A Nation Without Borders, when?

A Nation Without Borders, when?

Recently, construction of US-Mexico border wall is in dispute especially as to its funding “directly or indirectly, or through longer term reimbursement, by Mexico” (1). In the 2016 campaign for POTUS, the question of sovereignty came up and advanced the notion that without a border wall, one loses the country. Illegal immigration, addictive drugs, sexual predators, human traffickers, violent MS-13 gang and terrorists going through a porous or non-existent border were purported to be prevented with enhanced border control to protect and provide safety to US citizens. In a post 911 era, majority of the population is sensitive to a repeat of NY Twin-Towers’ horrific catastrophe. Suffering the most number of innocent people killed by terrorist in one day, it was indeed “a day of infamy”.

Opponents of the wall argue against its cost, human toll, ineffectiveness to bar illegal immigration, environmental impact and the wrong message to the world (2,3). Intention for having a wall historically gives an inkling as to whether a border wall is good or bad.

All around the world countries are building walls. In all, over 70 different countries have fortified their borders.”(4). While building it depends on the purpose, it can also result in unintended consequences.

Why these needs and aspirations?

Safety, protection and tranquility are strong impetus to build a wall. Why these needs? Similarly, legal or illegal immigration is a powerful determinant for anyone to improve expectations of quality of life. These are reasonable goals for everyone. But, why do people get drawn to these aspirations and move out from their place? Could it be because of our nature, what we are made of, seeking what is best for us? Could it be because of our mortality and drive for self-preservation? Yet, somehow, can we truly achieve these ideals? If not, then why, how and when to reach these goals.

Our mortality and what was done about it?

To understand why we aspire to be the best and move from one place to another, a look back at our creation, how and what this “living being” did to achieve his goals, may provide some clues as to where these needs emanate.

In Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:”. This event happened after God created angels, and the universe(Job 38:7). Moreover, this occurred after God created the plant-kingdom and the animal-kingdom(Genesis 1:11-27). He was not creating a human-kingdom but a god-kingdom, with man as “an image”, a reflection and a precursor of the future, a template. (See references 5,6,7).

In Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Notice that man has 2 components: dust(from the ground, earthy, flesh-composed) + breath-of-life(breathe in by God,a divine spirit-being and so spirit-composed). At death,these 2 components separate: the flesh goes to “hades”(grave) to rot, while the breath-of-life (spirit-of-man; mind) the divine and spirit-composed part of man, goes back to God(8,9,10). Mortality of the material-part of our 2 components is a basic part of our created nature.

Then, Genesis Adam was tempted to aspire to be “like God (Elohim;Creator-God)knowing good and evil” the as in,

Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”(NIV).

Adam was prohibited to be “like God” on his “own works”, (by eating the proverbial fruit) as the man to be the “trailblazer” towards this end was already planned to be “man-Jesus”, the 2nd Adam “from above”, incarnated Creator God, the Yahweh Elohim, El Shaddai, Logos. And this was planned to happen before the foundation of the world, not on any man’s “works” but is faith-based or evidence-based as prophesied, promised and resulted from the grace and love of the Father (John 1:1) towards humanity. (11,12,13,14)

The 1st Adam sinned and made a mistake on “how to become like God”. It was the 2nd Adam, the prophesied man-Jesus who would do this by first incarnating from Yahweh Elohim to human, be a Passover-Lamb to take the consequence of sin, which is death, for mankind towards reconciliation to Father God, then be resurrected to be given the promised power of the Holy Spirit from the Father that humans lack and will receive to empower man’s “weakness” of the flesh and to be a Helper(John 14:26; Philippians 2:13;Philippians 4:13;Hebrews 13:21) to the “willing spirit-of-man”(Matthew 26:36-46; Luke 22:39-44).

This power of the Holy Spirit will in-dwell in the “holy-of-holies” in man, in the “spirit-of-man” “not made by hands”, to “write the laws in the fleshly tables of our heart” to fertilize /sanctify for growth and development in the “church womb” to be “one” with the Father. (Acts 8:49, 17:24; 2 Corinthians 3:3; Revelations 12:2,18). The “mortal bodies” of those with the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit of power, who became “overcomers”(Revelations 2:10,17,26;3:21; 21:7-8;Romans 12:21; Ephesians 6:12) shall be changed at the start of the Millenium “in a twinkling of an eye”(1 Corinthians 15:52) into a glorious immortal body (2 Corinthians 5:1-4) to rule with Christ on earth. During this time, those living mortals who were not “called” to have the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit of power will then have this chance to receive it and “bear fruits”. And the dead after the millennium(Revelations 20:5), as prophesied in Ezekiel 37:12-14 “valley of bones”, will resurrect as mortal to have their chance to partake and bear fruits of the Holy Spirit. The preceding strategic plan started and will reach finality with Jesus according to what was promised by the Father.

A nation Without Walls or Borders

The fulfillment of borderless nation is in the Millenium where “them living without walls and without gates and bars.”

