We also know, He that is SENT is not greater than him that sent him, John 13:16 and again, "My FATHER is greater than I." John 14:28.

A point to remember, in John 7:16-18, that Jesusí Doctrine was not his own but his FATHERíS. If therefore, Jesus is in equality with his Father as the Trinity suggests, he would never have said the 18 verse, "He that speaketh OF himself seeketh his own GLORY." Promptly, Jesus applies this to It is 42:8 in regard to his Father and not his own, as also in John 12:49-50.

ONENESS: One misunderstanding point is that of John 10:30. Many stumble at that verse and take it at face value, as they do also John 14:7-9. Again, we shall explain both verses for they cannot be taken at face value, but in their context.

There are many passages in the bible which cannot be taken in the manner of sound, but in their proper context. For instance, the blood of Abel, crying from the ground to God does not prove that Abel was alive. Gen 4:10; and "She that liveth in pleasure is DEAD while she liveth" proves that she is DEAD now. 1st Tim 5:6. But Jesus explains the oneness in John 17:18-23, clear and simple. Notice the word, as WE ARE ONE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US, AND PERFECT INTO ONE.



In a test of challenge on the subject of divorce by the Pharisees, Jesus answered them this way, "For this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they two shall be one flesh." For they are no more two but ONE flesh. Matt 19:5-6. Are we then to assume that the husband and wife are not two individuals anymore? We know the answer to that, donít we.

Furthermore, in Matt 19:17, Jesus said "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but ONE, that is GOD..." If the theory of the Trinity was true, then Jesus ought to accept the compliment and the gratification. But to the contrary, he did not reckon himself equal to God but said, "There is NONE GOOD BUT ONE." If then John 10:30 is to be taken of face value, he should accept that with no contradiction whatsoever.

Furthermore, both Jesus and Paul precifically explain the individuality of the FATHER and the SON. First, Jesus said in Matt 23:8-10 that ony ONE is your master, and only ONE is your Father. A point which Paul taught also with specification and great emphasis. Eph 4:4-6 ONE LORD, and again ONE GOD. Gal 3:20

The emphasis of the word BOTH ME AND MY FATHER, goes a long way to explain the indivuality of the TWO. John 15:24, Heb 2:11, Zech 6:12-13 cannot be taken lightly nor is applicable to ONE, but to both, as more than one....

Although much can be said and proven beyond the doubt, time will fail to examine every ignorance of contradiction or corroboration, but the above proofs suffice us to see clearly the foreign insertion of the Doctrine of the Trinity into the Christian faith.

"HE THAT SEES ME, SEES THE FATHER..." in John 14:7-9, Philipís curiosity to see the Father, Jesus presented to him the image of the Father which is him. Anyone who sees a duplicate sees exactly the expression of the original but not the original itself necessarily. This we will prove.

First, Jesus is the express image of God. Heb 1:3, Col 1:13-15, 2nd Cor 4:4 So it stands to reason that he that sees Jesusí character, can understand how God would seem to be like. So Jesusí answer to Philip presents no contradiction. Furthermore, not always in scripture such and visions and representatives can apply to the very one or thing. For instance we know that Adam spoke and conversed with God, Gen 3:8-10 and Moses saw God face-to-fact and talked with him. Exod 3:6, Heb 11:27, Exod 33:11-23. But explained the assumable contradiction that one may gather out of the above statements. John 1:18, 5:37, 1st Tim 6:16 clearly explains that no man has seen God or heard his voice, ever, at any given time.

Therefore, what do we do with the voice that came to him in Jordan at his baptism? "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Who spoke there? Who did Philip see? Who did Moses see in the bush in the mount?

All these have a reasonable and simple explanation. Let us not allow adaptation of foreign Doctrines into the purity of the Christian faith due to lack of learning and laziness of study. As it is written, "My people perish for lack of Knowledge." Hosea 4:6 Let not this be applicable to us, as it is with many others.

Exod. 3:6, 33:11-23 (explanation Acts 7:35) Stephen reveals who actually was in the bush, the Angel of God. Also, Exod 23:20-23 explains and verified Stephenís revelation as to the Angel instead of God. In personal dealings with man, therefore, 1st Tim 6:16, John 1:18, 5:37 are correct to the precise point, that God never spoke or appeared unto anyone ever...

It is no wonder that the Jews could not understand Jesus because Jesus again said, "ye do err not knowing the scriptures." Matt 22:29 Therefore, Hosea 4:6 is correct for the destruction of those who lack knowledge....



