Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[4given]

In other words, there are other gods beside God the Father, that are not idols. Correct?

mamre

Of course, have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Have ye not been told before?

Look and read... The compound unity of Gods

1 SAMUEL 4
5 And when the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again.
6 And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews? And they understood that the ark of the LORD was come into the camp.
7 And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.
8 Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness

 

[4given]

Some questions:
1. Heb 1:5 - "Thou art my son this day I have begotten thee." So the Father is saying to someone (Jesus) directly today I have begotten thee. Does that mean that before that day, the son was not His son? Was this before or after the creation of the world?

No, it was not meant that way literally speaking. The Son was at te bosom of the Father before the world was. He was then brought forth / begotten into this physical world in the beginning before anything is made that was made (formed or fashioned)... even BEFORE the actual making of our heaven and earth.

2. Heb 1:6 - "...when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world..." First begotten means first born, correct? So, was Jesus the first born of all creatures?

Correct...

3. Prov 8 - I have read Proverbs 8 in its entirety. The proverb is one long piece revolving around one theme: wisdom. Is the passage you quote referring to "wisdom" that God possessed before the creation? Or, is it referring to someone?

Proverbs 8... is referring to the WISDOM of God.... the Christ himself.

1 CORINTHIANS 1
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the WISDOM of God.

 

[mamre]

I don't have a problem with the concept of the trinity. I just figure, Hey, it's God! It is fully within His power to be three distinct persons in unity. Why is that so hard to grasp?

The bottom line is I don't have to understand it but someday I will.....we all will.

Praise be to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

Well, the scriptures say that Eternal life is that we KNOW God the eternal father, and His son...
If you hope one day to understand trinity and it turns out to be untrue, than it will be too late. We need to seek to know, meaning, to understand who the Father is because THAT is eternal life. If we don't make the effort to KNOW the Father, it means we don't care much about eternal life.
mamre

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

In other words, there are other gods beside God the Father, that are not idols. Correct?

mamre

It's a matter of perspective. To THE FATHER, there are no gods because none are as mighty as He, but to us, His creations in the spirit realm, and everywhere else, HE is THE GOD exclusively. With that said, we can be fairly certain from scripture that there are other beings mightier than man that to us could be considered as "gods". The issue we have I believe comes from the way our current language is used, which portrays a message that the texts do not seem to be intent on giving out. We say things like, "God the Father", which seems to designate the term "God" as a name or even a "being class" of the LORD.

 

[Free]

It's a matter of perspective. To THE FATHER, there are no gods because none are as mighty as He, but to us, His creations in the spirit realm, and everywhere else, HE is THE GOD exclusively. With that said, we can be fairly certain from scripture that there are other beings mightier than man that to us could be considered as "gods". The issue we have I believe comes from the way our current language is used, which portrays a message that the texts do not seem to be intent on giving out. We say things like, "God the Father", which seems to designate the term "God" as a name or even a "being class" of the LORD.

No, it isn't a matter of perspective. There are no "other beings mightier than man that to us could be considered as 'gods'". Once again, that is polytheism and anti-biblical.

2. Heb 1:6 - "...when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world..." First begotten means first born, correct? So, was Jesus the first born of all creatures?

Not only is Jesus clearly not the first born of all creatures--this has been addressed many times with no hint of a rebuttal--"first begotten" or "firstborn" does not mean "the first born of all creatures."

 

[mamre]

No, it was not meant that way literally speaking. The Son was at te bosom of the Father before the world was. He was then brought forth / begotten into this physical world in the beginning before anything is made that was made (formed or fashioned)... even BEFORE the actual making of our heaven and earth.

A few contradictory things I need to clear here:

1. "The Son was at te bosom of the Father before the world was." So, Jesus, God the Son was inside the Father as a baby inside the womb of a pregnant woman before the physical world existed.
2. "He was then brought forth / begotten into this physical world..." BEFORE it existed. So, Jesus, God the Son, was brought into this physical world before this physical world existed. I don't comprehend this. The physical world didn't exist and yet the Son was brought into the physical world. How is that possible since the physical world didn't exist?