And yet, “Gog and Magog” and many more will invade this “nation without borders”. Ezekiel 38:11

You will say, “I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people–all of them living without walls and without gates and bars.” (NIV)

They and Satan will be met with overwhelming power towards ultimate victory(Ezekiel 38).


Our needs and aspirations to have a better life will not be achieved by legal or illegal immigration from one place to another. Neither will our safety and protection come with border walls. And this, because of the mortality and needs of the material-component of our created being, our “flesh” that was formed from the “ground, earthy”(Genesis 2:7). The root cause of all of these emanate from the “weakness/deficiency”(Matthew 26:36-46) of our “temporary dwelling” created on hope(Romans 8:20) of future “re-make/re-work”(Jeremiah 18:1-4) We will all die when the time comes. Additionally, while “our spirit is willing”, it needs to be empowered by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit of Father God that can only be given by the resurrected Son of God(Jesus). This power will be a “Helper” (for us during this period of sanctification towards becoming “one” (John 17:21)with the Father.

All of the preceding ideals will be fulfilled when our composition changes “in a twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:52)from mortal to immortal and spirit-composed bodies at resurrection that will jump-start the “millennium era”. This is our “hope and change” that emanate from faith-based trust in the Father that started with our “trailblazer” (captain/author finisher)Jesus(Hebrews 2:10;12:2). This was planned from the foundation of the world out of love for mankind and when we were yet sinners. Promise made , promise kept as delivered to us by his Son Jesus.

Even with that at the start of the Millennium, evil has to be curtailed temporarily (Revelations 20:2) and subsequently and finally when Gog and Magog with the Devil go after the “borderless Israel”. A “new heaven and earth”(Revelations 21:1)will be created thereafter and the Father will be with us for eternity.


1. How Trump plans to make Mexico pay for the wall. Retrieved 10/6/18 from


2. Weighing the Pros and Cons of U.S.-Mexico Border Barrier. Retrieved 10/6/18 from https://www.thoughtco.com/mexico-border-fence-pros-and-cons-1951541

3. To build or not to build the wall. Retrieved 10/6/18 from https://ndpnews.org/commentary/2016/12/07/to-build-or-not-to-build-the-wall/

4. Building walls may have allowed civilization to flourish. Retrieved 10/6/18 from


5. Destiny of Man. Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2011/05/21/the-destiny-of-man/

6. Son of God-What does it mean? Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2016/12/23/son-of-god-what-does-it-mean/

7. Born Again. Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2017/03/12/born-again/

8. Death, What is? Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2017/05/09/death-what-is/

9. Resurrection. Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2017/05/18/resurrection/

10. Salvation Series 1. Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2015/10/04/salvation-series-1what/

11. Ongoing Creation. Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2018/06/30/ongoing-creation/

12. Kingdom of God in Human Anatomy. Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2016/12/21/kingdom-of-god-in-human-anatomy/

13. Who and Where is the Real You?Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2018/08/30/who-and-where-is-the-real-you/

14. Legacy that Lasts. Retrieved 10/13/18 from https://fact-s.net/2018/10/01/legacy-that-lasts/

Original Post: October 16,2018

Trinity Doctrine: Deconstructed?

As a foundational teaching, the Trinity doctrine has been woven into mainstream Christianity since the Council of Nicea convened by Emperor Constantine in 325 C.E. in Bithynia(1). Because of disputes among church leaders, the first ecumenical council of Nicea was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.(2). Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father (3). It describes the belief in Christian theology that the “one” God of the universe is comprised of  “three” persons: the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (4). The early church father Tertullian (c. 155-230), who wrote in Latin, is believed to have first used the term trinity to describe the God of the Bible (5).

While this doctrine is “radioactive” to bring up, Pres. FDR in his first inaugural address has a wise rejoinder, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”(6). Indeed, in an atmosphere of freedom, fear should not paralyze anyone as we search for the truth. How this theology came about is a subject worthy of review for all students of history. Knowing what happened at the time it was established gives us an inclination of the controversy that gave rise to this doctrine. Can those questions that were contentious and overwhelming at that time among church leaders be resolved with what we know today? What was the basic underlying concept and difference among them that was the crux of their contention?


This doctrine was formulated in the 4th century during the Christological debates between Arius and Athanasius. At the core of the controversy was the nature of the Father and Son and their relationship. The terms “homoousios, homoiousios and heterousious” (same substance/cosubstantial vs. similar and different substance) developed and came to be used to explain varying interpretations. All of these positions and the almost innumerable variations on them which developed in the 4th century AD were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes who insisted on the doctrine of the homoousian (or as it is called in modern terms consubstantiality), eventually prevailing in the struggle to define the dogma of the Orthodox Church for the next two millennia when its use was confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 or 383. Origen Adamantius (184/185 – 253/254), along with the prominent “Origenists” Didymus the Blind and Evagrius Ponticus, were declared anathema in 553 CE by the Second Council of Constantinople (7). Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word  “homoousios ” in a non-trinitarian context, but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son’s divinity lesser than the Father’s, since he even calls the Son “a creature“(8). The controversy continued through centuries that followed, even to this day.

