EarthsMightiest.com Start A Fansite!

3 Common Sense Reasons Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

Here is a short, straightforward argument that exposes the doctrine of the Trinity as a man-made apostasy. Three common sense reasons that cannot be disputed.

#1. No Authority at Nicea

First, lets set this up with a brief history lesson. The Trinity was cautified nearly 300 years after Christ and the original Apostles had been killed off. Christians had been persecuted and had gone underground for much of this period to avoid being fed to lions--remember that? Even though Christianity was splintered and leaderless at this time, it was the one common thing that was found throughout the then declining Roman Empire.

Under that setting, the Nicean Council and the formation of the Trinity doctrine was ordered, led and ultimately approved by the Roman Emperor Constantine as part of his political campaign to unite factions of the failing Roman Empire under one state religion. Not a lot of people dispute this fact, but Trinity believers try to "spiritualize" this history by making Constantine into a holy man who was led by God to do what he did. While there is NO evidence for this, there are lots of reasons to believe that he was doing it for strictly political purposes. To this day there is a debate about whether or not Constantine was even baptized a member of the Church--which Christ said was necessary to be saved. (See John 3:5)

Think about it. A somewhat analogous equivalent today would be if the President of the United States gathered up all the Christian denominations of the day, had them mash-up their differing beliefs, and made a church from the consensus--a single religion for the the whole country. And it would all be lead and approved by, not a religious leader, but a political leader.

There weren't even any of the Christian leaders or attendants that claimed to be the head authority of the church at the time. They all pretty much laid down any authority to the Emperor. And just like in politics, the beliefs of the majority were adopted--just like Constantine wanted. Of the two factions that had a disagreement about the character and nature of God and Christ, the majority opinion won the debate, and the losing belief was denounced as heresy. Ask yourself when, if ever, difficult religious doctrines are approved by the majority? Do you think we'd have 10 commandments if it was put up for a vote? I doubt it.

#2. The Unknowable God

The Trinity Doctrine is impossible to understand, yet understanding our relationship to God is central in gaining salvation and understanding many other gospel doctrines. In fact the Bible tells us that our very eternal life depends on knowing HIM.

John 17: 3 - And this is life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Bottom line, the 3-in-one monster conjured up by the Trinity is an unknowable being. The Trinity is confusion, and that is NOT of God, but of the devil.(See 1 Cor. 14: 33)

Honest theologians and priests will even admit that there is no way to "understand" the Trinity. They will argue that the mortal mind cannot grasp it but only "comprehend" some of it, but even that is a stretch when the scripture states that our very eternal life depends on KNOWING Him.

I also believe that if there was one doctrine that we should fully understand, it SHOULD be the one about the character and nature of God, and that he'd be a mean son of a gun to give us no way of understanding this very basic and important aspect of the gospel.

If you know anything about the history of the Nicean council, you also know that the framers of this gibberish themselves actually knew that what they were outlining was incomprehensible. That leads you to another problematic question... If the theologian/writers of the Trinity KNEW it was beyond the understanding of men. Then, as MEN, how do they know that they got it right in the first place?

That leads us to the final part of the argument. The lack of spiritual evidence that this doctrine is accepted by God...

#3. Lack of ANY Spiritual Confirmation or Manifestation

As I have argued, this is a key doctrine that is pivotal to understand which touches most if not all other gospel principals and doctrines, yet there is no evidence of spiritual manifestations, or any kind of confirmation by the spirit for the conclusion of Nicea.

Again, anyone who takes time to read and study the history of the Nicean Creed will be struck by the strictly political atmosphere of the whole event--thats it.

If you take your examples from the Bible you will notice that most all of the major events in scripture were attended by angels, had manifestations of the Holy Spirit, or miraculous happenings of some sort or another. Yet at Nicea, none of the attendants reported angels appearing, cloven tongues of fire, or even a simple voice from heaven. Everything went off like a session of congress with everybody trying to please the Roman Emperor.

If this IS a pivotal doctrine, why wouldn't there be SOME record of a miraculous occurance that could be pointed to as acceptance by God?

So there you have it. I think these common sense reasons are valid and very strong against the Trinity being a true doctrine. I believe that most Christian Churches of the day have accepted it simply because it is a tradition. If you can argue against any of this, I'd love to hear it.
199 Yes
23 No
Barry Dingle
3/27/2009

DISCLAIMER: This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from Earth's Mightiest editorial staff. All users have acknowledged and agreed that the submission of their content is in compliance with our Terms of Use. For removal of copyrighted material, please contact us HERE.

