The Trinity: A False Doctrine

As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on my opponent to show why, for example, scriptures like Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One Lord") should not be taken at face value. My opponent, I hope, will excuse any sarcasm or irreverence that I may fail to repress, as my family and I have had rather bad experiences revolving around the Trinity doctrine. Ours and several other families were forced to leave a homeschool group because we refused to sign a "confession of faith" which included the Trinity doctrine.

This definition of the Trinity doctrine is one I have heard dozens of times and found on several websites, so I believe it will be acceptable.

"The doctrine that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God."

A central word used in the trinity doctrine is "person" so it seems appropriate to define this as well.

Person - "A self-conscious or rational being."

First, based on these two definitions, the Trinity is a polytheistic belief. If each of the persons in the Godhead is a self-conscious rational being, equal and co-eternal with the other two, then what we have are three Gods. To say otherwise is simply playing with words. This is an outright falsification of the Trinity from the outset, as the basic tennet of both Judaism and Christianity is that there is only one God.

Second, we are created in God's image. We are obviously not three persons in one being, therefore it is impossible to say that God is three persons in one being without contradicting scripture.

Thrid, there are no scriptures that explicitly state the Trinity doctrine. One would think that such a foundational doctrine and basic definition of God would be found SOMEWHERE in scripture, but it is conspicuous only by its abscense.

Fourth, there are countless scriptures which DO explicitly state the contrary: not only that there is only one God, but that God is One. I mentioned Deuteronomy 4:6 already. I find it interesting that Moses didn't tell the children of Israel in this passage that there was only one God, but that the Lord God is ONE LORD. I have a question for my oponent in this regard. How much more explicit would scripture have to be for you to renounce the Trinity doctrine? Would it have to say "the Trinity is a false doctrine and God is not one in three persons, but simply one?" Or would it have to read "God is One. No more, no less. One. Not two, One. Not three, One." But wait, it does!

Ephesians 4:4-6 "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

This scripture is extremely problematic for Trinitarians. Not only does it repeatedly say the word "one," as if specifically addressed to Trinitarians, but it says that "God the Father" (notice, it doesn't simply say "God") is "above all, and through all, and in you all." Now, perhaps I'm simply not intelligent enough to grasp this, but isn't "God the Holy Spirit" supposed
to be through us and in us, not "God the Father?"

Let's look at John 1:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Of course, this verse goes on to identify "the Word" as Jesus Christ. Here Trinitarians once again have a problem, because Jesus was obviously not present when the world was created. "God the Son" may have been, but if "the Word" refers to God the Son, then God the Son is also God, because as this scripture says, "the Word was God." Thus, according to the Trinity doctrine, God the Son is not only a separate person within the Godhead, he is the entirety of the Godhead. This is an obvious contradiction. Either the word is God, or the word is a person within the Trinity that is God. Therefore, the Trinity doctrine cannot be true by virtue of Reductio ad Absurdum.

A common scripture given as a justification for the trinity doctrine is Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

This is the only sense in which I sympathize with my opponent. There are most certainly scriptures that give the appearance of three. However, when balanced by other scriptures, it is obvious that there cannot be three. In the case of Matthew 28:19, it is balanced by the rest of the New Testament, wherein not a single baptizm was ever conducted in that way. Instead, you will find that all recorded baptizms in scripture AND in history, up until several decades after the death of Jesus, were done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, we face two possibilities: either the disciples were disobeying a direct command from the Jesus himself, or they had a correct understanding of what Jesus meant. When we consider the fact that "the Father," "the Son" and "the Holy Ghost" are not names at all but titles, these two scriptures begin to dovetail. The Lord Jesus Christ IS a name, and according to Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Thus, in baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the disciples had a revelation of what Jesus meant in Matthew 28:19.

Another scripture which is frequently used to support the trinity is parallel in all four gospels. It is the account of Jesus' baptism.

