The classic argument usually lies with a few scriptures, like John 17:3:
"And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ."
Since Jesus Christ is also called God (a god) at John 1:1, the argument goes that Jesus must then be a "false god."
The point that Trinitarians are hoping to further is that, since Jesus cannot be a false God, he must be the True God.
Or as Sam Shamoun has sent to me,

"It is our understanding that the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is not a lesser god but the true God, Jehovah. The biblical data also teaches that there are more than one person who are addressed as the one true God, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Jn. 17:3; Acts 5:3, 4) Yet, they are not three Gods but only one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20)

When you really think about, these are diversionary, smoke and mirror tactics. It says, "Let's get you, the hoi polloi, to think about something that is never mentioned in the Bible, the Trinity, and focus on the deity of Jesus, as if this will make up for the other, rarely mentioned Father and Holy Spirit."
One way they do this is to use the "True God vs False God" argument. I have dealt with the fallacies of this argument briefly, but at this time I will go deeper, thanks to a push by Sam.

When we look into the Bible, we see that there is actually very little mention of "false gods."
The King James Version never uses the expression once, the American Standard Version only uses it at Jeremiah 18:15. My RSV uses it several times in the apocryphal Letter of Jeremiah.

The stuff Sam Shamoun sent to me makes much of what he thinks Stafford ignores in the BAGD, which says, "genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real." Stafford does not hide this, and if you take a closer look, it does not really say what you hope it says. The BAGD has italicized the word "real," and the reason for this is plain. The scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers, etc, to determine false gods are never directed to anything living. They almost always refer to a worthless idol, or something equally without any substance.
That is why the RSV Annotated Study Bible says of the false gods, "Idols are helpless, useless, and not to be compared with celestial phenomena." (ftn. Letter of Jeremiah) You will be hard pressed to find an example lexically of a living being described as a false god.
This does not rule out living beings as being false gods, but according the Bible, early Jewish and Christian thought, the true/false enigma is not as restrictive as Trinitarians wish.
We have already mentioned John 17:3, where the "only true God" is distinguished FROM Jesus Christ. So damaging was this scripture to "Saint" Augustine, that he tried to change it so that "only true God" was read after "Jesus Christ" to make it sound like Jesus was the only True God.

Couple this with 1 Cor 8:6, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."
This scripture alone is disastrous to a Trinitarian, as Jesus is excluded from the term, "One God."
In fact, if you take a look at QEOS as it is mentioned in the NT, the term is almost exclusively used of the Father. Trinitarian and Biblical theology both teach that Jesus cannot be the Father. So if Jesus is not the "One God" or "only True God," as he is clearly distinguished from him, then where does that leave him?
Why would Jesus call the Father the ONLY true God, if in fact that Son and the holy spirit are also the ONLY true God? Why would the Bible call the Father the "one God" if the one God were really the Father, Son and holy spirit? Nowhere does the Bible call the Son or the holy spirit the true God or the one God, but both terms are used of the Father, and restricted to Him by His Son. (John 17:3)
Does not the New Testament call Jesus a God/QEOS? Yes it does, but only with qualification. As Thayer's Lexicon states, "Whether Jesus is called God must be determined from Jn. i. 1; xx. 28; 1Jn. v. 20; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; Heb. i. 8 sq.., etc.; the matter is still in dispute amongst theologians."
Why, if we take the whole Bible in context should there be a dispute at all?
Sam sent me that Moses is called a god at Exodus 4:16; 7:1, but notes,

"Moses is called God since he is acting on God’s behalf as his spokesman and prophet, not that he was divine in any sense."

"Hence, it seems likely that angels are being referred figuratively as gods in the same sense that Moses and the Israelite judges are viewed as gods, i.e. God's servants speaking on his behalf and faithfully doing his will"

"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of the highest heavens, all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', the spirits of eternal holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the dwelling of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I i, 30-46]).

"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of glory; the floor of the marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost chambers of the King, the spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt, spirits of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the living 'gods,' forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art are marvelously linked, many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the 'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks of splendour and majesty. All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound of quiet silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]).

"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits of the clear firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge enter by the doors of glory, and when the holy angels depart the realm, the entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the glory of the King...the fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229 [4Q405 23i]).

