Who is Jesus and What is the Trinity?


The Iliad and the Odyssey are Greek epics believed to have been written by the Greek poet, Homer around 762 B.C., give or take 50 years. They were first translated into the English language in 1581 by Arthur Hall, and in 1598, George Chapman did another translation.
In both books, the original names of the Greek characters in Homer’s epics were left unchanged, as it should be. Only the accounts were translated.

This is the standard practice in translation. So, for instance, if I write a letter to you in my native Itsekiri language, and you take it to a translator, he would translate the account of my letter into whatever language you spoke, but he or she would leave my name intact, because names are not meant to be translated.

So, one wonders why when the King James Version of The Bible, which is a translation of the original (or as original as they could get) Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scripts, was translated into English in 1611 (after the transistors of Homers epics), almost all the names in the New Testament were changed to Anglified versions of those names?

The name Jesus has become the most popular name for The Messiah, but in truth, that is not His name. If His disciples were resurrected and that name was spoken to them, they would not recognise it. It is not a name that they used.
And it does not end there. Most of the names we read in the English or other translations of The Bible into European languages, are strange names. The real Peter, James and John, would not even turn to face you if you had called them those names in their lifetimes.
Peter’s real name is Shimeon, or Cephas. James was known as Yaqob in his lifetime, and his brother John was called Yohannan. I can go on and on, but the question is, why did they do it?

Acts 4:10-12 says in the King James Version:
“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
These verses show, very clearly, that the power is in the name. However, the name is not Jesus Christ. Not at all. That name has been Anglified.

The original name, the name that was given by the Angel Gabriel to Mariam (not Mary) is Yeshua.
Now, ask yourself, how difficult is it to pronounce the word Yeshua? The word Jesus has two syllables, while the word Yeshua has three. In pronunciation, they are almost identical. If that is the case, what argument can be made for replacing Yeshua with Jesus?
The argument could be made (although it would still be a wrong argument), if the name was phonetically difficult to pronounce. But that is not the case. So why change a name as holy as Yeshua, especially when non holy names in Homers epics were left unchanged? Think about that.
I physically went to Greece on January 28, 2019, to investigate the origins of the name Jesus. I went to Korinthos (Corinth), a town that Shaul (not Saul), who later became known as Paul, the Roman citizen, lived in for three years. I also went to various other places in Athens and environs seeking answers to why Yeshua became Iesou, which then became Jesus.

What I found out is that the mainstream explanation of why Yeshua became Iesou, which then became Jesus, is because the Greek alphabets had no equivalents to the Aramaic (the language spoken during Yeshua’s Earthly lifetime) letter Shin (o). But then, why did they not spell as pronounced, using their own alphabets? And why did the translators of the King James Version continue along those lines?
There are those in Greece who believe that the name Iesou, which became Jesus, came about because it was easier for them to accept, as opposed to Yeshua, because Iesou (Jesus) is similar to the name of the head of the Greek Pantheon of gods, Zeus.

But suffice to say that the Earthly name of the Son of God is Yeshua. There is no controversy about that. Jesus is not His name. Iesou is not His name. His name, is È˘ÂÚ, which in modern English is written as Yeshua. Even the word Christ is not Aramaic or Hebrew. It is a Greek word Χριστ⎫ς which translates as ‘the anointed one’. The original word in Aramaic is ÓŸ˘œׁÈÁÀ‡, written in modern English is Msheekha, which means Messiah.

But who is this Yeshua, whom most people know, wrongly, as Jesus? Is He God Himself, as portrayed by the King James Version of the Bible? Is He part of a holy Trinity?
Billions of Christians in Anglican and Evangelical churches around the world, as well as Catholics, are united by a common doctrine called The Trinity.

The Trinity has not always existed. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was nothing like the Trinity. The word does not exist in the Holy Scriptures. It was introduced by the Holy Roman Catholic Church during the First Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD.
After the Council of Chalcedon decided to alter the nature of Christ and change Him from the Son of God to God the Son in AD 451, many churches broke away from Christendom and coalesced into what is now known loosely as Orthodox Churches, some of which reject the Trinitarian doctrine.

According to the official creeds of the Catholic, Anglican and the World Evangelical Alliance, the Trinity is a doctrine that projects one God in three Divine Persons, in which the three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal and omniscient.

Now, I am not going to give my opinion about the Trinity. Rather, I will let The Holy Scriptures speak.
Is there co-equality between God, His Son and the Holy Spirit? In John 14:28 The Son said “My Father is greater than I.” Obviously, that verse contradicts the first leg of the Trinity. During my investigations and research for this book, I confronted a member of the US Southern Baptist Convention about this and I will quote his response verbatim. He said “Jesus was just being modest”!
Almighty God is omniscient. He knows all things. But is His Son omniscient? In Matthew 24:36, The Son said “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father.”