24 Comments

And THAT ladies and gentlemen is why I despise doctrines. They are counter-intuitive to faith in general. They try to bring a single "understanding" of a faith-based concept and 9 times out of 10 force it as truth. Faith is a very personal thing. It happens inside yourself.

Also, just FYI, a more direct translation of John 17:3 might be:
And this is eternal life: to have knowledge of you, the only true God, and of him whom you have sent, even Jesus Christ.

I believe it is trying to emphasize the concept of "knowing of" God, rather than "knowing" him, as in understanding his actions.
FalconX2 - 4/30/2009, 12:02 AM
Barry, I will be praying for you.
IRISHKNIGHT110 - 11/12/2009, 12:11 AM
Irish,
Thanks for your prayers my friend. I need them. But how about my arguement? Do you see any cracks in the logic? Do yourself a favor and find an unbiased history of the Nicean Creed. You will find as I did that the doctrine was suspect from the very beginning. The scripture doesn't support it, and common sense absolutely confirms that it is a false doctrine of man--not of God.
Dingleberry - 3/9/2010, 5:14 PM
I 100% agree with the above statement. I recently got into a debate over this very subject on line a couple of days ago. He tried to glorify the whole Constantine thing and said the "Church" lost its way but the reformation fixed it. I attend a Christian Church that believes and teaches that God, our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are THREE DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS. I can give a very long list to back that up. We teach that they have a common goal and purpose to help us understand God, get closer to Him, and live better lives with our fellow man. I recently saw a special on Sir Isaac Newton, that he believed the same thing from his own study of the Bible. He had to keep it quiet for obvious reasons. My faith incidently is over 13 million strong and growing by and average of 250,000 people a year. We must be doing something right.
elderpresto - 3/17/2010, 10:31 PM
before getting into anything historical,your definition of god should be clarified. if you agree that god is omnipotent amongst other things,then god is capable of existing in three persons/aspects yet be one triune being. now moving away from the logical side,historically,trinitarianism was espoused as part of the great commission by jesus as he commanded the disciples to go forth and make disciples and baptize them in the name of the father,son and holy ghost. now unless the son and holy ghost aren't two aspects of the one triune god,then jesus just commissioned them to go blaspheme and to do so in the name of god which is illogical and heretical. since god will tolerate no other gods,the son and holy spirit must be consubstantially existent with him. now before the 2nd ecumenical council at nicea, trinitarianism was already accepted by the majority(bishops,church fathers and laity) though even before the rise of arianism and the controversy it presented. a creed is the measuring rod of a religion and is indeed manmade;however,confirmation by the paraklete or holy spirit that the nicene creed(in it's variant versions) is in accordance with scripture has been happening since jesus rose from the dead. that particular council may have not seen the spirit manifest,but the ecclesias and denominations begotten by the holy catholic church(subsequently holy roman)each have their confirmation via works of the spirit that the creed(in its versions)holds truth. otherwise they would be lacking the 7 earmarks of the body of christ. if i use meters and you use inches,we can measure the same thing,but the hermeneutic/language/vernacular may cause confusion(think tower of babel). it's easier if we all say inches or we all say meters,hence the need/call for the council of nicea.
now i've read some interesting literature concerning constantine and as we know,god uses whom god pleases. bishops and clergymen of that time were often to busy with the great commission to tend to councils on treatises of this and that so theological liberty obviously ran out of check. along comes arius and subsequently the rise of arianism. so that the catholic church might remain universal and unified,constantine called the council at the behest of the bishops but not primarily(so i agree with you)and thus trinitarianism was ratified in the form of the nicene creed.
i agree to some extent that god is unknowable since scripture affirms that in its own ways;however,we can't apply principles of this world towards that which is not of this world and expect it to jive. thinking of god in terms of a paradox does bridge the gap and stays in line with the idea that god is omnipotent. seeking the relationship is what counts. that's how we get to know god. keep the commandments and enable the great commission. that's primarily all you need because the regeneration of your heart into a clean heart,a godly heart, will issue forth from such practice,such religion.
skhullflyre - 3/23/2010, 10:33 PM
dkullflyre - Your comment makes my point for me. This "doctrine" is TOTAL confusion! Which means its not of God, but from the lord of lies and deceit, Satan. What better way to keep men from God than by making HIM completely incomprehensible?