From the preceding prolegomenon, let us explore excerpts from historical vignettes. On the subject of Arianism, the Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica wrote (9):

Arius’ basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. The controversy seemed to have been brought to an end by the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), which condemned Arius and his teaching and issued a creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief. This creed states that the Son is homoousion to Patri (“of one substance with the Father”), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. In fact, however, this was only the beginning of a long-protracted dispute. From 325 to 337, when the emperor Constantine died, the Arian leaders, exiled after the Council of Nicaea, tried by intrigue to return to their churches and sees and to banish their enemies. They were partly successful. From 337 to 350, Constans, sympathetic to the orthodox Christians, was emperor in the West, and Constantius II, sympathetic to the Arians, was emperor in the East. At a church council held at Antioch (341), an affirmation of faith that omitted the homoousion clause was issued. Another church council was held at Sardica (modern Sofia) in 342, but little was achieved by either council. In 350 Constantius became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the Nicene party (orthodox Christians) was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then declared that the Son was “unlike” (anomoios) the Father. These anomoeans succeeded in having their views endorsed at Sirmium in 357, but their extremism stimulated the moderates, who asserted that the Son was “of similar substance” (homoiousios) with the Father. Constantius at first supported these homoiousians but soon transferred his support to the homoeans, led by Acacius, who affirmed that the Son was “like” (homoios) the Father. Their views were approved in 360 at Constantinople, where all previous creeds were rejected, the term ousia (“substance,” or “stuff”) was repudiated, and a statement of faith was issued stating that the Son was “like the Father who begot him.” After Constantius’ death (361), the orthodox Christian majority in the West consolidated its position. The persecution of orthodox Christians conducted by the (Arian) emperor Valens (364–378) in the East and the success of the teaching of Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus led the homoiousian majority in the East to realize its fundamental agreement with the Nicene party. When the emperors Gratian (367–383) and Theodosius I (379–395) took up the defense of orthodoxy, Arianism collapsed. The Emperor Theodosius had published an edict, prior to the Council of Constantinople, declaring that the Nicene Creed was the legitimate doctrine and that those opposed to it were heretics (10). In 381 the second ecumenical council met at Constantinople. Arianism was proscribed, and a statement of faith, the Nicene Creed, was approved.”

Coalescing of Powers

Notice that this changing adoption of religious concepts was influenced to a large degree by secular powers at a particular time, e.g., Emperors Constantine, Constans of the West, Constantius II of the East, Valens, Gratian and Theodosius. Civil and religious authorities were together, akin to  “cronyism” and “symbiosis“, to impose religious beliefs using secular power. On those who committed heresy, “heretics did not work outside the Christian community – they counted themselves as faithful Christians attempting to explain the gospel in terms their contemporaries might understand”.

Without taking either side, one sees that the trunk-of-the-tree controversy of Trinity Doctrine emanates from two postulates, viz.,

1. Reconciling with “monotheism” the concept that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God and the Spirit is God.

The doctrine of the Trinity was formally developed in the early church in reaction to “errant teaching” on the nature of God as found in Arianism. Arianism attempted to protect monotheism (the belief in one God) by denying the full deity of Jesus, a belief most Christians hold at this time. Arianism taught that Jesus was divine, but that he was a lesser deity than the Father. To affirm the Church’s stance on the nature of God, the Trinity was formally stated in the Nicene Creed(325 A.D.) and the later Athanasian Creed. As a result of these early ecumenical creeds, any departure from the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was considered heresy. These creeds affirm the early Christian conviction that Jesus was God. Arianism caused the church to dogmatically affirm what was already believed and inherent to the earliest of Christian theology (12).

Essential to the Trinity Doctrine is that there is one and only one God. It is essential because it was the conviction of monotheism (Shema doctrine)- that there is one God – that fact drove the early Christians to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture. More importantly, monotheism is the teaching found in the Bible.(Trinity is not in the Bible) Scripture is clear that there is only one God: “There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Fundamental to the Judaism of the OT (and of today) is the Shema. It is found in Deuteronomy 6 and part of it says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one,” (Deut 6:4). The understanding of monotheism is at the heart of this passage, and it was at the core of the early Christians’ understanding of the nature of God.The three persons of the Godhead share the same spirit-essence. With this understanding, the doctrine of the Trinity continues to assert monotheism, an essential and easily found belief within the Scripture. Ontologically, each of the three members of the Trinity possess the same essential nature. Again, along with a monotheistic understanding, there is one and only one being, that is, God. The doctrine of the Trinity must remain grounded in God’s Word. Roger Olson sums it up when he says, “While it is true that no passage of Scripture spells out the doctrine of the Trinity, it is also true that the whole of Scripture’s witness to who God is and who Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit make no sense at all without the model of the Trinity and that all alternative concepts end up doing violence to some essential aspect of revelation, Christian experience and possibly even reason itself,”(13).

