Trinity
After mentioning this in some other threads, I decided to organize my comments into one thread.
I've always rejected the concept of the Trinity. Why? Because the history behind it's origin do it no favors. And because it fails to make any sense at all.
How does it make sense that God came down in human form to die for humanity's sins? One of the popularized beliefs of Christianity, or at least that of some denominations, is that if you believe in Jesus's sacrifice or whatever, then you'll go to heaven. Why would God come down in human form and "sacrifice" himself for humanity? That doesn't even make any sense. God sacrificed himself so that he could forgive the sins of humanity? What the hell?!?!Why did God need to sacrifice himself in human form? Isn't he supposed to be omnipotent? If so, why would he need to sacrifice anything for human beings, much less himself in human form. That just doesn't add up. If he wants to forgive one person or all of humanity, he has full power to do so. Or is the Christian God not omnipotent?
Some history:
History of the Doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century.
The word "Trinity" is not found in the New Testament, nor is the doctrine explicitly taught there. However, foundations of the concept of the Trinity can be seen in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of John, one of the latest and most theologically developed of the New Testament books. 1
Hints of Trinitarian beliefs can also be seen in the teachings of extra-biblical writers as early as the end of the first century. 2 However, the clearest early expression of the concept came with Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century. Tertullian coined the words "Trinity" and "person" and explained that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were "one in essence - not one in Person." 3
About a century later, in 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father." 4
Nicea did not end the controversy, however. Debate over how the creed (especially the phrase "one substance") ought to be interpreted continued to rage for decades. One group advocated the doctrine that Christ was a "similar substance" (homoiousios) as the Father. But for the most part, the issue of the Trinity was settled at Nicea and, by the fifth century, never again became a focus of serious controversy.
Most post-Nicene theological discussion of the Trinity consisted of attempts to understand and explain such a unique concept. Gregory of Nyssa, in his treatise, That There are Not Three Gods, compared the divinity shared by the three persons of the Trinity to the common "humanness," or human nature, that is shared by individual human beings. (Ironically, this initially promising explanation has been seen by some to yield a conclusion quite opposite than the title of his work.)
Saint Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers of the early church, described the Trinity as comparable to the three parts of an individual human being: mind, spirit, and will. They are three distinct aspects, yet they are inseparable and together constitute one unified human being.Pagan Roots and Parallels
Trinitarian scholar Alexander Hislop asserts that - the Babylonians worshiped one God in three persons and used the equilateral triangle as a symbol of this trinity. In his book, Hislop shows pictures used in ancient Assyria and in Siberia to represent triune divinities. He also finds trinitarian ideas in the Babylonian cult of the father, mother, and child, saying that the Babylonian trinity was "the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation." [82]
Historian Will Durant describes the trinity in ancient Egypt. "Ra, Amon, and another god, Ptah, were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." [83] Egypt also had a divine trinity of father, mother, and son in Osiris, Isis, and Horus. [84]
Trinities exist in other important pagan religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Hinduism has had a supreme trinity from ancient times: Brahma the Creator, Shiva the Destroyer, and Vishnu the Preserver. One scholar described the belief: "Brahman-Atman, the impersonal ultimate reality achieves a religiously significant threefold manifestation or trimurti [triad of gods] through the three personal deities who represent the divine functions of creation, destruction, and preservation respectively." [85] This trinity is sometimes represented by a statue of one god with three heads.
Buddhism also has a trinity of sorts. The Mahayana (northern) school of Buddhism has the doctrine of a "triple body" or Trikaya. [86] According to this belief there are three "bodies" of the Buddha-reality. The first is the eternal, cosmical reality, the second is the heavenly manifestation of the first, and the third is the earthly manifestation of the second. Furthermore, many Buddhists worship three-headed statues of Buddha. [87]
Taoism, the ancient mystical religion of China, has an official trinity of supreme gods - the Jade Emperor, Lao Tzu, and Ling Pao - called the Three Purities. [88]
A philosophic trinity appears in Plato and becomes very significant in Neo-Platonism. [89] Of course, Greek philosophy, particularly Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought, had a major influence on the theology of the ancient church. For example, the trinitarian Logos doctrine stems from the Neo-Platonic philosopher Philo. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.) Thus, we can see that the idea of a trinity did not originate with Christendom. It was a significant feature of pagan religions and philosophies before the Christian era, and its existence today in various forms suggests an ancient, pagan origin.
