Home
The Trinity doctrine of mainstream christianity is glorified by its adherents. To them the fact that it is so hard to understand, if not impossible to understand, is proof positive that it is true. I have experienced for myself a certain mindset in christianity that says that if you think "too much" (in their eyes), or study "too much", then there is danger of losing your way, becoming too intellectual to just have that "pure" and "simple" faith, that faith which is needed to accept such statements as "God is one, but three" or "there are over 300 messianic prophecies in scripture" or "there is such thing as a spiritual fulfilment to literal prophecy, to make it possible to have two fulfilments of a single prophecy". They seem to eschew, shun, searching the scriptures and applying logic and reason on a certain level, as if to say, "only search as much as it agrees with the "fact" that Jesus is Messiah".
Their approach to understanding seems to be the opposite of what Solomon said in his writings:
Get wisdom, get understanding: forget not, and depart not from the sayings of my mouth... The beginning of wisdom: Get wisdom, and in all your getting, get understanding. (Proverbs 4:5,7)
There is a time and a place for simplicity, and there is a time and a place to actually know and understand things in order to ascertain what is true and possible in reality. It is a foolish thing to believe that something is true simply because it cannot be understood. A square-circle cannot be understood, but it cannot be true or real based on the definitions of a square and a circle. It makes no difference whether it is a divine square-circle or a material one.
In the case of the trinity doctrine, it ought to be searched and tested to see if it can be true. I've already dealt with it on a scriptural basis (in my Trinity article), showing it to only be a distortion of scripture and basic polytheism, a belief in three gods, despite trinitarian's claims of "monotheism", a belief in a singular deity (from the greek μονος monos meaning single, only, alone (without a companion), and θεος theos, meaning deity). I also dealt with the logical side of it for some time, but in the article I want to share something I read which really sums up the logical absurdity that such a belief as the trinity has to be.
I warn you now that it is not easy reading. The sentences can be long. But if you take it slowly, in your own pace, and think about it, you can get through it. It is the same with reading anything: if you put effort into it, you can understand it.
Now what I am about to quote is taken from http://www.jewish-history.com/ which contains articles and letters which were written in the 19th century. I am quoting from what is know as "Dias' Letters" or Dea's Letters, "A Jewish Look at the New Testament", from Letter 20, called "Comprehending the Concept of Trinity". The link is http://www.jewish-history.com/Occident/volume6/apr1848/dias20.html. What follows will be a excerpt from that letter.
I shall conclude this article with the opinions of the greatest geniuses of our age. The first is Mr. Wollaston, who says, "He who exists of himself, depends in no regard upon another, and (as being a Supreme Cause) in the foundation of existence to other beings, must exist in the uppermost and best means of existing; and not only so, but (since He is infinite and unlimited), He must exist in the best manner, unlimitedly and infinitely; now, to exist thus, is infinite goodness of existence; and to exist in a manner infinitely good, is to be perfect. There can be but one such being, that is, as it appears by Prop. 3d, that there must be at least one independent being, such as is mentioned in Prop. 1st; so now, that in reality, there is but one; because his manner of existence being perfect and unlimited. That manner of being, (if I may speak so) is exhausted by Him, or belongs solely to Him; if any other could partake with Him in it, He must want what that other had; be deficient and limited; infinite and unlimited, enclose all. If there could be two beings, each by himself absolutely perfect, they must be either of the same, or different natures; of the same they cannot be; because, thus both being infinite, their existence would be coincident; that is, they would be but the same one. Nor can they be of different natures; because if their natures were opposite, or contrary, one to the other, being equal, (infinite both, and everywhere meeting, the one with the other,) the one would just destroy, or be the negation of the other."
The following is a translation of part of Mr. Locke's Letter to Mr. Limborch, dated 2d April, 1698. (See his Works.) "The question you propose is reduced to this 'How the unity of God may be proved,' or, in other terms, 'How it can be proved that there is but one God?' To resolve this question, it is necessary to know, before we come to prove the unity of God, what we understand by the word God. The ordinary idea, and I believe the true idea, we have of God, and of such who know his existence, is that he is an infinite Being, eternal, incorporeal, and all-perfect. Then, from this known idea, it seems to me easy to deduce the unity of God. In effect, a being all-perfect, or otherwise, perfectly perfect, cannot be but solely; because, a being all-perfect cannot want any of the attributes, perfections, or degrees of perfection, which imports him more to possess than to be deprived of; for otherwise he would want as much as would make him entirely perfect. For example: to have power is a much greater perfection than to have none; to have still greater power, is a greater perfection than to have less; and to have all power, which is to be almighty, is a greater perfection than to want any part of it. This proved, two beings, almighty, are incompatible; because we should be obliged to suppose, that one would necessarily will that which the other would, and, in that case, one of the two, in which the will is, must necessarily determine the will of the other, who could not be free, and would, consequently, want that perfection, which we have treated of. For 'tis better to be free, than to be submissive to the determination and will of another. And if they are not reduced to the necessity of willing always one and the same thing: in such case, the one might act that which the other would not, and then the will of the one would prevail over the will of the other, and he of the two, whose power could not second his will, cannot be almighty; for he cannot do as much as the other. Of course, then, there are not two almighty beings, nor can there be two almighty beings, consequently there cannot be two Gods. By the same idea of perfection, we attain to the knowledge of God being omniscient; so that the supposition of two distinct beings which have a power, and one distinct will, is an imperfection, that one cannot screen his thoughts from the other; but if one can screen his thoughts from the other, then cannot the other be omniscient; for not only be does not know that which may be known; but, likewise, does not know what the other knows. The sane may be said of God's omnipresence. It is better he should be in the vast extent of infinite space, than to be excluded from the smallest part of space; for if he is excluded from any part of space, he cannot operate, nor know what is done in that space, and consequently, can neither be almighty nor omniscient. If against this reasoning it should be said that the two gods which they suppose, (or the two hundred thousand, for by the same reasoning that there may be two, there may be two million, for there is no method of limiting the number,) I say if they suppose, that several gods, have one perfect almighty, that is exactly the same power; and have also the same knowledge, the same will, and that they equally exist in the same place, it is only multiplying the same being.