The War Rule says that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for the Day of Revenge" (1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment titled by Vermes as The Song of Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an incomplete sentence that says that there is "a throne of strength in the congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it,
neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is also held as saying "I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness" and "for I am reckoned with the 'gods,' and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126).

"There is ample evidence to show that [the OT] conception of monotheism was held in conjunction with a belief in a spiritual world peopled with supernatural and superhuman beings who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being, of God" ( _The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic_ P. 235).

Sam: Stafford is simply wrong when he asserts that "The angels are not true gods, nor are they false gods; rather, they are 'copies' (derivative images) of the true God, and receive their authority and power from Him in order to carry out His word..." (Stafford, J.W.D., p. 200) They are neither true nor false, nor derivative copies but messengers created to do the will of God; no more, no less.

Everyone knows what John 1:1 says regarding Jesus, but few take into account the words PROS TON QEON (with/toward the God). Interestingly, according to my software, the only other time John uses the term PROS TON THEON is at John 13:3, "Jesus knew that the Father had given everything into His hands, that He had come from God, and that He was going back to God (PROS TON THEON)." HCSB
The Catholic Kleist&Lilly NT translates "come from God" as "messenger from God." This same NT translates "sent from" as "ambassador" in regards to Jesus. I think this is very important.
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" under "APOSTOLOS (XYL$) in Judaism" states: "A saying of the Rabbis was: 'The emissary of a King is as the King himself.'"–Vol. I, pg.416  "Moses, Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel are called MYXWL$ of God because there took place through them things normally reserved for God. Moses causes water to flow out of the rock; Elijah brings rain and raises a dead man; Elisha 'opens the mother's womb' and also raises a dead man; and Ezekiel receives the 'key to the tombs at the reawakening of the dead' according to Ex. 37:1 ff...These four were distinguished by the miracles which God empowered them to perform and which He normally reserved for Himself."—Vol. I, pg. 419
Jesus, as "coming from God/God's messenger" acts as God agent/ambassador, and therefore he is God to those he is bringing God's message to.
Rienecker's "Linguistic Key to the Greek N.T." says at "Jn.1:6: APOSTELLO: Sent forth; pass...to send, to commission, to send as an authoritative personal representative." Significantly, on Jn. 7:29 he says: "To send as an authoritative representative."

But what of Sam's sent objection coupled with his quote of Psalm 86?:

""Among the gods there is none like you, O Jehovah; no deeds can compare with yours... For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you ALONE are GOD." Psalm 86:8, 10
These passages make it difficult for anyone to believe that although Jehovah is the true God, there are gods of a lesser kind since Scripture clearly states that no gods have ever been formed at all."

Let us not forget Sam's other sent position:

The biblical data also teaches that there are more than one person who are addressed as the one true God, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Jn. 17:3; Acts 5:3, 4) Yet, they are not three Gods but only one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20)

So we have only one true, almighty God, Jehovah, and he is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to Trinitarian theology, the Son cannot be. And when we break it down, Stafford is correct in his assertion of almighty God being the archetype, and all others copies. Even Vine's points out in reference to the true tent as the, "the spiritual, antitypical tabernacle, Heb. 8:2; 9:24, not that the wilderness tabernacle was false, but that it was a weak and earthly copy of the heavenly."
Origen knew of the correct way to understand the difference between true and false:
Origen seemed to understand the use of alethinos in John 17:3, for in his Commentary on John he wrote:

"God on the one hand is VERY God (autotheos, God of himself); and so the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; " but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in his divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), rather God (without the article).  And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord [Jehovah], hath spoken, and called the earth." [Ps. 136:2] It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for the drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.  The true God, then, is "THE GOD," and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the Prototype.""
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eerdmans' reprint series) Book 2, p. 323)

"The unique character of Yahweh is the answer to the question about the monotheism of early Israel. Monotheism as a speculative affirmation is simply not found in the earlier books of the Bible; the affirmation presupposes a pattern of philosophical thinking which was foreign to the Israelite mind. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous denial of the reality of other Elohim before Second Isaiah in the 6th century. This does not mean that early Israel was polytheistic or uncertain about the exclusive character of Yahweh. They perhaps would have said that there are many Elohim but only one Yahweh, and would have denied to any Elohim the unique character which they affirmed of Yahweh."