But let me take a shot at what you're saying...
1) Yes, God is omnipotent and all-knowing. That is why HE wouldn't choose to be this monster. And even if he did, he wouldn't try to confuse us by presenting himself in such a way. The trinity monster is NOT detailed in scripture to the extent that the Christian church has expounded. Period. What IS understandable in the scripture is that he is our "Father". Let's keep it simple shall we?
2) So baptism in the name of the Father, Son and HG is proof of the Trinity? Naw. I don't see it. And why did Christ always give glory to the father if he WAS the father? Same argument used against your point. Another, why at christs baptism did everyone hear a voice and see the HG descending as a dove, while Jesus himself was in the water? Three separate beings witnessed as being separate. Why would God confuse us in this way? Unless... its just the way it appears. Three separate beings. Theres TONS of other evidences. Like why is only Christ called "the Judge", "the savior" etc? If they are one in the same, it should be interchangable not always distinctly different.
3) You make the argument that the Trinity was accepted long before Nicea. Not true. And obviously its STILL being debated today. Read history, not propaganda.
4) Thanks for admitting that a creed is man made. That is all that needs to be said about it. Your convoluted argument that there is some incremental spiritual evidences of the Trinity just doesn't hold water. Like I said in my article. THIS doctrine is of such import that it should have at least have had some miraculous confirmation on the scale of Christ's baptism or the day of Pentecost to verify its truth. The fact of the matter is that it got squat. Read accounts of Nicea. I dare any one to do that and say it was of God.
5) Thanks again for agreeing with me (to some extent) about Constantine. And you're right. God will use whoever he chooses, but for something so important HE would have given us some way to identify his calling. Everything I've studied says that Constantine was only a politician, NOT a prophet.
6) Lastly, and again, thanks for agreeing with me that this whole thing is unknowable. That is the strongest argument that I made, and you are again making it for me.

Seems like I've convinced you! :)
Dingleberry - 6/16/2010, 5:33 PM
Really good argument, really impressive, truly is logical. How can you argue recorded history?

When I was in high school this was one of my favorite subjects because I always asked the same question and always stopped any further conversation about the subject because my question was straight forward.

My question was "Can God the Almighty Die?" very simple answer of, no. Yet Jesus Christ died for our sins....

So I had some that would argue that the body died only but the spirit lived on, and I ask where is that stated? There isn't any reference that Christ continued to exist beyond the grave after his death. He was the same state that he told his disciples early in his ministry happens to dead ones, remember the little girl and Lazarus, didn't he not say they were simply "sleeping"? (unconscious - Ecle.9:5,10)

For three days there was no Christ, so in "Trinity terms", no God, but you and I know that this is impossible because God cannot die, him dying well that pretty much shows his limited power of being God.

