On the Trinity, pt 2:

[Infinityloop]

Trinitarianism is the belief in the Christian Trinity, which is itself the belief that the Christian God consists of three persons who are distinct from each other yet each the same divine being. Trinitarians reject all charges of polytheism (belief in multiple deities) and might claim that they embrace a mystery that is not comprehensible by reason and yet does not violate reason. But . . . as anyone with a very minor grasp on logic and mathematics knows, three does not equal one and different beings cannot be identical to each other. And I call bullshit!

Why is Biblically proving or disproving Trinitarianism a big deal? Well, as I have told people in person, belief in the Trinity actually impacts very little of the lives of most Trinitarians. The very esoteric, illogical, abstract nature of the Trinity makes it very difficult to actually live, pray, and act differently in one's everyday life because of belief in the Trinity. The importance of examining the concept of Trinitarianism has nothing to do with some resulting transformation of one's spirituality; the importance has to do with the fact that if the Trinity is logically impossible and if the Bible teaches the Trinity, then at least the parts of the Bible speaking of the Trinity are objectively false and cannot be true. The very credibility and veracity of Christianity are at stake!

Lest I get accused of heresy over my opposition to Trinitarianism, let me explain what heresy actually is. Heresy is a claim about God's nature that contradicts his actual nature; thus, in the Christian sense heresy is something that contradicts what the Bible teaches about God's character or nature. I cannot know God's moral character, will, or much of his nature at all (beyond what logic and philosophical metaphysics can prove) unless God reveals those things to me. All the cries of pastors and lay Christians alike do not and cannot make something heresy. Even if it was impossible to logically and Biblically disprove Trinitarianism (and it is certainly possible!), unless Trinitarians could prove their position from the Bible they would have no basis to call me or any other non-Trinitarian a heretic.

Many beliefs accepted by Christians are in fact heretical. It is heresy to say that moral obligations regarding justice (criminal punishments) changed between the Old and New Testament, for morality is a reflection of God's nature and God's nature does not change (Malachi 3:6)--not to mention that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and affirmed it repeatedly (Matthew 5:17-19). It is a heresy to represent God as a being who will torment all unsaved beings eternally when the Bible says the destination of the human unsaved is annihilation (Matthew 10:28, 2 Peter 2:6, Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:4)--not to mention that his own moral revelation in Mosaic Law contradicts the very idea of eternal conscious torment (Deuteronomy 25:3, Exodus 21:23-25). It is heresy to condemn the naked human body as sinful when it is the epitome of God's creation (Genesis 2:25), which he called good (Genesis 1:31) and which is not ever condemned in itself--not to mention that God, who cannot tempt people to sin (James 1:13), commanded the prophet Isaiah to go naked for three years (Isaiah 20:1-6). It is heresy to claim that God does not hate at least some sinners, as Scripture is clear that he does (Psalm 5:5-6, 11:5, Proverbs 3:32).

Although each of these things is a heresy in its own right, it is not in any way uncommon to find them preached in the name of Christian teachings. And yet they are false and destructive lies! As Jesus said, the truth will set us free (John 8:32). Only knowledge of truth can liberate humans from bondage to ignorance and error. The unfortunate truth is that many humans who read the Bible do not seem to start with no inherited assumptions about the text and then proceed to ascribe to the Bible only what the Bible teaches. This methodology is the only reliable way of investigating anything at all--no assumptions, just starting with foundational principles and working upward from there in accordance with reason.

Can Trinitarianism survive a confrontation with logic and Scripture? In the next parts in this series I will examine the laws of logic and Biblical passages relevant to this issue. For now, it is sufficient that I have defined heresy and shown that if Trinitarianism does not have airtight Biblical support, then even if it was true it would not have the status of some indisputable central doctrine of Christianity.

I want to show up front that Matthew 28:19 is not the Biblical confirmation of the Trinity that some represent it as.