Thus, Stafford’s reasoning is that the term "sons of God" must mean that angels are divine beings since this is the way Scripture uses the phrase "sons of"; to refer to membership or participation in a particular class. What Stafford failed to note is that although the phrase is used at times to denote participation in a given class, it is not always used in this sense.
"As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, sons of Belial, surrounded the house... " Judges 19:22
"The sons of Eli were sons of Belial, having no regard for Jehovah." 1 Samuel 1:12
The Israelites are also addressed as the sons or children of God:
"You are the children (Heb.- beney) of the LORD your God." Deut. 14:1 NIV
"Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ " Hosea 1:10 NIV
This presumably being the case, JWs face further difficulties since Adam is another one who is addressed as God’s son:
"... the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke 3:38 NIV

"The description "sons of God" are given to the Israelites in Hosea 1:10. That this description has a much different meaning than when used of the angels is clear from the fact that the description in Hosea is figurative, relating to their newfound relationship
with God, as oppsed to His rejection of them mentioned in the same verse. The angels in Genesis (6:4), Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7) and the book of Psalms (89:6; compare 29:1) are not described as sons of God in such a context. Rather, they, as "sons of God," "take their situation before Jehovah" in the heavens (Job 1:6; 2:1), and witnessed the creation of the heavens and the earth (Job 38:7)." JWD2 pp. 114, 115

Sam: Another major weakness in the argument is that it leaves JWs with a serious problem. In the Old Testament, Jehovah is pictured as the Light:
"Jehovah is my light and my salvation... " Ps. 27:1
"... for Jehovah will be your everlasting Light... Jehovah will be your everlasting Light..." Isaiah 60:19, 20
"... Though I sit in darkness, Jehovah will be my light." Mic. 7:8
If as JWs assume that Jesus is not Jehovah, this implies that Jehovah is not the true light but a copy of the true one. Using Stafford’s reasoning, Jesus as the one true light is the one reality and source from which others can only reflect, but never possess. Therefore, since Jesus is the true light and Jehovah is not Jesus, then Jehovah’s light is not "true in the sense of the reality only possessed by the archetype alone," but one of its derivative copies. The only way to resolve this problem is to affirm that Jesus is Jehovah, since what is true of Jehovah is true of Jesus.

Reply: This was written before Jesus time, where Jehovah was the only true light to contend with. The scriptures mentioned preceeded Jesus time on earth.
Heb. 1:1 says that in times past, God was represented by prophets.
Moses was a prophet who reflected God's glory:
Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible says this of Moses,

"In the OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his most intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18; 33:11.18-23; Num 12:7,8; Deut 5:20-28; Ps 103:7; Sir 45:5; cf. John 9:29; Acts 7:38; Heb 8:5), evidently to emphasize that Moses' words and prescriptions really are the words and rules of the LORD himself. In connection with his role as a mediator of revelation, Moses is portrayed with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5; Sir 45:20. According to Exod 34:29-35 the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29.30.35), i.e.his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)."

Reply: And what really does any of this have to do with a Trinity? If eternal life is knowing "the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent," then why is the holy spirit not factored into the equation? Does John 1:1 teach a trinity? Absolutely not. It does not mention the holy spirit, in fact, the Word is indeed not the same god he is with? Even Origen understood this:

"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the article, not without it."

"I should observe that a similar addition of the article occurs in the 8th century Alexandrian manuscript L of John 1:1, so that the text now reads *O QEOS HN O LOGOS*-making it clear that the Word actually was God himself (not simply divine). I am somewhat reluctant to exclude this singular reading from consideration here, but am nonetheless under the distinct impresssion that it derives from the later Arian controversies. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that Origen already used the *absence* of the article in John 1:1 to demonstrate Christ's subordination to God (Jn. Com 2.2.17-18)." p. 179

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle."

"One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach]
is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).

"a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He then adds "The New Testament apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

Reply: But what does the context say? Verse 5 says "And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." It is quite obvious that he is referring to the Father. The footnote just prior to this in the Zondervan NASB/NIV Study Bible says, "Jesus emphasized the supreme place of the Father." The New American Bible adds in a footnote that these words were, "addressed directly to the Father."