So long story short, this argument was settled in high school and sometimes in recent times when talking with coworkers and neighbors about the subject, using that hard hitting question. Your explanation was really good, I'm going to use it when defending the faith, thanks much. (Direct answer is found in Habakkuk 1:12)
SimpleObserver - 8/17/2010, 12:54 PM
Very good and true observation on the Trinity. May I add a fourth reason. If one believes in the reality of the resurrection then the trinity by definition is false. Christ was a resurrected being with the New Testament providing powerful evidence of this. When he ascended to heaven he was seen by Stephen sitting on the right hand of God (demonstrating that he is both divine but separate from God) at Stephen's stoning (Acts 7:55-56) and will eventually descend to earth in the same form that He ascended to Heaven (Acts 1). He both prayed to God several times and heard the voice of God acknowledging Him at His baptism. His life and ministry bore record of His separate identify, yet prayed to His disciples in John 17 that they would become one as He is with the Father. Hence the only "oneness" is unity and character, not a physical oneness. I would love to discuss this principle further with anyone who would like to at james.jensen.light@gmail.com
jjensen - 7/24/2011, 9:34 PM
Thank you for expounding on the trinity doctrine. There are many churches out here that do not realize, or some may even do this intentionally where there Christian faith is derived from catholicism (which is mentioned in this article from the early Roman Catholic church from Constantine I, the Council of Nicaea). Christianity today is perverse because of this doctrine. Many believe that God is three distinct persons or individuals. If you look up the word "distinct", it means "separate", or "distinguished". The trinity doctrine states that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but is one God. Truly this does NOT make any sense. If they believe that there is one God, how can you say that He is three distinct persons? It is basically saying that there are three separate Gods because they are distinct one from another (derived from tritheism). Many take the bible so literally that one begins to think that Jesus is distinct from the Father. The bible states that Jesus is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), and he is the Almighty (Rev 1:8). I do agree, the Spirit of God cannot die, and indeed the flesh of Jesus died on the cross. Jesus is the Son of God because he is the seed of David according to flesh (Romans 1:3), and the root and offspring of David (Rev 22:16). The trinity doctrine states God as three persons. The word person in the greek is "hypostasis". According to the Word of God, the plurality of "persons" is not use as the sense describing the Godhead (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost). The ONLY verse where this greek text is used in Hebrews 1:3 where it states that Jesus is the expressed image of His "person" meaning "a setting or placing under, substructure, foundation". Notice it is used in singular form, not plural. Jesus is the name of God by inheritance (Hebrews 1:4), and in him (Jesus) dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). The Lord must take office of the name of Jesus (the Son) until all things are in subjection under his feet (Hebrews 1:8) meaning when prophecy comes to past in the book of Revelation regarding the enemy being defeated forever. The Lord God had to set abode upon a bodily form (to be revealed or manifest), to save his people from their sins Jhn 1:1, Mt 1:21. According to the book of Isaiah chp 44:6, 8 there is no one beside God. When Stephen was stoned and looked up to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God, it did not mean that he was literally beside God, that means this statement would contradict what the Lord stated in the book of Isaiah. The right hand means "a place of honour and authority". Remember God is a Spirit, not a person, we cannot see Him, he does not have any shape or form, except through Jesus. In fact no one has seen God at any time according to Jhn 1:18. This is why Jesus told Philip, he who seen me has seen the Father Jhn 14:9. So again, Jesus is not the second person of a trinity, but according to flesh he is the Son of man, the Son of God, the high priest, chief cornerstone, the last Adam made a quickening spirit. This office of Jesus Christ must reign until the enemy is defeated, while the devil is already a defeated foe, but until everything has been made under subjection, Jesus Christ (his authority) must reign.

So in conclusion, the trinity doctrine is not according to the word of God. When the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are mentioned in the Word of God, this means how the Lord revealed (or manifested) himself to humanity for reconciliation (2 Cor 5:19). The name of the Father is Jesus (Jhn 5:43) our Creator, the name of the Son is Jesus (Mt 1:21, Lk1:31) our Savior, the name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus (Jhn 14:26) for regeneration (rebirth, baptism of the Holy Ghost) Titus 3:5. Right now Jesus (as a man) is the mediator between us and him (as God) 1 Tim 2:5. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not names, but titles. You wouldn't call somebody father, they wouldn't answer you because this is not their name. There are deceiving spirits out in this world now, false prophets, and false teachers, so one must be careful and make sure that whoever teaches is backed up in the Word of God.
jay2410 - 11/14/2011, 10:12 AM
Can God die? Very good question, a question I never thought of before. First of all, Jesus never claimed to be God, but rather the Son of MAN. Secondly, who impreginated Mary? It was the Holy Spirit, which makes Him the father of Jesus. The bible says in Matthew 28:19 to be baptized in the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost......NAME.....Father is not a name, but a title. Son is not a name, but a title. Holy Ghost is not. Name, but a title. It says NAME, which brings us to Acts 2:38, which Amy's to be baptized in the NAME of Jesus Christ. Jesus made a couple of statements; He said that Him and the Father are ONE. He also said if you seen Him, you have seen the Father. The church teaches Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. This does not add up, as you can not be 200%. I believe the father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 seperate beings, but there is only one God, the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit serve under Him.
GodsKid66 - 9/12/2012, 8:44 AM
I would like to expound more on my comment. Would Jesus be the Father? The reason why I ask this is because the bible says that all things wee created by Him (Jesus.) not to mention the above verses I quoted about Jesus making the statements of if you seen Him, you have seen the Father and how and His Father are one. I would like to challenge everyone to google a man named William Branham. He was a preacher who preached against the trinity and bought out some good points as well.
GodsKid66 - 9/12/2012, 8:50 AM
http://www.williambranham.com/