Matthew 28:19--"'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"


At most this verse rightly states that Christianity features three important divine beings; it does not say that they are identical persons yet not identical or contradict anything I am about to say. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity is not made clear in this, as if the three beings mentioned here are all divine and distinct then it is saying that three divine beings, not one, exist.

What does the Bible say that actually falsifies the idea of the Trinity as popularly conveyed? Several obvious differences between Yahweh and Christ exist. Jesus has a body while Yahweh does not. Jesus could not have died unless he had a body, much less have eaten after his resurrection (Luke 24) or been physically touched by others:


John 1:1, 14--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

John 4:21, 24--"Jesus declared . . . 'God is spirit . . .'"


Jesus did not know the hour or day of his return, but Yahweh did:


Matthew 24:30, 36--"'At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory . . . No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'"


Jesus and Yahweh have different wills:


Luke 22:39-42--"Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, 'Pray that you will not fall into temptation.' He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will but your will be done.'"


At least three objective Biblical differences between Jesus and Yahweh exist, therefore: 1) Jesus has a body and Yahweh does not, 2) Jesus did not know the hour of his return but Yahweh did, and 3) Jesus and Yahweh have their own autonomous wills. They are not the same and thus the Bible teaches that there are at least two divine beings.

Only someone truly irrational would, after being presented these points, insist that Christ and Yahweh are somehow truly the same. Whether Christ was coeternal alongside Yahweh (meaning there is not just one uncaused cause) or Yahweh created Jesus prior to creating the material world as Arianism holds, Jesus still holds a divine status that ontologically separates him from humans, angels, and other objects of creation. He certainly existed before the material world (John 8:58, Colossians 1:16). It does not follow even from this aspect of Arianism that Christ is not divine. After all, it is logically possible for God to create a being that shares his attributes of power but that, of course, is not without a beginning and has its own will. Note that I am speaking in hypotheticals to show what does and does not follow from the proposition that Yahweh created Christ--I am not saying that he did, although there are some passages that I can see people deriving this from (Colossians 1:15 [2], John 3:16, etc.), and I can also see how the very words "Father" and "Son" can imply that the Son had a beginning of sorts.

I will now state examples of the three laws of logic (law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle). A is A. Something is not both A and not A in the same way at the same time. Something is either A or not A. Now, let's apply these inviolable laws of logic [3] to the person of Christ. Jesus is Jesus. Something is not both Jesus and not Jesus in the same way at the same time. Something is either Jesus or not Jesus. Thus, if Jesus is not Yahweh, Jesus and Yahweh are not identical beings. If there is any need to distinguish between Jesus and Yahweh as the Bible obviously does so often throughout the gospels, then the two are objectively different ontological entities. That is not to say that Jesus has no divine nature--he is also credited with cocreating the world with Yahweh.

This concept of the Trinity clearly violates the law of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. Since logic cannot be false and Trinitarianism contradicts all three laws of logic and thus it necessarily follows inescapably that it cannot be true! If Yahweh is not Christ, then the two are not identical and thus are not the same being; if Yahweh and Christ are the same, then there would be no such thing as distinguishing between them. Unsurprisingly, otherwise rational people have admitted to me after conversations about the Trinity, in which I challenged Trinitarianism, that the Trinity defies logic and thus is not a rational belief. But some of them have said they would opt to believe in it anyway. When it gets down to it, it is rather easy to demonstrate that the Trinity is logically and mathematically impossible. Different things are not the same; three is not one.

I want to mention how someone could still use the term "Trinity" and not be an illogical or unbiblical theologian. As long as a person does not mean by the word Trinity that Christ, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit are identical yet separate--"three in one"--then use of the word does not contradict any of the logical facts addressed in this article.

I also want to explain the ultimate triviality of belief in Trinitarianism in terms of everyday life. Yes, believing in the Trinity is illogical and unbiblical, but Trinitarianism also scarcely impacts the actual lives of people I know who believe it. People who believe in false ideas like legalism, complementarianism, eternal conscious torment, or atheism may act very differently than they would if they did not believe in those things. But I cannot think of a single way that Trinitarianism objectively, universally changes one's worldview or lifestyle simply by nature of the belief itself. It at most externally amounts to, in the lives of Trinitarians I know, a complicated belief invoked in vague ways that Trinitarians don't really know how to explain or handle. In my own life, the way I pray, evangelize, think, and generally live has not changed in any noticeable way because I have abandoned Trinitarianism and become what I call a "Christian polytheist".

