The trinity concept is really very simple. It is religious leaders - who want control or influence people and who want an 'easy living' - using religious fear and irrational claims to make people dependent upon them and support them.
Here is how it works. People are afraid of God due to religion preaching God's wrath and vengeance and justice, etc. to people over the millennia as well as people feeling guilty over their sins due to the conscience God gave us. So, people search for answers about God - what He is like and what He wants - and so they go to people who claim to be experts on God. These 'experts' affirm that God is a just God and does send people to hell. The people then turn to the religious leaders and ask, 'well, what does God want from me to avoid hell?' And the religious leaders say some form of, 'you need to listen to us to understand God and what He wants and you need to support our organization'. So, the first question many people ask is, 'what is God like'? And the religious leaders, liking people looking to them to understand God say, 'well, the first thing you must know is that he is a trinity being'. The religious leaders know at some level, that if the people figure out who God is and what He is like, they will no longer be needed. So, they invented and promote this belief of 'the trinity' AND they say you must believe in this 'trinity' in order to avoid hell. They tell the people that the trinity god is three persons but one god. Or, stated more simply, that three equals one. So, they have communicated a contradiction to the people and told the people that they must 'believe' this contradiction or else they will go to hell. And they tell the people that while they don't fully understand the trinity, they do have a better understanding of it/him than 'the laymen' so you better listen to them.
Christians are taught that there are no contradictions in the scripture, and yet an allowance is made for the belief of the trinity. Why? Usually the reason given is because we can't fully understand God's infinite nature. I would agree that we can't fully comprehend things that are infinite. As finite being, we cannot fully comprehend those things which are infinite, but we can describe them (inadequately, yes) with language that can be comprehended. But does this reasoning carry over to a knowing of His person? Does this mean we cannot know WHO God is and what He is like? Does it mean we can't know His personal characteristics like His love or compassion? If you answer "No" to these last questions - meaning we cannot know God's character - then according to Jesus, we cannot possess eternal life, for Jesus says, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Messiah Jesus, whom You have sent" (John 17:3). If the reader agrees that we can know God, then the reader should seriously examine why contradictions in the trinity teaching are allowable. This is especially true since this doctrine in particular is held up by the religious leaders as "required to believe in order to avoid hell".
(On a personal note, this author believed the trinity doctrine for over ten years. Over those ten years, I attended seminary and studied the bible and read many books on theology including many writings on the trinity doctrine.)
This is arguably one of the most important things Joshua said from our perspective, for he tells us how to enter into eternal life. It should deeply concern the reader that Christian religion has as one of its 'most sacred doctrines', a belief that causes confusion on knowing God. It seems to me that if God loves us, as Joshua taught, then God would have revealed Himself fully (of what we could comprehend) in terms of His person, characteristics, will for men, etc. In fact, Jesus himself says, "I have revealed Your name to the men whom You gave to me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things, whatever You have given me, are from You. For I have given to them the Words which You gave me, and they have received them and have known surely that I came out from You. And they have believed that You sent me."; and, "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master does. But I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you." (John 17:6-8; 15:15)
Therefore, Joshua did in fact fully reveal the Father to mankind...in fact, that was his primary purpose in coming to earth. Joshua knows that by knowing God, people will be set free to love and to do right.
If this be so, how can confusion and contradiction remain regarding knowing who Jesus is and who his Father is? We are not talking about an infinite aspect of God's nature, but rather the issue of who God is. Over 40 times in the four gospel books, Joshua CLEARLY distinguishes between his Father and himself. For example, God sent his Son (not Himself) as a MAN and thus we are to know Him through human characteristics. In no normal sense, ever, in human language, do we say that a father and a son are the same person or being. We can say they are very similar or that they have the same characteristics or that they are in near perfect agreement or unity, but we NEVER say they are the SAME PERSON. And yet, that is exactly what the religious leaders do.
The most common version of the trinity doctrine states that "God is three separate persons yet is one Person; there is one God, yet this God is manifest in three Persons - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit." Here is Dallas Theological Seminary's definition of the trinity, "We believe that the Godhead eternally exists in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and that these three are one God, having precisely the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and worthy of precisely the same homage, confidence, and obedience."
