By Misha'al ibn Abdullah al-Kadhi

The myth of the “trinity” as originally fabricated three centuries after the departure of Jesus (A.S.) and taught to Christians ever since is the merging of three entities into one while remaining three distinct entities.

In other words: Three bodies fold, or blend, or merge into one body so that they become one entity while at the same time exhibiting the characteristics of three distinct and separate entities. It is described as “a mystery.” The first definition of the Trinity was put forth in the fourth century as follows: “...we worship one God in the trinity, and Trinity in Unity...for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are coeternal and co-equal...he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the trinity...” (excerpts from the Athanasian creed). When the Church speaks of worship, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are claimed to be one being. Otherwise they would have to explain such verses as Isaiah 43:10-11. However, when they speak of “the death of God” it is Jesus (pbuh) who is claimed to have died and not God or the “trinity.” Now the three are separate. When God is described as having “begotten” a son it is not the “trinity” nor Jesus (pbuh) which has begotten, but a distinctly separate being from the other two.... there are many such examples.

From the Bible’s standpoint:

Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, and Jude 20-21? How someone could refer to such verses as requiring a “trinity” is beyond comprehension. Do any of these verses say “God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being”, or “God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same” etc.?. Just because the words “God,” “Jesus,” and “Holy Ghost” appear in one verse does not mean this verse requires a “trinity”, or “merging of three into one.” Even if this verse also contains the word “one” this still does not necessarily require a “trinity.” For example, if I say “Joe, Jim, and Frank speak one language” this is not the same as saying “Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person.” Let us clarify this with examples:

1) Matthew 28:19: If George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to “Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union,” does this require that these three are one physical entity? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are merged into one physical entity. Also remember that the “Great Commission” as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, Bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15).

Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous “correction” and “addition” to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were “inserted” into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says in his book For Christ’s sake (pp. 102): “All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later.”

2) I Corinthians 12:4-6: If I were to say: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Santa Claus. There are different kinds of service, but the same Government. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.” Do God, the U.S. Government and Santa Claus now form another “trinity”? The same verse which moments ago required a merging of three gods into a “trinity” can now be understood without the need for a trinity. Is it impossible to receive “gifts,” “services,” and “works” except from ONE person? Once again, we see that it is necessary to spend a little more time actually reading the verses in question in order to not read into them statements that are not there.

Why does everything have to be so abstract? If this is the true nature of God then why can’t the Bible just come out and say “God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are physically joined in one being” or “God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same.” Is this so very hard? Look at how much less space this would require. Look at how infinitely more clear and decisive that would be. Look at the clear cut decisiveness of Deuteronomy 4:39 “Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.” God does not philosophize and speak all the way around matters. He speaks clearly and in no uncertain terms so that there can be no doubt as to what He meant. If there was a trinity why would He not simply just come out and say so, just as clearly and decisively as He does when He speaks about his uniqueness? Think about it.

3) II Corinthians 13:14 If I say: “May the genius of Einstein, the philosophy of Freud, and the strength of Schwarzenegger be with you all” does this require all three to be joined in a “trinity”? Does it require that Einstein is Freud (or a different “side” of Freud)? Does it require that Freud is Schwarzenegger (or a different “side” of Schwarzenegger)?

4) Jude 20-21: If a man on his death bed told his only son: “But you, dear son, build yourself up in your strength and strive in good works. Keep yourself in my love as you wait for the fullness of time to guide you to manhood,” show us how these verses require a trinity. Go back and apply this same logic to the original verse. Deuteronomy 4:39 requires the uniqueness of God. There are no two ways about it. It is very clear, decisive, and to the point. The explicit (and not the “hidden”) meaning is quite clear and direct. Show me just one verse of the Bible that is similarly decisive about the trinity. All of these verses require you to really strain the words and stretch their meaning to arrive at any merging of three into one.

An interesting point is that when people try to force a “trinity” upon a certain verse of the Bible they always do it with the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Why is that? Did the countless prophets of the Old Testament not know about the “trinity”? Did God not see fit to tell the Jews about the trinity? Think about it.

When someone speaks to someone else about a specific matter, they usually spend the majority of their time explaining the major issues and much less time on side-issues. For instance, if I wanted to give someone my favorite recipe for chicken parmesan I would spend most of my time speaking about the ingredients, their amounts, their order of combination, the amount of time needed to cook each one and so on. I would spend very little time (comparatively) talking about how to set the table or what color bowl to serve it in. When comparing this observation to the Bible, we find that for a matter of such profound importance, the “trinity” is never mentioned in the Bible at all. Sound preposterous? Read on.