Tertullian (c. 150 - c. 225 A.D.) was the first person recorded by history to use the words trinity (Latin: trinitas), substance (substantia), and person (persona) in relation to God. [92] He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Tertullian adhered to the economic conception of the trinity. That is, he believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease. However, he definitely differed from Irenaeus in that he used the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. The doctrine of the trinity posed no problem for Tertullian, for his whole theology rested on the thought that the more impossible the object of faith is, the more certain it is. He has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."
There is some question as to what Tertullian actually meant by his trinitarian formulation, especially his use of the Latin word persona. According to a handbook of theological terms, in Roman law the word meant a legal entity or party. [93] In drama it meant a mask worn by an actor or, by extension, a role played by an actor. Neither usage necessarily indicates the modern meaning of person as a self-conscious being. For example, one actor could play several roles (personae) and one legal corporation (persona) could consist of several individuals. On the other hand, presumably the word could also designate individual human beings.
In the fourth century, the Greek word hypostasis was used in the official formulation of trinitarian doctrine. According to Noss, hypostasis was an abstract word meaning subsistence or individualized manifestation. He says, "When this formulation was translated into Latin, the rather abstract Greek for individualized manifestation became the rather concrete word persona, and connotations of distinct and self-contained personality were suggested in a way not intended by the original Greek wording." [94] However, this concrete Latin word was precisely the one Tertullian had used earlier. Another scholar states that by the time hypostasis was translated into persona the two words were basically equivalent, both meaning "individual being." [95]
It is apparent that many people in Tertullian's time opposed his new formulation. By his own admission the majority of believers in his day rejected his doctrine on two grounds: Their Rule of Faith (early creed or statement of belief) prohibited polytheism, and his doctrine divided the unity of God. [96] Our knowledge of the early modalist (Oneness) believers, Noetus and Praxeas, comes from their strong opposition to Tertullian and his strong opposition to them. If Tertullian meant only that God had three roles, masks, or manifestations, there would be no conflict with modalism, especially since Tertullian did not believe in an eternal trinity. Therefore, we conclude that Tertullian did mean three essential differences in God and that persona did connote or imply a distinct personality, as suggested by Noss. In any case, it is clear that in Tertullian's day Oneness believers saw his doctrine as sharply opposed to their own, which was the majority belief of the time.
Here is one final note on Tertullian. He became a follower of Montanus, an early heretic who claimed to be the Paraclete (Comforter) promised in John 14 and the last prophet before the end of the world. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.
Other Early Trinitarians
Tertullian introduced the terminology of trinitarianism and became its first great proponent in the West, but Origen (died 254) became its first great proponent in the East. [97] Origen attempted to fuse Greek philosophy and Christianity into a system of higher knowledge that historians often describe as Christian Gnosticism. He accepted the Greek Logos doctrine (namely that the Logos was a person separate from the Father), but he added a unique feature not proposed until his time. This was the doctrine of the eternal Son. He taught that the Son or Logos was a separate person from all eternity. Furthermore, he said the Son was begotten from all eternity and is eternally being begotten. He retained a subordination of the Son to the Father in existence or origin, but moved closer to the later doctrine of co-equality.
Origen had many heretical beliefs due to his acceptance of doctrines from Greek philosophy, his emphasis on mystical knowledge rather than faith, and his extremely allegorical interpretation of Scripture. For example, he believed in the preexistence of the souls of men, denied the necessity of the redemptive work of Christ, and believed in the ultimate salvation of the wicked, including the devil. For these and other heretical doctrines, he was excommunicated from the church. Church councils formally anathematized (cursed) many of his doctrines in 543 and 553.
Other prominent trinitarians in early church history were Hippolytus and Novatian. Hippolytus was the trinitarian opponent of Sabellius. He opposed Callistus, bishop of Rome, and headed a schismatic group against him. Despite this, the Catholic Church later sainted him.
Novatian was one of the first to emphasize the Holy Spirit as a third person. He taught subordination of the Son to the Father, saying the Son was a separate person, but had a beginning and came from the Father. Cornelius, bishop of Rome, excommunicated Novatian for believing that a number of serious sins could not be forgiven if committed after conversion.
The Council of Nicea
By the end of the third century, trinitarianism had replaced modalism (Oneness) as the belief held by most of Christendom, although the early views of trinitarianism were not yet in the form of the modern doctrine.