Obviously the phrase "that these three [persons] are one God" is contradictory, in terms of reasoning and logic - 1 is 1, not 3. How can God be three Persons and those three persons also be one person? A mild equivocation on this would be, "God is three persons yet one God". Well, does God have the attributes of a person e.g. communicates in a rational language; can reason, knows right from wrong, etc.? If the answer is "yes", then you are right back at a pure contradiction instead of a guised contradiction. If you don't like the term "person", it does not change the basic contradiction, for it remains in statements like, "God is three, and yet these three beings are one being"; or, "God is three, yet He is also one." No matter how you state it, what is being said is that three equals one.
Christians like to say that they base their beliefs on ALL the counsel of the scripture, and not just a few isolated verses. How does the trinity doctrine stand up to this approach to the scripture? Ask a Trinitarian for all the verses that plainly and clearly support the Trinitarian view. At the most, you will get maybe a half a dozen verses, and in fact there is not one verse in the entire bible that plainly states that God is three yet One [unless you point to 1 John 5:7, which is not found in ANY Greek manuscript before 1,000 AD...shouldn't this fact cause one to ponder a bit?]. If you take away the 3 or so inferential verses, then there are about 3 or 4 verses that are used to establish the Trinitarian doctrine. Yet how many verses clearly contradict the Trinitarian view?
There are hundreds.
This is not a matter of a few verses clarifying or modifying a concept. Rather, it is a matter of hundreds of verses contradicting less than half a dozen. The burning question that needs to be answered is why do people cling to the two or three, and reject the hundreds?
God is either One person or being, or not - this is a very simple and clear proposition. Should people rely on religious theologies or philosophies or psychological theories about the divided nature of God? When Joshua of Nazareth says, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46), why can't we receive the plain meaning, that Jesus of Nazareth has a God? Why must we instead run to strange psycho-philosophical, "dual nature" explanations? Perhaps because we are hanging onto a tradition of men? Perhaps the religious leadership establishment gains something important from maintaining that people must believe that one equals three?
Please consider the following two arguments:
1. The trinity doctrine is derived from the scripture and is contradictory, therefore the scripture has contradictions.
If this argument is correct, then the doctrines of biblical inspiration and inerrancy are false.
2. God is everywhere at the same time (omnipresent), and we cannot really understand that aspect of Him. Yet, we can know at some level, that He is omnipresent because we have language to express and communicate this truth - if this were not so, you could not comprehend what I just wrote. If we have language that enables us to have some understanding about even His infinite nature which we cannot fully comprehend, should we not also be able to understand His revelation to us using His Son to tell us who He is and His character?
If this is true, then His revealing of Himself should lead to our being able to know him without confusion or contradictions.
Believing the trinity doctrine causes the person using reason well to either accede that the scripture has contradictions regarding what the religious leaders claim is a "critical" doctrine regarding God's Person; or to conclude that the trinity doctrine is error; or both.
Of course, one could go the 'paradox' route and claim no contradictions exist. However, since we are dealing with precepts, reason and logic - and not circumstances, events or physical things - the paradox claim is erroneous.
The Trinitarian view is that while they (the Father and the Son) are separate persons, yet they are the same God. This view is irrational and contradictory and there are many hundreds of verses that plainly state that Jesus and his Father are not the same person. These verses, when using one step of deduction, contradict the trinity. In other words, every time Jesus refers to "his Father" or "my Father", the normal reading of that would mean that they are separate beings. It is only when one ebbs into weird religious beliefs that one would conclude that a person talking about their Father would include the possibility that they are actually the same person. In addition to these hundreds of scripture verses, there are dozens of verses that without deduction plainly and positively contradict the Trinitarian concept of Jesus being the Most High God.
Here are a few:
"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit up into the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil." (Matthew 4:1)
James 1:13, says in part, "for God cannot be tempted by evil".
Jesus was tempted by the devil to do evil, so Jesus cannot be God the Most High.
"Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father." (Matthew 20:23)
So Jesus, being God, has not the authority to grant places of honor for his servants? Doesn't it seem fairly obvious that this "Father", that Jesus speaks of is "greater than" Jesus? And if Jesus is the Most High God, how could that be?
"Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will." (Mark 14:36).
It is possible for the One Perfect God's will to be divided?
"My God, My God, why have your forsaken Me?" (Matt. 27:46)
God the Most High, has a God? The Most High God can forsake Himself?
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father". (Mark 13:32)
Jesus is the Most High God, but does not know something that his Father knows? A Trinitarian will cite verses to try and prove that Jesus is omniscient, yet how does the truth in this verse fit into that belief?
"And Jesus answered and said to him, "'It has been said, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God'" (Luke 4:12)
Jesus resisted Satan's temptation by saying that it would be sinful for him to tempt his Father. God can tempt Himself?
"Now it came to pass in those days that He (Jesus) went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God" (Luke 6:12).
The Most High God prays to Himself? The verse does not say, 'Jesus talked with his Father', but rather that he prayed to his "God". So God has a God he prays to?
"And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as my Father bestowed one upon me". (Luke 22:29)
The Most High God bestowed a kingdom upon Himself? Didn't God already have control over all Kingdoms?
"And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, he said, "'Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit'". Having said this, he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46)
God is spirit. The Holy Spirit is God's spirit. Whose spirit was committed into the hands of the Father? If it was Jesus', then there is division even in the spirit of God?
"No one has seen God at any time." (John 1:18 & 1 John 4:12)
What more can be said?
"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24)
Jesus teaches that, "God is spirit", not that God is flesh, and thus the truth that "No one has seen God at any time" and therefore Jesus of Nazareth is not God.
"If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father', for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
If Jesus is truly the Most High God, equal with his Father, than how can his Father be "greater" than he, in any respect? This is especially true in this context, as the context speaks nothing about physical things or his physical nature.
"But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break his legs." (John 19:33)
The Almighty God, God the Most High, the Eternal One, died?
"'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God." (John 20:17)
Jesus is ascending to his "God". How can the Most High God have a God?
"Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:28)
Jesus will be made subject to God in the final consummation. How can the Most High God be made subject to Himself?
"But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, 'Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!" (Acts 7:55-56)
How is it that the Most High God is either seated or standing next to Himself?
"…having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb. 1:4)
What does the Most High God need to inherit? Doesn't He already own all things? The Most High God needed to obtain a more excellent name than the angels?
"Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions." (Heb. 1:9)
Again, God the Most High has a God? Would it not be more reasonable to say that there is the Most High God, the Father, and His God-like Son?
"…though He was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. And having been perfected…" (Heb. 5:8-9)
The Most High God needed to learn obedience? To whom? The Most High God needed to be perfected?
"Then he (Jesus, the Lamb OF God) came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him (God the Father) who sat on the throne." (Rev. 5:7)
The Most High God is taking a scroll from the Most High God?
Matt. 28:18-20, " And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Who gave him authority? Himself? Supposedly asking people to baptize people "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" does NOT logically conclude that all three entities are the same person! In fact, it would only mean that there are three entities, and that is all.
John 5:15-18, "The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16 For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” 18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
Fact one, Jesus does not say that he is his Father, and in fact makes a clear distinction between the two when he says, "My Father is working until now, and I myself as working". Fact two, the Jew's reasoning that because he "was calling God his own Father, makes him equal with God" is fallacious. For example, because a king's son calls his dad his father does not make him equal with his father from any perspective. More importantly, Jesus does not say, "was calling God his own Father, making him God". Thus, to argue this supports the trinity is a fallacious argument.
John 8:56-59, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
Here, Joshua merely says he existed before Abraham. This does not make him God, nor is it a claim like, "I am God". Biblian's make a big deal out of this due to some Hebrew scripture wording, but not based on reason or the text at hand, but rather what they want the text to say. Again, what the text does say is that Joshua existed before Abraham, and that is all.
