John 6:62 — Does “Ascending to Where He Was Before” Prove Jesus Lived in Heaven Before His Birth?

 

Jesus teaching His disciples beside the Sea of Galilee, illustrating John 6:62 and the question of what He meant by the Son of Man “ascending to where He was before.” Research by Simon Brown.

JOHN 6:62 — DOES “ASCENDING TO WHERE HE WAS BEFORE” REALLY PROVE JESUS LIVED IN HEAVEN BEFORE HIS BIRTH?

What Did Jesus Really Mean by “Going Up to Where He Was Before”?

Detailed John 6:62 Bible research infographic examining Jesus’ words about the Son of Man “going up to where He was before,” the Greek word anabainō, the resurrection and life context of John 6, and the traditional pre-existence interpretation. Research by Simon Brown.

John 6:62 is frequently presented as one of the clearest statements that Jesus personally existed in heaven before He was born.

Jesus said:

“Then what if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”
— John 6:62

The traditional interpretation seems simple:

Jesus previously lived in heaven with God. He came down from heaven to earth. Therefore, when Jesus spoke about “ascending to where he was before,” He must have meant returning to the heavenly place where He personally lived before His birth.

But is that actually what Jesus said?

Does John 6:62 say:

“What if you see me returning to heaven where I lived before I was born?”

No.

Those words are not in the verse.

And when we examine the Greek, the immediate context, the repeated resurrection language throughout John 6, and Jesus' statement immediately afterward that “the Spirit gives life,” there is another interpretation that deserves serious consideration.

Could Jesus have been speaking about His coming death and resurrection?

Let us examine the evidence.

---

FIRST, WHAT DOES JOHN 6:62 ACTUALLY SAY?

The Greek text reads:

ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον;

Transliterated:

ean oun theōrēte ton huion tou anthrōpou anabainonta hopou ēn to proteron?

The crucial words are:

ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον

anabainonta hopou ēn to proteron

Approximately:

“GOING UP / ASCENDING WHERE HE WAS BEFORE.”

Notice what the Greek does not say.

It does not say:

“ascending back to heaven.”

It does not say:

“returning to heaven.”

It does not say:

“where I lived before I was born.”

Most importantly:

THE WORD “HEAVEN” DOES NOT APPEAR IN JOHN 6:62.

That does not by itself prove that heaven cannot be what Jesus meant.

But neither can “heaven” simply be inserted into the verse and then the inserted idea be used as proof that Jesus personally lived there before His birth.

The destination represented by “where he was before” has to be determined from the context.

---

WHAT DOES ANABAINŌ MEAN?

The Greek word behind “ascending” is:

ἀναβαίνω — ANABAINŌ

The word can mean:

to go up, come up, rise, ascend.

But anabainō does not inherently mean:

“TO ASCEND BACK TO HEAVEN.”

The New Testament uses this same verb for many kinds of upward movement.

Jesus went up onto a mountain.

Jesus came up out of the water following His baptism.

Plants grew up from the ground.

Zacchaeus climbed up a tree.

Therefore, the English translation “ascending” is legitimate, but we must not allow the English word to make the Greek say more than it actually says.

Anabainō tells us about upward movement.

The context must tell us where and in what sense.

---

JOHN 6:62 MUST NOT BE REMOVED FROM JOHN 6:60–63

This is where the interpretation becomes especially interesting.

Jesus did not suddenly make an isolated statement about pre-existence in verse 62.

There is a conversation taking place.

We therefore need to read the verses together.

---

JOHN 6:60 — “THIS IS A HARD SAYING”

After hearing Jesus' teaching, many of His disciples said:

“This is a hard saying! Who can listen to it?”

Why were they struggling?

Because Jesus had been speaking in extraordinary language.

He had described Himself as:

THE BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.

He had spoken about:

EATING HIS FLESH

and:

DRINKING HIS BLOOD.

Clearly, we are dealing with language that requires interpretation.

Jesus was not instructing His disciples literally to eat pieces of His physical body and drink His physical blood.

The disciples were struggling to understand what He meant.

---

JOHN 6:61 — “DOES THIS CAUSE YOU TO STUMBLE?”

Jesus knew that His disciples were grumbling.

He therefore asked:

“Does this cause you to stumble?”

And immediately He continued:

“Then what if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”
— John 6:62

But Jesus did not stop there.

The very next words are extremely important.

---

JOHN 6:63 — “THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE”

Jesus continued:

“It is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.”

Notice the language:

“THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.”

And:

“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK TO YOU ARE SPIRIT, AND ARE LIFE.”

Why should this matter when interpreting the previous sentence?

Because resurrection and restoration to life have already been repeatedly discussed in this same chapter.

---

RESURRECTION APPEARS THROUGHOUT JOHN 6

Jesus repeatedly speaks about resurrection in John 6.

John 6:39

“…I should lose nothing of all those he has given me, but should raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:40

“…I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:44

“…I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:54

“…I will raise him up at the last day.”

Four times in this discourse Jesus explicitly speaks about people being raised up.

Therefore, resurrection is not an idea imported from somewhere else in Scripture merely to create an alternative explanation for John 6:62.

RESURRECTION IS ALREADY PART OF THE CONTEXT OF JOHN 6.

And then, immediately after verse 62, Jesus says:

“THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.”

That deserves serious consideration.

---

READ JOHN 6:60–63 AS ONE CONTINUOUS THOUGHT

Consider the progression.

VERSE 60

The disciples say:

“This is a hard saying.”

VERSE 61

Jesus asks:

“Does this cause you to stumble?”

VERSE 62

Jesus asks what they would think if they saw the Son of Man:

“going up/ascending where he was before.”

VERSE 63

Jesus immediately explains:

“THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.”

and:

“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK TO YOU ARE SPIRIT, AND ARE LIFE.”

Why should verse 62 be removed from this sequence and automatically interpreted as a statement about Jesus' life in heaven before His birth?

There is another possibility.

---

WAS JESUS SPEAKING ABOUT HIS RESURRECTION?

Consider what was about to happen to Jesus.

Jesus was alive upon the earth when He spoke these words.

He would later be killed.

He would be buried.

He would then be raised from the dead.

After His resurrection, Jesus would once again be:

ALIVE UPON THE EARTH

and would appear to His disciples.

Could this explain:

“the Son of Man going up to where he was before”?

Under this interpretation:

WHERE WAS JESUS BEFORE HIS DEATH?

Alive upon the earth.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

He would die and be buried.

WHAT WOULD GOD THEN DO?

Raise Him from the dead.

WHERE WOULD JESUS THEN BE?

Once again alive upon the earth, appearing to His disciples.

In other words:

DEATH → RESURRECTION → RESTORATION TO LIFE

This makes Jesus' very next statement particularly interesting:

“THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.”

---

DOES JOHN 6:63 EXPLICITLY SAY THE SPIRIT WOULD RESURRECT JESUS?

We must be precise.

No.

John 6:63 does not literally say:

“God's Spirit will raise me from the dead.”

Jesus says:

“The Spirit gives life.”

Connecting those words specifically with Jesus' resurrection is therefore an interpretation drawn from the surrounding context.

But exactly the same standard must be applied to the traditional interpretation.

John 6:62 does not literally say:

“I am returning to heaven where I consciously lived before my birth.”

That is also an interpretation.

So the question is not:

Which interpretation contains no interpretation at all?

The question is:

WHICH INTERPRETATION BEST EXPLAINS JESUS' WORDS IN THEIR CONTEXT?

---

SCRIPTURE CONNECTS GOD'S SPIRIT WITH RESURRECTION LIFE

There is another interesting biblical connection.

Paul later writes:

“But if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”
— Romans 8:11

Notice the concepts:

Jesus raised from the dead.

The Spirit.

Giving life to mortal bodies.

Romans 8:11 does not prove by itself what John 6:62 means, because Paul is writing in another context.

But it demonstrates that connecting Spirit + giving life + resurrection is thoroughly biblical.

Likewise, John 5:21 says:

“For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he desires.”

Again we find:

RAISING THE DEAD → GIVING LIFE.

Therefore, when John 6 repeatedly discusses resurrection and Jesus immediately says “the Spirit gives life,” the possibility that resurrection is relevant to verse 62 cannot simply be dismissed.

---

JESUS HAD BEEN SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY

We must also remember what produced the controversy in the first place.

Jesus had said:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you don’t have life in yourselves.”
— John 6:53

Nobody should interpret this woodenly literally.

Jesus' words require spiritual understanding.

Indeed, Jesus Himself subsequently says:

“The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.”

This is extremely relevant to another expression used throughout John 6:

“I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.”

Does that expression necessarily describe a conscious person physically travelling from heaven to Mary's womb?

Or can “from heaven” describe Jesus' divine origin—His being from God, sent by God, authorized by God and uniquely begotten through God's miraculous action?

We have already examined that question in detail in our companion study:

John 6:38 — How Did Jesus Come Down From Heaven?

READ THE JOHN 6:38 COMPANION STUDY

---

“FROM HEAVEN” DOES NOT ALWAYS REQUIRE LITERAL TRAVEL FROM HEAVEN

John himself provides an important example.

John the Baptist said:

“A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven.”
— John 3:27

Something being “from heaven” can therefore identify its divine source.

Jesus certainly came from God.

The question is what that expression means.

Jesus had no human father.

Luke records the angel telling Mary:

“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.”
— Luke 1:35

Jesus' origin was uniquely from God.

He was God's Son.

He was sent by God.

His authority came from God.

His words came from God.

His works were given by God.

His mission originated with God.

Therefore, saying Jesus came from God does not settle by itself the separate question of whether Jesus consciously lived beside God in heaven before His conception.

That question must be established from Scripture.

---

BUT WHAT ABOUT “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”?

This is understandably the most difficult part of John 6:62.

Jesus says:

“…where he was before.”