The verse most often quoted by almost every Christian around the world in defense of the “trinity” is the verse of 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse we were asking for. However, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later “insertion” of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version ...etc. Have unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this?

The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his “Emphatic Diaglott.” Mr. Wilson says: “This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it’s authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.” Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that they were added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Dr. Arius, and God’s people.

Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a “trinity” therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God decided to “inspire” someone to insert this verse in order to “clarify” the “true” nature of God as being a “trinity.” Notice that mankind was being “inspired” as to how to “clarify” the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being “inspired” (see chapter two).

If these people were being “inspired” by God then why did they need to put these words into other people’s mouths. Why did they not just openly say “God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name”? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to “inspire” his “true” nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?

It was Sir Isaac Newton who made public this forged insertion: “Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza.” Gibbon, “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” IV, p. 418.

Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a “colt”?, or was it an “ass and a colt”?) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read: “And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.”

Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the “trinity” which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. Which is more important to Christian faith, the “trinity” or the description of an ass? Another verse quoted in defense of the “trinity” is the verse of John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

1) First of all, these words are acknowledged be every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who claimed no divine inspiration for them, and who had written them long before John or Jesus (pbut) were born. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading “Logos”(“the word”): “Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept ......In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins- perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria.”

2) Internal evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read “A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely.” Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.”????? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The “disciple who Jesus loved” according to the church is John himself, but the author speaks of him as a different person. In other words, what we have here is a Gospel which someone wants us to think was written by the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him.

3) The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written.

4) C.J. Cadoux writes in “The life of Jesus”: “The speeches in the fourth Gospel (even apart from the earlier messianic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said: Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters: the best ancient historians made a practice of composing and assigning such speeches this way.”

5) Even if we are to take this verse as authentic, then we must notice the following: In the “original” Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), the first occurrence of the word “God” is the Greek word (Hotheos) which means “The God,” or “God” with a capital “G” to denote a proper noun. The second occurrence of the word “God” is the Greek (Tontheos) meaning “a god,” or “god” (any god, not necessarily the almighty). So, if the translators were consistent in their translation, they would have written the above verse as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording). If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word is used to describe the devil, however, now the system has dishonestly been reversed: “(and the devil is) the god of this world.”

According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the devil should also have been written as “God” with a capital “G.” If Paul was inspired to use the same word to describe the devil, then why should we change it? Why is this word translated as simply a “god” when referring to the devil, but translated as the almighty “God” when referring to a “word”? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the “translation” of the Bible took place?

The apologists always manage to conveniently side-step this issue by conveniently forgetting the Hotheos/Tontheos problem and never mentioning a valid explanation for why one word was translated two different ways in two different verses, but rather, they say “I don’t personally like the New World Translation of the Bible, thus, everything you say is wrong.” Even if you do not like the New World Translation, you still have not explained the selective translation! This is blind faith talking here.

One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called “original” manuscripts available today are written in Greek. The verses of John 1:1 is exactly equivalent to such verses as Psalms 82:6: “I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High”, or Exodus 7:1: “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh” The Jews had no trouble reading such verses while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God almighty.

It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church’s extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses. If I were an American, and I were to tell, for example, the citizens of China: “Hit the road men,” we would more than likely find countless people beating the street with sticks. Did they understand the words? Yes! Did they understand the meaning? No! Mr. Tom Harpur says in the preface to his book: “The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title “Son of God” in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus.....this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself.” For Christ’s Sake, pp. xii.

6) In the Qur’an we are told that when God almighty wills something he merely says to it “BE” and it is. This is the Islamic viewpoint of “The Word.” “The Word” is literally God’s utterance “BE.” This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read: “And the Word was made flesh”.

The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30 “I and my father are one.” This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage, starting with John 10:23, reads as follows:

John 10:23-30 “And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.” In divinity? In a holy “trinity”? No! They are one in PURPOSE. Just as no one shall pluck them out of Jesus’ hand, so shall no one pluck them out of God’s hand.

Need more proof? Then read John 17:20-22: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” Is all of mankind also part of the “trinity”?