Correct...

So, this is the same as above. Therefore, you believe that Jesus was created physically as the first creature before the physical world was created. Is this what you are saying?

Therefore should I understand that before Jesus was a man on the earth he was already a physical being? That is a bit disconcerting because you want me to believe that a physical person shrunk and got into the womb of a 13 years old virgin (Mary) to be born on the physical world. Is this what you are saying?

Proverbs 8... is referring to the WISDOM of God.... the Christ himself.

1 CORINTHIANS 1
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the WISDOM of God.

So Prov 8 talks about wisdom that, it appears you take NOT literally. You allow yourself some license to say that God here is Wisdom because you read that in another scripture. Correct? Since God the Son (wisdom as you say) is the one that created everything we see, then the Son possessed Himself before the creation?

Please clarify.

mamre

 

[mamre]

What kind of a question is this? Obviously I want to know the "the truth about God, His character, attributes, and who He really is?". But let's be clear - it is entirely unhelpful for anyone - me, you, whoever - to make this kind of suggestion: "I know you disagree with me about doctrine X, but you really need to pray so that you will see that my position on doctrine X is really the correct one."

It seemed clear to me that you were indeed making such a statement. I suggest the proper road to truth is to examine the scriptural arguments, with the (likely overly charitable) assumption that we are all fundamentally interested in getting at "God's real truth", and praying to that effect.

Drew,


I didn't make a statement. I asked you a question and you seem to have gotten outraged about it.

Scriptures are not arguments to be debated. Scriptures are the words that come from the mouth of God. The only way to understand them is through His spirit, not debating.

Truth is not to be debated, since it comes from God. So it behooves us to ask the scripture giver to help us to understand them, not debate them. What we need is that God Himself witness of their truth to our spirit so we don't keep debating them without ever getting to the true knowledge. My question stands.

What do you want the most? Keep debating the word of God? Or do you want to know the truth?

Answer in a simple way: What do you prefer?

mamre

 

[mamre]

Very incorrect.


Should I not also ask you the same since you have twice now not responded to my posts which clearly refute your statements that Jesus is the God of the OT but not the Father? Your polytheism has been soundly refuted and yet you want to pose the above question to someone else?

Free,
One have all the right to refute whatever they want. However, if you read my posts carefully and ask God about the scriptures I have expounded, sincerely, He will answer you, I have no doubt. I don't give you my opinion, I am stating what I know.

This may seem a bit outlandish, how can somebody know? I know not of myself, not because I have studied and come to the conclusion. I know because I have asked direct to God in the name of Christ and I have gotten a witness from Him of the truth of these things.

Notice that normally at the end of my posts I give you my witness that what I am saying is not my opinion. And I asked you and anybody else to ask God and not trust in my word only.

Isn't the purpose of this forum to help bring people to Christ?

That's what I am trying to do. I am not refuting anybody's beliefs. I am not debating what I know is the truth. I am expounding you the scriptures and asking you to go to God and verify whether it is true or not.

So, you don't need to take my word for it, ask the source. You don't need to debate. The things I write here pertaining to the scriptures, I do having God as my witness. You can ask Him.

So if you ask me I will tell you: Yes, I want to know the truth, not keep debating it. So, I ask God about what I read.

mamre

 

[mamre]

No, it isn't a matter of perspective. There are no "other beings mightier than man that to us could be considered as 'gods'". Once again, that is polytheism and anti-biblical.



Not only is Jesus clearly not the first born of all creatures--this has been addressed many times with no hint of a rebuttal--"first begotten" or "firstborn" does not mean "the first born of all creatures."

Free,

How do you know that Firstbegotten is not Firstborn?
The Bible says that Jesus is the first begotten of the Father. See Hebrews 1. What convoluted explanation do you have to refute that firstborn doesn't mean first born?

So should us take your word for it since the very dictionary says that firstbegotten is the first generated. Since you are not a prophet you don't have the authority to declare "clearly" that Jesus is not the firstborn of all the creatures.