The traditional interpretation understands this to mean:

HEAVEN — WHERE JESUS PERSONALLY LIVED BEFORE HIS BIRTH.

But notice again:

Jesus does not actually identify “where” as heaven in this verse.

The resurrection interpretation understands the expression differently.

Before Jesus' death He was:

ALIVE UPON THE EARTH.

He would then die.

He would be buried.

He would subsequently come up/rise from death and once again be:

ALIVE UPON THE EARTH.

The disciples would actually see Him again.

Thomas would see Him.

Peter would see Him.

Mary Magdalene would see Him.

The other disciples would see Him.

Only later would Jesus ascend to His Father.

Therefore, the expression “where he was before” does not by itself prove that the location was Jesus' pre-human residence in heaven.

That is precisely the point that needs to be demonstrated rather than assumed.

---

BUT JESUS REALLY DID ASCEND TO HEAVEN

Absolutely.

Nothing in this study denies Jesus' eventual ascension.

After His resurrection, Jesus ascended to His Father.

Acts 1 records this clearly.

The question is much narrower:

IS JOHN 6:62 TALKING ABOUT THAT ASCENSION IN A WAY THAT PROVES JESUS PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN HEAVEN BEFORE HIS BIRTH?

Those are two different questions.

Interestingly, Acts 1:9, in describing Jesus being taken up, does not use anabainō itself.

That fact does not prove John 6:62 means resurrection.

But it does demonstrate why anabainō should not be treated as a technical Greek term meaning “Christ's ascension back into heaven.”

---

THERE IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT PROBLEM WITH “GOING BACK”

If Jesus personally lived alongside God in heaven before His birth, then came to earth, we might expect Jesus—when later speaking explicitly about His departure to God—to describe Himself as:

“GOING BACK TO GOD”

or:

“RETURNING TO THE FATHER.”

This makes John 13:3 and John 16:28 particularly important.

---

JOHN 13:3 — “GOING TO GOD”

John 13:3 says that Jesus knew:

“…that he came from God, and was going to God.”

The important Greek expression is:

ὑπάγει πρὸς τὸν θεόν

hypagei pros ton theon

Jesus is described as:

GOING TO GOD.

Some English translations make the idea more explicit by translating this as “returning to God” or “going back to God.”

But there is no separate Greek word corresponding to “back” in that phrase.

That distinction matters.

---

JOHN 16:28 — “I GO TO THE FATHER”

This passage is even more striking because these are Jesus' own words:

“I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
— John 16:28 KJV

The Greek says:

πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα

poreuomai pros ton patera

That is:

“I GO TO THE FATHER.”

Again, there is no separate word meaning:

“BACK.”

Yet some translations render the expression:

“I am going back to the Father.”

That may represent how the translators understand the overall sentence, but “back” is interpretive rather than an independently stated word in the Greek phrase.

And that raises an important question.

---

IF JESUS MEANT “I AM RETURNING TO WHERE I LIVED BEFORE,” WHY NOT SAY SO?

Consider the argument carefully.

If Jesus were explicitly teaching:

“Before I was born I personally lived with God in heaven. I left that heavenly existence, came to earth, and now I am returning to the place where I previously lived,”

then John 13:3 and John 16:28 would have been very natural places to state it clearly.

But what do we actually find?

John 13:3:

GOING TO GOD.

John 16:28:

GOING TO THE FATHER.

Not explicitly:

“going BACK to God.”

Not explicitly:

“RETURNING to the Father.”

Not explicitly:

“returning to where I lived before my birth.”

This does not by itself disprove personal pre-existence.

Someone who believes in pre-existence can reasonably argue that coming from the Father and subsequently going to the Father implies a return.

But that is precisely why we must distinguish:

WHAT THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS

from:

WHAT A THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION INFERS FROM THE TEXT.

---

WE HAVE ALREADY INVESTIGATED JOHN 13:3 AND JOHN 16:28

This translation question deserves more attention than we can give it here.

For that reason, we have already produced a separate detailed investigation:

John 13:3 & John 16:28 – Did Jesus Really Say He Was “Returning” or “Going Back” to God?

In that study we compare the Greek wording with different English translations and examine whether “returning” and “back” are actually expressed in the Greek.

READ THE FULL JOHN 13:3 & JOHN 16:28 STUDY

This evidence fits naturally alongside John 6:62.

---

NOW PUT ALL FOUR PASSAGES TOGETHER

This gives us an interesting sequence in John's Gospel.

JOHN 6:38

Jesus says:

“I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.”

JOHN 6:62

Jesus speaks about:

“GOING UP/ASCENDING WHERE HE WAS BEFORE.”

JOHN 13:3

Jesus is:

“GOING TO GOD.”

JOHN 16:28

Jesus says:

“I GO TO THE FATHER.”

Now compare those actual expressions with the theological reconstruction sometimes placed upon them:

“I consciously lived in heaven alongside God before my birth. I literally travelled down from heaven into the world, and now I am returning back to the heavenly location where I personally lived before I was born.”

Those are not the actual words of any of these four verses.

That does not automatically make the theological interpretation wrong.

But it means that the interpretation must be demonstrated from the evidence, rather than being inserted into the verses and then treated as though Jesus explicitly said it.

---

JOHN 20:17 GIVES US JESUS' ACTUAL ASCENSION LANGUAGE

After Jesus had genuinely died and genuinely been raised from the dead, He told Mary Magdalene:

“Don’t hold me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
— John 20:17

Here the destination is explicit.

Jesus is ascending:

TO HIS FATHER.

And Jesus identifies that Father as:

“MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.”

Notice that even when Jesus explicitly speaks about His coming ascension to the Father, He does not say:

“I am returning to the place where I lived before I was born.”

He says:

“I AM ASCENDING TO MY FATHER.”

That is what the text actually gives us.

---

MATTHEW AND LUKE MUST ALSO BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK

Our interpretation of John should not be developed in isolation from the other Gospels.

Matthew and Luke explicitly describe Jesus' miraculous conception and birth.

Luke tells us why the child would be called the Son of God:

“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.”
— Luke 1:35

Matthew likewise records Jesus' conception through God's miraculous action upon Mary.

Mark begins with Jesus as an adult and does not contain a conception narrative.

Importantly, Mark also does not explicitly tell us that Jesus personally lived in heaven before His birth.

John contains the passages most frequently used to establish that conclusion.

Therefore, those Johannine passages deserve careful examination rather than being interpreted through an assumption made beforehand.

---

WHAT ABOUT THE TRADITIONAL PRE-EXISTENCE INTERPRETATION?

We should represent it fairly.

Many Christian interpreters understand John 6:62 as referring to Jesus' eventual ascension to heaven.

Under that interpretation:

“where he was before” means heaven.

Jesus therefore existed there before His earthly ministry.

His “coming down from heaven” describes His descent into the world.

His “ascending” describes His return to heavenly glory.

This interpretation also connects John 6 with passages such as John 1:1–14, John 8:58 and John 17:5.

That is a coherent theological interpretation and should not be misrepresented.

But there is still an important distinction:

JOHN 6:62 ITSELF DOES NOT SAY “HEAVEN.”

Nor does it say:

“WHERE I LIVED BEFORE MY BIRTH.”

Those ideas come from interpreting the verse within a wider pre-existence framework.

The purpose of this investigation is to ask whether that framework is required by John 6 itself.

I do not believe it is.

---

JOHN 6:62 CANNOT SETTLE THE PRE-EXISTENCE QUESTION BY ITSELF

Even if someone ultimately concludes from other passages that Jesus personally pre-existed His birth, John 6:62 should not be quoted as though Jesus plainly declared:

“I lived in heaven before I was born.”

He did not say that.

The actual statement is:

“THE SON OF MAN GOING UP/ASCENDING WHERE HE WAS BEFORE.”

The meaning of “where he was before” must therefore be interpreted.

And John 6 gives us substantial reasons for considering resurrection:

Jesus repeatedly speaks of raising the dead.

His disciples are struggling with difficult and figurative language.

Jesus asks whether His words cause them to stumble.

He speaks of the Son of Man going up to where He was before.

And immediately afterward declares:

“THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.”

That sequence should not be ignored.

---

JOHN 6:38 AND JOHN 6:62 BELONG TOGETHER

This is why our two studies should be read together.

John 6:38 concerns:

COMING DOWN.

John 6:62 concerns:

GOING UP.

If “coming down from heaven” can describe Jesus' heavenly origin—His coming from God, being sent by God and receiving His mission and authority from God—then we should not automatically make the opposite expression mean that Jesus is returning to a literal pre-human residence.

Both expressions must be interpreted from John's language and the wider biblical testimony.

---

CONCLUSION — WHAT DID JESUS ACTUALLY SAY?

John 6:62 is often presented as though Jesus said:

“I LIVED IN HEAVEN BEFORE I WAS BORN AND NOW I AM GOING BACK THERE.”

But those are not Jesus' words.

Jesus spoke about the Son of Man:

“GOING UP/ASCENDING WHERE HE WAS BEFORE.”

The Greek word anabainō does not itself mean:

“return to heaven.”

The word “heaven” is not even present in John 6:62.

Furthermore, resurrection and life are repeatedly discussed throughout John 6.

Jesus speaks four times about raising people at the last day.

His disciples then stumble over His difficult language.

Jesus asks what they would think if they saw the Son of Man going up to where He was before.

And His very next statement is:

“THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.”

For these reasons, I believe there is a serious contextual case that Jesus was speaking about His coming death and resurrection—His being restored from death to life and appearing again where He had previously been—rather than making a straightforward declaration about returning to a heavenly life He supposedly experienced before His birth.

John 13:3 and John 16:28 add another important consideration.

When Jesus actually speaks about going to God and going to the Father, the Greek does not require the additional English ideas “going back” or “returning.”