http://www.williambranham.com/featured_stories/the-truth-on-water-baptism/
GodsKid66 - 9/12/2012, 8:53 AM
Dear Mr. Dingle, your statement is true & well researched.
about the only thing I would ask to add if I may, would be
Proverbs 8:22-32, & how many times is it said that our GOD is one? We have to look for our self & not others for answers, tv preachers aren't always right.
rws108 - 9/20/2012, 6:18 PM
Trinity is a false doctrine. Very comprehensive details regarding Godhead explained in an amazing way with Biblical evidence in

http://voiceofarchangel.com/topics1.php#C1
bigTrumpet - 12/29/2012, 9:47 AM
This info should add some insight for future readers on this site. Scholars have determined that the 2 primary scriptures used to prove the trinity were not in the original manuscripts as they appear in todays King James bible.Those verses that were altered/added to,are Matthew 28:19 and 1John 5:7.I won't cite all my research but what I have said is true and can be verified by those interested in researching the truth about the trinity and its origin.The information is readily available and is known to be true even by trinitarian believing scholars.Problem is that coming clean on this false belief about God the Father and Jesus Christ(who are of the Godhead)would ruin their careers.Hope this helps.Best regards.
Bradford - 2/20/2013, 5:11 PM
At Niceae the question was about Jesus being begotten and being the first creation which God is not a creation as he was and always will be forever. The bible answers this question for us which shows that at Niceae they did not use the bible to answer their question at all.

DARBY Translation @ Col 1:15 15 who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;

New World Translation Col 1:16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

Revelation 3:14 Darby Translation (DARBY)
14 And to the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

Here is it suppose to be talking about Jesus not God the father. He was the Begining of all creation before he took on a fleshly form.

John 1:14 Amplified Bible (AMP)
14 And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth.

John 3:16 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So Jesus pre-human existance he was the first born of all creations and the only directly begotten son and all other creations where made through him naturally with his fathers direction.

The fact scriptually shows that he was a creation and his father Jehovah as Psalms 83:18 shows is alone the true god over the earth was never created. That also means they are not the same and not a triunion God as the apostate Christain religions teach Starting with the Roman Catholic Church as the first major Apostate organization and blood guilty as all sin with war, torture and murder of millions under their belts.




HawkNo1 - 7/2/2013, 5:07 AM
Sorry Hawk but Jesus Christ before He came down here in the flesh,co-existed eternally with the Father as the Logos or Word. This is clearly described in scripture.Jesus Christ(the Word) was actually the Person of the Godhead(which currently consists of 2 Beings)that was the God that interfaced with Israel in the Old Testament.It was His voice(hence He is called the Word)that gave the 10 commandments at Sinai and spoke to Moses. There are only 3 recorded times in the entire bible where the Father spoke,and they occurred in the New Testament while Jesus Christ was here on Earth. All other times when you read of an audible voice from God, it is coming from the Word who became Jesus Christ in the flesh.Those that believe the trinity can never clearly understand what is stated above because they confuse God the Father with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit etc etc. I won't get into what the Holy Spirit is now except to say that it IS NOT a person of the Godhead like the Father and Jesus Christ are.Scripture records clearly that there is one God(the Father)and He has a Son(Jesus Christ)Regards.
Bradford - 7/20/2013, 6:10 PM
Speaking to the scripture where Jesus Christ said that He and the Father were one, Jesus was stating that He and the Father were of one accord,one mind in purpose,and in agreement. This scripture does not mean that Jesus is saying HE and the Father are the same Being.That is obviously what confused Trinitarians say it means but there are Dozens of scriptures that prove otherwise.Start reading your bible from this perspective and God the Father thru his holy spirit(not capitalized because the holy spirit IS NOT a he)will clear the confusion in your mind caused by hearing years of trinity false teaching. Best regards.
Bradford - 7/24/2013, 1:32 PM
One of the best books I have ever read on this subject is "The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity's Self-inflicted Wound" by Anthony F. Buzzard. It's available at Amazon. GREAT book!!!
SherryMarion - 5/3/2014, 3:53 PM
Furthermore, I just want to say that the more I study this topic, the more I see that is a VERY BIG DEAL in Christianity, not just a minor difference in semantics or theology that can be easily overlooked. The God of the Hebrews was very clear that He was One God, not three. Worshipping more than one God is idolatry and that is the worst sin in His Eyes - worshipping other Gods. The trinity stems from paganism. Israel was surrounded by pagans and God continuously warned Israel to keep themselves pure by not associating with or practicing any of their pagan religions. Solomon's downfall was taking pagan wives who influenced him away from the true God.
SherryMarion - 5/3/2014, 3:58 PM
Gen 1:1-3
In the beginning God (Father)created the Heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God (Holy Ghost)moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Jesus Christ)

------------------------
Matt 3:16-17
And Jesus, (The son)when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God (Holy Ghost)descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (God the Father)

--------------
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(John 1:14)
(And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.)