Sorry, that is your opinion, and only your opinion.

Here is a reasoning for polytheism.

Trinity states that there is one God that is made up of three persons. These three persons are Gods, according to the trinity tradition. There are only two alternatives:

One God made up of three Gods.
To make all the three persons to be one God you will need to change the status of the Son to be Father. Thus eliminating the relationship Father-Son. The Trinity holds they are coequal, basically the same God.

Therefore, you are polytheist because even though you say that they are three in one, they are, nevertheless three Gods. THAT is polytheism.

If not then:

Since the parts of a whole are fractions of the whole. Than a Trinity, which is a whole God, has three 1/3 Gods.

Therefore, whoever worships a whole trinity is either worshiping three Gods or three 1/3 Gods.

1God+1God+1God=1God
3God = 1God So 3=1 cannot be true

1/3God+1/3God+1/3God=1God

1/3+1/3+1/3 = 3/3 = 1 That is true, but is not in the scripture

No matter what mystical "hard to understand" argument you may have. 3 is NOT 1. The concept of a trinity is not in the scriptures. Trinity, it turns out is the true polytheism, even if only once in while when they appear separated.

The truth is here: 1Cor.8:5-6 To us, only One God, the Father.

mamre

 

[4given]

A few contradictory things I need to clear here:

I believe the contradiction that you are seeing is only in your own mind set... based only on your own wild imagination and limited spiritual knowledge of te Scripture.

1. "The Son was at te bosom of the Father before the world was." So, Jesus, God the Son was inside the Father as a baby inside the womb of a pregnant woman before the physical world existed.

Not necessarily. Do you know where your bosom is?

2. "He was then brought forth / begotten into this physical world..." BEFORE it existed. So, Jesus, God the Son, was brought into this physical world before this physical world existed. I don't comprehend this. The physical world didn't exist and yet the Son was brought into the physical world. How is that possible since the physical world didn't exist?

Please read again very closely to what I was saying… the Son was brought forth into this physical world BEFORE anything is MADE that was MADE (formed or fashioned)… meaning…

IOW, the Son physically FORMED / FASHIONED the material things that were already in existence… that the Father had CREATED (ex-nihilo) thru the power of his logos, in the beginning.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (thru God's logos - ex-nihilo), in the day that the LORD God (Son) made (formed / fashioned by hands) the earth and the heavens,….

So, this is the same as above. Therefore, you believe that Jesus was created physically as the first creature before the physical world was created. Is this what you are saying?

Of course not... While the Son was the second man (creature) from heaven based on the Scripture... Adam being the first man (creature).... the Son, was born into existense by being brought forth into this physical world from the bosom of the Father... in the beginning.... unlike Adam who was physically made from the dust of the ground.

Therefore should I understand that before Jesus was a man on the earth he was already a physical being? That is a bit disconcerting because you want me to believe that a physical person shrunk and got into the womb of a 13 years old virgin (Mary) to be born on the physical world. Is this what you are saying?

Of course not. That’s just based on the wild imaginations of your religious views.

While the Son was brought forth into this physical world coming from the bosom of the Father- in the beginning - becoming the only God physically FORMED for us to see and witness… He was AGAIN sent into this world and MADE flesh... thru the conception of our virgin Mary.

So Prov 8 talks about wisdom that, it appears you take NOT literally. You allow yourself some license to say that God here is Wisdom because you read that in another scripture. Correct? Since God the Son (wisdom as you say) is the one that created everything we see, then the Son possessed Himself before the creation?

I advise that you don't put words in my mouth. Just continue to ask for clarification if you don't understand my position of the matter. Thanks.

Your argument is fallacious. Where do you see that I said .. the Son CREATED (ex-nihilo) everything we see? Are you making up story?

Do you understand the usages of the words “ create” and “make” in the Bible? No wonder… it is a stumbling block to you… you don’t see the harmony and the team work of the Father and Son during the creation process.... as documented in Genesis 1.