Stafford reasons:
While in certain contexts the word "only" might not mean only in the absolute sense, there is no indication that we have such use here in John 17:3. Also, there is no example that I am aware of where the person who makes the assertion that another person is the "only" something, means to include him- or herself in the description. (IBID, p. 120).
But is there a subtle presupposition in this line of reasoning? I would submit there is: The presupposition is that the person in question is a unipersonal being. That is, human nature is such that there is a one-to-one correspondence between Person (or Identity, Consciousness, or Will) and Being (the essence or nature that makes a human, human); therefore, any
example of a human person saying that that another person is the "only" something, indeed does not mean to include him- or herself in the description - because it is impossible for a being to be the "only" something if there is another being who is also that something. But what if there is Biblical evidence of a Being that subsists in more that one person
- a multi-personal being? If such a Being exists (and Trinitarians believe the Bible teaches that God is such a Being), it must be admitted that each Person of a multi-personal Being can be described as the "only" something, without necessarily excluding other Persons of that Being from that description. Put another way, Jesus includes the Father in the identity of
the True God. However, if Jesus is the same Being as the Father, He does not logically exclude Himself from that category.

Reply: Have you noticed there was never a scripture cited to back up any of this mind-boggling rhetoric. I understood none of this mumbo jumbo. Why? Because it is not common sense, and definitely NOT Biblical. All this ignores the point of agency that I put forth above. There is only one President of the United States, but he has ambassadors abroad that represent him. We even have a vice-president that acts in his stead when he is not here. This is how the Bible speaks of other humans, angels as God (Ex 4:16; 7:1; Ps 8:5; 45:6, 7; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1), and this is how the Bible speaks of Jesus as an "only-begotten God" (NASB) or "only-born God" (Lattimore, Byington) at John 1:18 who EXHGHSATO the God that "No man hath seen."

Sam sent: Witnesses who argue as Stafford does deny the possibility of a multipersonal God from the outset. They therefore place considerable emphasis on their preferred definition of "true," for without it, they would be forced to concede that the Son is a false god. However, we may ask how it is that John 17:3 excludes Jesus from the category of "true" God, when Jude 4 does not exclude the Father from the category of Lord?

Reply: Because, the Son was "MADE LORD." (Acts 2:36) The Father was never MADE anything, and as almighty, does not need to be made anything. Again, you can see what is happening here. Again, there is no proof of a tri-personal/triune anything, as it is all about the Dynamic Duo, never the Triune Trio. This is sheer trickery at work.

Sam sent: Indeed, here, there is not even the qualifying adjective that provides the basis of the Witness interpretation of John 17:3. Matthew 19:17 presents Witnesses with a similar problem, for here Jesus says that there is only "One" who is good; Witnesses must interpret this to mean that Jesus in His humility is denying His own goodness. In practice, Witnesses acknowledge Jesus as "good," and Jehovah as their Lord. Their exegetical methodology appears inconsistent and subject to their theology; whereas Trinitarians are consistent in
holding that an exclusive title may be given to any member of the Trinity, without excluding other members from that category.

Reply: Are you puttting words in our mouths to buttress your point?
Consider the WT 1951:

"Jesus said that Jehovah "makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good". Concerning Barnabas the record is, "He was a good man." Young Christian women were instructed to be "good". House servants were told to be in subjection to their owners, "not only to the good and reasonable, but also to those difficult to please." (Matt. 5:45; Acts 11:24; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:18, NW) For other instances see Matthew 12:35; 20:15; 22:10; 25:21, 23; Luke 6:45; 19:17; 23:50. In all of these cases "good" translates the one Greek original word, agathós. The same Greek word is used where the record tells of the rich young ruler who questioned Jesus: "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus said to him: "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God."—Mark 10:17, 18; Luke 18:18, 19, NW.
Certainly if imperfect men could be called "good", Jesus would qualify even more so as such. Nor would he object to the term "teacher"; he accepted that designation. (John 13:13, NW) Then why did he answer this young man as he did? It seems that the rabbis of Jewry affected this title, which would explain Christ's rejection of it. When this ruler addressed him thus it amounted to classing him with the rabbis. Jesus wanted no rabbinical titles, and by this rebuke Jesus showed the impropriety of using such titles. (Job 32:21, 22; Matt. 23:7-10, NW) Christ had no objections to being properly identified as the teacher or master or leader, as he said it was well that they called him such, but when designations were linked in a title-setting commonly used to address rabbis in a flattering way he did protest. He drove the point home forcefully by taking the extreme and highest view of the matter, spotlighting Jehovah God as the one deserving of such title. Incidentally, this shows Jehovah no part of the trinity with two others equal with him, and trinitarian attempts to offset this by referring to Matthew's wording of this meeting do not erase the two accounts by Mark and Luke.—Matt. 19:16, 17, NW.
That the rich ruler was using "Good Teacher" as a formalistic title rather than as expressing his honest conviction concerning Jesus is shown by his rejection of Jesus' advice. Apparently he did not consider Jesus such a good teacher in reality, for he went off without following Christ's counsel. He deserved rebuke."