Storm - 6/30/2014, 1:58 PM
Ever heard of Oneness? I believe doctrine does divide.. Especially man made doctrine. Arguing about doctrine does not accomplish anything. When Jesus returns for His people we will all see for ourselves whether there is 3 or 1. I personally believe that there is only One. I believe Father, Spirit, and Son are roles of Almighty God. Not separate "persons" or beings. Doesn't the Bible state that God is a jealous God? To say that there are 3 persons next to Him would make Him jealous, would it not? There is no clear evidence that the Trinity is true, so I choose not to believe it. The Oneness, however, is evident throughout the Bible. My advice for anyone looking to argue about this matter: make sure that your beliefs are in line with the Bible. Don't just take your pastors word for it. Find it out for yourself in the scripture. The revelation of Jesus is a very life changing experience. I pray you all get the chance to experience it.
Timmster97 - 10/28/2014, 3:09 PM
Dear Barry and Co,
This forum started in 2009, so I am perhaps the new kid on the block: Hi All …!
I started to study the Trinity in 1995, shortly before I retired from working in I.T. in a large Life Assurance office (Old Mutual) …, so I have been involved in this study for some time. So …
1. My first point is that I agree 100% with the idea that the Trinitarian or ‘3-in-1’ definition is flawed and worthless, maybe inspired by Satan behind the scenes, or even in his image. Also, understanding the Gods is vital for knowing / relating to Them personally (Jer.9:24).
2. I see that you often go back to Roman Emperor Constantine’s involvement in the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. He was by no means a ‘holy’ man. He strangled his wife, Fausta, in her bath tub with his bare hands, which is ‘not nice’; then he had his eldest son, Crispus, murdered, which was also ‘not nice’. His main interest was the future of ‘his’ empire – and he was generally a very unpleasant character – ambitious, but susceptible to flattery.
3. He imposed monotheism on the Christian Church, such as it was at the time, with the threat that he would re-introduce regular persecution of Christians with immediate effect. With maybe 200 church delegates at the Council, the threat was very real and personal! So, they gave in to him. (If the church was already monotheistic, it couldn’t be an issue.)
4. The ‘3-in-1’ idea was first publicly proposed by Athenagorus, a Church Father, in AD 177, about 150 years earlier. So the church leaders of the day conveniently introduced the pagan ‘3-in-1’ idea into the Christian Church because they probably felt that they had to maintain the deity of the individuals, the Holy Spirit and Jesus, in some way – and the ‘3-in-1’ definition enabled them to do so. And with doubt, that bad guy Satan was deeply involved in all of these events, so I agree fully with Dingleberry (submitted in Sep. 2010). In our end of world in South Africa, I have been kicked out of 4 or more churches for being a heretic and going against the mainstream ‘3-in-1’ idea. (So Dingleberry, I would at least like, if you are agreeable, to get in touch with you and others as well!)
5. So far, the result is that few, if any, have changed their ideas as a result of what has been said over the last few years. So if this subject has been argued logically without a satisfactory conclusion up to this point, what been missing from the discussion so far?
6. I would like to suggest the following, simply because I have had more time than most to focus on this and other Biblical matters.
6.1. One first needs to back about 1500 years before Constantine to when the Hebrew people were still slaves in Egypt and the religious leaders (i.e., the priests) picked up their monotheistic ideas there from the upper class Pharoahs and others at the same educational (or philosophical) level in Egypt. The ordinary people, however, picked up their polytheistic ideas from the local peasants. So there was a constant religious tug-of-war going on between the Hebrew leaders and their followers. (I am over-simplifying, but that’s the general idea.)
6.2. Then Moses came along, encountered the Holy Spirit at the burning bush, Sinai, etc. Near the end of his life, he wrote (under the Holy Spirit’s prompting) Genesis to Deuteronomy. He also clashed many times with both the leaders and the ‘average’ Hebrew because he regularly referred to “the Gods” (plural), not God (singular), etc.