 

[JudaicChristian]

The people who have or will have life immortal are called gods in the bible. Yahshua became the FIRST BORN god when he was born into this world. Before then no god was ever born into this world. Yahshua was called Peniel and also (The Angel / Messenger) of (The Lord / Yahwah,)before he was born into this world. Yahwah is the only true Almighty God, and there is no other besides Him, nor will there ever be. Yahwah has many name titles, and Holy Spirit is one of His name titles.

 

[Free]

Free,
One have all the right to refute whatever they want. However, if you read my posts carefully and ask God about the scriptures I have expounded, sincerely, He will answer you, I have no doubt. I don't give you my opinion, I am stating what I know.

This may seem a bit outlandish, how can somebody know? I know not of myself, not because I have studied and come to the conclusion. I know because I have asked direct to God in the name of Christ and I have gotten a witness from Him of the truth of these things.

That you haven't studied is obvious and this is at the core of why you are wrong. Even Satan can give people a burning in their bosom. The Bible itself does not even state to pray it, or any other religious book, as to whether or not it is true. In fact, this is what the Bible does state:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

Notice that normally at the end of my posts I give you my witness that what I am saying is not my opinion. And I asked you and anybody else to ask God and not trust in my word only.

But it is your opinion. And much of it is wrong because you haven't studied.

Isn't the purpose of this forum to help bring people to Christ?

Bringing people to the true Christ is at least a part of these forums.

That's what I am trying to do. I am not refuting anybody's beliefs. I am not debating what I know is the truth. I am expounding you the scriptures and asking you to go to God and verify whether it is true or not.

You are not refuting them because you can't. I need not ask God whether polytheism is true or not because he explicitly says he is the only One. I do not need to pray about that.

What you are teaching is anti-biblical and false. Please deal with the Scriptures I posted showing that there is only one God. There never has been and never will be another, including you.

How do you know that Firstbegotten is not Firstborn?

Please read what I wrote:

"first begotten" or "firstborn" does not mean "the first born of all creatures."

That is to say, first begotten is firstborn, they are two different translations of the same word and mean the same thing. What it does not mean is that Jesus is "the first born of all creatures."

The word firstborn itself has different meanings and does not necessarily even refer to one who has been born.

So should us take your word for it since the very dictionary says that firstbegotten is the first generated. Since you are not a prophet you don't have the authority to declare "clearly" that Jesus is not the firstborn of all the creatures.

I don't need to be a prophet since the Bible makes this abundantly clear. Again, I posted passages of Scripture showing that Jesus could not have been born but were completely passed over by yourself and others. But I will post them again so that you are without excuse:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Clearly, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the Word (Christ) was not made, otherwise verse three is false.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Again, if Jesus can be said to have created all things, which means everything that has ever been created, as rest of the verse and John 1:3 state, and he can be said to be before all things, then clearly, the only logical conclusion is that he is not to be counted among the things, he is uncreated.

Trinity states that there is one God that is made up of three persons. These three persons are Gods, according to the trinity tradition. There are only two alternatives:

One God made up of three Gods.
To make all the three persons to be one God you will need to change the status of the Son to be Father. Thus eliminating the relationship Father-Son. The Trinity holds they are coequal, basically the same God.

This, too, we have been over before. I realize this is a difficult topic but it isn't that difficult. Three Persons in the one Being that is God, is not the equivalent of saying three Gods are the One God, nor that the three Persons are one Person.

I explicitly stated that the language is as precise as we can make it and was chosen specifically to avoid such statements. Please don't make these arguments again.

The truth is here: 1Cor.8:5-6 To us, only One God, the Father.

The doctrine of the Trinity explicitly states that there is only one God.But you have previously stated more than once that there is more than one God. Here is yet another Scripture that proves your position wrong.

 

[Free]

The people who have or will have life immortal are called gods in the bible. Yahshua became the FIRST BORN god when he was born into this world. Before then no god was ever born into this world. Yahshua was called Peniel and also (The Angel / Messenger) of (The Lord / Yahwah,)before he was born into this world. Yahwah is the only true Almighty God, and there is no other besides Him, nor will there ever be.

