> Athanasian Creed

[bordi]

THE TRINITY

The following is the orthodox statements of the doctrine of the trinity:

Athanasian Creed:
"We worship one god in trinity and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the father, and the son, and the Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal."

This is a doctrine which is utterly impossible to reconcile with reason. All Christians profess to believe in the unity of God; - a doctrine so plainly taught throughout the bible, that no one who takes the bible as an authority can doubt it. The Trinitarian declares that he believes 'god is one' as much as the Unitarian. But, then, we ask how can god at the same time be three? The 'persons' of the trinity are spoken of separately, prayer is addressed to one apart from another; one is a father and another a son and another said to proceeding from the father and the son: how then can all three be one?

If the doctrine of the divine unity, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and confirmed by Jesus Christ be true, "the lord our god is one lord" -how can there be included in this unity three separate persons? The doctrine is opposed to the simplest rules of arithmetic and the plainest teachings of common sense.

The Trinitarians say that religion is above reason, and that we must believe what we cannot understand; that there are mysteries which call for the exercise of faith, and that this is one of them. Granted, there are truths which are above the human understanding, that the mind of man cannot, for instance, grasp the full conception of the infinity or the omnipresence of god, but we may nevertheless believe in these attributes. But it is illogical to believe in what is beyond our reasoning and contrary to it. This is not a mystery, but an absurdity because it is self contradictory.

If we try to persuade even a child, that three is the same as one, that the greater is equal to the less, it will be impossible simply because, it is totally against human reasoning. Should these words, then, be used in religion as synonymous? Why speak of three manifestations only, when god manifests himself in many ways

Lord Bacon:
"He who believes that (Trinitarian) creed, believes things his reason cannot comprehend; believes three to be one, and one to be three; a father not older than his son; a son to be equal with his father, and one proceeding from both to be equal with both; he believes in three persons in one nature, and two natures in one person."

The reply that is made by Trinitarians to such representations as these is, that the doctrine of the trinity is taught in the bible, and that however impossible it may be to understand it or to reconcile it with human reason, it may be received on the authority of scripture. Let us then inquire if the bible does teach it. We must have some very plain and certain proof on this point, to convince us of the truth of a doctrine that is incomprehensible and self-contradictory.

The word trinity is not to be found in the bible.

Jesus Christ approves of and confirms the Hebrew teaching (mark 12:29) "the lord our god is one lord", and never hints that there is any division of persons in the godhead. Paul preached many discourses to both Jews and gentiles, and wrote many letters to his converts, yet he never teaches the trinity, now said to be the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. It cannot be expressed in the words of scripture. Not one single text can be quoted in which its truth is asserted.

No unprejudiced reader, who had never heard of the trinity, would learn anything about it from the bible.

Let us examine the passages of scripture on which the believers in the trinity depend for its support.

Genesis 1:26 "let us make man in our image."

The fact that the pronouns are plural, and that the Hebrew name for god has a plural ending, is said to prove that there is a plurality of persons in the godhead. But this would equally well serve to prove that there are many gods, if it proved anything.

The fact is, however, as all except a obstinate minority of the conservative Christian scholars have acknowledged, that the plural is used simply by way of dignity; just as a monarch commences a proclamation with 'We' instead of 'I', and says 'given at our place'. The Hebrews themselves, who are the best judges of their own language, universally give this explanation, and none of them ever dreams of any doctrine at variance with the divine unity being taught in this text.

As to the word "image" God is not talking about a physical, human likeness, which is not far from a certain family of apes. Little wonder that Darwin claimed that the monkeys are our ancestors!

No! We are made in the spiritual image of the beneficent. We are one with him in attributes. As God is holy, we must be holy. As he is just, justice being his attribute, we must imbibe justice. As he is merciful, we must portray mercy, and so on for none can be one with God physically, because he is not a physical being

But the poor benighted Christian misunderstood the word "image" as well as the word "us". They fail to realise that in Hebrew as well as in Arabic there are two types of plurals. There is a plural of numbers as well as that of respect and honour. if we ask any Jew who knows Hebrew as to the number of gods in his Hebrew "us" from the first chapter of his bible, and he will confirm without any hesitation that this is a plural of honour and respect, and not of numbers.

Matthew 28:19
"Baptizing them in the name of the father and the son and of the Holy Ghost

Observe nothing is said here of the three persons mentioned together forming one god. to 'baptize in the name' is equivalent to baptizing in the belief, and this text signifies that those who were received as Christian converts were to declare their belief in God, in Christ, and in the holy spirit; but not that the three are one, 'three persons and one god'.

We have a similar expression, 1 cor 10:2 "baptized unto Moses"; but no one concluded thence that Moses was god. We do not find in the Acts of the Apostles, that the first Christians preachers used the formula given by Matthew; but they simply baptized into the name of Christ.

Would they have failed to use the threefold formula, if it had been significant of an important doctrine? Compare these words with the declaration of the doctrine contained in modern creeds, and it will be seen how the one fails to confirm the other.

2 cor 13:14
"The grace of the lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the holy ghost are with you all."

Here again three are mentioned; but it is neither said nor hinted that they are one, or that they are god. On the contrary, God is spoken of apart from the other two; which could not be the case, if they also were god. It will hardly be asserted that the mention of another in the same sentence with God proves that this other is God.

We read in exodus 14:31 "the people feared the lord, and believed the lord and his servant mosses; 1 Sam 12:18 "the people greatly feared the lord and Samuel." 1 cron 29:20 "the congregation worshipped the lord and the king." unless these texts prove that mosses, Samuel, and David were one with Jehovah, the texts we are considering cannot prove Jesus Christ and the holy spirit to be one god.

1 john 5:7 has often been quoted in support of the trinity; but it is now acknowledged by all that this verse is an interpolation, and does not appear in any modern version of the bible. It is contained in no Greek manuscript written before the 15th century; in no Latin manuscript before the 9th century, in no ancient version. It was omitted by Zwingli, Luther, and Griesbach, and in the old English bible was printed in small type or between brackets. Its spuriousness has been admitted by all learned Trinitarians of all denominations. It is omitted by the translators of the revised version, and all other modern versions of any bible. The fact that this text was forged to prove the doctrine of the trinity shows that Trinitarians could find no proof of it in the original texts.

We have shown the doctrine of the trinity:
1). is self-contradictory and unreasonable:
2). that it is not taught plainly and explicitly in the bible:
3). that it is opposed to the declaration of Christ and his apostles:
4). that the text quoted in support of it does not express it.

Why then should we receive? Has it any important practical influence? Does it tend to make men pious or virtuous? Can it be put in any form that will reconcile it with common-sense or recommend it to the human understanding? do the most learned and thoughtful men of any protestant sect believe it in the plain and simple meaning which the words of the creeds bear to the people in general ?

let Christians ponder these questions, and, if they find themselves compelled to answer 'no' to them , let no power of fashion or custom or prejudice, no sanction of antiquity or church authority induce them to profess a belief in a doctrine they can neither understand nor defend.

[Aayah]

jazak Allah khair for such a post

some few questions came to my mind now:

On how many languages the entire bible was written on?

for those Unitarian who dont believe in the trinity, how do they view the nature of Jesus peace be upon him? and the spirit as well?