I hope that this information makes sense to readers, and I also hope that this information can liberate Christians who realize the illogicality of the Trinity as defined and explained by popular theology and yet affirm the truth of Christianity itself. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful burden that can foster intellectual shallowness, unnecessary guilt, and a generally inconsistent worldview.

I explained what heresy is and isn't, demonstrated using logic and math that the popular conception of the Trinity is objectively false and impossible, and showed that the Bible teaches that Yahweh and Christ (in particular) are distinct beings. With those issues addressed, I will turn my attention to responding to a common defense of Trinitarianism I have encountered and to highlighting the vagueness of the alleged Biblical confirmation of the Trinity.

I have found a certain argument presented to be by multiple Trinitarians throughout my life. When pressed for a defense of the Trinity as defined by them, Trinitarians will sometimes hide behind the pathetic claim that the Trinity is not comprehensible because of the limitations or corruption of our human intellects. Ironically, even if this were true that the Trinity exists but is not comprehensible, they have admitted that they are holding to an irrational belief in the sense that they are admitting that they cannot rationally establish Trinitarianism and thus must believe without actual confirmation. If they argue against the human intellect as a whole in order to uphold this erroneous point, they will be using the very thing they are calling unreliable to argue against itself, meaning their claim here is self-defeating. Human cognitive abilities are infallibly reliable to the extent that they are aligned with reason itself and no one can argue to the contrary without affirming and relying on that very thing. Of course, the Trinity isn't even possible. In part two of this series I explained that in detail. Trinitarianism is objectively impossible and the Bible rejects it.

And now I will assess the process of actually arriving at this vague belief. The Trinity must be cobbled together in an illogical manner from scattered texts. It is not only logically and mathematically impossible and Biblically false, but it is also nowhere laid out in the text itself directly. Even if the Bible did actually teach the Trinity (and it doesn't, as I established in part two of this series), one would quite possibly not be able to identify this doctrine without a great deal of assumptions and conditioning. I have yet to meet someone who said that he or she would have found and embraced the doctrine of the Trinity had that person never had any previous theological influence exerted on him or her by others. The Bible simply does not have information about the ontology of all three divine beings in the same place in a systematic manner that describes the evangelical notion of the Trinity.

I suspect that many Trinitarians know deep down that they cannot defend or truly articulate how God could possibly be three persons in one, how these three separate minds are still one single being. Unless they mean that there are three separate divine beings who share the same moral nature and to describe this group they use the word "Trinity", they propose an erroneous thing. Sometimes they may even appeal to traditional creeds based on the consensus of historical theologians instead of the Bible in an effort to defend the Trinity--after they reject logic and math in this area, they must hold something up besides Scripture, for the Bible does not teach Trinitarianism.

As I said before, beyond the fact that the Trinity is simply a false truth claim, the real reason to oppose it is not because it is vague and impossible to apply to one's life in any significant way, but because representing an impossible contradiction as being at the core of Christian theology is extremely asinine. If Christianity is true, and if the concept of the Trinity as popularly defined cannot be true, then equating one with the other is to mix two irreconcilable things and present them to the world as a consistent truth that conforms to reality.

 

[DavidSon]

"It was Justin Martyr(b. 100), a Christian convert from the Platonic school, who about the middle of the second century first promulgated the opinion that the "Son of God" was the second principle in the Deity, and the creator of all material things . He is the earliest writer to whom this opinion can be traced . He ascribes his knowledge of it, not to the Scriptures, but to the special favor of God.

Modern theologians have defined the three hypostases in the Godhead with great precision, though in very different words. But the fathers of the Trinitarian Church were neither so positive nor so free from doubt and uncertainty, nor were they agreed in their opinions upon it. The very councils were agitated; nor was there that which is now declared essential to salvation, i.e the ancient Trinity .