6.3. This introduces the next point, because in the English (and other languages as well) versions of the Bible we see “God” (with a capital “G”) always in the singular, but “gods” (lower case “g”) when it refers to idols. Grammatically, both should be plural, so what is going on? To put it simply, in Hebrew word for “gods” (plural) is Elohim and for “god” (singular) is Elowahh. However, when (Moses and) the Prophets were no longer alive after the Babylonian Exile, the religious leaders, when interpreting the Hebrew for their own people, and also when translating the Hebrew into other languages (e.g., the Greek Septuagint – around the second century BC), would treat Gods as God (singular) – and this occurs over 900 times in the Old Testament. This practice was naturally continued when translating into English and other languages. When the Greek and Roman theologians took over and were guided by the same philosophical (not Biblical) principles, philosophically-driven theology has been the rule ever since. If students go to university today, they are still usually expected to study philosophy with their theology, so what has changed? So much for the history.
6.4. So what does the Bible actually teach? (a) That there are three individuals – that part is simple, but it still causes problems because we think of God in the Greek sense of “God” meaning (only) one Supreme Being – and Jesus implies this inter-pretation when He refers to His Father as the only true God (i.e., the only One Who has no beginning and has always existed) in John 17:3. So, in what way do both the Holy Spirit and Jesus share the divine nature? if They have not always existed, do They still warrant being called “God”? So the search is not yet over. To understand this we have to go back to Genesis, consider some facts and ask some questions.
(a) Gen.1 gives not one, but three examples of natural genetic inheritance in verses 11-12, 20-22 and 24-25. So genetic inheritance is very important. Then in verses 26-28 genetic inheritance is applied when Adam and Eve are told to mate and bring forth after their own kind, which they do in due course. Question: Are their children less than human? No, of course not (or do some parents of naughty kids disagree?).
(b) Gen.2:21-23 describes the generation of Eve from Adam. Question: Is Eve less than human? No. of course not (although some male chauvinists may disagree!). To continue …: Why was Eve not created from scratch as Adam was? The Gods could have done so, but chose the former option. Again, the question again is: why? This is dealt with in (d) below, but let’s stop for a moment and go to Gen.17:1 where El Shaddai is first mentioned. Who is El Shaddai? El means God (singular), but what about Shaddai? Theologians say, Almighty (from Strong’s #7703), but is this so?
(c) To answer this we need to look at Shaddai more closely as two syllables (Shad + dai/day (pronounced dahee). If we look up these two words in Strong’s Concord-ance, we find that Shad (Strong’s #7699) means breast, pap or teat and that dai (Strong’s #1767 means (more than) enough, i.e., ample. So El Shaddai means God, Ample-breasted, which is as female/feminine as one can get. (In English, we use the same principle to split broken-hearted into two parts to get its meaning.) She is then the Holy Spirit who is the feminine partner of God the Father! Again, we think of “spirit” as something intangible, but in 1 Cor.15:44, Paul refers to a natural and a spiritual body, so ‘spirit’ is a tangible, enduring substance that lasts for ever! (In Rev.20:10, Satan and other evil spiritual (spirit) beings are thrown into the lake of fire and survive for ever, which is the second (living) death!)
(d) (The Spirit of) Wisdom in Proverbs is regularly referred to as “She” – and it is She Who rests on the Messiah in Isaiah 11:2. In Prov.8:22-26, we are given still further information. God the Father and the Holy Spirit give birth in heaven to Their Son, Jesus. Let’s see how this works. Verses 22-23 are easy to translate (where possessed sometimes refers to somebody being generated/formed in the womb). However, Who is this Person Whom Jehovah (the Lord, God the Father) generates as the very first of His works? In verses 24-26, the words “brought forth” (which are passive) are used. However, in the original Hebrew text the word means travail (see Strong’s #2342, which is active voice and refers to the process of giving birth!). So the One referred to in verses 22-23 must be feminine and so refers to the Holy Spi-rit, El Shaddai, who is the covenant partner (wife) of God the Father, and Who in verses 24-26 travails (giving birth) to the Son of God in heaven. So She is generated from within the Father (analogous to Eve from Adam) and together They are the Divine Parents of Jesus! So humans are in Their image in detail in every way! Finally, another point is worth mentioning … Evil angels in Gen.6:4 mate with human women and bear children, both before and after the flood, so spiritual DNA is com-patible with natural, i.e., human, DNA! (By the way, when Jesus died on the cross, His natural human body died and was resurrected. There is more that can be written about likeness, in Gen.1:26-28, but maybe that can come at some other time … .