Proof please.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

No, it isn't a matter of perspective. There are no "other beings mightier than man that to us could be considered as 'gods'". Once again, that is polytheism and anti-biblical.

"What is man that you are mindful of him...............You made him a little LOWER than the angels, yet crowned him with glory and honor"

We have countless examples of God's messengers (angels) demonstrating might far greater than that of man. So saying "There are no "other beings mightier than man that to us could be considered as 'gods'" is flat out ignoring what scripture shows us over and over again.
As far as polytheism goes, isn't a bekief in the trinity doctrine polytheist? Anyway here's the definition:

Polytheism is the belief in and/or worship of multiple deities, called gods and/or goddesses. These are usually assembled into a pantheon, along with their own mythologies and rituals.

The FACT that the scriptures show us that many mighty ones (gods) exists is difficult to argue against. We must not confuse this fact with the idea that the creator of all, THE GOD has these other created mighty ones on par with him. They exist, but are all still subject to THE GOD, it's pretty simple.

 

[Free]

"What is man that you are mindful of him...............You made him a little LOWER than the angels, yet crowned him with glory and honor"

We have countless examples of God's messengers (angels) demonstrating might far greater than that of man. So saying "There are no "other beings mightier than man that to us could be considered as 'gods'" is flat out ignoring what scripture shows us over and over again.
As far as polytheism goes, isn't a bekief in the trinity doctrine polytheist? Anyway here's the definition:

Polytheism is the belief in and/or worship of multiple deities, called gods and/or goddesses. These are usually assembled into a pantheon, along with their own mythologies and rituals.

The FACT that the scriptures show us that many mighty ones (gods) exists is difficult to argue against. We must not confuse this fact with the idea that the creator of all, THE GOD has these other created mighty ones on par with him. They exist, but are all still subject to THE GOD, it's pretty simple.

Angels are just that, angels, messengers, supernatural beings existing in the spirit realm. What they are not are gods. That is polytheism and that is error and not difficult to argue against at all.

 

[4given]

Angels are just that, angels, messengers, supernatural beings existing in the spirit realm. What they are not are gods. That is polytheism and that is error and not difficult to argue against at all.

Okay gentlemen, tell us who among these three are not God and considered idols ... as documentted in the Scripture.

1)The Father
2)The Son
3)The Holy Spirit

I am all ears.

The bone of contention, if the readers may remind the Apologizers, centered on the meaning of “ONE”. And due to my desire to uphold the Bible as our rule of our faith and practices, I cited Bible passages like Genesis 2:24, John 10:30, and Genesis 11:6 among others. I want to base our understanding on the Scriptures and not to some kind of corrupt history or tradition of men.

Where is your reference you seem to say that the Bible does not say there are three separate Gods who are in one accord unity? You say Deuteronomy 6:4? When both of you have already admitted that the “God” there is “Elohim” which is a “plural noun for God”? Which, by the way indicates more than one?

Both of you are contradicting yourselves, apologizers. Your kind of ecumenical, Catholic-Protestant, Oneness, and Nicean Trinity is confusing all of you.

 

[4given]

The people who have or will have life immortal are called gods in the bible. Yahshua became the FIRST BORN god when he was born into this world. Before then no god was ever born into this world. Yahshua was called Peniel and also (The Angel / Messenger) of (The Lord / Yahwah,)before he was born into this world. Yahwah is the only true Almighty God, and there is no other besides Him, nor will there ever be. Yahwah has many name titles, and Holy Spirit is one of His name titles.

Genesis 1 uses the word "Elohim" for God, but in Genesis 2:4 Scripture uses the word "YHWH" for our Lord God, the Son. Elohim is a Plural Name and means The Judges. YHWH is a singular name and is the name of the LORD.

The LORD is called YHWH in the Old and Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The LORD YHWH is the Only Begotten Son of the Invisible Spirit of God. He is the Image or Physical incarnation of the invisible God. YHWH or Jesus is the Only God we will ever see, physically.