They who thought the Word an attribute of the Father, which assumed a personality at the beginning of the creation, called this the generation of the Son, regarding him still as inferior to the Father, whom they called the God by way of eminence.This notion of descent implied inferiority, and on that ground was objected to, and the Nicene Council, in 325, issued a corrected and improved symbol. Christ, instead of only Son, was styled God of God, and very God of very God . But even here the equality of the Son was not established, the Father by whom he was begotten being regarded as the great fountain of life.

The investment of wisdom with a personality still implied a time when he was begotten, and consequently a time when he was not . The Nicene Fathers did not venture on the term Trinity, for they had no intention of raising their pre-existent Christ to an equality with the Father. As to the Holy Spirit, this was considered as of subordinate rank, and the clauses respecting its procession and being worshiped together with the Father and the Son, were not added till the year 381, at the Council of Constantinople." -Israel Worsley

 

[elsbet]

As I said before, beyond the fact that the Trinity is simply a false truth claim, the real reason to oppose it is ... because representing an impossible contradiction as being at the core of Christian theology is extremely asinine.​

An "impossible contradiction"... you're implying we already know everything there is to know about science, the universe, the nature of reality-- we don't.

Take quantum physics.

 

[DavidSon]

Three I know not what: the influence of Greek philosophy on the Trinity doctrine

A simple write up that goes into historical detail of the Hellenic philosophies that were a source of the Trinity doctrine (that @AspiringSoul brought up).

The theory of a "triune reality" recognized by Plato (400 BC) consisted of the Good(God/monad), the Nous (mind/Intellect/logos), and Psyche (world soul/spirit).

Aristotle's (400 BC) concept of Ousia (substance/essence) was adopted by fourth century theologians into their own Trinity doctrines.

"The Stoic concept of Logos became the essential parallel for the Christian understanding of the Son of God... Philo (b.30 BC) personified the Stoic Logos... Apologists, under the influence of Stoicism, resolved the problem [of dual deities] by making a distinction between the immanent Word or Thought (logos endiathetos) and the expressed Word or Thought (logos prophorikos). The Logos or the Son always existed with God the Father as logos endiathetos. However, when the Father willed to create the world, he expressed his Word (logos endiathetos) which became logos prophorikos."

"Fourth- and 5th-century theologians of the Christian Church (Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa as well as other Cappadocians) appropriated the ideas of Plotinus (c. 250 AD) the father of Neo-Platonism, regarding three divine hypostaseis. Plotinus' hierarchy of divinity (the One, Mind and Soul) was rejected. However, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity still represents a modification of Plotinus' teachings."

 

[phipps]

God gave us His Word that includes telling us about His nature because it is very important. Every thing He has imparted to us in the Bible is a matter of life or death. There is power in the Word of God. It is the truth and the truth of God is designed to elevate the receiver, to refine their character and taste, to sanctify them through the Holy Spirit who is God.

 

[AspiringSoul]

God gave us His Word that includes telling us about His nature because it is very important. Every thing He has imparted to us in the Bible is a matter of life or death. There is power in the Word of God. It is the truth and the truth of God is designed to elevate the receiver, to refine their character and taste, to sanctify them through the Holy Spirit who is God.

If you have nothing to offer relevant to the topic, best to not post.

 

[DavidSon]

The ancient doctrine of "Trinity" was common among nations:

Hinduism: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
Buddhism: Self-triplicated Buddah/ Triple Gem
Egypt: Osiris, Isis, Horus/ Emeph, Eicton, Phtha
Babylon/Caanan: Baal, Ishtar, Tammuz
China: 3 Sons of Fo-hi/ Sanpao
Russian Turks: Triple God
Persia: Ahura Mazda, Apam Napat, Mithra/ Ormusd, Mithra, Ahriman
Syrians: Monimus, Aziz, Ares
Goths: Odin, Vile, Ve
Celts: Triple Hu/Menu
Greeks/Romans: Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto

"To the same class we must ascribe the triads of the Orphic, Pythagorean, and Platonic schools; each of which must again be identified with the imperial triad of the old Chaldaic or Babylonian philosophy.