2. Nature of the Father/Son and which one has self-existence.

Notice that Arius’ belief countered that of others, especially Athanasius, because of his concept at that time of what constitutes the word “God“. The Son cannot be God according to Arius, because there is only “one God“, Jesus is not self-existent and therefore created. On the other hand, Athanasius and other pro-Nicene who believe that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God reconciled monotheism through a “new concept of Trinity

Key is knowing what is God?

But, can all of these Arius-Athanasius discrepancies be resolved by knowing exactly ” What is God?” What really constitutes the word “God“?. Do we really grok what the etymology of the original word translated to English? The answer may have been“lost in translation“. In the article “What is God?” (14), this controversy may finally be resolved by restoring the meaning of the original Hebraic words Elohim, YHVH, El Shaddai. In its summary:

1.Elohiym/Theos refers to a composite of powers, the sum of divine and powerful beings, the totality of all attributes of deity. It is a generic term that may apply to a particular being. When it does, the specific name of that Elohim is identified, e.g., YHVHELOHIM(Lord God)

2. Most of the time, Elohiym in the Old Testament refers to a specific YHVH Elohiym and Theos in the New Testament refers specifically to God the Father. At other times, it refers to those others in the generic Elohiym/Theos, i.e. Jesus, angels, humans, especially leaders with powers.

3. In general, Elohiym/Theos is collective and not a selective term; common and not a proper name; inclusive and not exclusive; generic not proprietary; composite and not specific.

4. The usage and/or context of the word explains the intended meaning, whether plural/singular or numerical plurality/multiplicity of power, rank or position/function.

5. The word God/Elohim, as originally written, includes different species, levels, class or rank. At the highest level is the Father, followed by Son(s) of God, then angelic rank, and the lowest is man. However, man will be transformed into “sons/children of God”, spirit-composed at resurrection and destined to be higher than angelic-class.

In “FATHER’S DAY_USA.2014“(15), the God of Old Testament was introduced to Abraham as El Shaddai(Almighty God)but to Moses he was YHVH ELOHIM(Lord God). He was identified with specificity. This God in the Old Testament, the God “above all gods“, was the only one Israel was commanded to worship thus directing them away from polytheism (there being many gods) of that era. The “Shema doctrine” was based on this. According to John, YHVH the Creator was also the “Word” who incarnated into the Messiah, the Christ. In contrast, in the New Testament, when the word God was used it almost invariably refers to the “Father” of Jesus and of us all. Truly, “God is one” (Shema) to be worshiped because it referred only and specifically in the Old Testament to El Shaddai/YHVH/Word/Logos. He was “above all gods” known at that time; no one then knew about the “Father” that we know today. Israel knew that the Creator and the One who Fathered them was YHVH Elohim(Lord God; I AM). The Israelites did not have knowledge that YHVH/Jesus has a Father. But, when the “Father/Son” relationship was introduced in the river Jordan at Jesus’ baptism,(16) Jesus acknowledged and deferred to the higher authority, the Father. They are clearly separate and distinct from one another. Angels, kings and humans are classified as “gods“. And Jesus taught us to pray to the Father (John 16:23; James 1:5).

In the New Testament, Jesus, while full of the “Spirit of the Father“, was completely human and flesh-composed for his purpose as a “sacrificial Lamb”. As a human being, he was also classified as “god“, yet he died because he was flesh-composed. After his resurrection, he took on a “new creation“, “Son of God“, spirit-composed, eternal, and with all the powers given by the Father (17). The Father, as He has created all “visible and invisible” through the Son (YHVH) as proximate Creator, is now creating a “kingdom of God”, composed of spirit-beings higher than the angelic-class (18). What is being created is “Sonship“, children of God. This “new creation” is not a plant- kingdom, not an animal-kingdom nor a human-kingdom. Rather, it is a “God-kingdom” with a specific kind much higher than angelic “species of god”. Our GOD the FATHER is expanding his kingdom with many firstfruits“and “latter-fruits“.

In contrast, the Trinity Doctrine limits that God-kingdom into three. Whereas, the truth is that many are in the process of developing into the “body of Christ“, this “new creation“, Jesus first, then others. Jesus the “trailblazer“, the “captain” (Hebrews 2:10) has gone through this process. This is the destiny of all mankind (19). The ” world to come” will not be “subject to angels” as our current world is, but to this “new kind“(Heb. 2:5).

