In-Depth Breakdown of the “Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?” Debate - Part 1

I recently followed Dr. Dale Tuggy on Twitter (@DaleTuggy) after I noticed he was a Theologian and a Unitarian. On January 11, he had a debate with Trinitarian Dr. Michael Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown). I have commented a few times on Twitter but I decided to watch the debate and provide the research that will undoubtedly expose Trinitarian misinterpretations.

How I am going to breakdown this debate will be fairly simple. Chances are, I have already debunked every argument that Dr. Brown will have presented that he thinks proves Jesus is God. I would be extremely surprised if he presents any new information here, although I am hopeful of it. I will track each topic or scripture, briefly address it and provide the link to where my in-depth research can be found. I may also link to other websites who have even more extensive research than my own. The majority of which, however, will be my work.

I want to start out by saying I have seen these debates previously. The thing that stuck out to me initially was the clear, precise and logical way the Unitarian debater laid out his information. He is concise and orderly, addressing both sides of an argument when an argument is present. As oppose to the Trinitarian who was everywhere. He would bounce from subject to scripture back to a different subject. He went off on tangents and did not address any of the points that his opponent presented. He just kept spouting off the scriptures he thinks prove his point, most of which have already been addressed on this blog.

After only a few minutes of watching, my hope is that Dr. Brown approaches this the way that Dr. Tuggy has so far. Dr. Tuggy is being clear and logical with complete information and addressing both sides of the argument when it can be done so. He is very direct in addressing every point and does so in a orderly fashion.

Also, what needs to be mentioned is the fact that Dr. Tuggy, in his opening statement, claims that Jesus is also rightfully worshiped. Him and I disagree on this point. Jesus blatantly says:

"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the LORD,(Jehovah Deu 10:20) thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" - Matthew 4:10 (DNKJB.net)

It is Jehovah God and Jehovah only that we are to worship, no one else. Obviously, Jesus is not including himself as accepting of worship because he explicitly says it is his Father, Jehovah whom he also worships (John 4:23). I am surprised at this conflict that Dr. Tuggy willfully admits to as the vast majority of his arguments are without error.

The first thing Dr. Brown addresses is Dr. Tuggy's claim that Jesus was nothing more than a "glorified man". This is not a claim that Dr. Tuggy made. However, this is often an accusation that gets flung at anyone who does not believe that Jesus is God. I have heard it myself. This claim is simply not true. The Son of God, who was chosen by God directly to come to this earth and willingly give his life up for all of mankind, is not a "glorified man". Someone who can perform miracles with the power he received from God, who rules as an God-appointed King over mankind and will defeat Satan and his demons is not a "glorified man". Jesus is just simply not the Almighty God. That's all Dr. Tuggy, and people who believe like myself, are saying. So right off the bat Dr. Brown creates a "straw-man" and puts words in Dr. Tuggy's mouth. Starting off like a true Trinitarian so far.

Dr. Brown makes the claim that Jesus, as God, became man thus taking on the Father as his God. This is nonsense. Why didn't Jesus "take on" the Holy Spirit as his God? Why just the Father? Where are the scriptures in which Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as "his God"? Don't forget, "tri" means 3. You cannot simply choose to only acknowledge the existence of 2 just to bolster your argument.

I found this funny, Dr. Brown has actually admitted that the Trinity is illogical! No, really? Do me a favor Dr. Brown, name 1 thing created by God that is not logical. Name one thing in nature that is also triune. I'll wait...

Further he says the day we understand the nature of God is when he has been reduced to being made in our image. Surprise Dr. Brown! God Himself said that we are, in fact, made in His image (Genesis 1:26). Just put 2 points up on the wrong side of the board.

The first place Dr. Brown goes to is somewhere I have actually not addressed directly yet on this blog. Now that it has been brought to my attention, I will do so at a later date. It is my guess that Dr. Brown is using the (trinity-biased) King James Version of the Bible.

"I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah 42:8

Comparing that scripture with this one:

"...Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." - Revelation 5:12

And making the point that since both Jesus and "The Lord" (Jehovah) are worthy of glory, that the must be the same God. This is just a re-mixed argument of Trinitarian-logic, "If 'The Lord' is called ____ and Jesus is called ____ then they must be the same". That is a completely illogical statement. No truth or accuracy to it whatsoever. Regardless, Dr. Brown's interpretation of this scripture can be proven faulty with a single statement made by Jesus himself:

"I do not accept glory from men" - John 5:41

What this presents is merely a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist when what you think or believe is accurate and logical. This scripture alone proves that Dr. Browns interpretation cannot be accurate. Instead of addressing that contradiction, it simply gets ignored. But that is not how I do things.

To obtain a further accurate understanding of the correct interpretation of those scriptures, please check out this research.


Next up, Dr. Brown notes that Revelation 5:13 + 14 indicate that "all creation" worships the Lamb which excludes him from being part of creation. Again, this is faulty logic. For example; imagine you are in a crowd of 1000 people. Suddenly, all of those people start clapping for you. These 2 things can be true: all the crowd is clapping for you and you are a part of the crowd. The same rule applies to this verse. Just because all of creation is worshiping Jesus, it does not mean he is not a part of that creation.

