http://www.piney.com/Michael.Servetus.E ... .Full.html
"Any discussion of the Trinity should start with the man. That Yahshua, surnamed Christ, was not a hypostasis4
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.4 Hypostatic Union: A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS Christ; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
"but a human being is taught both by the early Fathers and in the Scriptures, taken in their literal sense, and is indicated by the miracles that he wrought. He, and not the Word5 is also the miraculously born Son of Yahweh in fleshly form, as the Scriptures teach – not a hypostasis, but an actual Son. He is an elohim, sharing Yahweh’s divinity in full; and the theory of a communicatio idiomatum is a confusing sophistical quibble. This does not imply two Yahwehs, but only a double use of the term elohim, as is clear from the Hebrew use of the term. Christ, being one with Yahweh his Father, equal in power, came down from heaven and assumed flesh as a man. In short, all the Scriptures speak of Christ as a man.
The doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a third separate being lands us in practical tritheism6 no better than atheism, even though the unity of Yahweh is insisted on. Careful interpretation of the usual proof –texts shows that they teach not a union of three beings in one but a harmony between them. The Holy Spirit as a third person of the Godhead7 is unknown in Scripture. It is not a separate being, but an activity of Yahweh himself. The doctrine of the Trinity can be neither established by logic nor proved from Scripture and is in fact inconceivable. There are many reasons against it. The Scriptures and the Fathers teach on Yahweh the Father and Yahshua Christ his son; but scholastic philosophy has introduced terms which are not understood and do not accord with Scripture.
Yahshua taught that he himself was the Son the end he held true to his convictions. Arrived at the place of execution he fell upon his face and continued long in prayer, while Farel seized the opportunity to make an edifying address to the spectators. Again exhorted to say something, he cried, ‘O God, O God; what else can I speak of but God.’ Then he asked the people to pray for him. Being led to a pile of wood made up of small sticks and bundles of green oak with the leaves still on, he was seated on a log with his feet touching the ground, his body chained to a stake, and his neck bound to it by a coarse rope; his head covered with straw or leaves sprinkled with sulphur, and his book tied to his thigh. He besought the executioner not to prolong his torture; and when the torch met his sight he uttered a terrible shriek, while the horrified people threw on more wood and he cried out, ‘0 Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me.’ After about half an hour life was extinct. He had died and made no sign.”
Michael Servetus (also Miguel Servet or Miguel Serveto; 29 September 1511 – 27 October 1553)
was a Spanish (Aragonese) theologian, physician and humanist. His interests included many sciences: astronomy and meteorology; geography, jurisprudence, study of the Bible, mathematics, anatomy, and medicine. He is renowned in the history of several of these fields, particularly medicine and theology.
He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology, which led to his condemnnation by Catholics and Protestants alike. He was burnt at the stake by order of the protestant Geneva governing council, which was led by Calvin, as a heretic. “He desired forgiveness of his mistakes and ignorance and sins, though he could never be got to confess Christ as the eternal Son of God; and to
the end he held true to his convictions. Arrived at the place of execution he fell upon his face and continued long in prayer, while Farel seized the opportunity to make an edifying address to the spectators. Again exhorted to say something, he cried, ‘O God, O God; what else can I speak of but God.’
Then he asked the people to pray for him. Being led to a pile of wood made up of small sticks and bundles of green oak with the leaves still on, he was seated on a log with his feet touching the ground, his body chained to a stake, and his neck bound to it by a coarse rope; his head covered with straw or leavessprinkled with sulphur, and his book tied to his thigh. He besought the executioner not to prolong his torture; and when the torch met his sight he uttered a terrible shriek, while the horrified people threw on more wood and he cried out, ‘0 Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me.’ After about half an hour life was extinct. He had died and made no sign.”1
“THE BURNING OF SERVETUS settled only one of the questions raised by his appearance on the stage at Geneva. He himself was indeed now removed from the stage, and could no longer spread his ideas in person. But the burning of the man, as Calvin and other champions of the faith soon discovered, by no means put an end to his ideas; while it did bring to the front a much broader, more important and more vital question, that of religious toleration. Calvin’s critics, in centering their attention on his responsibility for this tragedy, have largely overlooked the fact that in this case he was but the conspicuous embodiment of a policy toward heretics that was at the time universally accepted in principle by Protestants no lessthan by Catholics. It ought therefore to cause no surprise that from the most influential leaders of the Reformation this shocking occurrence called forth an all but unanimous response of approval.
All this, however, was solely on an ex parte presentation of the case by Calvin, who had drawn the terms of the indictment of Servetus which formed the basis of the prosecution and sentence, and had taken the pains to prepare their minds for it. This approval was given by men not one of whom had had a fair opportunity to read and judge the book on which his conviction had been founded, if indeed they had even seen it, but who nevertheless endorsed all that vas done, without apparent hesitation or further inquiry.
Bullinger notonly had approved of the death of Servetus in advance, but two years later he wrote that he was persuaded that if Satan were to return from hell and preach to the world as he pleased, he would employ many of
Servetus’s expressions. Years afterwards he still firmly held that the Geneva Council had done its duty in this case. Peter Martyr Wrote in 1556, ‘I have nothing to say of the Spaniard Servetus except that he was a veri son of the Devil, whose poisonous and detes doctrine should everywhere be hunted down; and the magistrate that condemned him to death should not be blamed, seeing that there was no hope of his amendment, and that his blasphemies were quite intolerable.”
The same FOREORDAINED did the same thing because He DENIED the Trinity which According to 1 John makes them ANTICHRISTS and by Jesus BLASPHEMERS.
The American Restoration Movement was based on SPEAKING where the Bible speaks and just shutting up where it does not speak:
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for BLASPHEMY; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,
Thou BLASPHEMEST; because I said, I am the SON OF GOD?
John 10:37 If I do not the works of MY FATHERbelieve me not.
John 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.