Retrospective analysis

Looking back with a “retroscope“, we can now understand how and why well-meaning church leaders of earlier centuries have variance in understanding. Arius et.al stumbled because of his assumption and understanding that Jesus, being subservient to the Father and that God is One (Shema doctrine), cannot be God also. Contrariwise, Tertulian, Athanasius et. al misapplied the facts that the Father is God, Jesus is God and extended personality even to the divine Spirit, so that a new concept emerged, the Trinity Doctrine, a doctrine that is limiting instead of expansive. By observation, we can see that knowledge is progressive; God does not give out all truth at the same time. Truth has a timeline. Even Israel did not recognize the  incarnate Jesus was YHVH CREATOR ELOHIM. Peter did not realize that even Gentiles can be “grafted” to Israel and receive the same promise to Abraham.(Romans11:11-36, Acts 15:7-9), as well as their differences about circumcision. But, in time, they were united in understanding these aforementioned things. In much the same way, early in the Christian era, there were disputes on interpretation. But, now that we know, “What is God?, the Trinity Doctrine has been “deconstructed“. There is no need to “personify” the Spirit as it is an active power in all members of the God-Family, writing the Law not in “tables of stone” but in the “fleshly tables”of our heart and mind for guidance(2 Corinthians 3:3). As Job said, before I “hear” you, now I “see” you (Job 42:5).

With these foregoing facts of history and biblical references, one can now explain how the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God and still reconcile with “oneness or Shema” doctrine without concocting a concept as “Trinity Doctrine“. The Shema refers to only one God of the Old Testament, specifically identified as YHVH(Lord God), EL SHADDAI(Almighty God), CREATOR, WORD(Logos). Israel did not know and was not introduced in an official manner to the FATHER by Jesus until his ministry in New Testament times. This generation is blessed for receiving this understanding unlike our Christian predecessors.


The one powerful God “above all gods” introduced to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Old Testament times was “El Shaddai“(Almighty God). This was the same one known to Moses and Israel but with a different name, “YHVH Elohim“(Lord God). The early church believed that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit (the Helper) is of God, the power that comes from God. There was no “trinitarian concept” from those days forward until later.

In the 3rd century, Tertulian constructed and introduced the concept of “trinity” to align with the Shema doctrine of “one God“. For how could the Father be God and at the same time Jesus and the Holy Spirit be God unless they are in this “triune concept”? This suggested that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-substantial, Son is homoousion to Patri, (of one substance with the Father), “three-in-one-body“. This teaching was carried through the 4th century and canonized in the Council of Nicaea and subsequently reinforced in other Councils. The alternative concept of God championed by Arius, Origen, and others at that time did not flourish; it also has flaws.

The Trinity Doctrine is a bedrock doctrine that historically survived because of human power through the Roman Empire because of conquest, subjugation, intimidation and educational system favoring this concept. It continued through subsequent Empires with power to control “religious thoughts”. Through all these years, it is still a predominant teaching in the Christian world to this day.

This time, though, this Trinity Doctrine has been challenged. One among alternative concepts is this post. It opined a concept similar to that during the patriarchal and apostolic era. The Shema doctrine is consistent with this concept so long as one considers the manifestations of God, at the time of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob named differently than at the time of Moses and Israel. El Shaddai and Yahweh Elohim names were the same Elohim/God, one God and not “two persons-in-one“. Moreover, after YHVH (who was with the Father at creation) incarnated to man-Jesus, he introduced Father God (Mark 1:10-11) as he was the only right person to do that, being with him from the foundation of the world. That time there were 2 persons that are separate and unique, not “”two persons-in-one“. Jesus as flesh-composed at that time was God incarnate, who previously manifested as the El Shaddai and YHVH Elohim in the Old Testament. Not only that, but Jesus also introduced the “Holy Spirit” aka “Helper” (John 14:16-18; v-26;Romans 18:26; Micah 3:8-10; Acts 2:4; I John 2;19-27) that will come as the “power” to strengthen the “weakness” (Matthew 26:40-45) of the flesh inherent in it when we were created. Again, that time, not “three-persons-in-one“.

Everything happens because of power. Just look around us. Will any car drive without mechanical and electric power? How about any of our appliances, gizmos and light bulbs? Will anything stay grounded on Earth without gravitational power? With what we now know about the Anatomy and Physiology of the human body, can any of our parts function without energy, like end-plate mechanism for nerve-muscle function, Na-K pump for cellular activity and so on? Energy that comes from power drives all human organ systems to function. This energy is “potential” that becomes “kinetic” when used.

That being said, can the most important creation, a human being, (from the ground, earthy) become a “living being” unless energized by the power of the spirit”breath-of-life, given by a spirit-composed God? This is the “spirit-of-man”, the power that was breathed into man to become a “living being“. Being a living person, Adam as narrated in Genesis 2, wanted to be “like God”. And to do this, he was fooled by Satan to do it on his own power by eating the forbidden fruit. He did not realize that the right man to go through this process was man-Jesus, the incarnated El Shaddai, the YHVH Elohim, as planned and as a gift. FThereby, he sinned, sentenced to eternal death and was driven out of the garden of Eden, away from the “tree of life”. A Passover-Lamb was then required to take on this consequence of sin (eternal death) which was fulfilled by man-Jesus. However, Jesus’ death was only for that purpose of sacrificing his life for mankind. It was one step towards the process for us to receive the promised gift of eternal life. The Father has to resurrect him as promised to receive from him directly the power that will be used by the “potter” (Creator Jesus) to re-create and mold this “clay” as prophesied in Jeremiah 18:1-6) from one “marred vessel to another vessel”. 