None of this means that one verse alone settles every question about the origin and pre-existence of Jesus.

John 1:1–14, John 8:58, John 17:5 and other passages deserve their own detailed examination.

But neither should John 6:62 be made to say more than it says.

DOES JOHN 6:62 ACTUALLY SAY JESUS LIVED IN HEAVEN BEFORE HIS BIRTH?

NO.

That conclusion must be inferred.

And when John 6:62 is read in its immediate context—with resurrection, Spirit, life and figurative language all surrounding it—the traditional pre-existence interpretation is not the only interpretation that deserves examination.

READ WHAT JESUS ACTUALLY SAID.

EXAMINE THE CONTEXT.

AND LET SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE.

---

RELATED RESEARCH

John 6:38 — How Did Jesus Come Down From Heaven?

READ ARTICLE

John 13:3 & John 16:28 – Did Jesus Really Say He Was “Returning” or “Going Back” to God?

READ ARTICLE

Research by Simon Brown
wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

A Bible-study image investigating the King James Version of 1 John 3:16 and its wording “the love of God.” The research compares Greek textual traditions and asks whether the original verse says that God laid down His life or that Jesus Christ laid down His life for us. Research by Simon Brown.

---

QUICK FACTS: 1 JOHN 3:16 — DID THE KING JAMES BIBLE ADD “OF GOD”?

Does 1 John 3:16 Really Say That God Laid Down His Life for Us?

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

---

AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN 1 JOHN 3:16

There is a striking difference between the King James Version of 1 John 3:16 and most modern translations.

The King James Bible reads:

“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”

1 John 3:16 — KJV

Read naturally, this wording can give the impression that:

GOD LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US.

This is especially significant in the debate over whether Jesus is God, because the person who laid down his life for us was unquestionably:

JESUS CHRIST.

But does the Greek text of 1 John 3:16 actually say:

“THE LOVE OF GOD”?

That is where this investigation becomes very interesting.

---

WHAT DOES THE GREEK TEXT SAY?

A detailed Quick Facts Bible-study infographic investigating the King James Version wording of 1 John 3:16. It compares the KJV with Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, the Byzantine Majority Text and the modern critical Greek text, examining the textual variant “of God.” The study asks whether John originally wrote “the love of God” or simply “the love,” and examines the biblical distinction between God who sent His Son and Jesus Christ who laid down His life for us. Research by Simon Brown.

Many important Greek textual traditions read:

Ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην...

The important words are:

τὴν ἀγάπην

tēn agapēn

Meaning:

“THE LOVE.”

There is no tou theou — “of God” — in this reading.

The Byzantine/Majority Text omits the words.

Stephanus' 1550 Textus Receptus omits them.

Elzevir's 1624 Textus Receptus omits them.

And the modern critical Greek text likewise does not contain them. (Textus Receptus Bibles)

That is extremely important.

---

BUT THERE IS AN IMPORTANT TEXTUAL VARIANT

In researching this more carefully, we should acknowledge something my original article did not explain.

The words:

τοῦ Θεοῦ

tou theou

“OF GOD”

do appear in Theodore Beza's 1598 Greek New Testament.

Scrivener's later reconstruction of the Greek text underlying the KJV also contains them. (textus-receptus.com)

Therefore, we should not accuse the King James translators of simply inventing the words “of God” and inserting them into the English Bible without any Greek textual basis.

They had a Greek textual tradition available to them that contained those words.

But this leads us to the much more important question:

DO THOSE WORDS BELONG TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF 1 JOHN?

That is the real issue.

---

COMPARE THE GREEK TEXTS

STEPHANUS 1550

Reads essentially:

“BY THIS WE KNOW THE LOVE, BECAUSE HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US...”

There is no:

“OF GOD.”

BEZA 1598

Reads:

“BY THIS WE KNOW THE LOVE OF GOD, BECAUSE HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US...”

Beza contains:

τοῦ Θεοῦ — “OF GOD.”

ELZEVIR 1624

Again omits:

“OF GOD.”

BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXT

Also omits:

“OF GOD.”

So even within editions belonging to the broad Textus Receptus tradition, there was disagreement over these two Greek words. (Textus Receptus Bibles)

This is not merely a difference between the King James Bible and modern translations.

There was a textual difference among the printed Greek editions themselves.

---

WHAT DOES THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE SHOW?

The reading “of God” has comparatively weak Greek manuscript support.

Even a source defending the KJV reading acknowledges that the surviving witnesses supporting it are “few and late.” That source nevertheless argues for retaining the words on contextual grounds. (kjvtoday.net)

This distinction is important.

There are really two separate questions:

1. Did the KJV translators have a Greek source containing “of God”?

YES.

Beza's Greek text contained it.

2. Does that prove “of God” was part of John's original text?

NO.

That question has to be decided from the textual evidence.

And the widespread omission of tou theou is precisely why most modern translations do not put “of God” into 1 John 3:16.

---

COMPARE THE TRANSLATIONS

KING JAMES VERSION

“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us...”

NEW KING JAMES VERSION

“By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us.”

WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

“By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us.”

ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION

“By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us...”

BEREAN STANDARD BIBLE

“By this we know what love is: Jesus laid down His life for us...”

The difference is obvious. (Bible Hub)

Most of these translations do not say:

“THE LOVE OF GOD.”

They say:

“LOVE.”

---

WHO IS THE “HE” WHO LAID DOWN HIS LIFE?

This is one of the easiest questions in the investigation.

Jesus said:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

John 10:11

Jesus continues:

“Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.”

John 10:17

The person who laid down his life was:

JESUS CHRIST.

So 1 John 3:16 is describing the sacrificial love demonstrated when:

JESUS LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US.

---

GOD SENT HIS SON

John explains this relationship beautifully in the following chapter:

“By this God's love was revealed in us, that God has sent his only born Son into the world that we might live through him.”

1 John 4:9 — WEB

Notice carefully:

GOD SENT.

and:

HIS SON WAS SENT.

John continues:

“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

1 John 4:10 — WEB

God demonstrated His love by sending His Son.

His Son Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.

---

PAUL MAKES THE SAME DISTINCTION

Paul writes:

“But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Romans 5:8 — WEB

Notice Paul's language:

GOD SHOWED HIS LOVE.

How?

CHRIST DIED FOR US.

Interestingly, Beza himself apparently connected 1 John 3:16 with Romans 5:8. (kjvtoday.net)

But Romans 5:8 actually preserves a very clear distinction:

GOD

and:

CHRIST WHO DIED.

Therefore, even the expression “love of God” does not necessarily mean that the following pronoun must identify God as the person who died.

That grammatical point should be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the textual question remains:

DID JOHN ACTUALLY WRITE “OF GOD” IN 1 JOHN 3:16?

The evidence gives us good reason to question that reading.

---

GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD

Peter preached:

“This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses.”

Acts 2:32 — WEB

And again:

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree.”

Acts 5:30 — WEB

The apostolic distinction is straightforward:

JESUS DIED.

GOD RAISED JESUS.

This is why I believe translations should be particularly careful not to introduce wording that can obscure that distinction.

---

DOES THIS PROVE THE KJV TRANSLATORS WERE DELIBERATELY PROMOTING THE TRINITY?

NO — AND I WANT TO BE PRECISE ABOUT THIS.

My objection is to the reading, not an accusation that I can prove the motives of the King James translators.

Because Beza's 1598 Greek text contains tou theou, there was a textual basis available to the translators for “of God.”

Therefore I cannot legitimately claim:

“The KJV translators knowingly invented these words to deceive Christians into believing Jesus is God.”

The historical evidence presented here does not prove that.

What I can say is:

I BELIEVE “OF GOD” IS NOT THE ORIGINAL READING OF 1 JOHN 3:16.

And because the KJV includes those words, I believe its rendering at this point gives readers a misleading wording compared with the better-attested shorter reading.

That is a textual argument we can actually investigate.

---

AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION ABOUT MY ORIGINAL ARTICLE

My original article also included a section criticizing KJV Onlyism and discussing Erasmus, the Apocrypha, Pope Leo X and other historical matters.

I want to make something very clear:

THOSE CLAIMS DID NOT ORIGINATE WITH ME.

I was quoting material published by Evangelical Outreach in an article titled:

“KJV ONLYISM IS NOT GOOD.”

The article states, among other things, that the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha; that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest; that he dedicated his Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X; and it makes additional claims concerning Erasmus, his manuscripts and his statements concerning Mary. (Evangelical Outreach)

These were:

CLAIMS MADE BY THE AUTHOR OF THAT ARTICLE,

not historical claims that originated from my own research.

This distinction matters.

---

AND THERE IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT

The source I quoted is itself written from an evangelical Christian perspective that accepts Trinitarian Christianity.

Therefore, I was not quoting an anti-Trinitarian source attacking the KJV because of the Trinity.

I was showing that criticism of KJV Onlyism also comes from Christians who themselves accept traditional Trinitarian theology.

That makes the quotation relevant historically to my old article.

However:

THIS PRESENT ARTICLE IS NOT AN INVESTIGATION OF ERASMUS.

Nor is it an investigation of every criticism that Evangelical Outreach makes concerning the King James Bible.

Those claims deserve to be examined separately.

---

A FUTURE INVESTIGATION

Rather than simply repeating those claims, I intend to investigate them individually in a separate article.

We can ask:

Did the original 1611 KJV contain the Apocrypha?

What exactly was Erasmus' relationship with the Roman Catholic Church?

Why did he dedicate his Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X?

Which Greek manuscripts did Erasmus actually use?

What happened with the final verses of Revelation?

What did Erasmus really write about Mary, and what was the context?

How much did Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza actually influence the Greek textual tradition behind the KJV?

Those are historical questions.

They deserve documentation from primary and scholarly sources rather than being assumed true merely because another Christian writer says so.

That will make an excellent separate investigation.