 

[Who Says]

Genesis 1 uses the word "Elohim" for God, but in Genesis 2:4 Scripture uses the word "YHWH" for our Lord God, the Son. Elohim is a Plural Name and means The Judges. YHWH is a singular name and is the name of the LORD.

The LORD is called YHWH in the Old and Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The LORD YHWH is the Only Begotten Son of the Invisible Spirit of God. He is the Image or Physical incarnation of the invisible God. YHWH or Jesus is the Only God we will ever see, physically.

Jesus (savior or deliverer) is what Joshua (Yeshua) was in the OT.

Both by appointment of YHWH, Jesus in a far greater way.

 

[Who Says]

Okay gentlemen, tell us who among these three are not God and considered idols ... as documentted in the Scripture.

1)The Father
2)The Son
3)The Holy Spirit

I am all ears.

The bone of contention, if the readers may remind the Apologizers, centered on the meaning of “ONEâ€. And due to my desire to uphold the Bible as our rule of our faith and practices, I cited Bible passages like Genesis 2:24, John 10:30, and Genesis 11:6 among others. I want to base our understanding on the Scriptures and not to some kind of corrupt history or tradition of men.

Where is your reference you seem to say that the Bible does not say there are three separate Gods who are in one accord unity? You say Deuteronomy 6:4? When both of you have already admitted that the “God†there is “Elohim†which is a “plural noun for God� Which, by the way indicates more than one?

Both of you are contradicting yourselves, apologizers. Your kind of ecumenical, Catholic-Protestant, Oneness, and Nicean Trinity is confusing all of you.

The debate is caused of the failure to appreciate and emphasize that our God is a God of unity. He does not work alone. We are even meant to work with God in unison with God within the realm he has stationed us.

 

[Drew]

Drew,


I didn't make a statement. I asked you a question and you seem to have gotten outraged about it.

It was a patronizing question - anyone can see that. You implied that I have arrived at my view on the matter at issue by a less than honourable manner.

Scriptures are not arguments to be debated. Scriptures are the words that come from the mouth of God. The only way to understand them is through His spirit, not debating.

This is really not true at all. You often will see the following pattern in these forums:

1. Person A asserts some doctrinal position, and perhaps makes the relevant Biblical case;

2. Person B then either undermines the argument of person A and / or provides a different Biblical argument that suggests that something might be wrong with the position that person A has asserted;

3. Person A then suggests or implies that person B needs to "ask God" with the expectation that this will bring person B around to the position of person A.

This is immensely patronizing and dismissive on the part of person A. If we all agree that the Scriptures are the bedrock foundation from which we derive correct positions, it is entirely proper and appropriate that we "debate" what the Scripture are really saying. Obviously, each participant has the responsibility to approach the scriptures seeking God's guidance - that's non-negotiable.

Truth is not to be debated, since it comes from God.

Not really. Perhaps you do not agree with this, but almost all of us in this forum believe that the Bible is the "key" source for our understanding of God and his work. So we "debate" what the Scriptures mean. Its really pointless to simply "claim" that "God told me that X is true, so I do not need to defend X scripturally". Anyone can say that.

So it behooves us to ask the scripture giver to help us to understand them, not debate them.

Again, a very patronizing comment - you presume that I (and perhaps others) are approaching the Bible without the appropriate Spirit. And you have no evidence at all to support such a presumption.

What do you want the most? Keep debating the word of God? Or do you want to know the truth?

Answer in a simple way: What do you prefer?

I have already answered as best as I can. You pose a demonstrably false "either-or" - kind of like the "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

Let me try to be as clear as possible. For those of us who consider the Scriptures to be the authoritative source in matters of faith and practice, your question makes no sense. And this is precisely because we who believe these things ground what we believe to be true in the study of the Bible. So the question as posed cannot be answered in the way you have posed it. So your question is like asking: Which do you prefer: taking penicillin or seeking a cure for your bacterial infection? Such a question makes no sense for those who believe that it is precisely through the use of penicillin that the infection is cured.