During the early part of the fourth century, a great controversy about the Godhead came to a climax - the clash between the teachings of Athanasius and Arius. Arius wished to preserve the oneness of God and yet proclaim the independent personality of the Logos. Like the trinitarians, he equated the Logos with the Son and with Christ. He taught that Christ is a created being - a divine being but not of the same essence as the Father and not co-equal with the Father. In other words, to him Christ is a demigod.
In effect, Arius taught a new form of polytheism. Arius was definitely not a Oneness believer, and the modern Oneness movement strongly rejects any form of Arianism.
In opposition to Arius, Athanasius took the position that the Son is co-equal, co-eternal, and of co essence with the Father. This is now the view of modern trinitarianism. Therefore, while Tertullian introduced many trinitarian concepts and terms to Christendom, Athanasius can be considered the true father of modern trinitarianism.
When the Arian-Athanasian controversy began to sweep across the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to intervene. Recently converted to Christianity and then making it the accepted religion he felt the need to protect the unity of Christendom for the welfare of the empire. According to tradition his conversion came as the result of a vision he saw just prior to a crucial battle. Supposedly, he saw a cross in the sky with a message saying, "In this sign conquer." Lie went on to win the battle, becoming co-emperor in 312 A.D. and sole emperor in 324 A.D. When the great Arian-Athanasian controversy threatened to divide his newly won empire and destroy his plan to use Christianity in consolidating and maintaining political power, he convened the first ecumenical council of the church, which took place at Nicea in 325 A.D.
Constantine was no paragon of Christianity. In 326 he killed his son, nephew, and wife. He purposely deferred baptism until shortly before death, on the theory that he would thereby be cleansed of all the sins of his life. Durant says of him, "Christianity was to him a means, but not an end While Christianity converted the world, the world converted Christianity and displayed the natural paganism of mankind." [98]
By establishing Christianity as the preferred religion of the Roman Empire (which ultimately led to it becoming the official state religion), Constantine radically altered the church and accelerated its acceptance of pagan rituals and heretical doctrines. As church historian Walter Nigg says, "As soon as Emperor Constantine opened the floodgates and the masses of the people poured into the Church out of sheer opportunism, the loftiness of the Christian ethos was done for." [99]
When the Council of Nicea convened, Constantine was not interested in any particular outcome, as long as the participants reached agreement. Once this occurred, Constantine threw his power behind the result.
"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new professions of faith. In this way unity was achieved. It was altogether unheard of that a universal creed should be instituted solely on the authority of the emperor Not a bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." [100]
Heick divides the participants at Nicea into three groups: a minority of Arians, a minority of Athanasians, and a majority who did not understand the conflict but wanted peace. [101] The Council finally adopted a creed that clearly denounced Arianism but said little in the way of positive trinitarian teaching. The key phrase stated that Christ was of the same essence (Greek: homoousios) as the Father and not just of like essence (homoiousios). Interestingly enough, the modalists (Oneness believers) had first used the chosen word (homoousios) to express the identity of Jesus with the Father. Many who unsuccessfully advocated the use of the latter term (homoiousios) did not really mean that Jesus was different from the Father in substance, but rather they wanted to avoid the Oneness implications of the former term. So the resulting creed was a clear rejection of Arianism, but a not-so-clear rejection of modalism (Oneness).
The original version of the Nicene Creed formulated by the Council of Nicea in relation to the Godhead is as follows:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, i.e., of the nature of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and assumed man's nature, suffered and rose the third day, ascended to heaven, (and) shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But the holy and apostolic church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when he was not, and that he was made from things not existing, or from another person or being, saying that the Son of God is mutable, or changeable." [102]
There is no clear statement of the trinity in this creed, but it does affirm that Jesus is of one substance with the Father in opposition to Arianism. There is no reference to the Holy Ghost as a separate person in the Godhead, but it merely expresses a belief in the Holy Ghost. This original Nicene Creed indicates a personal distinction between Father and Son and states that the Son is not mutable or changeable. This last phrase is a departure from the biblical doctrine of the Son and supports modern trinitarianism since it teaches an eternal Son. Basically, then, the Council of Nicea has a threefold significance: it is a rejection of Arianism; it is the first official declaration incompatible with modalism (Oneness); and it is the first official declaration supporting trinitarianism.