To the great Triad of the Gentiles, thus springing from a Monad, was ascribed the creation of the world, or rather its renovation after each intervening deluge. It was likewise supposed to be the governing power and the intellectual soul of the universe . In short, all the attributes of Deity were profanely ascribed to it. This has led many to imagine that the Pagans did fundamentally worship the true God, and that even from the most remote antiquity they venerated the Trinity in Unity.

The school of Plato has been generally looked to for the origin of the Christian Trinity, but, as we have seen, it would be more correct to look to the oracles of Zoroaster. Christianity may have drawn from Platonism, but there can be no doubt that Plato had drawn from the oracles of the East. The Second Mind, or the Regenerator, correctly the Holy Ghost, was in the oracles of Zoroaster, and will be shewn to have been in the baptismal service of the Magi."



"A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated." -Gregory of Nazianzus in a letter to St.Jerome

 

[phipps]

The ancient doctrine of "Trinity" was common among nations:

Hinduism: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
Buddhism: Self-triplicated Buddah/ Triple Gem
Egypt: Osiris, Isis, Horus/ Emeph, Eicton, Phtha
Babylon/Caanan: Baal, Ishtar, Tammuz
China: 3 Sons of Fo-hi/ Sanpao
Russian Turks: Triple God
Persia: Ahura Mazda, Apam Napat, Mithra/ Ormusd, Mithra, Ahriman
Syrians: Monimus, Aziz, Ares
Goths: Odin, Vile, Ve
Celts: Triple Hu/Menu
Greeks/Romans: Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto

"To the same class we must ascribe the triads of the Orphic, Pythagorean, and Platonic schools; each of which must again be identified with the imperial triad of the old Chaldaic or Babylonian philosophy.

To the great Triad of the Gentiles, thus springing from a Monad, was ascribed the creation of the world, or rather its renovation after each intervening deluge. It was likewise supposed to be the governing power and the intellectual soul of the universe . In short, all the attributes of Deity were profanely ascribed to it. This has led many to imagine that the Pagans did fundamentally worship the true God, and that even from the most remote antiquity they venerated the Trinity in Unity.

The school of Plato has been generally looked to for the origin of the Christian Trinity, but, as we have seen, it would be more correct to look to the oracles of Zoroaster. Christianity may have drawn from Platonism, but there can be no doubt that Plato had drawn from the oracles of the East. The Second Mind, or the Regenerator, correctly the Holy Ghost, was in the oracles of Zoroaster, and will be shewn to have been in the baptismal service of the Magi."



"A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated." -Gregory of Nazianzus in a letter to St.Jerome

What the Bible says about the Godhead/Trinity is what matters not any religions. The truth is found only in the Word of God. It is the Word that was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[DavidSon]

What the Bible says about the Godhead/Trinity is what matters to me, not any religions. My truth is found only in the Word of God. I believe it is the Word that was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Fixed the quote to communicate more accurately what you're saying. Do you read how egocentric your opinon sounds, how little you're offering to teach others? Jesus said walk two miles with a stranger... yet you won't take a step towards someone with a thought outside your self. You come across as dense and quite un-Christian.

I don't condemn the Christian Trinity as heresy or some evil theory. For me it doesn't relate at all with the teaching of Jesus, but oh well. I agree with @Todd that the doctrine is superfluous to "The Way".

I'm saying let's be honest about the documented, exact history of all our traditions. How is it that people who claim to be the priests and judges show such little dedication to study? Remember Paul said to study? If you don't love other human beings I don't know what to tell ya.

Christianity is the product of thousands (millions?) of years of human history. Researching the "Holy Trinity", we find much earlier ancient civilizations that were honoring a single God (or Monad) within their recognition of "attributes" (say the planets or emotions). The Almighty God or One was thought to be transcendent/unknowable. In my opinion their view the division of Godhead in 2 recognizable parts (thus 3 total including the One) is the same thing as as the doctrine developed through Greco-Roman Christianity.