---

BUT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT 1 JOHN 3:16

And here the evidence is much more focused.

The KJV reads:

“THE LOVE OF GOD.”

Beza 1598 contains:

τοῦ Θεοῦ — “OF GOD.”

But Stephanus 1550 omits it.

Elzevir 1624 omits it.

The Byzantine/Majority Text omits it.

And the modern critical Greek text omits it. (Textus Receptus Bibles)

Therefore the issue cannot simply be dismissed as:

“Modern Bibles removed the words.”

The disagreement existed within the Greek textual tradition itself.

---

SO WHAT DID JOHN MOST LIKELY WRITE?

The shorter reading gives us:

“By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us...”

The identity of the one who laid down his life is:

JESUS CHRIST.

God:

SENT HIS SON.

Jesus:

LAID DOWN HIS LIFE.

And God:

RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD.

That distinction appears repeatedly throughout the New Testament.

---

CONCLUSION

I believe the King James Version contains a textually questionable reading in 1 John 3:16 when it says:

“THE LOVE OF GOD.”

I would therefore not use the KJV wording as evidence that:

GOD HIMSELF LAID DOWN HIS LIFE.

At the same time, careful research requires me to acknowledge that the KJV translators did not simply invent “of God.”

The words occur in Beza's 1598 Greek text.

The deeper question is whether they were actually written by John.

And when we compare the wider Greek textual evidence, there are strong reasons for accepting the shorter reading:

“BY THIS WE KNOW LOVE, BECAUSE HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US.”

Who laid down his life?

JESUS CHRIST.

Who sent him?

GOD HIS FATHER.

Who raised him from the dead?

GOD.

And what did John say he wanted us to believe?

“Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”

John 20:31

That is why this investigation should ultimately be about what John actually wrote, rather than defending one English translation at all costs.

---

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

John 1:1

• John 1:1 — Does "The Word Was God" Mean Jesus Is Almighty God?
• IS THE WORD JESUS IN JOHN 1:1? 
• What Is the Truth About John 1:1 to 5?
• WHY John 1:1 is not about Jesus!

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?

• WHO IS THE ONE TRUE GOD? New video!
• 
  
• The Greatest Commandment Ever Given — Who Is the One True God?
• Mark 12:29 — Why Did Jesus Quote the Shema?
• Deuteronomy 6:4 — The Shema: "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh Our God Is One"
• John 10:30 — What Did Jesus Mean by "I and the Father Are One"?
• John 8:58 — What Did Jesus Mean by "Before Abraham Was, I Am"?
• John 20:28 — Did Thomas Really Call Jesus Almighty God?
• John 14:9 — "He Who Has Seen Me Has Seen the Father" Explained
• John 17:3 — Jesus Confirmed That the Father Alone Is the Only True God
• John 17:5 — Did Jesus Exist with the Father Before the World Began?
• 2 Peter 1:1 — Another Trinitarian Misunderstanding?
• Colossians 1:15–17 — Does "Firstborn of All Creation" Mean Jesus Was Created?
• Hebrews 1:2 — Did God Create the Universe or the Ages Through His Son?
• Who Is the Alpha and the Omega?
• Did the Doctrine of the Trinity Originate with Jesus Christ and His Apostles?
• Is Jesus God, or the Son of God? What Does the Whole Bible Teach?
•  Scriptures Proving Yahweh: The One True God of Israel Is the Creator Alone.
• John 6:38 — How Did Jesus Come Down From Heaven?

1 Corinthians 8:6 – One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ

Quick Facts: Does Romans 9:5 Really Call Jesus “God Over All”? What Did Paul Actually Mean?

Quick Facts: Does Matthew 28:19 Prove the Trinity?

Quick Facts: Does Hebrews 1:8 Really Call Jesus the One True God?

TITUS 2:13 — DOES THIS VERSE PROVE JESUS IS GOD?

What Did Isaiah See? A Bible Study of Isaiah 6:1 and John 12:41

Quick Facts: Who Is on the Throne of God — One God or Three?

Quick Facts: Does John 10:30–36 Really Prove Jesus Said He Is God?

John 8:24 Quick Facts — Unless You Believe That I Am He?

Did the Catholic Church Create the Doctrine of the Trinity? And Did Later Church Fathers Reject the Earlier Jewish Understanding of the One God?

The Shocking Trinitarian Claim – Unless Jesus Is God, He Cannot Be the Savior!

A detailed Bible-study title image investigating Matthew 12:31–32 and Jesus' warning concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It asks whether this passage actually teaches a separate, coequal and coeternal third person within one triune God, while examining the immediate biblical context and the Spirit of God. Research by Simon Brown.

QUICK FACTS: DOES BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT PROVE THE TRINITY?

Matthew 12:31–32 — Does Jesus Teach That the Holy Spirit Is a Separate Third Person of God?

Research by Simon Brown
wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

---

A VERSE OFTEN USED IN SUPPORT OF THE TRINITY

Matthew 12:31–32 is sometimes presented as evidence that the Holy Spirit must be a distinct divine person alongside the Father and the Son.

Jesus said:

“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is to come.”

Matthew 12:31–32 — WEB

The argument is understandable:

Jesus distinguishes between speaking against the Son of Man and blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, it is argued, the Holy Spirit must be a person distinct from Jesus.

But there is a much bigger question:

DOES THIS PASSAGE ACTUALLY TEACH THE TRINITY?

A detailed Bible-study infographic investigating whether Matthew 12:31–32 proves the Trinity. It examines Jesus casting out demons by the Spirit of God, the Pharisees attributing God's work to Satan, Mark's explanation of the warning, the distinction between the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit, and biblical descriptions of Yahweh as the Holy One. It asks whether the passage actually defines the Holy Spirit as a separate, coequal and coeternal third person within one triune God. 

Does Jesus say that the Holy Spirit is:

the third person of God?

coequal with the Father and Son?

coeternal with the Father and Son?

consubstantial with the Father and Son?

Or that:

THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD?

No.

None of those statements occurs in Matthew 12:31–32.

So we need to investigate what Jesus was actually saying.

---

FIRST, LET US REPRESENT THE TRINITY CORRECTLY

It is important that we do not criticize a doctrine by misrepresenting what its believers actually teach.

Historic Trinitarian Christianity does not teach that the Father and Son are the same person.

Nor does it officially teach that there are three Gods.

The doctrine teaches that:

The Father is God.

The Son is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.

Yet the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who share the one divine being or essence of God.

They are traditionally described as coequal and coeternal.

That is the actual claim we need to test against Scripture.

---

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN MATTHEW 12?

This is extremely important.

Jesus did not suddenly begin teaching a lesson about the metaphysical nature of God.

The Pharisees had witnessed Jesus heal a demon-possessed man.

The people began asking:

“Can this be the son of David?”

Matthew 12:23

But the Pharisees responded:

“This man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons.”

Matthew 12:24

Jesus then explained what was really happening.

He said:

“But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then God's Kingdom has come upon you.”

Matthew 12:28

Notice the language:

“THE SPIRIT OF GOD.”

The power at work through Jesus was attributed to God's Spirit.

Yet the Pharisees attributed that work to Satan.

That is the immediate context of Jesus' warning.

---

WHAT WAS THE BLASPHEMY?

The Pharisees were seeing God's work performed through His Spirit and deliberately attributing that work to the Devil.

Mark makes the connection especially explicit.

After recording Jesus' warning about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Mark explains:

“because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’”

Mark 3:30

That little sentence is enormously important.

Jesus' warning was not given because someone had failed to understand a theological definition of the Trinity.

The warning arose because people were calling the work of God's Holy Spirit the work of an unclean spirit.

That is the context we must not lose.

---

JESUS DISTINGUISHES HIMSELF FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT

Jesus says:

“THE SON OF MAN”

and:

“THE HOLY SPIRIT.”

Therefore, Matthew 12 certainly distinguishes Jesus from the Holy Spirit in the statement.

I have no reason to deny that.

But distinction does not automatically establish the later doctrine:

THREE COEQUAL, COETERNAL PERSONS IN ONE GOD.

That conclusion would have to be demonstrated from Scripture rather than simply assumed.

---

WHAT ABOUT THE FATHER?

This raises an interesting question.

In Matthew 12:31–32 Jesus explicitly contrasts:

the Son of Man

with:

the Holy Spirit.

The Father is not separately named in those two verses.

But this does not prove that Jesus secretly meant:

“The Holy Spirit is the Father.”

That was one of the places where my older article went too far.

Instead, we should examine the language Scripture uses concerning God's Spirit.

---

THE BIBLE CALLS IT “THE SPIRIT OF GOD”

Only three verses before Jesus' warning, he says:

“But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then God's Kingdom has come upon you.”

Matthew 12:28

This is highly significant.

Jesus himself identifies the Spirit involved in this controversy as:

THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

The Old Testament repeatedly uses the same kind of language:

“my Spirit”

“your Holy Spirit”

“the Spirit of Yahweh”

“his Holy Spirit.”

So before constructing a doctrine of a separate third divine person from Matthew 12, we should first recognize the Bible's own repeated description:

GOD'S SPIRIT.

---

BUT DOES JOHN 4:24 PROVE THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE FATHER?

Jesus says:

“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

John 4:24

This is important evidence concerning the nature of God.

GOD IS SPIRIT.

However, we should be careful.

John 4:24 does not literally say:

“The Father is the Holy Spirit.”

Nor does Matthew 12:31–32 say:

“The Holy Spirit is another name for the Father.”

Therefore I would no longer claim that these verses, by themselves, prove those statements.

What they do establish is that God is spirit and that Scripture repeatedly describes the Holy Spirit as God's Spirit.

The question is whether Scripture goes further and explicitly defines God's Spirit as a separate coequal and coeternal third person within one divine being.

That is what needs to be demonstrated.