In much the same way that the “breath-of-life” changed the non-living “clay” to be a “living being“, this is the spirit-power to in-dwell in humans to energize our “spirit-of-man” for growth and development, changing it towards becoming “like him” and be “one” with the Creator, alive for eternity. No one has this power except the Father who promised and has given it to resurrected Jesus, the Son of God, and then from him to us. This power is called holy and spirit because it came from a holy spirit-composed God Father. Truly the same as the “breath-of-life” that was the spirit-power that energized the created Genesis-Adam to become a “living being”. As man-Jesus “came from above“(John 3:31) as a perfect Passover Lamb that the Holy Spirit in-dwell at River Jordan to make him the “trailblazer and captain“(Hebrews 2:10) towards sonship, so shall we go through this process proven to be the “way, the truth and the life”(John 14:6). The word “Holy Spirit” is not in caps in the original manuscript. It is the power that in-dwells and guides (John 16:13) people to understand the truth to be “one” with the Father and Jesus, in “thoughts” for “my thoughts are not your thoughts“(Isaiah 55:8-9). There is no need to compose a “Trinitarian” concept of God just to align with the Shema doctrine.

Currently, many are not called at this time as each one has time appointed (Ecclesiastes 9:11); their time will come. As prophesied, our “spiritual blindness, deafness and muteness” will be changed by this in-dwelling power as in the prophecy:

Isaiah 29:18 “In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll, and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see

Isaiah 35:5 Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped”

Matthew 11:15 “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

May God bless all of us in search of the truth.



1. Retrieved from:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia</p&gt;

2. Kieckhefer, Richard (1989), “Papacy”, in Strayer, Joseph Reese, Dictionary of the Middle<

Ages 9, Charles Scribner’s Sons, ISBN 978-0-684-18278-

3. “Council of Nicaea”, p.39, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014

4. Retrieved from:http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

5. Ibid.

6. Retrieved from: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/

7. The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Detroit: Gale, 2003). ISBN 978-0-7876-4004-0

8. Pelikan, Jaroslav (1971), The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1,The Chicago University Press, p. 191.

9. Retrieved from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/34124/Arianism.

10. Friell, G., Williams, S., Theodosian Code 16:2, 1, Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, London,1994.

11.Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, p. 121

12. Retrieved from: http://www.theopedia.com/Trinity.

13.The Mosaic of Christian Belief, p. 139.

14. Retrieved from: https://fact-s.net/2014/06/29/what-is-god-2/

15. Retrieved from: https://fact-s.net/2014/06/13/fathers-day_usa-3/

16. Retrieved from: https://fact-s.net/2014/08/06/passion-of-christ/

17. Retrieved from: https://fact-s.net/2014/03/25/son-of-god-2/

18. Retrieved from: https://fact-s.net/2014/07/12/deification-of-man-3/

19. Retrieved from: https://fact-s.net/2011/05/21/the-destiny-of-man/

Original post:8.8.2014


Revised and reposted 10/6/2018

Transparency in Cost vs Price, Key to Successful Health System Reform

Health System Reform_ Competition in Cost aside from Price ; Key to Reform Payment System of Healthcare]

Change in Trading Dynamics: The Key to Successful Health System Reform

After $6B spent on federal campaigns, the country has chosen its leaders. Yet, problems with our health system still linger and fester. Physicians, the last bulwark of patient advocacy, have a ubiquitous role in reforming the system and must pick up the cudgels.

Even after passage of PPACA (Obamacare), issues like access to care, quality of service, insurance coverage, malpractice, over-utilization of resources, etc. continue to be at the forefront of the debate. Current efforts by medical establishments’ punditocracy focused on efficiency to cut costs, viz., reducing length of hospital stay, preventing “never-events”, quality guidelines, utilization criteria, accountable care organizations and the like. The converse of lack of efficiency is synonymous with waste. Since the base is financial, all of these segmented issues boil down to 3 general categories, viz., waste, fraud and abuse in the system, mired by “moral hazard” of having health insurance. Hopefully, all the preceding contending interests will be addressed with civility.

In my humble opinion, shaped by years of experience in the system, the above general categories do not constitute the root or core problem facing the entire healthcare industry. Worse yet, the proposed measures for reform will arbitrarily limit provision of services cloaked behind “evidence-based medicine” and will make future payment based on outcome that is uncertain or performance that is unpredictable. Moreover, responses by even well-meaning people will ration care and control eligibility to provision of healthcare services.

Assuming, for the sake of argument that all these issues come close to an ideal solution, these will still default to where they started due to the structural nature of the problems that rests on human nature. People take action based on rational choice and personal interest unique to each person. The strategy then for health system reform is to accept this reality of human nature and align it to an understanding about a key flaw in the financial underpinning related to payment methodology of our current health system. Human nature being what is, the only remaining recourse is to change the structure of trading dynamics that initiates payment.