John 10:27-38, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
'The Jews' that the author of the gospel of John was referring to in this passage, were very sensitive about people making God claims because they wanted to control the people's view of God. So, when Joshua says, "I and the Father are one", they wrongly try and stone him for blasphemy. So, Joshua merely says that he and his Father are in perfect unity, as he will state again in John 14. However, since the Jews did not accept Joshua as their Messiah, they were looking for any reason to harm him. So, when he makes a statement about unity, they twist it to have him saying, 'I am God'. Joshua corrects their error when he plainly confesses, "I am the Son of God". To hear Joshua's correction of, "...do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"; and to try and use this to support the 'trinity', is to make the SAME error that the original people made in this passage!!! Joshua plainly confesses, "I am the Son of God", but equally twisted people want to make him say, "I am God as well".
John 14:6-12, ""Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father."
More statements of unity from Joshua. Again, he plainly distinguishes himself from his Father when at the beginning of the passage, he says, "...come to the Father but through me." Clearly two beings. Joshua's primary purpose in his first visit was to reveal the Creator, his Father, to mankind. The simplest way for him to communicate that was for him to say, 'look at me and you will see the Father'. And this is what he does in this passage. To take Joshua's unity/oneness statements and ignore statements like, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" and "I go to the Father", is to read the trinity doctrine into passages like this.
John 16:12-15, “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."
To see a 'trinity' in this passage, is again to ebb into weird religious 'thinking'. All the passage is saying is that there is a metaphysical entity he calls "the Spirit", which entity will help Joshua's disciples receive the truth that Joshua gave when he visited earth. This Spirit works with both Joshua and the Father to help Joshua's followers receive the truth who is Joshua and the truth's he spoke about God which were written down in the four gospel books. To say this passage somehow supports that Joshua is God and the Spirit is God is fallacious reasoning.
This author has had quite a few people respond to this article who try to defend the trinity doctrine. Their main argument is that I can't see that Jesus is both man and God, and if I would just see this 'truth', then I could see the trinity doctrine. My first response is that I was a Trinitarian for 10 years and I had accepted that belief without questioning it, for my masters were the religious leaders who said I needed to believe that in order to be accepted by God.
The philosophy-teachings of the dual nature works quite well in defending the trinity doctrine, for one just switches back and forth between Jesus being man and God, depending upon the scripture passage being looked at. Unfortunately for the Trinitarian, Jesus does NOT teach the dual nature concept. Jesus teaches that his Father is spirit and never flesh. Jesus teaches that the most high God, his Father, alone is the most high God. For the above citations of scripture, the Trinitarian says that those passages refer to Jesus as man, not as God. But Jesus NEVER taught that his Father was also a man, nor did he teach that he was his Father or that he was the Most High God.
The Trinitarian just assumes the dual nature teaching and then fits the scripture into this teaching. Again, the problem with this is that the dual nature teaching/philosophy is not only NOT taught by Jesus, but in fact has no scriptural basis (the Trinitarian's supposed standard). Jesus nowhere says that he and his Father are the same person, and in fact, Jesus repeatedly - over a hundred times - distinguishes between himself and his Father as two separate people. As Jesus taught in John 4:24, God is spirit, and he no where qualified this to say that God at some point would also be flesh. John taught that Jesus manifests the Father, NOT THAT JESUS WAS THE FATHER. "God is spirit" is Jesus' teaching regarding the nature of his Father, the Most High God. Joshua's plainest confession of who he is in relation to the Father is this, "I am the Son of God".
What is unclear about those facts?
Only men wanting to justify their pet doctrines and nullify that truth say, 'no, God is not just spirit, he also took on flesh for he has a dual nature...no, Jesus is not just the Son of God, he is God Himself'.
To use an illustration in terms of bringing understanding on this issue - in human terms, a father and son who are really close, can be in almost perfect unity in all things. In addition, the father can grant his son all his rights and authority, if he chooses. He can even lend his son his name, so that the son can do everything the father does. While this is an imperfect analogy, does it not lend some light on the relationship of the heavenly Father and His Son?
