The doctrine of the Trinity is so ingrained in Christian tradition that it has become synonymous with salvation. It’s like you cannot be saved without believing in the Trinity. It is the belief that God is somehow split into three individual “persons” – Father, Son, Spirit – and that each of them are co-equal, Eternal, and all of them together are considered the “Triune God.” If that’s the case, why did Jesus feel the need to pray? If they were co-equal, why would He need to ask God the Father for anything? Why did He say in Mk 9:29, “This kind [of evil spirit] cannot come out by anything but prayer” (NASB)? Why, if He is God, couldn’t He have granted that power to His disciples? Did it take praying to a Power higher than Him to do it? Why did He say, when answering the rich young ruler, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mk 10:18, NASB). Wasn’t He and God one and the same? It’s like He’s speaking as if they were two separate entities…
In a story that was told in the Gospel of Mark, it reads,
“One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him; 33 and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mk 12:28-34, NASB, italics and underline mine).
Both Jesus and the scribe (who was very familiar with Jewish Law) here both agree on what is being said. That God is ONE Lord was an essential Jewish teaching. Jesus went further and said that this man was “not far from the Kingdom.” He (the scribe) had a correct understanding of who God was. Why, out of all the controversies arising from this new Church at Pentacost, was there no question of who God is? These Jews all over the Mediterranean were strictly monotheistic. If some missionary, like Paul, came preaching that God was Father, Son and Spirit, wouldn’t there be some kind of controversy? Of course there would! Yet, we find nothing of this in the NT epistles. It wasn’t even a question. Something else to keep in mind is God is always referred to as He, or Him. Never is He referred to as a “they.” Yet another thing to consider is what Jesus said about His return in the Gospel of Mark, “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone (Mk 13:32, NASB, bold, italics and underline mine).
Here’s another question: can God die? No. So, if Jesus was God, who was in control of the universe if “God” was dead? Jesus was literally dead for three days and nights. That alone should make you question this doctrine. I have heard of a church that claimed this exact thing. Since Jesus was God, and God cannot die, then Jesus didn’t die – he merely slept. But, I object, if Jesus didn’t die, then neither was He raised from the dead. And if He was not raised from the dead, neither will we be raised from the dead (1Cor 15:17)! Do you see the problem here?
So, where did this doctrine come from? Taken from a website, we read,
The Trinity – What Is It And Where Did It Come From?
The debate over the Trinity started relatively late in Christian history. It was not until the fourth century that many theologians and bishops began to argue over the identity of Christ. Many, who would not believe in the deity of Christ were burned as heretics and their souls damned by the Church. Even today those who deny the Trinity are considered heretical or involved in a cult. Many times they are told that they are not even saved because they deny the deity of Christ. It is no wonder that with so much social persecution very few people actually take the time to consider the doctrine of the Trinity and the implications that it carries.
Before looking to deeply into the Trinity it is crucial that we know what is implied when we use the term in Christian circles. Keep in mind that even today, just as in its formative years, there is much disagreement about the exact way that God manifests Himself, but here is the “official” Church position on the nature of God:
God is one “essence” who manifests Himself as three “persons”: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. These three beings are all co-eternal, co-equal, and incomprehensible. They are all God and yet there are not three Gods but one God.
In 325 A.D. Constantine, the emperor of Rome called together a council so as to decide, once and for all, the identity of Christ. He saw that his kingdom was being torn apart by this issue, and he was attempting to bring some agreement and peace within the Christian faith as he was now beginning to adhere to it and get his empire to do the same. Little did he understand the importance of doctrine and just how much it would mean to these men that Scripture not be compromised for the sake of agreement.
The bishops were very torn regarding the identity of Christ and were essentially split into two groups. There were those who believed Jesus to be God (and relied mostly on confusing logic, supported by very little scripture) and those who believed Jesus to be the begotten Son of God, our divine Savior. The first group wanted to go so far as to say that Jesus was God but the latter felt there was simply not enough compelling biblical evidence to dictate such a belief.
It was Constantine who finally decided the issue by trying to help both sides come to a agreement. The non-biblical term he used was homoousia, which is a Greek term that means “of the same substance.” In this way those who wanted to see Jesus as God could be satisfied by interpreting this idea to mean that he was God and those who wanted to see Jesus as begotten from God could interpret this to mean that he was born of God, and as such, shared many of the same likenesses of God but was not God Himself.
This compromise, however, would lead into later doctrines with devastating implications to the Christian faith, and would give Athanasius, a than zealot priest, the room he needed to begin to promote his own agenda. In fact it was Athanasius who was primarily responsible for promoting the idea of the Trinity and enforcing it with violence, threats, and blatant disregard for his peers. He himself was a man with a violent temper, and no tolerance for those who disagreed with him, including the emperor himself. When Bishop Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria died he was quick to move in and claim the position for himself. Alexandria, originally founded by Alexander the Great, was a powerhouse in the Roman Empire. It was a city of great political influence, and great economical status. The Bishop of Alexandria was considered by many to be the most powerful of all the bishops.