After Nicea
The trinitarian victory of Nicea was not complete, however. The next sixty years were a seesaw battle between the Arians and the Athanasians. Some participants in the council such as Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, even came out in favor of Sabellianism (Oneness). [103] Arius sent a conciliatory letter to Constantine, which caused him to reopen the issue. A council held in Tyre in 335 actually reversed the Nicene doctrine in favor of Arianism. Athanasius went into exile, and Arius would have been reinstated as a bishop had he not died the previous night. [104]
Athanasius was banished five or six times during this period. Much of the conflict was due to political circumstances. For example, when Constantine's son Constantius came to power he backed the Arians, deposing Athanasian bishops and appointing Arians in their place. The controversy produced vicious political infighting and much bloodshed.
Professor Heick credits the ultimate success of Athanasianism to the eloquence and perseverance of Athanasius himself. "The decisive factor in the victory was the unfaltering determination of Athanasius during a long life of persecution and oppression." [105] It was not, however, until the second ecumenical council, called by Emperor Theodosius and held at Constantinople in 381, that the issue was resolved. This council, held after the death of Athanasius, ratified the Nicene Creed. It also settled another great issue that had been raging after Nicea, namely the relation of the Holy Spirit to God. Was the Holy Spirit a separate person in the Godhead or not? Many thought the Spirit was an energy, a creature, or an angelic being. The council added statements to the original Nicene Creed to teach that the Holy Spirit was a separate person like the Father and the Son.
It was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381, then, that the modern doctrine of the trinity gained permanent victory. That council was the first to state unequivocally that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate persons of God, co-equal, co-eternal, and of co-essence. A revised Nicene Creed came from the council in 381. The present form of the Nicene Creed, which probably emerged around the year 500, [106] is therefore more strongly trinitarian than the original Nicene Creed.
There was one other great threat to Athanasianism. The Roman Empire had begun to crumble under barbarian attacks, and the barbarian tribes on the rise to ascendancy were Arian. Conceivably, Arianism could have emerged victorious through the barbarian conquests. This threat finally ended, however, when the Franks converted to Athanasianism in 496.
During this time period, one other important creed Emerged - the Athanasian Creed, which did not come from Athanasius. It probably represents the trinitarian doctrine of Augustine (354-430), for it developed during or after his time. This creed is the most comprehensive statement of trinitarianism in ancient church history. Only the western part of Christendom officially recognized it.
The main points of difference between East and West on the doctrine of the trinity were as follows. First, the East tended to emphasize the threeness of God. For example, to the Cappadocians the great mystery was how the three persons could be one. In the West there was a little more emphasis on the unity of God. Second, the West believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son (the filioque doctrine), while the East held that the Spirit proceeded from the Father only. This ultimately became a major doctrinal issue behind the schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054.Disproving the Trinity....?In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the trinity is nonbiblical both in terminology and in historical origin. It has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy. The doctrine itself did not exist in church history before the third century. Even at that time, early trinitarians did not accept many basic doctrines of present day trinitarianism such as the co-equality and co-eternality of Father and Son. Trinitarianism did not achieve dominance over Oneness belief until around 300. It did not achieve victory over Arianism until the late 300's.
The first official recognition of trinitarian doctrines came at the Council of Nicea in 325, but even this was incomplete. Full establishment of the doctrine did not come until the Council of Constantinople in 381. In short, trinitarianism did not achieve its present form until the end of the fourth century, and its definitive creeds did not take final form until the fifth century.
If one just clears away all the confusing cobwebs and looks at it simply and clearly, the doctrine of the Trinity is remarkably easy to disprove and completely refute. This article presents only one of numerous ways to disprove the Trinity. Rob Bowman, a Trinitarian apologist, writes that Trinitarians must affirm the following points and if any of these points can be disproven, the doctrine of the Trinity is thereby proven false:
1. There is one God (i.e., one proper object of religious devotion).
2. The one God is a single divine being, the LORD (Jehovah, Yahweh).
3. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God.
4. The Son, Jesus Christ, is God.
5. The Holy Spirit is God.
6. The Father is not the Son.
7. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
Bowman is absolutely correct. Trinitarians absolutely must affirm and insist upon all of the above beliefs in order to logically confess this doctrine and if a single one of these beliefs is shown to be false, the entire doctrine of the Trinity disintegrates and is thereby proven to be totally false. Every single point must be valid for the overall doctrine to be valid. These points provide no room for doctrinal adjustments since no adjustments are possible to these points without destroying the overall doctrine itself. This site focuses primarly on disproving the Trinitarian claims concerning Point 4 because Trinitarians tend to focus their efforts on point 4. However, points 7 and 8 must also be true and if they are not true then the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily a false doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity is proven false if either of these two points are proven false. Indeed, if ANY of the above points are proven false, the doctrine of the Trinity disintegrates. We will here in this particular article undeniably prove those two points to be completely false and thereby disprove this doctrine.
