by Edip Yuksel

ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota
| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |

1+1+1=1 or 1=1+1+1 Trinity?
"We worship one  God  in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in  Unity;
neither  confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance
(Prayer Book, 1662). The Father is God, the Son is God,  and
the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but
one God." (Athanasian Creed).
Millions of Christians believe  in  the  "Holy  Trinity"  on
faith. Through this formula they have made Jesus the "Son of
God",  and  even  God  himself.  However,  history,   logic,
mathematics,  the Old Testament, and the New Testament prove
the contrary: Jesus was not Lord, he was a human just as  we
all are.
                                       What is the Trinity?
The  doctrine  of  Trinity is found in many pagan religions.
Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are  the  Trinitarian  godhead  in
Indian  religions.  In  Egypt there was the triad of Osiris,
Isis and Horus; in Babylon, Ishtar, Sin, Shamash; in Arabia,
Al-Laat,  Al-Uzza,  and  Manat.  The Encyclopedia Britannica
(1975) gives a critical piece of information:
"Trinity, the doctrine of  God  taught  by  Christians  that
asserts  that  God  is one in essence but three in 'person,'
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither the word Trinity,  nor
the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament,
nor did Jesus and his followers  intend  to  contradict  the
shema  in  the  Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our
God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4)"
This information on Trinity contradicts the  faith  of  most
Christians.  They believe that Matthew 28:19 and John1:1 and
some other verses clearly provide a basis for  the  doctrine
of  Trinity.  However,  the  New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967
edition, Vol: 14, p.  306)  acknowledges  that  the  Trinity
doctrine  does  not  exist in the Old Testament, and that it
was formulated three centuries after Jesus.
                                Three centuries after Christ
It is unanimously accepted that the doctrine of  Trinity  is
the  product  of  the  Nicene Conference (325 AD). Huw Parri
Owen, a former professor of  Christian  Doctrine  at  King's
College, University of London acknowledges this fact:
"...  the  early  Church  formulated  the  doctrine  of  The
Incarnation. Here the two main landmarks are the council  of
Nicaea   in  325  and  the  council  of  Chalcedon  in  451.
Throughout the centuries christology  has  been  determined,
directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  formulae  that these two
councils produced ... After Nicaea, then, there was no doubt
in  orthodox  circles  that  Christ  was divine." (Christian
Theism, T&T. Clark, Edinburg, 1984, p. 38-39).
However, this information is enough to create a lot of doubt
about  the  divine  source  of  the  Trinity in intellectual
circles. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of  the  Bible
in the article "Deity of Christ" suggests the same fact:
"The  clearest and fullest expression of the deity of Christ
is found in the Nicene Creed which was originally  presented
at  the  Council  of  Nicea,  AD 325. In the English Book of
Common Prayer the translation appears as follows:  '...  one
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the only begotten Son of God, Light of
Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made.'" (Vol.  2,
second ed., 1977, p. 88)
Reading  this,  one has to ask oneself why it was that Jesus
himself, in his teachings, did not express the  doctrine  of
the trinity "as fully and clearly" as the Nicene Council did
300 years after his departure.
                                           A divine mystery?
Questions such as, "How could the Father, the Son,  and  the
Holy  Spirit be totally different and yet participate in the
one undivided nature of God?" have given Christian  scholars
a  hard  time  for  centuries.  To explain the nature of the
Trinity,  they  have  written  volumes  of  books  full   of
interpretations  and  speculations  ending  up with a divine
paradox, or a divine mystery. So, it would not be worthwhile
to  question  the  meaning of Trinity further as the answer,
ultimately, will be that it is a divine mystery which cannot
be  understood.  Instead, we will question the compatibility
of the doctrine with the Bible.
                                      If we truly believe...
Christian  clergymen  have  enthusiastically   praised   the
Trinity   for   centuries.  They  have  employed  impressive
language to defend this fictitious concept. Let's read E. J.
Fortman's glorification:
"If  we truly believe that 'the ground of reality is not the
nuclear composition of matter  but  the  Trinity,'  not  the
division  of  the  infinitely  small  but distinction at the
heart of the infinitely great, we cannot  but  dedicate  all
the  resources  of  our logic, all the energies of our mind,
all the fire of our heart to the loving study of the Father,
his  Word  and  their  Spirit."  (The  Christian  Trinity in
History,  J.  Fortman,   St.   Bede's   Publication,   1982,