The Doctrine of the Trinity again claims co-immortal, co-equal, co-eternal the Son with the Father. Again, they couldnít be more wrong.

CO-ETERNAL is unfound. To the contrary the scriptures prove the beginning of the Son. Prov 8:22-31, John 1:1-2, Col 1:15-19, 1st John 1:1-3, Rev 3:14. Five specific verses to support the origin and beginning of the Son and that only the father is from everlasting to everlasting. Ps 90:2 For as the Son may have attained to everlasting, but not from, because he has a beginning.

CO-EQUAL in Phil 2:6-11 speaks of state and form of God. The Son was existing before he became flesh and dwelled among us, thought not such a thing to claim equality with his Father, but emptieth himself and became as man and obedient unto death of the cross.

Further clarification of Phi. 2:6 specifically must be clarified here, and that because of the translation. Whoever translated must have been a Trinitarian for sure because he or they inserted the word it, instead of, "thought not robbery", they translated, "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." By allowing that "it", changes all together the true meaning of the context. We know this by the rest of the verses 7-11 and also from the Greek version which does not supply the word "it".



According to 1st Tim 6:15-16 only one possesses immortality, the only potentate that again is applicable to God the Father. And He has given immortality to the Son, as well as He will give also to the church. 2nd Tim 1:10.

In addition to the above, this also must be reminded. Two immutable things of which is impossible for God to LIE. One - "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee." Second- "Thou are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Heb 7:21, 5:5-6 If Jesus then is a high priest forever, to whom does he render the servitude? If he is the Father, he must do then his own service to himself and who then will be his Son? That by two immutable things of which it is impossible for god to LIE, we have a strong consolation. The most dubious and contradicted theory ever imagined - to be a priest to Himself and Son also. But Heb 1:15 is clear to the point, "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee" and again "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." That is unchangeable.

I rather for myself believe the scriptures than theories and Doctrines of men. Furthermore the scriptures do trace Jesus all the way to the end and plainly shows who will eventually sustain or be.

1st Cor 15:24-28 shows that God the Father will be ALL in ALL. While at that time the Son shall be in subjection to Him. Truly then Jesus says, "I go to my God and your God, to my Father and your Father." John 20:17 And again, Paul corroborates this statement with the psalmist. Heb 1:8-9 Note the emphasis God, Thy God. Ps 45:6-7

Nowhere does the scriptures contradict themselves but are in perfect harmony, providing one properly understands them and we believe anyone who sincerely seeketh, God will give him the understanding to believe the truth, that he may be saved.... Luke 24:45

Much more yet can be said against the Doctrine of the Trinity, but this remains upon the reader and he that seeks after God to satisfy any unanswered questions that he may have. However, this pamphlet clearly expresses the position of the scriptures and puts to rest forever the Doctrine of the Trinity.

And so I leave them with one question unanswered, if they can tell. Prov 30:4 There is no law of interpretation, out of two or more personalities to make ONE entity.

Your servant in Christ,

N. Tatakis



Codex Sinaiticus

New Testament:

from the famed discovery


The earliest, oldest New Testament text has finally been released to the public.  You may read the Codex Sinaiticus online - but only if you know Greek!  To read it inCodex Sinaiticus New Testament H T Anderson English English, you need the only English translation we know.  The H. T. Anderson English Translation of the Codex Sinaiticus, with the three extra early New Testament books and the Sonnini Manuscript of Acts 29 included, and the original absences of certain verses (put in there later by the 'church') is now available only at here.  

THIS IS NOT A CHEAP, SCANNED-IN FACSIMILE. This is a first edition of the text published in easy-to-read Georgia font with plenty of room between verses for your notes.2 points between verses, hard or soft cover.


The Nazarene Acts
of the Apostles

Also known as
The Recognitions of Clement

Ever wonder why PAUL and not PETER received the mission to the lost tribes?  Wasn't Peter the stone upon which the "church" was to be built?  In this new translation of the Nazarene Acts, we follow Kefa (Peter) as he itinerates from Jerusalem and up the Mediterranean coast up to Tripoli, as recorded in the journals of his successor, Clement of Rome (Phi 4:3).  Every message Kefa preached, the company he kept, and the great works of faith the the Almighty accomplished through him are herein recorded.  This 300 page volume has been 'hidden' in the back of an obscure volume of the "Church Fathers" all this time.  Could it be that, in establishing the Gentile 'church' by pushing away from Judaism, this history was purposely hidden?