To start with, our current payment system, whether public or private, healthcare or otherwise, is oblivious to the opaque pricing mechanics and corresponding arbitrary payment. Global markets thrive in such a scenario. “Buyers” have needs, wants and expectations of quality and service that have to be filled by “sellers”. Only the “sellers” determine and set the price. The buyer either pays that price, wait for discount or not buy altogether. When both “seller and buyer” agree with the price, trade is completed and payment is made. Unfortunately, the nature of this trading system favors more the seller than the buyer because of asymmetric costing information. To illustrate, a seller may price a product or service for $100 and may discount it down by 50%. As price went down to $50, the buyer sees a 50% discount as a good deal, and pays up. If the production cost of the product/service amounts to $10, but hidden from the buyer, then he just paid the seller a 5x profit mark up. This fog in “costing” and lack of transparency in “pricing determinant” favor the seller as he is the only one who knows the production cost and the spread/profit.

Extrapolating this to healthcare product/service, exorbitant medical inflation occurs as “suppliers” mark-up the price way above their costs. True, profit is crucial to the viability of any business. But there can be overpricing, overcharging, some call “gouging” that affects the entire spectrum of the healthcare system. Supplier-to-end-user, each along the supply-chain, marks up the price to profit from the trade. No wonder, healthcare expenditures turned exponential since private insurance came into being and in 1965 when a federal insurance, i.e., Medicare, became an entitlement program.

Historically, patients are generally insulated from the actual healthcare expenses as they are either insured or not at all. Payment is made, by and large, from decision of bureaucrats in the federal or private insurance based on the price charged by the provider of the product or service. They get that money from federal income taxes or private insurance premiums. As payment comes not from their own money but from others’, public and private insurance just “opened there wallet”. Their “skin not in the game”, little effort is expended to negotiate down the price and even when done through contracting, the “spread” may still be too high. When it became apparent that the upward trajectory of spending is unsustainable, cost control measures were instituted, akin to price control. Federal responses like RBRVS and SGR for physicians and DRG for hospitals came into being. Private insurance increased premiums, tweaked qualifying requirements through adverse “selection bias” and/or exclude pre-existing conditions. Other providers like pharmaceuticals, device companies and different suppliers responded in a similar fashion to maintain profitability.

What is apparent in these arbitrary responses is a pervasive theme of a pricing structure sans openness as to production cost. Only when there is transparency in production cost in relation to price charged, can a more rational payment system develop through a change in trading dynamics. When the buyer knows the “spread” between actual cost and selling price, he is in a level-playing field with the seller and can better negotiate down the price. This is the essence of a competitive market-based economy. Medical inflation will be replaced throughout the whole gamut of trading by deflation in prices, while profit will still be made, although lesser than before. The eventual agreed price will then be more affordable and the health system sustainable and durable. With “information symmetry” between buyer and seller, the trading dynamics will change. As in the preceding illustration when the seller priced a product or service at $100, but discounted it down to $50, now that the production cost is transparent and is actually $10, instead of the buyer happily paying $50 as before with 5x profit, he can now negotiate the price even lower. The ability of buyers to participate in the decision as to how much actual profit comes from the trade, brings parity to the parties involved in the trade.

In summary, reform of the healthcare system is complex when all the “moving parts”, as important as they are, detract us from the core problem, which is a payment system that marginalized and ignored trading dynamics. The payers, public or private, must fulfill their fiduciary responsibility and obligation to taxpayers and premium payers by demanding information about production cost and selling price before paying up. Knowledge of %Profit (spread) should be part of “buying drivers” for consumers to be in equal footing with the seller. One should not limit “price determinants” to supply/demand, needs, wants, expectations and ability to pay. They should include price differential with production cost. Physicians are the only ones that have costing-transparency with RBRVS which slowed down the rate of medical inflation. Other larger components of healthcare expenditures, i.e, hospitals, allied personnel, pharmaceuticals and device companies continue to wrap themselves in mystery. Even when the political winds sway towards conservatism or progressivism, the moral imperative is to bridge this chiasm. The challenge to our present generation is whether to keep the same culture in “buying/selling” or develop a new one, parity or disparity, opacity or transparency in the trading system. Which world and global market do we want to create? Shall we think outside-the-box or not? Only by looking at the culture and foundation of “buying-and-selling” through the prism of impartiality and even-handedness, will the payment system in healthcare system be equitable and reformed. With more healthcare dollars saved, a new dawn is in the horizon when payment is equitable, services not curtailed and access to healthcare available to all, whether the economy is yawning or booming.

Excerpted from Thesis in Master in Health Care Administration

Submitted: New England College

98 Bridge St, Henniker, NH 03242


Aladin Mariano,MD, MHA, FACS, FCCP

Legacy that Lasts

Legacy that Lasts

Do you remember the common saying that aside from taxes, the only thing certain in life is death?

Indeed, our time to “kick the bucket” is sure and the only question is when.

