Topical Discussions, December, 2025

Here I am going to take another break from our Isaiah commentary and instead endeavor to treat a few subjects which arise continually, and although I have treated them in the past, in places such as the Christogenea Forum or from various perspectives in diverse commentaries, most of those are not as complete a treatment as I may be able to do here. However for some of these subjects, which are the pagan nature of Christmas and the inaccurate dating of the birth of Christ by the churches, it is also a discussion which is seasonable. We shall also discuss our reasoning for our interpretation of the Biblical Hebrew calendar. But first I want to address something which is taken for granted because it is repeated very often in social media, and even in print media and books.

Here we shall discuss three subjects, or actually four: By Way of Deception Christians Should Not Interpret Scripture, Reckoning the Dates for the Passover and the Day of the Sabbaths, How Christmas is Pagan and Dating the Birth of Christ. Our presentation of the last two subjects is hopelessly intertwined. 

By Way of Deception Christians Should Not Interpret Scripture

That is the motto of the subversive jewish agency known as the Mossad, which is typically said to read "By way of deception you shall wage war", and it seems that most people take for granted the jewish claim that this motto is a citation from Proverbs 24:6. So first, we shall cite Proverbs chapter 24:

1 Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them. 2 For their heart studieth destruction, and their lips talk of mischief. 3 Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: 4 And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches. 5 A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength. 6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety. 7 Wisdom is too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate. 8 He that deviseth to do evil shall be called a mischievous person. 9 The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men. 10 If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. 11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; 12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

Challenging Orthodoxy: Further Scriptural Witnesses Against the Trinity Doctrine

Ever since I began the commentary on the Gospel of John back in 2018, which was an endeavor that took me nearly two full years to complete, I have wanted to do certain topical programs which condensed particular subjects that are prominent in the Gospel of John into single topical presentations. In my estimation, the Gospel of John was the last one written, and was purposely written in a way which sets it apart from the synoptic Gospels. The apostle John illustrated teachings both about Christ and from Christ which the synoptic Gospels only represent superficially, or had excluded entirely. So I view John as a retrospective account of the Gospel, as John seems to have read the others, and chose to fill in many of the gaps from the substance and ministry of Christ which were left unrecorded in the synoptic gospels. One of those subjects is the nature of Christ Himself, so that John provides much of the evidence against the later so-called trinity doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. But for some time I procrastinated, having been busy with other projects, so it has been seven years, at least, since I first realized a need to do this, and when I finally began to prepare for this discussion, I honestly thought it would only be a single presentation. However doing that first presentation, I had to stop at about eleven thousand words, because I ran out of writing time, and that left several thousand words of notes for Scriptures that were left without mention. Therefore, here we are with a second discussion challenging the trinity doctrine, and I shall try not to repeat much of what I had said in the first discussion.

But when I finally resolved to discuss this subject of the so-called trinity here three weeks ago, it had been precipitated by a certain presumed friend who has continually accosted me, attempting to correct me for what he perceives to be my shortcomings. While we have been acquainted in social media for many years, he even joined the Christogenea Chat back in August, just to argue with me about his trinity doctrine, which he holds precious, and now he has once again badgered me in social media. But he also continually and rather consistently misrepresents me and my positions on the issue, probably because he has not actually read my papers. However, certain people seem to have a difficult time reading and grasping things which they find disagreeable, and now after several long back-and-forth discussions with this individual, I am convinced that he is one of them. He claims to admire my work, but he really only admires it to the point where he agrees, and then he thinks he has some divine commission to demand that I change where he does not agree. While I continue to disagree, in essence, his attitude is that he knows everything, and he can correct me because I don’t know what I am talking about. It is actually arrogant for such a man to keep confronting me when I refuse his correction.

Challenging Orthodoxy: Scriptural Witnesses Against the Trinity Doctrine

Before I begin, I must repeat something I have stated very frequently over the past few decades, which is that no part of Scripture is a lie. One verse of Scripture does not disprove another verse. If there is a perceived conflict, sometimes it is a corrupt text, which, on occasion, can be rectified by examining ancient manuscripts. Sometimes it is merely a poor translation which is more easily corrected upon examining the original languages. Sometimes it is a poor understanding of the context in which . But much more frequently than any of these, is a poor understanding on the part of the reader, and a lack of knowledge which is rectified only through further study. Therefore all of the “gotcha” verses which a scoffer may pull out of his pocket to refute our claims here this evening, do not prove what the scoffers think they prove.

Yes, Christ, the man, often prayed to God the Father, and often spoke of God the Father, from the perspective of a man. But that which He had done, He did as an example to men. When He washed the feet of His disciples, He said, as it is recorded in John chapter 13: “15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” Then, in 1 Peter chapter 1 we read: “21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously”, so that likewise, we would strive to live as He had lived, without sin and committing ourselves to His judgment. For that reason, to serve as an example for men, during His earthly ministry He behaved just as a man should behave, and not as God. After His resurrection, he was recognized as God. Yahshua Christ did not become a god, but rather, He is God who became a man, and His Resurrection proved that He is God. When the apostle Thomas had realized that it was Christ who was resurrected from the dead, he responded by declaring “My Lord and my God!” The prophet Isaiah was read in the synagogues, Christ Himself read from Isaiah and declared one Messianic prophecy to have been fulfilled in Himself, so men knew the other prophecies concerning their promised Redeemer, and they understood that those prophecies were fulfilled in Christ.