It is clear from the above Scripture that only The Father is omniscient.
So where does the biblical authority for the Trinity come from? It comes from 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version. That verse says:
“There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
Now here is the problem. When you read the original Greek manuscript, that verse does not exist. This is not even an argument or controversy. It is a FACT. Both the Catholic and Anglican Church admit that those words are not to be found in the original Scriptures.
As you read this, I suspect right now that your religious fervour (if you have one) may be telling you that Reno Omokri is deceiving you. Okay. Open any other version of The Bible other than the King James Version and read 1 John 5:7.

I will now quote it in the New International Version, the New Living Translation, the English Standard Version, and the Aramaic Bible in Plain English:
“there are three that testify”-NIV
“we have these three witnesses”-NLT
“there are three that testify”-ESV
“The Spirit testifies because The Spirit is the truth.”-Aramaic Bible in Plain English.
So where does the King James Version get the part that justifies the Trinity? From men, not from God. Why did they do it? I do not know. But what I know is that many of the scholars who translated the Holy Scriptures into the King James Version of The Bible were members of secret mystical (or occult) orders and fraternities. This is not arguable or controversial. It is a historical fact that is not even hidden.
Many Christians try to use John 1:1 to justify the Trinity. They quote it as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
But that is not what it says in the original Greek manuscripts. I have researched that verse from an Original Manuscript. I tweeted and facebooked a picture of it. The first mention of God in the original Manuscript is Theon, while the second word used is Theos.

It is rendered in Greek as follows:
“En arkhêi ên ho lógos, kaì ho lógos ên pròs tòn theón, kaì theòs ên ho lógos.”
Theon and Theos are Greek words that have significance. For instance, Greeks called Zeus, who is the head of their pantheon of gods, Theon. They call Zeus’ children Theos. For instance, Dionysius, the son of Zeus is referred to as Theos.
Various translations of scripture from the 17th and 18th Century have attempted a more accurate translation of that verse of Scripture, but they have been suppressed.

For example, in the 1808 New Testament, in an Improved Version, Thomas Belsham more accurately translated John 1:1 thus:
“And the Word was a God”.
Other translations, including The New Testament in Greek and English (1822), The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (1829), A Literal Translation of the New Testament (1863), and a host of others, followed the literal translation.
The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield (1985), in my opinion, puts it best when it translates as
“So the Word was divine.”

People erroneously cite Philippians 2:6 in the King James Version as justification for the Trinity. That verse says:
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL with God:”
Actually that is a wrong translation. If you read the original Scriptures, you will see for yourself that translations, such as the English Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible are more accurate. They say:
“though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”, and “although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.”

What this means is that Yeshua, our Saviour, did not try to be equal with the Most High. Satan did it. The Holy Scriptures record satan as saying “I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”-Isaiah 14:14.
Yeshua had an even better opportunity to do what satan attempted, but He did not do it. That is why God promoted Him and said “in The Name of Yeshua, every knee shall bow, which is in Heaven and in The Earth and which is under The Earth.”-Philippians 2:10 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English),

But then some read the above verse and still use that to justify the Trinity. Before you do that, I urge you to read and understand 1 Corinthians 15:27-28. Those verses say:
“For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under Him, that God may be all in all.”

I know this is a lot to take in. It is possible I have upset a lifetime of religious programming. However, you will agree with me that I have backed everything I have said from Scripture. I have said what I studied, researched, investigated and prayed over. I went physically to these places mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. I went to Israel, Rome, The Vatican, Corinth and Athens in Greece, Ethiopia (eight times), Egypt and Palestine. I never wanted to do this. But I believe God will not be happy with me if I act the coward like Jonah.

A popular and well respected Pentecostal pastor, who agrees with these things, appealed to me not to reveal them. But I have achieved everything I want to achieve on earth. If I die without saying this, I will not be fulfilled.
Bear in mind that the Trinity did not exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. The doctrine was invented in 325 AD. What did Paul say about this?
“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.”-1 Timothy 4:1.

When you talk or write about these truths, there are those that will bring up different theories to justify these beliefs. However, the challenge with all of them, without a question, is that they have no basis in Scripture and are the construct of men, rather than God.
Others will ask how this builds faith. My response to them is this: is faith built on a lie still faith, or is it delusion?
Sadly, many people go to Business Centres, and think they are going to church. They will hear more about money than about God. After years of attending church, they know more about their congregations and pastors than about the Holy Scriptures, but they will come here to attack me for saying the truth.

Related Articles