Fortman  tries  to  hide the plain contradiction between the
Trinity  and  Unity  by  using  gobbledygook  and   inflated
language,  starting  with  a  big  "if".  This is one of the
common defense strategies of priests when they  encounter  a
difficult problem regarding their teachings. William Lutz, a
professor in the English Department  at  Rutgers  University
has a clear definition of this attitude:
"A   third   kind   of   doublespeak   is   gobbledygook  or
bureaucratese.  Basically,  such  doublespeak  is  simply  a
matter of piling on words, of overwhelming the audience with
words, the bigger the words and the longer the sentences the
better...   The  fourth  kind  of  doublespeak  is  inflated
language  that  is  designed  to  make  the  ordinary   seem
extraordinary;  to make everyday things seem impressive; ...
to make the  simple  seem  complex."  (Doublespeak,  William
Lutz, Harper Perennial, New York, 1990, p 5).
                                     A Copernican revolution
As  a  matter  of  fact,  modern  studies  on the historical
development of the doctrine of Trinity lead many researchers
to  the same conclusion that the Trinity is a deviation from
the original teachings of Jesus.
"Returning, then to the theme of the exaltation of the human
being  to  divine  status,  the understanding of Jesus which
eventually became orthodox Christian dogma sees him  as  God
the Son incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity living a
human life. As such he was,  in  the  words  of  the  Nicene
creed,  'the only-begotten Son of God, ..." (The Myth of God
Incarnate, John Hick, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1977,
p. 171).
In  this  book, John Hick suggests a "Copernican revolution"
in the theology of religions, consisting in a paradigm shift
from   a   Christianity-centered   or  Jesus-centered  to  a
God-centered model of universe of faiths.
In answer to John  Hick,  Huw  Parry  Owen,  the  author  of
"Christian   Theism",   tries  to  defend  the  doctrine  of
incarnation.  After  making  a   distinction   between   the
irrational  and supra-rational, he asserts that the doctrine
of incarnation is supra-rational, not irrational as  claimed
by J. Hick.
"We  cannot understand how God became man. We cannot explain
it through any concept drawn from our  experience.  This  is
inevitable.  If  God  himself is incomprehensible his act in
becoming man must also be so." (Christian Theism, Huw  Parry
Owen T&T. Clark, Edinburg, 1984, p. 30).
There  is another thing that we don't understand: the source
of this "incomprehensible"  paradox  which  is  INCOMPATIBLE
with the clearest verses of the Bible.
Although  there  are  distortions in the existing Bible, the
overall message of the Bible can be heard clearly: there  is
no God besides God; do not worship any except Him.
In  order to expose the contradiction between the main theme
of the Bible and the doctrine of the Trinity,  we  will  ask
some simple questions concerning the Bible.
Related Questions:
1.  Why is the Trinity not taught in thirty nine books of
    the Old Testament? Is it not an important principle of
    faith? Why didn't Noah, Abraham, Moses, David etc. preach
    that doctrine? Why did they preach just the opposite
    (Deuteronomy 4:39; 6:4; 32:39. Exodus 20: 2-3.
    1 Samuel 2:2. 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 42:8; 45:5-6)?
2.  According to the Bible, are we not all children of God?
   (Matthew 5:9; 6:14, Luke 20:36; John 8:47, 1 John 5:18,19)
3.  What about Mark 10:18-19?: "Why do you call me good?"
    Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good!" Do these two
    verses not clearly state that Jesus was not God?
4.  If Jesus is God, what does Mark 13:32 mean?:
    "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels
    in heaven, nor I myself, but, only the Father.
    "If Jesus was Lord, how could he not know the future?
5.  What about Mark 12:29: "Jesus replied, 'The one that
    says, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and
    only God. And you must love him with all your heart and
    soul and mind and strength.'"  What about Matthew 4:10;
    6:24, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19?
6.  Matthew 12:17-18 quoting from the Old Testament, states
    that Jesus was the Servant of God. Is there not any
    difference between the Servant of God and God?
7.  Why do you ignore the verses expressing that Jesus was
    a "messenger of God" (Matthew 21:11,46; Luke 7:16;
    24:19; John 4:19; 6:14)?
8.  Why does John 1:18 have a different text in different
    versions? Did Jesus see God or not?
9.  Why are all the verses used to justify the Trinity
    questionable? For instance, many Christian scholars
    acknowledge that the crucial word "begotten" in
    John 1:14,18 and 3:16,18 does not exist in the original
    manuscripts. Why, is the phrase "son of God" changed
    into "the only begotten Son of God"?

Moslem Questions on Christianity Edip Yuksel P.O. Box 43476, Tucson, AZ 85733-3476 U.S.A. Tel/Fax: (520) 323-7636

| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |
| ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota |

Please direct any suggestion to Media Team