THE NINETEEN QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIAN
CLERGY
ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota
| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |
QUESTION 3
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,
Introduction).
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