Point 8 - The Son IS NOT the Spirit
In Trinitarian doctrine Jesus is NOT the Holy Spirit and one cannot say that Jesus is the Holy Spirit since that would be saying one person is indeed also another person. The Bible affirms very clearly that our Lord Jesus IS the Spirit.
But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:14-18).
Now it is quite obvious to the unbiased reader that the Lord of this passage is Christ and the Apostle Paul is telling us that Christ IS the Spirit. However, since this passage creates a very serious problem for the Trinitarian, an interpretive contrivance is in order. One contrivance is to temporarly promote the idea that "the Spirit" here is not a WHO but a WHAT, not a person but the nature of a person. However, this will not work for the Trinitarian since "the Spirit" is indeed a person in Trinitarianism and not simply a nature of a person and the entire chapter here is discussing the ministry of "the Spirit" and Trinitarians insist this ministry is the ministry of a 3rd person and not simply a nature. This is obviously the Holy Spirit which in Trinitarian doctrine is a 3rd person in addition to the Father and Son. Hence, since the Spirit is understood to be a 3rd person in Trinitarian doctrine, the Trinitarian is caught in the dilemma of Paul identifying Person A as Person B but Trinitarian doctrine claiming Person A is not Person B.
Another contrivance is to suggest that "the Lord" of this passage is not Jesus but some other identity such as the Father. However, this will not work for two reasons. First, it does not matter who they identify as "the Lord" because no matter who the Lord is, it still will not work in the Trinitarian paradigm. If we were to identify the Lord as the Father, the Trinitarian would then be caught saying the Father is the person who is the person of the Spirit and he cannot say this without contradicting his own doctrine. In his doctrine the Father is NOT the Spirit. If we were to identify "the Lord" as the Triune God then they would be caught in saying the Triune God is the person who is the Spirit and he cannot say this either without contradicting his own doctrine. No matter how the Trinitarian identifies the Lord he is caught.
Secondly, the Lord is indeed clearly identified in the immediate context. "The Lord" is the standard way for Paul to refer to the risen Jesus and this passage is no different. We see that the veil is removed "in Christ" and only when one turns to "the Lord" is it taken away. Obviously, "turning to the Lord" and having the veil taken away is the same idea as having the veil "removed in Christ." The Lord who is the Spirt is Jesus Christ.
But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
And even further to the point, Paul says we are being transformed into the same image from glory until glory. This is the same typical Pauline language for being free in Christ being conformed into the image of Christ that Paul uses elsewhere in his writings:
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us... the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.... For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.(Romans 8:29-30; cf. Gal 4:29-5:1; Php 3:10-11; 1 Cor 15:49).
When we look at the obvious evidence of the immediate context we can see plainly that "the Lord" of this passage is no one else but the Son of God and Paul identifies the Son of God as "the Spirit" in direct opposition to Trinitarian doctrine which claims "the Son is not the Spirit" and there is absolutely no way out of the dilemma here for the Trinitarian but a good dose of denial.
At 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul refers to the risen Jesus as being raised "life-giving Spirit." Paul has the very same thing in mind here in 2 Corinthians. And just as he talks about the glorification of the body in 1 Corinthians 15, he has the same thing in mind here when he is referring to the glory of Jesus in believers. The risen Jesus IS the Spirit.
In the preceding context, Paul discusses the ministry of the Spirit. The Trinitarian must then insist that "the Spirit" in this passage is a 3rd person of his Triune God. However, he is caught in the inescapable dilemma of Jesus being identifed as the Spirit, that is, the dilemma of the 2nd person of his Trinity being identifed as the 3rd. But in Trinitarian doctrine the 2nd person is NOT the 3rd and he ends up with a contradiction diametrically opposed to his doctrine without any escape except perhaps a good dose of denial.
Point 7 - The Father IS NOT the Spirit
The Bible affirms very clearly that our Father IS the Spirit.
Did the Father of the man Jesus of Nazareth conceive Jesus in the womb of Mary? In Trinitarianism the answer is that he did not. In Trinitarian doctrine, another person altogether conceived the man Jesus of Nazareth and that person is the Holy Spirit, someone who is not the Father in Trinitarianism. In other words, Trinitarians are caught in the serious dilemma of having one person conceiving baby Jesus (the Holy Spirit) but another person being his father (God, the Father of Jesus). It is an absurdity of absurdities.