Matthew says: "16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

As frequently as this scritpure is used, it is certainly difficult to read a trinty into it. It says Jesus saw the Spirit of God, not "the Holy Spirit" or "Got the Holy Spirit" descending like a dove. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is completely absent. The best this scripture can do is prove that there are two persons, not three.

This leads to a central question in this debate. Why, if God is a Trinity of persons (which, interestingly, would mean that God has multiple personality disorder) did He not make it more explicit? He certainly could have, if He chose, yet he did not. As I believe I've shown, there was ample opportunity to eliminate all ambiguity on the subject by consistently referring to the separate persons.

The Trinity also leads to another interesting problem: who exactly should we pray to? My father was quite alarmed one day while having lunch with a friend, to hear this friend pray quite separately to the Father, then to the Son, and finally to the Holy Spirit. This is the icing on the cake as far as polytheism is concerned, and I believe it is something my opponent should consider while writing his rebuttal.

Once again, please forgive me if my tone waxed sarcastic, but as I said, I have little respect for the Trinity doctrine. If this offended you in any way, I leave it to you to change my perspective on the matter.

This should make for a very lively debate! I have read you argument carefully, and find that there are several arguments to made on my part, yet I am impressed with the thought that has gone into your argument! Thank you, and I shall relish the challenge!

Now I will continue on. I too will ask that you forgive anything that may sound sarcastic, but I find that a debate is more fun and entertaining with a bit of sarcasm intermingled with logic.

Onward...

"the burden of proof is on my opponent to show why, for example, scriptures like Deuteronomy 6:4...should not be taken at face value."

This is the main mistake you made throughout your entire argument. As a trinitarian, I believe that therea are three COMPLETELY seperate persons, and ONE God. Not three Gods, but ONE. When it says "The Lord our God is one Lord" we believe just that. We believe in only one God who consists of three persons, and therefore this verse and its like are not problematic at all.

The definition of the Trinity is also leaving out the fact that we believe The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit all make uo ONE God.
We also believe that each person in the Godhead meets the definition of "person" you provided.

Before I move on, I would like to point out something I think will stop you in your tracks.

The Hebrew word for "God" is "el". This is the SINGULAR form of the word. In the Bible, the most common use of the word when refering to God is "elohim", which is the PLURAL form of the word. Why would they use the plural form of the word I wonder...

"First, based on these two definitions, the Trinity is a polytheistic belief."

We believe in ONE God, made up of three persons.

"Second, we are created in God's image. We are obviously not three persons in one being, therefore it is impossible to say that God is three persons in one being without contradicting scripture."

Yes, we are made in the image of God. Let us look at this verse...

Gen. 1:26---
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,...'"

In OUR image. In OUR likeness. Was He talking to the angels? No, because angels do not have the power to create; after all, it does say "let US make man...".

The fact of the matter is this: In this verse, the word "elohim" is used for God, implying that the Father was talking to the Son. As it says in the verse you quoted...

John 1:1-3---
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT HAS BEEN MADE."

How do you explain the plural if there is but one person in the Godhead? Arguing that He was talking to angels is out of the question, and otherwise you would have to believe Him schizophrenic. This option I believe would be most disrespectful.

"Here Trinitarians once again have a problem, because Jesus was obviously not present when the world was created."

Yes He was. Who do you think the Father was talking to? Jesus was present along with the Holy Spirit.

"if 'the Word' refers to God the Son, then God the Son is also God, because as this scripture says, 'the Word was God.'"

Now your getting it! God the Son IS God. Always has been, and always will be. He is just as much God as the Father is. Take a look at these verses...

John 17:10---
"All I [Jesus] have is yours [The Father's], and all you have is mine. And my glory is shown through them."

Why would Jesus claim to share all of the same attributes as God if He is not God? After all, He is praying to the Father in this verse (proving my point that they are seperate persons).

1 John 5:20---
"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

This scripture clearifies the diety of not only the Son , but also the Father. Jesus came that we might know that of Him who is true (God the Father) and know that we can be in Him who is true by being in the Son.