This author is not a Jehovah's Witness - never has been and never plans to be. While the Jehovah's witnesses have a correct understanding of a One Most High God truth, they are in error in believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the re-incarnated arch angel Michael. According to their own 'sacred scripture', instead of properly exalting Jesus to the place of God the Father's unique and glorious Son, they bring him to a lower place of glory - that of the angels. Thus, they ignore the scripture they say is inspired of God - Heb. 1:4 says of Jesus of Nazareth, "…having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." The rest of Hebrews chapter one makes its case very clear for who the author thinks Jesus is - the only begotten God-like Son of the One true and living God - whose name is above all names (except the Father, of course).
Why do Christians reject the many sayings of Joshua that refute the Trinitarian view, in favor of the less than half a dozen which could be used to support it? Why do Christian's reject Jesus own confession of who he is?
If there were a time and context to say plainly who he was, then that situation was it, and he did! The confession could not be any clearer, but just leave it to the religious leaders and 'scholars' so called to explain this plain confession away.
Jesus of Nazareth is properly honored by believing who HE says he is, not by making him into something he is not like Rome's doctrine of Mary does to Mary. If someone comes along and says that Jesus of Nazareth ought to be honored above his Father, are you going to do that? Will that glorify Jesus more?
Christianity (Roman, Protestant, non-denominational, whatever...) makes the trinity doctrine its most important litmus test for "orthodoxy". This author does not, for this author can understand how people are confused regarding this doctrine, for this author sincerely believed the trinity doctrine for many years due to my not caring enough about what is true and by having the religious leaders as my masters instead of the Light. However, it is very significant that the trinity doctrine is usually placed at the top of Christianity's official statements of "faith" (really, their doctrinal litmus tests for membership in their religious organizations).
First of all, this belief has no bearing on a practical living out of the faith, and so to set it up as one of the top doctrines of "orthodoxy" perfectly fits into the error of trying to please God primarily with the mind instead of with the heart and will/behavior (see Faith Versus Religion). One can have faith in God and Jesus and follow Jesus while rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine. To deny this is irrational and to be in bondage to a tradition of men - it is to not understand what faith is (See Faith versus Doctrine). Secondly, to have a contradictory doctrine as one of the top beliefs defining "orthodoxy" perfectly serves the religious organizations by making the people dependent upon the religious leaders. Let us run through it again with a slightly different method:
1. The rational person using sound reason will reject the proposition that one equals three, whether persons or objects for that matter;
2. Most people are respecter's of men and honor the religious leaders and depend on them to tell them how they can be accepted by God;
3. One must accept the trinity in order to have the religious leaders declare they are accepted by God;
4. One will believe a contradiction in order to be declared accepted by the religious leaders who allegedly represent God;
5. To believe a plain contradiction to receive the religious leader's acceptance (and thus they believe God's acceptance) makes a person completely dependent upon the religious leaders for what to believe since reason and rational thought obviously have no place in God's economy since one must believe that 1 equals 3 in order to be accepted by God.
Conclusion: The religious leaders use the trinity doctrine to make people rely upon them for understanding God and how to be accepted by God, and with this comes much power over the people and all the associated benefits of that power.
Sadly, the people are trusting in their religious leaders INSTEAD OF Jesus who says he is the Truth, and Jesus does not say that we must believe contradictions in order to be accepted by his Father. Why do the people do this?
This author does not condemn those who believe the Trinitarian belief, and does not look at it as a high priority to convince them otherwise. Does this attitude extend the other way? In other words, will those who hold to the Trinitarian belief accept this author as accepted by God when they find out that this author rejects the Trinitarian view? If they will not accept this author, but rather condemn him as a heretic or some other nasty label - and this in spite of the fact that this author has hundreds of 'scripture verses' that support his belief - then what does that say about the Trinitarian belief and those who hold it so tightly? What is says is they reject the most important commands of Jesus - namely love - and instead substitute a shallow doctrinal litmus test in order to accept - or even be kind to - those who have a different view.
Please, enter into his Life and come, join the Peaceful Revolution!