---

WHAT ABOUT “SPIRIT” AND “HOLY” IN THE GREEK?

My older research separated the words appearing in Matthew 12:

πνεῦμα — pneuma — spirit

and

ἅγιος — hagios — holy

These words are certainly important.

But separating them does not prove that Jesus was secretly saying:

“Spirit = the Father”

and:

“Holy = Yahweh the Holy One.”

The Greek expression refers to:

THE HOLY SPIRIT.

So that particular argument in my original research needs correcting.

There is, however, an important biblical connection worth investigating.

---

YAHWEH IS “THE HOLY ONE”

Throughout Isaiah, Yahweh is repeatedly identified as:

“THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.”

For example:

“For I am Yahweh your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior.”

Isaiah 43:3

Again:

“Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: ‘I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself.’”

Isaiah 44:24

And:

“Thus says Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker...”

Isaiah 45:11

Psalm 78:41 similarly speaks of:

“THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.”

Therefore holiness belongs fundamentally to Yahweh himself.

And the Spirit is repeatedly described as His Spirit.

That is a stronger argument than trying to derive the Father's identity from the individual Greek words holy and spirit.

---

WHY CAN SPEAKING AGAINST JESUS BE FORGIVEN?

Here we reach one of the most fascinating parts of the passage.

Jesus says:

“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him...”

but:

“whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him...”

Matthew 12:32

If Matthew 12 were intended as a straightforward lesson that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are two coequal persons of the same God, this difference certainly deserves explanation.

But we should not conclude:

“THE HOLY SPIRIT MUST THEREFORE BE SUPERIOR TO JESUS.”

The severity of a particular sin does not necessarily establish a hierarchy between the persons or realities involved.

The context gives us a much more direct explanation.

The Pharisees were rejecting the work of God being performed before their eyes and deliberately calling that work satanic.

That persistent rejection of God's testimony explains the extraordinary seriousness of Jesus' warning.

---

MARK MAKES THIS EVEN CLEARER

Mark records:

“Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme; but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.”

Mark 3:28–29

And immediately explains:

“because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’”

Mark 3:30

This is crucial.

The Pharisees had taken what Jesus attributed to:

THE SPIRIT OF GOD

and attributed it instead to:

AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT.

That is the immediate biblical explanation.

---

LUKE RECORDS THE SAME WARNING

Jesus says:

“Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Luke 12:10

Again we find:

the Son of Man

and:

the Holy Spirit.

But once again we do not find a definition saying:

Father + Son + Holy Spirit = one God in three coequal persons.

That doctrine is not stated in the passage.

---

DOES THE DIFFERENCE IN FORGIVENESS DISPROVE COEQUALITY?

This is where I would sharpen my original argument.

My old article essentially argued:

If Jesus can be blasphemed and forgiven, while the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed and not forgiven, they cannot possibly be coequal.

That conclusion is stronger than the evidence permits.

A Trinitarian can reasonably respond that the different consequences concern the nature and circumstances of the sin, rather than differences in divine status.

Therefore Matthew 12:31–32 does not, by itself, disprove Trinitarian coequality.

But neither does it prove it.

And that is important.

MATTHEW 12:31–32 IS NOT A DEFINITION OF THE TRINITY.

---

SO WHAT DOES THE PASSAGE ACTUALLY ESTABLISH?

We can safely establish several things directly from the text.

Jesus is:

THE SON OF MAN.

The power operating through him is called:

THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

The Pharisees attributed God's work to:

BEELZEBUL.

Jesus consequently issued his grave warning concerning:

BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT.

And Mark tells us why:

“BECAUSE THEY SAID, ‘HE HAS AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT.’”

Those are the biblical facts.

---

DOES JESUS CALL THE HOLY SPIRIT “GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT”?

No.

That exact title does not appear here.

Does Jesus say:

“THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE THIRD PERSON OF GOD”?

No.

Does Jesus say:

“THE HOLY SPIRIT IS COEQUAL AND COETERNAL WITH ME AND MY FATHER”?

No.

Does Jesus say:

“THE THREE OF US ARE ONE GOD”?

No.

Those propositions may be inferred by Trinitarian theology from a wider collection of passages, but they should not be placed into Matthew 12:31–32 as though Jesus explicitly stated them there.

---

WHAT DOES JESUS SAY ABOUT HIS FATHER?

Elsewhere Jesus consistently distinguishes himself from his Father.

He says:

“The Father is greater than I.”

John 14:28

He calls the Father:

“the only true God”

John 17:3

and distinguishes himself as:

“Jesus Christ, whom you sent.”

After his resurrection Jesus says:

“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

John 20:17

These passages must also be allowed into our investigation.

---

PAUL IDENTIFIES “ONE GOD, THE FATHER”

Paul writes:

“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.”

1 Corinthians 8:6

Paul distinguishes:

ONE GOD — THE FATHER

from:

ONE LORD — JESUS CHRIST.

Trinitarians understand this passage differently, often arguing that Paul is incorporating Jesus into the divine identity.

That interpretation deserves to be represented fairly.

But the wording itself remains striking:

“ONE GOD, THE FATHER.”

---

AND PAUL IDENTIFIES JESUS AS THE MEDIATOR

Paul says:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

1 Timothy 2:5

Again we have a distinction between:

THE ONE GOD

and:

THE ONE MEDIATOR — THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.

This is one of the reasons I believe Scripture presents Jesus as God's Messiah and Son rather than as the same God whose mediator he is.

---

WHAT ABOUT LUKE 1:35?

Another important passage says:

“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.”

Luke 1:35

Notice the expressions:

Holy Spirit

power of the Most High

Son of God.

This passage deserves careful study.

But again, Luke does not stop to define these expressions as:

three coequal persons constituting one God.

The verse says that the child will be called:

THE SON OF GOD.

That biblical title should be allowed to retain its full significance.

---

MY ORIGINAL ARTICLE WENT TOO FAR

When I first researched this subject, I concluded that Matthew 12:31–32 proved:

the Holy Spirit is simply the Father,

and therefore:

there cannot be a separate third person.

After examining the passage more carefully, I believe that statement went beyond what the text itself explicitly establishes.

The stronger and more defensible conclusion is this:

MATTHEW 12:31–32 DOES NOT PROVE THE TRINITY.

It distinguishes Jesus from the Holy Spirit.

It identifies the Spirit in the immediate context as:

“THE SPIRIT OF GOD.”

And it describes an extraordinarily serious act of rejecting God's work by attributing it to Satan.

But it does not define the Holy Spirit as:

A SEPARATE, COEQUAL, COETERNAL THIRD PERSON OF ONE TRIUNE GOD.

That theological conclusion must come from somewhere beyond this passage.

---

THE QUESTION REMAINS

If Matthew 12:31–32 is presented as evidence for the Trinity, then I believe we are entitled to ask:

Where does Jesus explain that the Holy Spirit is the third person of God?

Where does Jesus say the Holy Spirit is coequal and coeternal with himself and the Father?

Where does Jesus say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons sharing one divine essence?

Where does Jesus call this:

THE ONE TRUE GOD?

Those are not hostile questions.

They are biblical questions.

And every Christian doctrine—Trinitarian, Unitarian, Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah's Witness, or my own interpretation—should be willing to face the same test:

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE ACTUALLY SAY?

---

CONCLUSION

Jesus' warning concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is extremely serious.

But its seriousness should not cause us to make the passage say more than it actually says.

Matthew's context tells us that Jesus was casting out demons:

“BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD.”

The Pharisees attributed that work to Beelzebul.

Mark tells us Jesus issued his warning:

“BECAUSE THEY SAID, ‘HE HAS AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT.’”

Therefore the passage is fundamentally about the terrible danger of knowingly rejecting and slandering the work of God's Holy Spirit.

It certainly distinguishes Jesus from the Spirit.

But it never says:

“THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY.”

It never says:

“THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE THREE COEQUAL PERSONS IN ONE GOD.”

And it never identifies Matthew 12:31–32 as a revelation of a triune divine essence.

For that reason, I do not believe this passage can legitimately be presented as though it proves the Trinity.

Instead, I believe it should send every one of us back to Scripture with humility, asking:

WHO IS THE ONE GOD?

WHO IS JESUS CHRIST?

AND WHAT DOES THE BIBLE ACTUALLY TEACH ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT?

Jesus said:

“Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened for you.”

Matthew 7:7

So let us keep seeking.

Not merely to defend what we already believe, but to discover what Scripture actually teaches.

Research by Simon Brown
wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

John 1:1

• John 1:1 — Does "The Word Was God" Mean Jesus Is Almighty God?
• IS THE WORD JESUS IN JOHN 1:1? 
• What Is the Truth About John 1:1 to 5?
• WHY John 1:1 is not about Jesus!

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?

• WHO IS THE ONE TRUE GOD? New video!
• 
  
• The Greatest Commandment Ever Given — Who Is the One True God?
• Mark 12:29 — Why Did Jesus Quote the Shema?
• Deuteronomy 6:4 — The Shema: "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh Our God Is One"
• John 10:30 — What Did Jesus Mean by "I and the Father Are One"?
• John 8:58 — What Did Jesus Mean by "Before Abraham Was, I Am"?
• John 20:28 — Did Thomas Really Call Jesus Almighty God?
• John 14:9 — "He Who Has Seen Me Has Seen the Father" Explained
• John 17:3 — Jesus Confirmed That the Father Alone Is the Only True God
• John 17:5 — Did Jesus Exist with the Father Before the World Began?
• 2 Peter 1:1 — Another Trinitarian Misunderstanding?
• Colossians 1:15–17 — Does "Firstborn of All Creation" Mean Jesus Was Created?
• Hebrews 1:2 — Did God Create the Universe or the Ages Through His Son?
• Who Is the Alpha and the Omega?
• Did the Doctrine of the Trinity Originate with Jesus Christ and His Apostles?
• Is Jesus God, or the Son of God? What Does the Whole Bible Teach?
•  Scriptures Proving Yahweh: The One True God of Israel Is the Creator Alone.
• John 6:38 — How Did Jesus Come Down From Heaven?