Reply: And since the Father seems to exhaust the title God, or even, "only true God", and Trinitarian theology teaches that Jesus is not the Father, then no matter which way you slice it, Jesus is excluded, and according to the reasoning of Sam, He must then be a false god.
But since we have seen, which even Sam admits, there are "figurative gods" that are not false, as the bible clearly shows, he is only arguing against himself.

 Sam sent: But then we may ask why it is that this same exclusive connotation does not exclude the Father from being "Lord" and "Master" in Jude 4?

Reply: Again, like I said, the Father was never made Lord (Acts 2:36). He GAVE Jesus authority (Mt 28:18). Obviously there was a time when he was not Lord, and did not have authority. Oh what confusion this terrible Trinity brings with it.
Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings:

"From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the question of JESUS' relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before he was called Son of God--then God. EVEN SO, HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three centuries. During  these years, MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT OF JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of him IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THOUGHT OF GOD THE FATHER. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, YES, BUT NOT FULLY GOD . . . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early fourth century, most Christians were "SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that Christ was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY THAT THE FATHER WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183).

“hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN ECEI, TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS CORHGWN, QEOSGINETAI [QEOS as predicate nominative preceeding copulative verb] TWN LAMBANANTWN (one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients). (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. of Q. to pers. who elicit special reverence.”

Sam sent: The Meaning of "True"

Reply: Here Sam just expands on the same rhetoric which I have already exposed. He quotes several sources which point to John 17:3 and say that the opposite of true is false. I do not argue that, but the  point that I have already made is that all the cases of false have to do with something inanimate, like an idol, never anything living. "In the OT Yahweh is distinguished from the other gods by the designation *living*." Dictionary of the Bible/ McKenzie p. 385

Sam sent: Origen's Understanding of the True God
..."Thus, Origen understands that the Word is God by derivation....Here Origen
is directly indebted to the Platonism of his day" (Rusch, p. 14)....

Reply: Snip…here Sam makes a big case to show that Origen is influenced by Plato and not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Nobody argues that. But then pretty much all the ANF were. To assume that one has to agree with someone in toto to quote him is ridiculous, and nonsense. What Stafford does is give an example of how the word "true" was used early on, Sam has no argument for this, so, like all Trinitarians do, they try to find dirt, or anything else to discredit your use of any sources. Even looking at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm for Origen's Commentary on John we see again how he viewed the word *true,*
"Christ, again, the light of the world, is the true light as distinguished from the light of sense; nothing that is sensible is true. Yet though the sensible is other than the true, it does not follow that the sensible is false, for the sensible may have an analogy with the intellectual, and not everything that is not true can correctly be called false."
Again, no one really believes all that Origen believes, but we do have a record of how he viewed the word *true.*

Sam sent: Immediately preceding the quote provided by Stafford, we read: Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other (Commentary on John 2:2:10-13).

Reply: And immediately following this quote we read:

"Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity."

Sam sent: Thus, the Son is distinct in person, but of one "essence" with the Father.
For Origen, though he may speak at times of "a secondary God," he is also
quite comfortable speaking of Father, Son, and Spirit as One God. In his
Dialog with Heraclides, Origen refers to Scripture in order to show in what
sense two can be one:....

Reply: "Elsewhere, in his Commentary on John, he writes: "there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father" (Burgess 73).
Origen clearly the Holy Spirit was a creation of God through the Logos. Origen definitely espoused a Neo-Platonic view that the Son and Spirit were subordinate to the Father while in some way viewing them all as God. In Origen's theology the Son and the Spirit are not God as He is God. This is not to say that Origen taught the later view of the Trinity, but of course, "he was evidently influenced by Middle/Neo-Platonism's divine hierarchy of being (Bigg 152-234)."
But even Plato in his _Symposium_, writes:

"Heaven forbid, she said. But do you really think that if a thing isn't beautiful it's therefore bound to be ugly? . . . Don't you know, she asked, that holding an opinion which is in fact correct, without being able to give a reason for it, is neither true knowledge--how can it be knowledge without a reason?--nor ignorance--for how can we call it ignorance when it happens to be true? So may we not say that a correct opinion comes midway between knowledge and ignorance. Yes, I admitted, that's perfectly true."

