@king Iyk – I reject Trinitarianism, not because I am an atheist but because I have studied the Bible. The word “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. The fully formed doctrine of ‘one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons’ as described to me in Catholic school, is not explicitly stated in either the Old or New Testament.
I remember been kicked out of class (once again) for questioning the above point. When the teacher figured out that I was viewing my expulsion as a reward rather than a punishment, I was forced to rejoin. My point is the same now as then; That the doctrine of the Trinity was constructed later, mainly in the 4th century, to resolve internal theological conflicts.
The Trinity is not biblical. It was a theological solution to a theological problem because early Christians did not agree on the status of Jesus’ divinity. Let me try to explain…….
Are you familiar with the ideas of Arius who was a Christian priest from Alexandria? Most Christians have never heard of him. He was a highly educated in both Scripture and Greek philosophy and was well respected by his peers. His main position was this;
1. God the Father alone is unbegotten. He is the absolute source of all life. Eternal, immutable and indivisible.
2. The Son is begotten by (or of) the Father. Jesus exists because of the Father. He derives his divinity from God the Father and therefore is not identical to his father.
Therefore, Jesus is not equal to his Father. There was a time that God the Father existed without his son existing. Or as Arius put it, “There was when the Son was not.” He argued that if the Son is begotten, he has a source. If he has a source, he is not ultimate. If he is not ultimate, he is not God in the same sense.
To me this is sound logic, not heresy.
By the early 4th century Christians were worshiping Jesus. But Scripture (i.e. the Bible) didn’t explain how that fits with monotheism. Pope Constantine wanted unity, not theology and so in 325 CE he convened the council of Nicaea. This introduced the concept of “Homoousios” (same substance). It is a non-biblical (Greek) philosophical term. Arius, whose argument was biblically grounded and philosophically consistent, was then condemned because he made the contradiction explicit. He forced the Pope to choose Catholic mystery over biblical coherence.
The Trinity violates the law of non-contradiction. The Church calling it a “Mystery” does not make mutually exclusive claims agree with each other.
A cannot be not-A, in the same sense and at the same time. Let me state it like this:
With the Trinity each person is said to be fully God, not one-third God.
But:
If Father = fully God
And Son = fully God
And Father ≠ Son
Then “God” is both identical and non-identical.
You now have:
God = Father
God = Son
Father ≠ Son
This violates the basic identity logic: If A = C and B = C, then A = B.
You can’t escape bad logic with theological wordplay.
Also, the idea of “Begotten but not created” is semantic gymnastics. This was invented after Arius forced the issue. To say the Son is ‘begotten’ but not made is some breed of special pleading. But “begetting” entails derivation and derivation implies dependency. You cannot be “fully equal;’ and ‘fully derived’. Again, bad logic, inherited by generations of Catholics.
Claiming “One being in three persons” is incoherent. Being without individuation is meaningless and Person without a distinct nature is unintelligible.
The idea of the Trinity is against the teaching of the Bible. If I was a theist, I would be a follower of Arianism as it makes more sense if I was to study the Bible. Something very few Catholics do!
“The Father is greater than I” — John 14:28
“The head of Christ is God” — 1 Corinthians 11:3
“Then the Son himself will be made subject to Him” — 1 Corinthians 15:28
“One God, the Father” — 1 Corinthians 8:6…who is…“The God of our Lord Jesus Christ” — Ephesians 1:17
The Bible does not use Trinitarian language. It’s hierarchical all the way. Calling the Bible “Trinitarian” is reading 4th-century theology back into a 1st-century text. Jesus is portrayed as God’s chosen agent not a co-equal metaphysical person. If I were a Christian I would follow the Bible and not some mystery invented over 300 years after the Gospels by a Pope who chose political unity over textual clarity.
Simon Paynton 1 week, 5 days ago.King Iyk.