Well, what about the verse “He that hath seen me hath seen the father.” Let us look at the context: John 14:8-9 “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” Philip wanted to see God with his own eyes, but this is impossible since no one can ever do that (John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time,” see also 1 John 4:12...etc.), so Jesus simply told him that his own actions and miracles should be a sufficient proof of the existence of God without God having to physically come down and let himself be seen every time someone is doubtful. This is equivalent to for example John 8:19: “Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.” If we want to insist that when Philip saw Jesus (pbuh), he had actually physically seen God “the father,” then this will force us to conclude that John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, ..etc. are all lies.

Well, is Philip the only one who ever “saw the father”? Let us read John 6:46 “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” Who is this who “is of God” you ask? Let us once again ask the Bible: John 8:47 “He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” And 3 John 1:11 “Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.” Have all people who have done good also physically seen God?

Such terminology can be found in many other places, read for example 1 Corinthians 6:15-17 “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit,” and also Ephesians 4:6 “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

In the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we read: ”......The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established into Christian life and it’s profession of faith until prior to the end of the fourth century. But it is precisely this formulation that has the first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOLISTIC FATHERS, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective” (emphasis added). SO, JESUS’ TWELVE APOSTLES HAD NEVER HEARD OF ANY “TRINITY”

Top Harpur writes in his book “For Christ’s Sake”: “What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus’ role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself bad enough. But there is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes, tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in reality they worship three..”

From the Qur’an’s standpoint:

“O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and his word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him: so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not “Three”: desist!, it is better for you, for Allah is one god, Glory be to him, Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs.” The Qur’an, Al-Nissah(4):171

“Or have they (mankind) chosen gods from the earth who raise the dead. If there were therein gods besides Allah then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have gone to ruin. Glorified be Allah, the lord of the throne from all they ascribe (unto Him)” The Qur’an, Al-Anbia(21):20. Think about it. If there were more than one God in existence, and one wanted you to do one thing and the other wanted you to do another then which one would have his way? If one wanted the sun to come out of the West and the other wanted it to come out of the East then which one would win? Verse such as Mark 14:36, and Matthew 26:39 clearly exhibit that God “The father” and God “the son” both have distinct wills. Further, we read:

“Allah coineth a similitude: A man in relation to whom are several partners quarreling, and a man belonging wholly to one man. Are the two equal in similitude? Praise be to Allah, but most of them know not.” The Qur’an, Al-Zumar(39):27. In other words, which would be more conducive of harmony: For an employee to have two bosses quarreling over him, or for each employee to have only one boss?

“Say (O Muhammad, to the disbelievers): If there were other gods along with Him, as they say, then they would have sought a way against the Lord of the Throne. Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they say! The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth his praise; but you understand not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving.” The Qur’an, Al-Israa(17):42-44.

“And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken unto Himself a son, and Who has no partner in the Sovereignty, nor has He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence.” The Qur’an, Al-Israa(17):111.

“Allah has not chosen any son, nor is there any God along with Him; else would each God have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege. Knower of the invisible and the visible! and exalted be He over all that they ascribe as partners (unto Him)!” The Qur’an, Al-Muminoon(23):91-92.

Think of the mythology of the Romans and the Greeks and their countless “Gods”. These “Gods” were constantly at odds with each other and declaring war against each other and it was mankind that was always caught in the middle.

From a logical standpoint:

If Jesus (pbuh) is part of a divine trinity which makes up the essence of God almighty, and Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross, then what happened to God almighty? (Remember, Christians claim that they pray to one “triune” god and not three separate gods). Did the trinity die? Did it continue to exist in a severely crippled form? If I am made up of heart, mind, and soul, and one of them dies; what happens to the rest of me? Are they ONE or THREE? If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three names for the same being, (definition of the “trinity” required by Isaiah 43:10-11 and many other verses) and not three separate gods, then the “death of Jesus” is just another way of saying “the death of God the ‘Father’,” which is also another way of saying “the death of the Holy Ghost.”

Some members of the clergy will object that it was not “Jesus” per se who died, but rather it was “his human form” that died. His “godly” form was not affected. It is described as one describes someone removing his coat. This leaves us with a dilemma, because it leaves us with one of two cases:

1) Either Jesus (pbuh) “himself” died, in which case, since he is claimed to be part of the “Trinity”, and the “Trinity” is claimed to be ONE god, not three (required by Isaiah 43:10-11 and many other verses), then God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all claimed to have died, since they are all “the same essence”.