So then, what should our legacy be for those we leave behind? Many have opted to store wealth for the bereaved and have taught decision-making, wisdom and moral values to their children. However, even these children will die at their appointed time and will not take an iota to their grave. Anything that we leave behind does not last. One only has to go back in the history of heads of human kingdoms, viz., Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Roman empire and other governments, David, Solomon, to see the evanescence of our human legacy. To quote Dr Philip S Chua(1), it has to be “…more valuable, ..lasting and more powerful than material things we could leave behind….their impact on …humanity as a whole…..a capsule of memories that people would remember us by”.

So what should our legacy be that is eternal?

No library, books or people can we muster to help us unravel the key to lasting legacy. Yet, there is one man, Jesus, who already has been there and showed us the path to an eternal legacy. But, before this was paved to completion, there were 2 things he did:

1.Incarnation to die as a consequence of Adam’s sin for reconciliation of humanity with the Father. As Yahweh-Elohim (Lord God, El Shaddai (God Almighty) and as Logos(Word) from the beginning of time, he incarnated when the time has come to man-Jesus(John 1:1-51; Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2;Matthew 2:4-6). Therefore, he “came from above” (John 3:31) and did not have the genealogy or similitude of Genesis-Adam who came “from the ground/earth” and sinned(Genesis 2:7; 3:1-24). Therefore rightfully, being a perfect Passover Lamb(1 Corinthians 5:7), Jesus was the only man who can take the consequence of eternal death sentenced on the whole mankind. And his death, reconciled us to the Father, whether born before or after Adam(2). Having been reconciled, we then “shall be saved by his life”(Romans 5:10),i.e., after he got resurrected to life.

2.Resurrection to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for us. It takes a live person to receive anything, much more a crucial gift for mankind’s eternal life. After Jesus was resurrected, as Jonas was 3 days and nights in the belly of a big fish, he then went to the Father in heaven to receive this Holy Spirit of power(John 14:15-31; Acts 2:33), the key tool of power towards attaining eternal life. Nothing happens in this world without power which is the ability to do things, whether gravitational, mechanical, electrical, nuclear, solar, or through electron transfer(3). He then subsequently has given this power to in-dwell in humans starting at Pentecost(Acts 2).

Continuing to work humans into his body/church.

After these 2 seminal events, Jesus now has the power tool, the Holy Spirit of power, to finish his creation. He has now embedded this “Helper”(John 14:26) by “writing his laws in the fleshly tables of our human hearts” (2 Corinthians 3:3) to empower us towards our sanctification and glorification, which is a process of “spiritual growth and development”. While in this life, we may experience obstacles and falter towards sin. But we have a “High Priest“, Jesus the Son of God(4), who constantly intercedes for us(Hebrew 4:14-16). Let us move on and not go back to our own vomit(Proverbs 26:11;

2 Peter 2:22).


There is “ongoing creation” (5) that Jesus (the Creator God) is doing to mold “his clay” (Isaiah 64:8;Jeremiah 2) into someone that is “one” with the Father(John 17:21;Ephesians 4:6) as Jesus already is. He has proven this path to become “one with the Father” as he is the “builder(tekton), trailblazer, the captain, the author and finisher” of our salvation(Hebrews 12:2; Mark 6:3). So that, all will be “one” body(Romans 12:5). This is now happening as predestined. First the “firstfruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20-23;Romans 8:23; James 1:18), then the “latter-fruits”(James 5:7(Joel 2:21-27) who become “overcomers” (James 1:12;Revelations 2:7-11, 17,26) because of this Holy Spirit of power, as a “Helper” in-dwelling in the “real us”(6). That, being said, the “good works” that we manifest due to the power of the Holy Spirit, then becomes “fruits of the Holy Spirit(Galatians 5:22-23). Strictly speaking, these are not “our righteousness” per se, which to God are “filthy rags”(Isaiah 64:6). As such, since the Holy Spirit is a gift (given when we were yet sinners Romans 5:8) from the Father, we are saved by grace, through faith as in:Ephesians 2:8-9

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

This is the legacy that lasts. It is eternal and was revealed for us to understand and focus towards what the Father and Jesus did. This is the legacy, the knowledge of this “good news”(gospel) that we should impart to our family and leave for our loved ones.


1. Legacy? Philip S Chua Ectopic Murmurs Vol 27, Number 2, pp. 5,12; July 2014 issue. Retrieved 9/29/18

2. Adam, First Human. Retrieved 9/30/18 from https://fact-s.net/2016/12/10/adam-the-first-human-what-difference-does-it-make-2/

3. Electron transfer. Retrieved 10/1/18 from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_transfer

4. Son of God, What Does it Mean? Retrieved 10/1/18 from https://fact-s.net/2016/12/23/son-of-god-what-does-it-mean/

5. Ongoing Creation. Retrieved 10/1/18


6. Who and Where is the Real You. Retrieved 10/1/18 from


Original Post; October 1, 2018

***Dedicated especially to my wife, but also to our family, loved ones and to those who are blessed to read this post.