It's a beautiful fact that we all have a relationship with the notion of "three" 3 exhibited in nature... mathematics, our sciences... the concept of 3 is ingrained as a universal truth. In 3 dimensions of space or even the British 3 cheers haha. Pi was often written as "3". Do you get it? This has more to do with the revelation of God than the adaption of Neo-Platonic concepts into Christian theology, for real!

To @phipps (or anyone else) I challenge you to walk with those you're intending to help. Why not search out some of the facts that are being shared here, either to refute or shine the light of Christ on? Have a real conversation with somebody if you say you have love. Phrases and vain repetition inspire nobody.

 

[elsbet]

Do you read how egocentric your opinon sounds, how little you're offering to teach others? Jesus said walk two miles with a stranger... yet you won't take a step towards someone with a thought outside your self. You come across as dense and quite un-Christian.

Jesus said to go ahead and and walk that second mile, when confronted with an evil person who has asked you to walk only one.

​

But I tell you not to resist an evil person.​

​

If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two.​

MATTHEW 5:39-41​

​

But there is nothing " un-Christian " about refusing to entertain other gods-- not even in the above verse. There, kindess is suggested, even toward people who are trying to condemn you, in this world, that you may not be condemned, in the next... but not at the cost of your own soul.

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Karlysymon]

There is power in the name of Jesus Christ and some Christians have experienced this in their own lives or former non-Christians became Christians as a result of invoking His Name in whatever situation they were beset with. Here, iam not in any way referring to the actions of charlatan televangelists. Appeals can be made to how illogical/irrational/incomprehensible/pagan the Trinity is but it doesn’t change what these individuals experience(d).

Can the same be testified of the myriad of gods/persons out there that command the allegiance of multitudes?

True, one can argue that history books are filled with people receiving miracles by praying to their various gods and that there was no name of Christ to invoke. I believe that God went to lengths to correct ideas about himself, as shown by events at Carmel (Elijah and the prophets of Baal) aswell as Paul's address at Areopagus:
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

Personally, iam a Trinitarian Christian and I firmly believe that it is supported within the Bible itself as by Christ’s own statements. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t adhere to it. I don’t need to read Church history to “discover” how Trinitarianism was seeded into Christendom, to me its evident within the text itself. There are many Christians around the world who will never have access to or be interested in reading Church history (history isn’t everyone’s cup of tea) and possibly without regular church fellowship, and the bible is all they have , translated in their local language. Iam pretty sure how I claim these promises below is how they claim them, aswell.

I could be confronted with the idea that Trinitarianism is Neo-platonic or that it is a spawn of the Council of Nicaea but to ask me to believe that, is to ask me to entertain unbelief in/jettison the promises of Christ, promises given for my own spiritual safety.

Matt 18:19-20
“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
John 14:13-14
And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it

If this wasn’t necessary, Christ wouldn’t have said it but He saw fit to reassure His immediate and future believers of His continued presence (omnipresence) in the gathering of believers and that our earthly requests, made in His name and according to His will would be answered. To get around this, to undermine Christ’s promises to the believer and deprive the believer of the power in His name, is to attack the text….as in the bible is corrupted et al.

I could use the example of the crippled beggar in Acts 3 & 4 that was healed in Christ’s name. ["And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it-Acts 4:14]
Let’s imagine that this happened in our time. How do you genuinely convince otherwise/account for the power in Christ’s name (given that these incidents lead one to believe in the Diety of Christ) to the healed cripple or the onlookers (that would be us) for that matter? Even if you brought up the Council of Nicaea or Neo-platonic origins of Trinitarianism, it would all fall flat in the face of a miracle and it would be very difficult to convince the person, who would maintain that “my Jesus healed me!”
It is an experience, a reality, you are asking them to deny and i honestly don't see how you can convince this healed person and his family, who would have had to deal with his disability for decades, by narrating that "....many, many years ago, a bunch of dudes got together and decided that Jesus is God when He isn't..."