1 Corinthians 8:6 – One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ

Quick Facts: Does Romans 9:5 Really Call Jesus “God Over All”? What Did Paul Actually Mean?

Quick Facts: Does Matthew 28:19 Prove the Trinity?

Quick Facts: Does Hebrews 1:8 Really Call Jesus the One True God?

TITUS 2:13 — DOES THIS VERSE PROVE JESUS IS GOD?

What Did Isaiah See? A Bible Study of Isaiah 6:1 and John 12:41

Quick Facts: Who Is on the Throne of God — One God or Three?

Quick Facts: Does John 10:30–36 Really Prove Jesus Said He Is God?

John 8:24 Quick Facts — Unless You Believe That I Am He?

Did the Catholic Church Create the Doctrine of the Trinity? And Did Later Church Fathers Reject the Earlier Jewish Understanding of the One God?

The Shocking Trinitarian Claim – Unless Jesus Is God, He Cannot Be the Savior!

Jesus — Not Mary — Is Our Advocate and Mediator

Quick Facts: Archbishop of Canterbury Preaches a FALSE Christ! — Justin Welby

Jesus — Not Mary — Is Our Advocate and Mediator

QUICK FACTS: A DIFFERENT JESUS?

THE BBC CHRISTMAS CONFESSION, PRAYER TO MARY, AND THE CHRIST PREACHED BY THE APOSTLES

What Was Confessed and Prayed During the BBC Televised Midnight Mass at Brentwood Cathedral, Christmas 2021?

Research by Simon Brown

---

WHY THIS INVESTIGATION MATTERS

On Christmas Eve 2021, BBC television broadcast Midnight Mass from the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St Mary and St Helen in Brentwood, Essex.

During that service, millions of viewers were able to hear a traditional Catholic profession of faith and Catholic devotion.

This article is not written to attack individual Catholics or question their sincerity.

My purpose is much simpler:

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE ACTUALLY TEACH?

A detailed Bible-study infographic asking what the Bible actually teaches about God, His Son Jesus Christ and the Gospel. It examines Paul's warning about “another Jesus” in 2 Corinthians 11:4, Jesus' warning about false Christs in Matthew 24:24, and John's warning concerning the Father and the Son in 1 John 2:22, encouraging Christians to test church teachings against Scripture. 

If a church tells Christians who God is, who Jesus Christ is, whom Christians should pray to, and who stands between humanity and God, these are not insignificant theological details.
They concern the very identity of:

GOD,

HIS SON JESUS CHRIST,

and

THE GOSPEL ITSELF.

Paul warned Christians about receiving:

“ANOTHER JESUS”

2 Corinthians 11:4

Jesus warned about:

“FALSE CHRISTS”

Matthew 24:24

And John issued the extremely serious warning:

“HE WHO DENIES THE FATHER AND THE SON.”

1 John 2:22

Therefore we have every reason to test what churches teach about Jesus against what Jesus and his apostles actually taught.

---

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY CONFESSED?

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining what was confessed during the BBC televised Midnight Mass at Brentwood Cathedral at Christmas 2021. It highlights the Nicene Creed's description of Jesus as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God” and “consubstantial with the Father,” illustrates the Trinity doctrine, and asks where Jesus and his apostles teach these identities in Scripture. Research by Simon Brown.

During the service the congregation recited the Nicene Creed.
Concerning Jesus Christ, this historic creed contains the striking words:

“GOD FROM GOD,

LIGHT FROM LIGHT,

TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD”

and identifies the Son as “consubstantial with the Father.”

This language is not merely my description of Catholic theology.

It is the historic language of the Nicene faith itself, formulated to affirm the full deity of the Son. (Pfander Center)

This immediately raises an enormous biblical question:

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE IDENTIFY JESUS AS “GOD FROM GOD” AND “TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD”?

A detailed Bible-study infographic asking where Scripture identifies Jesus as “God from God” or “true God from true God.” It compares the language of the Nicene Creed with Jesus’ words, Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16, Paul’s declaration in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and John’s purpose statement in John 20:31, encouraging readers to test later theological claims against Scripture. 

Where does Jesus say:

“I am God from God”?

Where does Peter confess:

“You are true God from true God”?

Where does Paul preach:

“Jesus is God from God”?

Where does John tell us that he wrote his Gospel so that we would believe Jesus is “true God from true God”?

These are fair questions because these words concern the identity of Jesus Christ himself.

---

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY JESUS IS?

When Jesus asked his disciples:

“But who do you say that I am?”

Peter answered:

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 16:15–16

Jesus did not correct Peter by saying:

“No, Peter. I am God from God, true God from true God.”

Instead Jesus declared Peter blessed.

Jesus himself later said:

“I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

John 10:36

And John tells us precisely why he wrote his Gospel:

“But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”

John 20:31

These are extraordinarily straightforward descriptions:

THE CHRIST.

THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

THE SON OF GOD.

So why is the additional identification:

“GOD FROM GOD, TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD”

necessary to define the Christian faith?

---

LET US BE ACCURATE ABOUT THE TRINITY

Before continuing, an important clarification is necessary.

Trinitarians do not believe that the Father and Jesus are the same person.

That would be Modalism, not orthodox Trinitarianism.

Trinitarian doctrine correctly distinguishes:

the Father

from

the Son.

The disagreement is somewhere else.

Trinitarian Christianity teaches that although the Father and Son are distinct persons, both are fully divine and share the same one divine being or essence.

Therefore the real question is NOT:

ARE THE FATHER AND SON DIFFERENT PERSONS?

Both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians agree that they are distinct.

The real question is:

DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH THAT THE FATHER AND HIS SON ARE BOTH THE SAME ONE GOD?

Does Scripture teach that the Father and His Son are both the same one God? Examine what Jesus and his apostles actually taught.

That is the issue this article is investigating.

---

JESUS CALLED HIS FATHER “THE ONLY TRUE GOD”

Listen to Jesus' own prayer:

“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

John 17:3

Jesus is addressing his Father.

Jesus identifies the Father as:

“THE ONLY TRUE GOD”

and then distinguishes himself as:

“JESUS CHRIST”

whom that God sent.

Now compare those words with the later creed:

JESUS:

“YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD”

NICENE CREED:

“TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD”

That deserves serious investigation.

A Trinitarian will answer that John 17:3 does not exclude the Son from the divine identity and that the wider Gospel of John teaches Christ's deity.

That argument deserves to be examined on its biblical merits.

But what we must not do is simply assume the Nicene conclusion and then read it back into Jesus' words.

The question remains:

WHO DID JESUS HIMSELF CALL “THE ONLY TRUE GOD”?

His Father.

---

PAUL IDENTIFIES “ONE GOD, THE FATHER”

Paul writes:

“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.”

1 Corinthians 8:6

Again we find:

ONE GOD — THE FATHER

and:

ONE LORD — JESUS CHRIST.

Trinitarian scholars commonly argue that Paul is incorporating Jesus into the divine identity by applying “Lord” language to Christ.

Biblical Unitarians understand the verse differently: Paul explicitly identifies the Father as the one God and Jesus as the one Lord Messiah.

Whichever interpretation a reader accepts, the verse deserves to be allowed to speak before a later creed determines its meaning.

---

“THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR”

Paul gives another remarkably clear statement:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

1 Timothy 2:5

Notice Paul's distinction:

ONE GOD

and

ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND HUMANITY.

Who is that mediator?

“THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.”

This becomes extremely important when we consider what happened elsewhere in the Catholic service.

---

PAUL WARNED ABOUT “ANOTHER JESUS”

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining Paul's serious warning about “another Jesus” in 2 Corinthians 11:4. It asks whether the Jesus being taught by Christian traditions is the same Jesus preached by the apostles and encourages readers to test every doctrine against Scripture. Research by Simon Brown.

Paul's warning to the Corinthians should make every Christian pay attention:

“For if he who comes preaches another Jesus, whom we didn't preach... you put up with that well enough.”

2 Corinthians 11:4 — WEB

Paul believed it was possible for people to talk about Jesus while presenting a Jesus different from the apostolic proclamation.

That is serious.

The name “Jesus” by itself therefore cannot guarantee that every doctrine attached to Jesus is true.

We must ask:

IS THIS THE JESUS THE APOSTLES PREACHED?

That applies to every Christian tradition, including my own beliefs.

Everything must be tested against Scripture.

---

JESUS WARNED ABOUT FALSE CHRISTS

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining Jesus Christ's warning about false christs and false prophets in Matthew 24:24. It highlights the danger of religious deception and encourages Christians to test teachings about Christ against Scripture and the apostolic message. Research by Simon Brown.

Jesus himself warned:

“For there will arise false christs, and false prophets, and they will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones.”

Matthew 24:24

We should not misuse this verse.

In context Jesus is warning about false messianic claimants. He does not specifically identify the later Catholic Church or the Nicene Creed in Matthew 24:24.

Nevertheless, the warning establishes an important principle:

CHRISTIANS MUST CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE CHRIST.

We cannot simply accept every claim about Christ because it comes from an established religious authority.

---

JOHN WARNS ABOUT DENYING THE FATHER AND THE SON

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining John's serious warning in 1 John 2:22 about denying that Jesus is the Christ and thereby denying the Father and the Son. It explains that Trinitarians distinguish the Father from the Son as separate persons, while investigating the different question of whether Scripture identifies the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the same one God. 

John's words are equally serious:

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.”

1 John 2:22

Notice exactly what John says.

He speaks of:

THE FATHER

and

THE SON.