But in the end, they do but reduce one supposed plurality to one true unity. For to suppose two intelligent beings, who know, will, and do incessantly the same thing, and have not a separate existence, is nothing more than to suppose, in words, one plurality, and to admit, effectually, one simple unity. For the being inseparably united by the will, by the understanding, by the action, and by the place, is as great an union as one intelligent being, can possibly be united to himself; and, consequently, the supposing that, where there is such an union, there can be two beings, is to suppose a division where there can be none; or a thin divided with itself." There requires no addition to the plain, clear, and convincing reasoning of the foregoing learned persons. I shall only apply to the subject of these letters, the words of the excellent Archbishop Tillotson, when he tells us: "That if all the great mathematicians, of all ages, Archimedes, and Euclid, and Appolonius, and Diophantus, &c., could be supposed to meet in a general council, and should there declare, in a most solemn manner, and give it under their hands and seals, that twice two did not make four, but five, that this would not in the least move him to be of their mind,"* and of this opinion must all reasonable people be, by what names or epithets they may be called. I am, &c.
As I said in my other article, such words, powerful as they are, will not be the death-knell of the Trinity doctrine, since people hold to such notions based on many things other than reason. You can reason with these people until you are blue in the face, and even when you show them the fact that such a belief is contradictory, they will still stubbornly hold to their belief as a pagan holds onto his idols due to some irrational notion that he sees beyond the physical and into the "spiritual". You could show these people (and I'm talking about christians here) plain scripture refuting their belief, but again they will claim to either see beyond the plain words of scripture and into the so-called "spiritual" meaning, or will rely on the words of their authority figures to "refute" the plain words of scripture.
So a wise person will ask me, why even put effort into making these articles, quoting such arguments? What's the point? The same reason why the Decalogue was engraved in stone for the Israelites, even though they repeatedly broke the Almighty's commands in the future, and generations rejected Him. I see a two-fold purpose: 1) to show people the right way that they may accept it, and; 2) to be a witness against such people. To explain the second point, the two tablets of stone which contained the Decalogue were called "the tablets of testimony/witness" (Exodus 31:18; 32:15), which is why the ark that bore them was called "the ark of testimony/witness" (Exodus 25:21,22). To why this is, let me use the analogy of a contract being evidence of an agreement. When two people are married, they sign a marriage contract or certificate which confirms that these two people made certain statements of promise to one another. As long as the married couple stay together, that contract will be evidence for the fact that these two people are legally married. Should it ever happen that one of the parties in the marriage should be unfaithful and have sex with or cohabit with someone else, the writings in that contract will be evidence against the unfaithful party, because it confirms the statements of promise made at the marriage, and will show that the unfaithful party has broken the agreement, and therefore the consequences and punishments that will come upon that unfaithful person will be justified.
In the same way, the words of the Decalogue are evidence that such an agreement was made between the Israelites and Yahweh, their Deity. So as long as they were faithful, the Decalogue is evidence of their faithfulness. But if they are unfaithful, the Decalogue stands as a witness against, as evidence against the unfaithful people. You can see other uses of a witness in Deuteronomy 31:26, and Deuteronomy 32 (compare with Deut 4:26 and 31:19-22,28, which includes the notion that earth and heaven stand as witnesses just as people are witnesses of a marriage), Joshua 24:19-27 (a stone is used).
So this is how words, like those I quote above, can be witnesses against people. There may have been no marriage, but it is the responsibility of every human being who is able to seek truth. When it is set in front of someone, and they reject it, then, should there be an end judgment, it will be one more piece of evidence against the person who rejected it. The words will be "well, what about this word, or many words like it all over the internet, or on a bookshelf, or from someone's mouth, that you heard and read, and yet rejected because of a doctrine you didn't even understand?" And in the end, that person will be without excuse.
And in that, there is a scary truth for every single one of us, me included.
So as Solomon said:
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." "Get wisdom, and in all your getting, get understanding."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.