Worth noting as well is the rendering of the word "worship" from the Greek word "proskuneo". That word has basically 2 meanings, "worship" or "obeisance". At Revelation 3:9, Jesus says about his chosen followers, "I will make them to come and worship (proskuneo) before thy feet". Obviously, Jesus would not have his human followers be given the same worship that is reserved for his Father. Instead, they would more likely have acts of "obeisance" done to them. The problem is nearly every single usage of the word "proskuneo" in the King James Version is translated as "worship". Which creates a problem because the only person that should be worshiped, according to Jesus, is Jehovah:

"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the LORD,(Jehovah Deu 10:20) thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." - Matthew 4:10 (Divine Name KJV)


Surprisingly, the next place Dr. Brown goes is erroneously making a connection between John 8:58 and Isaiah 48:12 (usually, the comparison is made to Exodus 3:14). I say surprisingly because as a doctor and theologian, I would expect that Dr. Brown would have spent at least a little time studying some of the original Greek and Hebrew languages used in the Bible. Just the very basic research on these 2 verses reveal that when translated accurately and honestly, there is simply no connection to be made.

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." - John 8:58

"..I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." - Isaiah 48:12

Addressing first the mistake commonly made at John 8:58 where the context is completely ignored by Trinitarian interpretation. Notice the question Jesus was asked right before he gave that answer:

" Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" - John 8:57

Clearly, Jesus was being asked by the Jews how old he was! What sense would it make for Jesus to reply to a question asking how old he was by saying who he was? Let's play this out:

Jeff: How old are you?
Bill: I'm Bill.

Dumb right? Yet that context is ignored for no other reason than Trinitarian desperation for their precious doctrine to be found SOMEWHERE in the Bible. That is only one way to prove that this interpretation of scripture is nonsense.

Since Dr. Brown clearly has no desire to study the basic rules of grammar and the Greek language, this website did an entire dissertation on the folly of Trinitarian interpretation of John 8:58.

I also did an entire entry of John 8:58 and (the usual comparison scripture) Exodus 3:14 called "Does Jesus Claim to be the "I AM"?"


The next stop for Dr. Brown is the "Alpha and Omega" argument. Where a combination of misinterpretation, ignorance of context and fallacious logic run rampant to create the "Jesus MUST be God" conclusion. I have addressed, specifically, this very topic on my blog entitled "The First and The Last".

Dr. Brown makes the absolutely erroneous and flat out incorrect statement that "only the eternal God could say 'I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last'" and "no created being could utter such words". Ready for this? I am going to utter these words:

"I am the first and the last."

Boom. In what way, you might ask, can I accurately claim to be "the first and the last"? Simple. I am an only child. I was "the first" child my mother gave birth to and I am "the last" child my mother gave birth to. If I am understanding Dr. Brown's logic correctly, because he said "only the eternal God can say" that then I'M GOD too!

Except I'm not. And Dr. Brown's logic here is, as usual, faulty. "The first and the last" is not a title of exclusivity. It's a title that can be shared by any number of people who were the first and last person to do something or say something or whatever. Jesus for example can be called the first and the last, also. He was the first and last being created directly by Jehovah, as everything else was created thru Jesus. That title makes Jesus God as much as it makes me God.

Dr. Brown now says since the Bible says both Jehovah's words and Jesus's words remain forever they must be the same. Wrong again. There's no reason both of their words can't last forever. Such WEAK and illogical points Dr. Brown. I don't have an education past high school and I see every single hole in your logic.

I don't know why I expected more from Dr. Brown than the same old tired Trinitarian arguments. Maybe its his unjustified arrogance on Twitter or his confounding popularity, I don't know. Instead the next point he brings up is the argument about how many saviors there are. Allow me to introduce you to the other person's of the multi-personal God you may not yet be familiar with:

"...Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother." - Judges 3:9 (ASV)

We have Othniel who was a saviour.

"...Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite" - Judges 3:15 (ASV)

This is Ehud, the saviour.

Remember Dr. Brown's (and all Trinitarian's) logic is that since there is "only one savior" and both Yahweh (Jehovah) and Jesus are called "savior" then they must be the same God. In order for that logic to be sound, there are 2 rules we must apply.

1) No one else could be correctly be called "savior".
2) If there is anyone else called "savior" in the Bible, they must be the same savior that Jehovah and Jesus are.

If neither of those things are true, then it proves unequivocally that Dr.Brown/Trinitarian logic is fallacious. Because the Bible also refers to Othniel and Ehud - among others - as saviors then either the Trinitarian God just got 2 more personages added to it OR being called a "savior" does not equate to being the Almighty God.

The thing that every single person in the Bible who is called a "savior" has in common, is that they all were chosen by Jehovah to fulfill that role. In that way Jehovah is the ultimate savior who chooses others to carryout the role of saving. This, obviously, includes His first and most cherished creation, Jesus.

I wrote a full breakdown and in-depth research into this topic on this blog entitled, "Are Jehovah and Jesus the Same Savior?".

Regarding the scripture cited by Dr. Brown:

"the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," - Titus 2:13 (KJV)

Here we have yet another example of the Trinitarian-bias translation that is the King James Bible. This interpretation is largely due in part to Trinitarian scholar Glenville Sharp establishing what is called "Sharp's Rule". The research behind that topic is extensive and lengthy, but can be found here.


This is where I will conclude Part 1 of this breakdown of the “Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?” debate. I will continue to analyze the Trinitarian arguments made in Part 2 coming hopefully within a week's time.

To stay updated with the progress please follow me on Twitter @GodIsNoTrinity. I'm also always willing to answer any questions from people who are GENUINELY looking for the answers, not simply thinking they can disprove honest and accurate scriptural interpretations.