Athanasius’ career is plagued by accusations of excessive force and violence, even against the clergy. He was brought before the councils and the emperor on several occasions for charges of destroying sacred church objects, burning down the houses of rival priests, and brutalizing priests. He often had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled. He was charged with an assortment of crimes, including bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason, and murder, and he was exiled no less than five times. Yet even in his exile he continued to work tirelessly in order to secure himself a position within the church so that he could continue to promote his doctrine.
His own view of Christ is so skewed and pitiful that it is a shame we now consider it to be “mainstream” and don’t even bat an eye whenever someone says that Jesus is God. His views on Jesus were extreme, and unbiblical, yet he was able to defend everything simply by saying that it was a matter “beyond simple human understanding!” Many, many men fought against Athanasius and his interpretation of the Nicene Council, and the ideas that were agreed upon at Nicea were overturned several times there after but Athanasius continued to cling to them and promote them throughout the Roman Empire.
Understanding all of the implications during this time will help to paint a picture of why Christians now believe the way they do about God. It is important to see that the doctrine of the Trinity was not simply something that was accepted right away, and many people were persecuted for maintaining even the slightest disagreement. It was only through much force, fear, and political influence that the doctrine of the Trinity has become “Orthodox.” I urge you in your own walk to seek out the history of this doctrine, for I believe you too will find it to be quite different than the picture that is portrayed today in which men like Athanasius have now become “heroes of the faith” when they are in fact villains. One of the best historical books we know of on this subject is When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome.
(Source: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/history/the-trinity-what-is-it-and-where-did-it-come-from)
Needless to say, I’m not a Trinitarian, I am a Unitarian. That is, I believe what the Jewish people believe – as they say in their Shema Yisrael, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut 6:4, NASB). The Jews never believed in a “trinity” doctrine. Never. Not even to this day. This is possibly a stumbling block for a Jew who is trying to be converted to the faith...or a Muslim for that matter. They simply cannot wrap their heads around this nonsensical doctrine – and who could blame them? To my shame, I once supported and defended this doctrine. I obviously do so no longer. I repent and will spend the rest of my life debunking this false doctrine.
If you still insist on clinging to this doctrine of the Trinity, I’d like to do an open wager with anyone. I’ll give anyone $1,000 if they can show me either phrase, “God the Son,” or “God the Holy Spirit.” Go ahead, I’ll wait. No modern English translation that I’ve seen has it – not the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. And, no, it’s not in the original languages, either. Nor, for that matter, are the words “Trinity,” “God in Three Persons,” or “Triune God” found anywhere in the Bible. For such an “obvious doctine,” it’s not spelled out clearly. If it was so important, shouldn’t this be explained everywhere in the Bible, instead of just “Oh, I think He means He’s God here” or “Oh, I think this person is calling Him God over here?”
Here’s another read, debunking that notion:
Considering the fact that the majority of Christians have been taught that Jesus is God, that is a very good question. “And the answer is…”—Yes, and No. Huh?
The answer is Yes only because most versions of the Bible wrongly capitalize the word “God” in Hebrews 1:8 and elsewhere. In a sense, the answer is also Yes because Jesus is called “god” in the Bible. The answer is No because Jesus is never called “God” in the same way as is the Father, who Jesus himself referred to as “the only true God” (John 17:3). There is only one “capital-G” God, and that is the Father (1 Cor. 8:6). And, as we will see, Jesus is far and away the best of all the “small-g” gods.
Jesus is called “god” in the Bible? Yes, and so are Satan, Moses, the spiritual leaders of Israel, and pagan deities. A study of the word “god” in Scripture will show that there are quite a number of different ways that word is used, and that whether or not it is capitalized makes a big difference in its meaning...
...In John 10, the Jews were bugging Jesus to tell them once and for all if he was the Messiah, and he replied by saying (v. 25ff) that it should have been obvious to them by the miracles he did. He then drew a parallel between him and his Father (vv. 28,29), saying that no one could snatch a chosen one from either of their hands. His next statement has been too often wrenched from its context and grossly misinterpreted: “I and my Father are one.” How so? Clearly, in the sense that he just stated.
The Jews, very dissatisfied with Jesus’ answer, picked up stones to kill him, whereupon Jesus asked them which miracle they didn’t like. “It’s not the miracles,” they said, “it’s that you, a man, claim to be a god.” That is the proper translation of the verse, but nearly all Bible versions mistranslate it as “…claim to be God,” and, without a shred of textual justification, the NIV goes so far as to add in the adjective “mere” before the word “man.” Both of those translational foibles serve only to confuse people about this classic and critical section of Scripture. No Jew in his right mind would have said that Jesus was claiming to be God (Yahweh). Had they thought that, they would have dismissed him as demented. They all knew that the Messiah was to be a man, but they had it in for Jesus and refused to believe that he was that man.