The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35).
The honest reader can see that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father who conceived baby Jesus of Nazareth and not a 3rd and separate person who is not the Father. In Trinitarianism, the Holy Spirit is not the Father and they create for themselves here the ridiculous predicament of having one person conceive baby Jesus but Jesus having another person altogether as his father. Absurd.
Another clear indication that the Father is the Holy Spirit are parallel statements made by Matthew and Luke:
When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." (Luke 12:11-12).
But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. (Matthew 10:17-20).
The term "Spirit of God" is obviously a term which means "Spirit of God the Father." However, in Trinitarian doctrine, "the Spirit" is not the Spirit of the Father but a 3rd person in addition to the Father and so they must conclude and do conclude that, "the Father is NOT the Spirit." But we have clear Scriptures which show the Father is the Spirit. And again the Trinitarian doctrine is easily proven wrong.
Of course, multitudes of denials are always in order when such things are presented to the Trinitarian. And of course this brings up the issue of how both Jesus and the Father can be "the Spirit." But anyone who comprehends the nature of the resurrection can quickly see how this is so. We will discuss this in more detail in another article. "Father" and "Son" are WHO they are; "Spirit" is WHAT they both are; the risen Jesus and the Father are both "the Spirit." In the same way that both Adam and Eve are both "the flesh" and the one flesh of Adam, both God the Father and his Son are now one Spirit of God. The flesh of Eve is the flesh of Adam and the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God. And just as Eve is the flesh of Adam but is not Adam so also Christ is the Spirit of God but is not God. The Spirit in us is the presence of both the Father and Jesus which is why Jesus taught that both Father and Son will come to make their home in believers. God the father IS Spirit and so now also is the risen Jesus.
The Bible plainly shows the Trinity doctrine to be completely wrong. In Trinitarianism the Spirit and the Father or the Spirit and the Son cannot be one and the same. The Bible says the Son of God IS the Spirit. Trinitarianism says the Son of God IS NOT the Spirit. The error can be no plainer than this and the whole doctrine of the Trinity must affirm the Son is NOT the Spirit or it does not and cannot stand. The reader should seriously consider the gravity of the facts here. This is not a minor and inconsequential point. If point number 7 above, or point number 8 above, are false statements, the entire doctrine of the Trinity is proven to be FALSE. And the honest reader will realize there is no escape from that reality.
Point 4 - The Son, Jesus Christ, is God
The Bible clearly affirms the Father alone is God.
There are 3 ways to disprove the statement that "Jesus is God." First, we could find a statement that insists the Son is NOT God. No such statements exist in Scripture. Of course, no such statement exists that says the Son is not a pumpkin either and this does not give us a license to suggest that he is a pumpkin. Secondly, we can demonstrate that there is no evidence that the Son is "God" by identity. Most of the information on this site is devoted to demonstrating this fact and exposing the logical fallacies behind Trinitarian claims on that point and so we will not discuss that particular point here. The third way is to find a statement where someone else claims that he alone is God and only he is God, such as the Father of Jesus. If we were to accept such a statement from God to be true then we must confess the doctrine of the Trinity is false. But does such a statement exist? Yes.
Do you thus repay YHVH, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you.... See now that I, I am He, and there is no God besides ME; It is I who put to death and give life. (Deuteronomy 32:6, 39).
Here, the LORD, YHVH, identifies himself as the Father and insists there is no other God besides Him. He says "there is no Elohim apart from ME. Who is "Me?" The Father has identified himself as the one doing the speaking. The Father is insisting that He alone is God. Now if He alone is God then no one else can also be God. But Trinitarianism insists that two other persons are also "God" too in direct opposition to the Father's declaration. Who are you going to believe?
Who is necessarily speaking in this passage? Who is this person's servant and chosen?
Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom MY soul delights: I have put MY Spirit upon him... I am YHVH, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another. (Isaiah 42; cf Mt 12:18).
Conclusion
It is easy to demonstrate that Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Scriptures. Points 4, 7 and 8 are obviously wrong. Even if only one point of the eight is wrong the entire doctrine is also wrong. And if we hold the Bible to always be true then the doctrine of the Trinity is proven to be necessarily and absolutely false whether any given individual or group of individuals likes it or not.
"Father... that they many know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You sent." - Jesus
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by DarkKnight