In later arguments I will reference more scriptues, but for the sake of space, I will move on to your other arguments now.

"Thus, according to the Trinity doctrine, God the Son is not only a separate person within the Godhead, he is the entirety of the Godhead. This is an obvious contradiction."

It most certainly is not. Jesus is not the entirety of the Godhead, but equal to the rest of the persons in the Godhead. The verse not only says that He was God, but also that He was in the beginning with God, thus implying that they are different persons, but the same God.

"either the disciples were disobeying a direct command from the Jesus himself, or they had a correct understanding of what Jesus meant..."the Father," "the Son" and "the Holy Ghost" are not names at all but titles..."

All I have to say is that the information that I have provided you with thus far makes a strong case to the contrary. Also, I have gone to many different churches, and ALL of them have baptized people in the name of the Trinity.

Col. 2:9---
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Below are Adam Clarke's thoughts on this verse.

"This is opposed to the vain or empty doctrine of the Gentile and Jewish philosophers: there is a fulness in Christ suited to the empty, destitute state of the human soul, but in the philosophy of the Jews and Gentiles nothing like this was found; nor indeed in the more refined and correct philosophy of the present day. No substitute has ever been found for the grace of the Lord Jesus, and those who have sought for one have disquieted themselves in vain.

By the Godhead or Deity, θεοτης, we are to understand the state or being of the Divine nature; and by the fulness of that Deity, the infinite attributes essential to such a nature"

Clarke puts is in better words than I can.

In reference to your comments on Matt. 28:19:

You are right, it DOES prove that there are at least two beings in the Godhead, but what about the third? What about the Holy Spirit?
I see this verse as evidence for the Holy Spirit, but you dpo not, so let us look at other scriptures.

5. The Holy Spirit is God

Less Scripture is dedicated to the Holy Spirit, but there is enough to conclude that He too is God. In Acts 5:3-4, we see the Holy Spirit being equated with God:

"Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.'" [emphasis added]

Paul clearly and explicitly equated the Holy Spirit with God:

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." – 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Additional evidence of the deity of the Holy Spirit comes from the shared attributes of the deity. The Holy Spirit is:

Eternal (Heb. 9:14)
Omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10-11)
Omnipresent (Psa. 139:7)
Savior (Rom. 8:1-27)
(http://www.contenderministries.org...)

"who exactly should we pray to?"

We should pray to God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, who is the mediator between God and man. The presence of the Hoply Spirit in our lives gives us the ability to access God through prayer.

Well, I seem to have run out of space, so if I missed anything important, please notify me, and I will address it in my next round.

Thanks much!

Renzzy

"As a trinitarian, I believe that therea are three COMPLETELY seperate persons, and ONE God. Not three Gods, but ONE. When it says "The Lord our God is one Lord" we believe just that. We believe in only one God who consists of three persons, and therefore this verse and its like are not problematic at all."

You miss my point. I realize that you don't view this scripture as problematic. The question is not "can this scripture be made to fit the trinity" or vice versa. The question is, why should I or anyone else not take that verse at face value? I believe I pointed out that the scripture did not say "There is only One God, but that "the Lord our God is One Lord." Who, when reading that scripture, would come to the conclusion that God is somehow mysteriously three separate eternal "persons" (which, in any definition, amounts to three Gods) which make up One Lord? It takes some rather amazing intellectual acrobatics to come to such a conclusion. What you appear to be doing is playing with definitions. By any definition, a completely separate and eternal being is a God and according to the Trinity, there are three of these beings. Ergo, three gods. This is reinforced by your statement that "God the Son IS God." If God the Son is God, God the Father is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God, then there are three Gods. To deny that is to deny basic principles of reasoning and definition. It is interesting to note that several heathen belief systems had trinities. The novelty of monotheism is that it denied the existence of multiple Gods, or persons within a godhead, if you wish to quibble over definition again.