Had Jesus been “God” in the sense that most Christians today think he is, this was his golden opportunity to make that clear: “You’re right—I am God.” Instead, quoting from Psalm 82, he said, “Hold it, doesn’t the Old Testament call the judges of Israel ‘gods’? Well then, what’s so bad about me saying I’m the Son of God?” By the way, if words have definitive meanings, one cannot be both the Son of God and God.
Look at Psalm 82—it’s only eight verses, and is talking about God’s evaluation of those He had called to lead Israel. In verse one we see the cultural Hebrew usage of the word “god” as referring to one whom God chose as His representative. In verses 2-7 God laments how badly those “gods” were doing in caring for His people, and the psalm closes in verse 8 with a plea for the Messiah to come and rule the earth righteously. Unfortunately, the word “god” is wrongly capitalized in verse 8.
Let’s look at a couple of other places in the Old Testament where the Messiah is referred to as “god.” The first is Isaiah 9:6—Merry Christmas! Sure, you’ve no doubt seen a card with that verse on it. Too bad the word “god” is once again wrongly capitalized. The Messiah would not be the mighty “God,” he would be the mighty “god.” The Moffatt Bible and Martin Luther’s translation read “mighty hero” rather than “mighty God.” That is a very accurate rendering, because, as the ultimate representative of God, the Messiah would be the hero of all heroes. And Jesus was exactly that! He perfectly represented God’s heart to mankind. He is the “god” called for in Psalm 82:8.
How about Psalm 45, another prophecy about the Messiah—this one about him riding forth victoriously to conquer and then rule the earth as God’s perfect representative. Verses 6 and 7 are quoted in Hebrews 1:8 and 9, which is where we will go next. Sad to say that in verse 6 the word “god” is once again mis-capitalized as “God.” No, like Psalm 82 and Isaiah 9:6, this psalm is also speaking of the Man among men, the one whom God would empower to restore His lost Paradise.
OK, let’s look at Hebrews 1, and the context of the quote from Psalm 45. For the record, Hebrews 1 and 2 are a trenchant account of Jesus Christ’s journey from suffering to glory, emphasizing why he had to be a man (the Last Adam) in order to be the Redeemer of mankind. They are covered in detail in Chapters 2 and 3 of our One God & One Lord book. Hebrews 1:1-3 shows how God did His best in Old Testament times to communicate to mankind via the spoken and written words of the prophets, but what He really had in mind was Jesus, His ultimate image. Verse 4 then begins a most significant analogy between Jesus and the angels that goes all the way through Chapter 2.
Verses 5, 6, and 7, each quoting an Old Testament reference, are speaking about the resurrection of Jesus Christ (v. 5—it’s not about his birth—look at Ps. 2:7 & Acts 13:33) and his return to the earth to rule (v. 6). Verse 8 clarifies that Psalm 45:6 and 7 are a Messianic prophecy, but the translators once again mis-capitalize “god” as “God.” But look at verse 9! It says, “…therefore God, even your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” Say, if one is God, how can anyone else be his “God”? That should be a more frequently asked question! In agreement with many other verses of Scripture, Hebrews 1:9 is clearly saying that because Jesus Christ suffered and died, God raised him from the dead and highly exalted (anointed) him as Lord.
Another pertinent verse is John 20:28, where Thomas cried out upon first seeing the resurrected Christ: “My Lord and my God.” Many people use that verse to prove that Jesus is God, but it does not, for two reasons. The first is that the Bible is not stating that Jesus is God, the Bible is stating that Thomas called Jesus “God.” And the second reason is that “God” should be “god.” As a Jew, Thomas was familiar with that usage of the word “god.”
So, the Bible does refer to Jesus as “god,” but only in the sense of his being the perfect representative of the only true God, his Father and his God. Neither God nor Jesus ever said that he is God. Both call him the Son of God. Amen.
(Source: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/does-the-bible-ever-refer-to-jesus-christ-as-god)
VP Wierwille says in his book, “Jesus Christ is Not God,” that various religions had believed in the belief in many gods for thousands of years, and that the belief in a trinity doctrine was not a major part of Christian dogma for the first three centuries after Christ. It was not found in the first century church, nor did the apostles teach it. It is a documented fact that there was no established trinitarian doctrine until about the 4th century. It gradually became “integrated” into the church as more and more heathens joined and their old influences spread after conversion. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that Trinitarianism didn’t take root until about the 4th century1.
1 New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume XIV, pg 295
Comments
Post a Comment