The ancient doctrine of "Trinity" was common among nations:

Hinduism: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
Buddhism: Self-triplicated Buddah/ Triple Gem
Egypt: Osiris, Isis, Horus/ Emeph, Eicton, Phtha
Babylon/Caanan: Baal, Ishtar, Tammuz
China: 3 Sons of Fo-hi/ Sanpao
Russian Turks: Triple God
Persia: Ahura Mazda, Apam Napat, Mithra/ Ormusd, Mithra, Ahriman
Syrians: Monimus, Aziz, Ares
Goths: Odin, Vile, Ve
Celts: Triple Hu/Menu
Greeks/Romans: Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto

"To the same class we must ascribe the triads of the Orphic, Pythagorean, and Platonic schools; each of which must again be identified with the imperial triad of the old Chaldaic or Babylonian philosophy.

To the great Triad of the Gentiles, thus springing from a Monad, was ascribed the creation of the world, or rather its renovation after each intervening deluge. It was likewise supposed to be the governing power and the intellectual soul of the universe . In short, all the attributes of Deity were profanely ascribed to it. This has led many to imagine that the Pagans did fundamentally worship the true God, and that even from the most remote antiquity they venerated the Trinity in Unity.

The school of Plato has been generally looked to for the origin of the Christian Trinity, but, as we have seen, it would be more correct to look to the oracles of Zoroaster. Christianity may have drawn from Platonism, but there can be no doubt that Plato had drawn from the oracles of the East. The Second Mind, or the Regenerator, correctly the Holy Ghost, was in the oracles of Zoroaster, and will be shewn to have been in the baptismal service of the Magi."



"A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated." -Gregory of Nazianzus in a letter to St.Jerome

If the doctrine of the Trinity was prevalent among the various nations, it begs the question, why and where did the idea come from in the first place? True, cultures mooch off of each other sometimes but often there are no grounds/evidence to support one culture stealing/borrowing from another. This is similar to the flood legends. Various cultures around the world, even those that have never been in contact with each other, have these worldwide-flood legends. Again, why and where did the idea come from in the first place?

 

[Orwell's mentor]

If the doctrine of the Trinity was prevalent among the various nations, it begs the question, why and where did the idea come from in the first place? True, cultures mooch off of each other sometimes but often there are no grounds/evidence to support one culture stealing/borrowing from another. This is similar to the flood legends. Various cultures around the world, even those that have never been in contact with each other, have these worldwide-flood legends. Again, why and where did the idea come from in the first place?

@Todd posted this some time ago, and found it interesting as I've wondered the same thing. This might give you an idea where the Trinity came from: The Pagan Origins of the Trinity Doctrine.

 

[bible_student]

To believe that all of Christ's power and Glory was given to him by Father, does not diminish it or what Christ is able to do in any way whatsoever. It's just believing what Christ says about it (i.e. John 17:22-24) and recognition of God's creation order as it is taught in scripture.

"This is the Stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:11-12)

"For [there is] ONE God, and One mediator between God and men, the Man Jesus Christ;" (1 Timothy 2:5)

 

[DavidSon]

There is power in the name of Jesus Christ and some Christians have experienced this in their own lives or former non-Christians became Christians as a result of invoking His Name in whatever situation they were beset with. Here, iam not in any way referring to the actions of charlatan televangelists. Appeals can be made to how illogical/irrational/incomprehensible/pagan the Trinity is but it doesn’t change what these individuals experience(d).

Can the same be testified of the myriad of gods/persons out there that command the allegiance of multitudes?