2) Or, Jesus (pbuh) “himself” did NOT die, but only shed his earthly body (as it were), and in this case we must ask, where then is the great sacrifice in this shedding of a useless shell? How is his shedding of this shell which is not his actual essence an ultimate sacrifice in atonement for all of mankind’s sins? Can he not simply make one hundred more human “shells” for himself to inhabit? Is his discarding of one of them an “ultimate sacrifice”?

Continuing with our theme of logic; remember when Jesus (pbuh) is alleged to have died (Luke 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost”)? When people die they go to their Lord to be judged. If Jesus (pbuh) was, as claimed, a part of a trinity and the trinity is only ONE god (otherwise Christians would have to admit to worshipping multiple gods), then Jesus was with God in a trinity before his death. It was only after his death that he was claimed to have left God and gone down into hell for three days. However, this verse tells us a completely different story. It claims that Jesus’ soul was somewhere other than already with God (otherwise it would not have to go to him) and was now going to God. Also read John 17:11: ”....I come to thee. Holy Father.” And John 17:13: “And now come I to thee”...etc.

Sadly enough, most Christians are taught to brush off these matters with words like “It is uncomprehendable, that is why it must be true,” or “believe blindly or you will lose your soul.”???? Have we so soon forgotten “For God is not the author of confusion” 1 Corinthians 14:33 ?

When Jesus (pbuh) allegedly died and went to hell for three days (1 Corinthians 15:3 “Christ died for our sins”, Romans 5:6 “Christ died for the ungodly” etc.)? Did the trinity die then reside in hell also, or was a third of the trinity ripped away from the whole, then tortured and killed while the remaining two thirds (of God?) remained in it’s crippled form outside a safe distance away? Who was overseeing the heavens and the earth while all of this was happening? A crippled trinity? No one? If it is possible for one third of the “trinity” to die independently of the other two then it becomes obvious that they are separate and independent and not ONE God, this contradicts Isaiah 43:10- 11. However, if they are indeed ONE God then the death of this one God contradicts many verses such as Jeremiah 10:10 “But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king.” Also, if the giver of life is dead then who shall bring Him back to life?

God almighty is claimed to have “begotten” Jesus (pbuh). He is claimed to be the “father” of Jesus. Naturally a father is present before he “begets” his son (no matter how you wish to define “beget”). Before Jesus (pbuh) was “begotten,” was the “trinity” a “duality”? Was God complete? Explain Isaiah 43:10-11. If Jesus (pbuh) was “begotten” then he is not eternal, but the definition of the trinity which was concocted in 325 AD when the trinity was first defined requires the co-eternity of God and Jesus (pbuh).

There are many such questions to be raised about this supposed trinity which defy logic. When someone loves God “with all thy mind” and they “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” are they not presented with countless contradictions regarding the “trinity”? We are speaking about the logic of Jesus (pbuh) here and not blind faith. Jesus is beseeching us to use our minds but we would rather follow others who demand blind faith. Jesus (pbuh) tells us that “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” John 14:23. Sadly, the same people who love him dearly have now been taught that in order to love Jesus they must completely disregard everything he ever taught his followers and must follow others who are better able to explain his message than himself. In effect, his words have been totally abandoned.

If the Trinity designates god as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and if God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical (please read chapter 1.2.8).

Jesus (pbuh) claims to not even know when “that day” is “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” Mark 13:32. Is he not part of God? Is the “trinity” not one god? The fact that one of them has knowledge not available to the other “two thirds” is a clear indication that they are distinct and separate beings, and not three faces of one being.

If I have three balls of clay and I press them together into one ball then they become ONE but now it is impossible to retrieve the original three exactly as they were originally.

If I have three bricks and I stack them above each other then I can separate them, but I can not call the three bricks ONE brick.

If I have a cup of water which can become steam, water, or ice, then it is not possible for me to drink the “water” form while the “ice” and “steam” forms remain inside the glass. It is not possible for the “water” form to beseech the ice form to save it from being drunk while the ice form stayed a safe distance away. This is simple logic. “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind ... this is the first commandment” Mark 12:30

See also: And They Did Not Kill Him http://www.muftisays.com/blog/Seifeddine-M/1444_18-04-2011/and-they-did-not-kill-him!.html

» Posted by Seifeddine-M on 15th June 2011

2 Comments