Again, the fact that they are distinct is not the disagreement with Trinitarians.

Trinitarians also distinguish the Father from the Son.

The question is whether these two distinct persons should additionally be identified as the same one God, together with the Holy Spirit.

Nor does 1 John 2:22 say:

“Anyone who believes in the Trinity is Antichrist.”

John's explicit test concerns denying that Jesus is the Christ and thereby denying the Father and the Son.

Therefore I do not need to make John say something he did not say.

His actual warning is serious enough.

WE MUST NOT CHANGE THE IDENTITY OF THE CHRIST.

A detailed Bible-study infographic asking whether a later identity has been added to Jesus Christ. It compares the Nicene Creed's words “God from God” and “true God from true God” with biblical descriptions of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and the one sent by the Father, encouraging readers to test later doctrinal claims against Scripture. 

---

HAS A LATER IDENTITY BEEN ADDED TO JESUS?

This brings us back to the BBC confession:

“GOD FROM GOD”

“TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD.”

Those words are not Bible quotations.

That alone does not prove them false. Christians regularly use non-biblical terminology to summarize biblical ideas.

The word Bible itself is not used by Scripture as the modern title for the complete collection.

So the argument cannot simply be:

“Those exact words aren't in the Bible, therefore they are false.”

The much stronger question is:

CAN THAT IDENTITY BE DEMONSTRATED FROM THE TEACHING OF JESUS AND THE APOSTLES?

Because the New Testament explicitly calls Jesus:

the Christ — Matthew 16:16

the Son of God — John 20:31

the Lord — Acts 2:36

the man Christ Jesus — 1 Timothy 2:5

the mediator — 1 Timothy 2:5

the one God sent — John 17:3

and the one whom:

“GOD RAISED UP”

Acts 2:32

Peter says:

“Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Acts 2:36

Paul says:

“Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name.”

Philippians 2:9

These texts repeatedly distinguish God from the Jesus whom God sends, raises, appoints and exalts.

That is why I believe “true God from true God” requires biblical demonstration rather than merely creedal authority.

---

THEN COMES THE PRAYER TO MARY

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining the Catholic Hail Mary prayer heard during the BBC service: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.” It compares this practice with Scripture concerning prayer to the Father and Jesus Christ as the one mediator between God and mankind.

The BBC service raises another major biblical issue.
The Catholic Hail Mary concludes:

“HOLY MARY, MOTHER OF GOD,

PRAY FOR US SINNERS,

NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.”

This is much more than saying:

Mary was blessed.

Scripture itself says Mary was blessed.

Elizabeth said:

“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”

Luke 1:42

Mary herself said:

“For behold, from now on, all generations will call me blessed.”

Luke 1:48

I therefore gladly call Mary:

BLESSED.

The disagreement is not about whether Mary should be respected.

It concerns directing religious petitions to Mary after her death.

---

CATHOLICS BELIEVE MARY CAN HEAR THEIR PETITIONS

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining the Catholic belief that Mary and the saints are alive with God and can hear petitions and intercede for Christians on earth. It fairly acknowledges the Catholic distinction between invoking saints and worshipping the dead, while asking where Scripture instructs Christians to address Mary or departed saints. The study compares this practice with biblical teaching about prayer to God, Jesus Christ as mediator and intercessor, and the need to test religious traditions against Scripture. 

Catholic theology maintains that Mary and the saints are alive with God and can intercede for Christians on earth.

Therefore Catholics would object to my describing this simply as “worshipping the dead.”

That distinction should be acknowledged.

But it does not answer my biblical question:

WHERE DID JESUS TEACH HIS FOLLOWERS TO PRAY TO MARY?

Bible study infographic asking where Jesus, Peter, Paul or John taught Christians to pray to Mary or ask departed saints for intercession.

Where did Peter invoke Mary after Christ's ascension?

Where did Paul tell Christians to ask Mary for heavenly intercession?

Where did John instruct the churches to direct petitions toward departed believers?

This is where I believe the practice encounters a serious biblical problem.

---

“THE DEAD DON'T PRAISE YAH”

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining Psalm 115:17: “The dead don't praise Yah, neither any who go down into silence.” It asks whether Scripture provides biblical support for invoking departed saints and shows how Psalm 115 directs God's people away from idols and toward trusting, praising and worshipping Yahweh. 

Psalm 115 says:

“The dead don't praise Yah, neither any who go down into silence.”

Psalm 115:17 — WEB

Whatever one's broader theology of the intermediate state, this verse certainly does not establish the Catholic practice of invoking departed saints.

Indeed, nothing in Psalm 115 tells God's people to communicate with them.

Instead the Psalm directs God's people toward Yahweh.

---

JESUS — NOT MARY — IS OUR ADVOCATE

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining Catholic titles and petitions directed to Mary alongside Scripture's teaching about Jesus Christ. It compares Marian titles such as Advocate, Helper and Mediatrix with 1 John 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:25 and Romans 8:34, which identify Jesus as our Advocate, the one Mediator and the one who intercedes for believers. Research by Simon Brown.

This is where I believe Catholic invocation of Mary becomes even more problematic.
Official Catholic teaching has historically applied titles to Mary including:

Advocate

Helper

Benefactress

and

Mediatrix.

Catholic theology insists these titles do not place Mary above Christ. It teaches that Mary's intercession is entirely subordinate to and dependent upon Jesus.

That distinction must be stated fairly.

Nevertheless, Scripture says:

“If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous.”

1 John 2:1

Who is identified as our Advocate with the Father?

JESUS CHRIST.

Therefore my question is:

IF JESUS IS MY ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, WHY SHOULD I INVOKE MARY AS ANOTHER HEAVENLY ADVOCATE?

A detailed Bible-study infographic asking why Christians should invoke Mary as another heavenly advocate when Scripture identifies Jesus Christ as our Advocate with the Father and the one Mediator between God and mankind. It examines 1 John 2:1, Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25 and especially 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 

---

JESUS — NOT MARY — IS OUR MEDIATOR

Paul says:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

1 Timothy 2:5

Not two mediators.

Scripture explicitly identifies:

ONE MEDIATOR.

And names him:

THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.

Catholics respond that Mary's intercessory role does not compete with Christ's unique mediation, just as Christians on earth can pray for one another.

But there remains an important difference:

The New Testament explicitly tells living Christians to pray for one another.

Where does it tell Christians on earth to address Mary or departed saints and request their intercession?

That is the evidence I believe is missing.

---

JESUS ALREADY INTERCEDES FOR US

Paul writes:

“It is Christ who died, yes rather, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.”

Romans 8:34

Hebrews says:

“Therefore he is also able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, seeing that he lives forever to make intercession for them.”

Hebrews 7:25

Put these passages together:

OUR ADVOCATE — JESUS CHRIST.

1 John 2:1

OUR MEDIATOR — JESUS CHRIST.

1 Timothy 2:5

OUR INTERCESSOR — JESUS CHRIST.

Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25

Therefore I ask:

WHAT HEAVENLY FUNCTION IS MISSING THAT REQUIRES CHRISTIANS TO INVOKE MARY?

Jesus is not an inadequate mediator.

Jesus is not an inadequate advocate.

Jesus is not an inadequate intercessor.

---

DID JESUS TEACH US TO PRAY TO MARY?

When Jesus taught his disciples how to pray, he said:

“Pray like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.’”

Matthew 6:9 — WEB

Jesus directed his followers toward:

THE FATHER.

Jesus himself prayed to his Father.

The apostles prayed to God.

I find no corresponding instruction from Jesus:

“When I am gone, pray also to my mother.”

That should matter enormously to Christians.

---

WHAT ABOUT STATUES AND RELIGIOUS IMAGES?

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining statues and sacred religious images in Christian devotion. It considers God's warnings concerning idols, carved images and bowing before them in Exodus 20:4–5, Leviticus 19:4 and Deuteronomy 4:15–16, and asks whether devotional practices involving images of Mary and the saints are consistent with these biblical commands. Research by Simon Brown.

The issue becomes still more serious when invocation of Mary and saints occurs in devotional settings involving statues and sacred images.
God commanded Israel:

“You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath... You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them.”

Exodus 20:4–5 — WEB

God also commanded:

“Don't turn to idols, nor make molten gods for yourselves. I am Yahweh your God.”

Leviticus 19:4 — WEB

Moses reminded Israel that they saw no form when Yahweh spoke and warned:

“Watch yourselves very carefully... lest you corrupt yourselves, and make yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure.”

Deuteronomy 4:15–16 — WEB

These are extremely serious warnings.

---

PSALM 115 DESCRIBES MAN-MADE IDOLS

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining Psalm 115:4–8 and its description of man-made idols of silver and gold that cannot speak, see or hear. It acknowledges the Catholic distinction that a statue of Mary is not regarded as Mary herself or as a god, while asking whether devotional use of religious statues is consistent with biblical warnings concerning idols and images. 

Psalm 115 says:

“Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they don't speak. They have eyes, but they don't see. They have ears, but they don't hear.”

Psalm 115:4–6

And concludes concerning them:

“Those who make them will be like them; yes, everyone who trusts in them.”

Psalm 115:8

Catholics will answer that a statue of Mary is not regarded as Mary herself, nor is the material statue considered a god.

That is an important distinction.

But the biblical question remains:

DID JESUS OR HIS APOSTLES INTRODUCE STATUES OF MARY AND THE SAINTS AS OBJECTS ASSOCIATED WITH CHRISTIAN DEVOTION?

I cannot find such a practice in apostolic Christianity.

---

THE NEW TESTAMENT SAYS: FLEE FROM IDOLATRY

A detailed Bible-study infographic examining the New Testament's serious warnings against idolatry. Paul commands Christians to “flee from idolatry” in 1 Corinthians 10:14, while John warns, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” in 1 John 5:21. The image emphasizes the importance of testing religious practices against Scripture and reserving worship for God.