(e) Ps.2 7 “I, Jehovah, declare and record [officially, as in legal document, in the books of heaven] that You are My Son; today I have given birth [Strong’s #3205 beget young – or calve, in an animal context] to you.” In any natural context [we are in Their image], it is obvious that mothers, not fathers, would say this!
(f) In Gen.19:24, Jehovah in heaven refers to the Holy Spirit and Jehovah on earth refers to the Son [see Is.48:16 where the Son & Holy Spirit work together.] Also see Gen.2:4: where “Jehovah” is the Gods’ family or (sur-)name. In Matt.28:20 “… baptising them in the [sur-]name [or family name, of “Jehovah”] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” fits in naturally and easily.
(g) Ps.22:9-10 – JESUS’ FLASHBACK TO HIS BIRTH IN HEAVEN … Now let’s turn to Ps.22, called the Psalm of the Cross in Gray’s Home Bible Commen-tary. 1 My God, why have You forsaken Me? (Matt. 27:46). 16 They pierced My hands and My feet (Lk.24:39-40; John 20:25-27) 18 They divide My garments among them; for My clothing they cast lots.” (Matt.27:35,46; Mk.15:24,34; John19:24). The speaker is Jesus, but suddenly He has a ‘flash-back’ to His birth, not on earth, but in heaven, because He’d been condemned for saying He was the Son of God! (Matt.26:63-64) and also to strengthen Himself in His suffering by re-membering precious moments with Them! Ps.22 9 You drew Me out of the womb and entrusted Me to My Mother's breasts. 10 I was placed [or pushed – push is a word commonly used during the birthing process to tell or encourage the mother as to what to do] on your lap from my birth. From my mother's womb You [Father] have been my God. (New Jerusalem Bible, Popular Edition) “To think you were the mid-wife at my birth, setting me on my Mother’s breasts! When I left the womb, You cradled Me [in Your arms]: since the moment of My birth, You have been my God.” (The Message) No baby born on earth could ever have said this, but the Son of God with an appropriately greater rate of development in His divine nature than we in our natural human natures, could and did say them!! The One who drew him from the womb and placed Him on His Mother’s breasts is God the Father; His Mother is the Holy Spirit! Could anything be clearer than this? … It also confirms what has been said about the Divine Family, and about El Shaddai (or Holy Spirit) being feminine!
(h) Now for a brief look at the New Testament – Mk.12:24-25 and Eph.3:14-15 … Mk.12 24 Jesus said: “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you don’t know the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. … Eph.3 14 “… I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom every family in heaven and earth is named [or: takes its name]. So … what do these verses tell us?? … Although angels (or we) do not marry & form families, there is nevertheless a family in heaven (Eph.3:15); so that family in heaven must comprise God the Father,  the Holy Spirit and  Their Son, Jesus! There is no other possible alternative! … Also see John 3:16-17; John 17, etc. (i) In Gen.19:24, Jehovah in heaven refers to the Holy Spirit and Jehovah on earth refers to the Son [see Is.48:16 where the Son & Holy Spirit work together.]
(j) All three individuals are God by virtue of sharing the same divine nature, just as all people are human by virtue of sharing the same human nature. The philosophical meaning that God is the (only) Supreme Being is misleading.

Regards, Heffalump.

heffalump - 11/19/2014, 7:19 AM
Hi, it's Heffalump again, I just want to mention some typing errors that I found after submitting the above contribution. I am a terrible proof reader even after checking more than 10 times! so, ...
In paragraph 4, "And with doubt" should read: "And without doubt".
In para.5, "what been missing" should read "what's been missing".
In para. 6.3, "in Hebrew word" should read "in Hebrew, the word".
In para. 6.4(f), "Gen.2:4" should "Gen.2:4 & Ex.6:3".
In para. 6.4(g), "New Jerusalem Bible" should read "The Jerusalem Bible, published 1974) and "The Message" should read "The Message, First Edition, first published in South Africa in 1996).
Regards, Heffalump.
heffalump - 11/22/2014, 1:37 PM

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.