True, one can argue that history books are filled with people receiving miracles by praying to their various gods and that there was no name of Christ to invoke. I believe that God went to lengths to correct ideas about himself, as shown by events at Carmel (Elijah and the prophets of Baal) aswell as Paul's address at Areopagus:
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

Personally, iam a Trinitarian Christian and I firmly believe that it is supported within the Bible itself as by Christ’s own statements. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t adhere to it. I don’t need to read Church history to “discover” how Trinitarianism was seeded into Christendom, to me its evident within the text itself. There are many Christians around the world who will never have access to or be interested in reading Church history (history isn’t everyone’s cup of tea) and possibly without regular church fellowship, and the bible is all they have , translated in their local language. Iam pretty sure how I claim these promises below is how they claim them, aswell.

I could be confronted with the idea that Trinitarianism is Neo-platonic or that it is a spawn of the Council of Nicaea but to ask me to believe that, is to ask me to entertain unbelief in/jettison the promises of Christ, promises given for my own spiritual safety.

Matt 18:19-20
“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
John 14:13-14
And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it

If this wasn’t necessary, Christ wouldn’t have said it but He saw fit to reassure His immediate and future believers of His continued presence (omnipresence) in the gathering of believers and that our earthly requests, made in His name and according to His will would be answered. To get around this, to undermine Christ’s promises to the believer and deprive the believer of the power in His name, is to attack the text….as in the bible is corrupted et al.

I could use the example of the crippled beggar in Acts 3 & 4 that was healed in Christ’s name. ["And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it-Acts 4:14]
Let’s imagine that this happened in our time. How do you genuinely convince otherwise/account for the power in Christ’s name (given that these incidents lead one to believe in the Diety of Christ) to the healed cripple or the onlookers (that would be us) for that matter? Even if you brought up the Council of Nicaea or Neo-platonic origins of Trinitarianism, it would all fall flat in the face of a miracle and it would be very difficult to convince the person, who would maintain that “my Jesus healed me!”
It is an experience, a reality, you are asking them to deny and i honestly don't see how you can convince this healed person and his family, who would have had to deal with his disability for decades, by narrating that "....many, many years ago, a bunch of dudes got together and decided that Jesus is God when He isn't..."


If the doctrine of the Trinity was prevalent among the various nations, it begs the question, why and where did the idea come from in the first place? True, cultures mooch off of each other sometimes but often there are no grounds/evidence to support one culture stealing/borrowing from another. This is similar to the flood legends. Various cultures around the world, even those that have never been in contact with each other, have these worldwide-flood legends. Again, why and where did the idea come from in the first place?

To be clear I'm not the type to protest outside someone's house of worship. In discussions with strangers or co-workers about somewhat personal/controversial material, if I sensed our conversation was making them uncomfortable I would back off. I also don't visit Evangelical forums to challenge others beliefs, etc.

Yet here at the Vigilant Citizen forum I expect a higher caliber of honesty and critical analysis. We should be willing to unearth the truth about any subject (that as a generation) we've inherited. Is it unpatriotic to question the the motivations of leaders who shape foreign policy? We will be honest about the origins of our music, movies, traditions, religions... no matter who it offends.

A positive aspect of the internet is, as Daniel Estulin remarked, we have a global library of thousands of years of collected scripture. Sacred documents that were only accessible to priests are now a click away. "History" may not be everyone's choice of study but we as a species crave knowledge and unique viewpoints. As Jesus said, the truth will set us free.

Let us not shy away from facts. It is said the wise son loves reproof. We should be thankful to have our views challenged, as it can only bring about refinement. Strangers will tell you whatever you want to hear, but real friends will tell you like it is. I'm personally thankful for the honesty at VC and will continue asking the tough questions.

 

[DavidSon]

@Todd posted this some time ago, and found it interesting as I've wondered the same thing. This might give you an idea where the Trinity came from: The Pagan Origins of the Trinity Doctrine.

Whoa that looks great, thanks for posting the link.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Todd posted this some time ago, and found it interesting as I've wondered the same thing. This might give you an idea where the Trinity came from: The Pagan Origins of the Trinity Doctrine.

I would venture to say that if Satan were the deceptive being the Bible paints him to be, he truly knew God, and was aware of His actual nature...

He would be extremely likely to mimic and distort such knowledge in the religions he had most direct influence over.

Just a thought...

 

[Infinityloop]