Paul tells Christians:

“Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.”

1 Corinthians 10:14

Not:

Get as close as possible while carefully defining the practice as something less than worship.

Paul says:

FLEE.

And John concludes his first letter:

“Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”

1 John 5:21

These warnings deserve to be taken with the utmost seriousness.

---

DOES CATHOLICISM “WORSHIP” MARY?

We need to be precise here too.

Catholic doctrine explicitly denies that Mary receives the adoration owed to God.

Catholics distinguish between worship/adoration of God and veneration of saints, with a special degree of honour given to Mary.

Therefore I do not need to accuse Catholics of believing:

“Mary is God.”

They do not.

My criticism is different and, I believe, much stronger:

DOES SCRIPTURE AUTHORIZE THE RELIGIOUS INVOCATION OF MARY AT ALL?

Can Christians address petitions to her?

Can she hear millions of petitions?

Did Jesus establish her as a heavenly advocate?

Did the apostles call her Mediatrix?

Where is the apostolic example?

Those are the questions Catholic tradition must answer.

---

DOES THIS RISK PRESENTING “ANOTHER JESUS”?

Now the two major subjects of this investigation come together.

The service confesses Jesus as:

“TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD”

while also directing a petition toward Mary:

“PRAY FOR US SINNERS.”

I believe both practices must be tested against the apostolic proclamation.

Paul's warning was:

“Another Jesus, whom we didn't preach...”

2 Corinthians 11:4

I am not claiming that this verse explicitly names Catholicism. It does not.

Nor am I claiming that individual Catholics knowingly reject Jesus.

They confess Jesus Christ and sincerely believe they are following him.

My argument is about the doctrine, not people's hearts.

If later Christianity attaches an identity to Jesus that the apostles did not teach, or assigns additional heavenly advocates and mediators alongside the role Scripture explicitly gives Christ, then Paul's warning about “another Jesus” becomes an extremely serious reason to investigate.

---

THE BIBLICAL CHRIST MUST REMAIN THE BIBLICAL CHRIST

The Jesus proclaimed by the apostles is:

THE CHRIST.

Matthew 16:16

THE SON OF GOD.

John 20:31

THE ONE SENT BY THE ONLY TRUE GOD.

John 17:3

THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.

1 Timothy 2:5

THE ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND HUMANITY.

1 Timothy 2:5

OUR ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER.

1 John 2:1

THE ONE GOD RAISED FROM THE DEAD.

Acts 2:32

THE ONE GOD EXALTED.

Philippians 2:9

That is an extraordinary identity.

We do not need to diminish Jesus to reject the Trinity.

On the contrary, we should give Jesus every title, authority, honour and position Scripture gives him.

But neither should we add to his identity something simply because a later council or church tradition tells us to do so.

---

HOW SERIOUS IS THIS?

Extremely serious.

Because we are talking about:

WHO GOD IS.

WHO JESUS CHRIST IS.

WHO WE PRAY TO.

WHO OUR ADVOCATE IS.

WHO OUR MEDIATOR IS.

WHO INTERCEDES FOR US.

These are not peripheral matters.

Paul feared Christians accepting:

“ANOTHER JESUS.”

Jesus warned about:

“FALSE CHRISTS.”

John warned about denying:

“THE FATHER AND THE SON.”

Paul commanded:

“FLEE FROM IDOLATRY.”

John commanded:

“KEEP YOURSELVES FROM IDOLS.”

Therefore Christians should never respond:

“It doesn't matter what we believe as long as we believe in Jesus.”

The New Testament itself shows that what we believe about Jesus matters enormously.

---

THE QUESTION I ASK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

A detailed Bible-study infographic respectfully asking the Catholic Church why Christians should invoke Mary and the saints when Scripture identifies Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the Lord Messiah, the man Christ Jesus, the mediator between God and mankind, and our Advocate with the Father. It examines biblical passages including John 20:31, 1 Timothy 2:5 and 1 John 2:1 and asks whether Christian practice should follow the teaching of Jesus and his apostles. 

I therefore respectfully ask:
If Jesus and the apostles taught that Jesus is:

the Christ,

the Son of God,

the Lord Messiah,

the man Christ Jesus,

the mediator between God and mankind,

and our Advocate with the Father,

then:

WHY MUST JESUS ALSO BE CONFESSED AS “GOD FROM GOD, TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD”?

A detailed Bible research infographic examining the identity of Jesus Christ through the words of Jesus, Peter, Paul and John. It compares the biblical titles Christ, Son of God, Lord, Mediator, Advocate and Intercessor with the later expression “God from God, True God from True God,” and asks where Scripture teaches that confession.

Show me where Jesus teaches that identity.

Show me where Peter preaches it.

Show me where Paul defines the one God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Show me where John says his Gospel was written so that we would believe Jesus is God from God.

And if Jesus is already our Advocate, Mediator and Intercessor:

WHY SHOULD CHRISTIANS INVOKE MARY AS ADVOCATE OR MEDIATRIX?

Show me where Jesus commands it.

Show me where the apostles practise it.

Show me where the first Christians are instructed to pray to Mary.

These are biblical questions.

They deserve biblical answers.

---

CONCLUSION — TEST EVERYTHING AGAINST SCRIPTURE

I respect Mary.

Scripture calls her blessed, and so do I.

But the biblical Mary said:

“My soul magnifies the Lord. My spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”

Luke 1:46–47

Mary pointed toward God her Savior.

And Scripture points Christians toward Jesus Christ as their mediator and advocate.

Therefore I believe Christians should honour Mary exactly as Scripture honours her — without assigning her additional heavenly functions for which I can find no apostolic command.

Likewise, I believe Jesus should be confessed exactly according to the identity revealed by Scripture.

Peter confessed:

“YOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.”

Matthew 16:16

John wrote:

“JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD.”

John 20:31

Jesus prayed to his Father:

“YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD.”

John 17:3

Paul declared:

“ONE GOD, THE FATHER.”

1 Corinthians 8:6

And Paul declared:

“ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN,

THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.”

1 Timothy 2:5

For me, these declarations must remain the foundation.

No church council, creed, tradition, pope, priest, pastor — or even my own interpretation — should be permitted to override what Scripture actually says.

The issue is too serious.

If Paul warned us about another Jesus, then we must make certain we have the Jesus the apostles preached.

If God commands us to flee from idolatry, we should not dismiss questions about religious invocation and images as unimportant.

And if God has already given us His Son as our Mediator, Advocate and Intercessor, then I believe we should go through Jesus Christ directly to:

HIS GOD AND FATHER.

ONE GOD.

ONE MEDIATOR.

JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD.

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Quick Facts: Archbishop of Canterbury Preaches a FALSE Christ! — Justin Welby

John 1:1

• John 1:1 — Does "The Word Was God" Mean Jesus Is Almighty God?
• IS THE WORD JESUS IN JOHN 1:1? 
• What Is the Truth About John 1:1 to 5?
• WHY John 1:1 is not about Jesus!

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?

• WHO IS THE ONE TRUE GOD? New video!
• 
  
• The Greatest Commandment Ever Given — Who Is the One True God?
• Mark 12:29 — Why Did Jesus Quote the Shema?
• Deuteronomy 6:4 — The Shema: "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh Our God Is One"
• John 10:30 — What Did Jesus Mean by "I and the Father Are One"?
• John 8:58 — What Did Jesus Mean by "Before Abraham Was, I Am"?
• John 20:28 — Did Thomas Really Call Jesus Almighty God?
• John 14:9 — "He Who Has Seen Me Has Seen the Father" Explained
• John 17:3 — Jesus Confirmed That the Father Alone Is the Only True God
• John 17:5 — Did Jesus Exist with the Father Before the World Began?
• 2 Peter 1:1 — Another Trinitarian Misunderstanding?
• Colossians 1:15–17 — Does "Firstborn of All Creation" Mean Jesus Was Created?
• Hebrews 1:2 — Did God Create the Universe or the Ages Through His Son?
• Who Is the Alpha and the Omega?
• Did the Doctrine of the Trinity Originate with Jesus Christ and His Apostles?
• Is Jesus God, or the Son of God? What Does the Whole Bible Teach?
•  Scriptures Proving Yahweh: The One True God of Israel Is the Creator Alone.
• John 6:38 — How Did Jesus Come Down From Heaven?

1 Corinthians 8:6 – One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ

Quick Facts: Does Romans 9:5 Really Call Jesus “God Over All”? What Did Paul Actually Mean?

Quick Facts: Does Matthew 28:19 Prove the Trinity?

Quick Facts: Does Hebrews 1:8 Really Call Jesus the One True God?

TITUS 2:13 — DOES THIS VERSE PROVE JESUS IS GOD?

What Did Isaiah See? A Bible Study of Isaiah 6:1 and John 12:41

Quick Facts: Who Is on the Throne of God — One God or Three?

Quick Facts: Does John 10:30–36 Really Prove Jesus Said He Is God?

John 8:24 Quick Facts — Unless You Believe That I Am He?

Did the Catholic Church Create the Doctrine of the Trinity? And Did Later Church Fathers Reject the Earlier Jewish Understanding of the One God?

The Shocking Trinitarian Claim – Unless Jesus Is God, He Cannot Be the Savior!

You tube videos:

 EXPOSING FALSE TEACHERS ON REVELATION TV!

EXPOSING Dr. Grady S. McMurtry On Revelation TV!

According to Dr. Grady, John 14:9, John 10:30, PROVES Jesus is GOD Almighty!

FALSE TEACHINGS of Dr Grady John 10:30.

Dr. Grady McMurtry's FALSE TEACHING on HELL!

Dr Grady McMurtry says 2 Corinthians 5:8 proves the saints are in HEAVEN! 

David Pawson & Answers in Genesis, FALSE TEACHINGS on the TRINITY.