"We can say that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way, but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceed the other beings" (Commentary On John 130, 25, 151)."

"Of course later orthodoxy would not express it like that, it would avoid anything that could express a superiority of the Father over the other two" (Crouzel 203).

"And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: "The Lord created me—the beginning of His ways and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth ... before all the hills, He brought me forth ... He is styled First-born, as the apostle declared "who is the first-born of every creature." [Colossians 1:15] The first-born however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom but one and the same ... the Apostle Paul says that "Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Corinthians 1:24]" (bold italics added)—Origen, De Principiis, Book I, chapter II, § 1; ANF, Vol. IV (4), page 246.

"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170.

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52

"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203.

"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ... and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234.

"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151.

"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153.

"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237.

"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65,  reprinting of October,  1987.
"For He has become Man, that He might deify us in  Himself,  and  He has been  born  of a  woman,  and  begotten  of  a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the
Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter  wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576.

"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God,
 p.xix)

Sam also knows just how damaging  Origen's words were, that translators, again, had to corrupt them to fit the later theology of the Trinity. Jaroslav Pelikan says that Rufinus' translation is all we have of First Principles. (see The Emergence of Catholic Tradition-A History of the Development of Doctrine, p. 109) This is an ongoing situation with these type of people:

"We know for certain that the translations, especially those made by Rufinus [of Aquileia] are not accurate. ... Rufinus says himself in his introduction that he followed the example of Jerome in his translation of the homilies, "Here and there" he says, "things are found in the Greek that might give offense". Jerome whittled all that down when he made his translation and expurgated the text so that no one reading the Latin would find anything in it at variance with our [Roman Catholic] faith. He [Rufinus] was all the more convinced of his right to do this in that he thought that Origen's books had been altered by heretics, as he explains in his De Adulteratione Liborum [Of (The) Adulteration (of the) Books (of) Origen]. Jerome produced a more faithful translation of the book to take the field against Rufinus's but it is now lost. Rufinus's translation therefore has to be used, but with caution."—Jean Danielou (in French) Paris, La Table Ronde, (no date given); English translation by Walter Mitchell, New York, Sheed And Ward, 1955; Nihil Obstant: Carolus Davis, S.T.L. Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard Vic[ar]  Gen- [eral]., 1955, pp. xi, xii. (The "Nihil Obstant" and "Imprimatur" show this work to be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

"The work has come down to us in the Latin translation of his admirer Rufinus; but, from a comparison of the few fragments of the original Greek which have been preserved, we see that Rufinus was justly chargeable with altering many of Origen's expressions, in order to bring his [Origen's] doctrine on certain points more into harmony with the orthodox views of the time [of Rufinus c. 398 C.E.]."—ANF, Vol. IV, p. 231.

"Many of the early Christians, in turn, found peculiar attractions in the doctrines of Plato, and employed them as weapons for the defense and extension of Christianity, or cast the truths of Christianity in a Platonic mold. The doctrines of the Logos [Greek for "the Word"] and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who, if not trained in the schools, were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy, particularly in its Jewish-Alexandrian form."

"Christianity took over from Greek philosophy, and to some extent developed independently, the profound and fruitful idea of the distinction between time and eternity, and between becoming and being. First clearly stated by Parmenides, c. 500 B.C. . . . , it is worked out in considerable detail by Plato, c. 390 B.C., especially in his Phædrus and Symposium."

Interestingly, the French encyclopedia Alpha states: "Most religious traditions or philosophical systems set forth ternary [threefold] groups or triads that correspond to primeval forces or to aspects of the supreme God." Another French work points to the Greek philosopher Plato (of about 427 to 347 B.C.E.) and declares:

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—Dictionnaire Lachatre.

"Such a Hellenization did, to a large extent, take place. The definition of the Christian faith as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical synods of the early church indicate that unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were used in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity."

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

"The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

"We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists."

On to Part 2

Back to Main Page