I'm afraid you are going to have to try much harder to stop me in my tracks. I'm well aware that "Elohim" is a plural form. I studied Hebrew shortly before going on a church trip to Israel two years ago. I have a friend who was formally Jewish. It took him several years of self-indoctrination before he was finally able to reconcile the Trinitarian doctrine to the scripture. Having a knowledge of Hebrew, he pointed out the plural form used in Genesis as knock-down grag-out proof of the Trinity doctrine. Out of curiosity, I mentioned this to our Jewish guide while in Israel, thinking, like you, that it would stop her in her tracks. Without the slightest pause, she explained that to refer to God--an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent being--in the singular would be utterly insufficient and even disrespectful. It is a cultural convention, not an indication that God is three. God is not one in the sense that your index finger is one, but neither is He some schizophrenic Captain Planet, God forbid. It's also interesting to note that, in Hebrew, the word for "water" "mayim" and "heaven" or "heavens" both have plural endings, yet these are clearly not single things made up of a plurality of anything. There are probably more such Hebrew words, but my Hebrew is very limited.

As for the passages describing man's creation, have you ever heard of the royal "we?" Especially during the King James era, monarchs referred to themselves in the plural. God is simply referring to himself in the same way.

Most of the verses used to support the Trinity represent nothing more than a misunderstanding, and disconnection between modern and middle English, nothing more. The following is a link to a Jewish website which addresses some commonly misused and misinterpreted scriptures used to support the Trinity. Beings that these are Hebrew scholars, I think it would be difficult to argue against them. Until you study another language, it is difficult to imagine the difficulty of translation.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org...

Back to John 1:1-3, where does it even say that the word is a person? The verse speaks of the Word of God. His Word is no more a "person" than "Annals of the World" by Ussher. And yet, His Word is the expression of Himself, and IS Him, in that sense. It is also that by which He created the world, since, after all, God SAID "let there be light." And, by the way, which person of the godhead was saying "let there be light," or was it all three of them in unison?

"Now your getting it! God the Son IS God. Always has been, and always will be. He is just as much God as the Father is. Take a look at these verses..."

I'm even more confused. If God the Son IS God, then why do we need God the Father and God the Holy spirit? If God the Son is God, then there's nothing he can't do, and, therefore, no need for the other two persons. That leads to another question: why do we need three persons? What purpose is served by there being three persons in the godhead?

Scripture makes no sense whatsoever with a Trinitarian view. However, if you view the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as different manifestations of the One, and very single, God, things start to fall together. Take John 14:8,9 "8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 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?" Notice he didn't say "show us God," he specifically said "shew us the Father." If the Trinity is true, then Jesus was mistaken. Those who knew Him had seen God the Son, not God the Father, and as you said before, the two of them are quite separate. However, if Jesus was God the Father in human flesh, this scripture makes perfect sense.

Remember when Gabriel came to Mary? He told her that "he shall be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." If the Trinity is true, why didn't Gabriel say "God the Son with us." Because, after all, God the Father and God the Son are quite separate. Or, did Gabriel mean that all three persons were going to indwell Jesus, so that he would be all three at the same time? That is your only choice, according to your own delineation between "person" and "god." Once again, it makes no sense unless you see God as taking on forms. In the form of Jesus Christ, he was, indeed, God with us. Before that, he was the Father, or God above us. And as the Holy Spirit he is God IN us. Not three separate persons, but one God taking different forms. That reminds me once again of Ephesians 4:6, which I noticed that you failed to address, although you may simply have run out of room. "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

It is possible that with this explanation you find that we don't disagree at all, and in the past I have found that words are the only real barrier between what two people may believe. Still, this may not be the case.

You mention John 17:10 and ask why Jesus claimed to share the same attributes as God if He is not God. I'm not sure exactly how that question follows from that particular verse, but it is still a valid question. Simple: Jesus IS God. Not God the Son but God Himself in the flesh. If the Trinity is true, the Jesus couldn't possibly be God, because he was only God the Son. Since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons that comprise the One God, then without the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus was only 1/3 God. If each of the separate persons is completely God, then I once again ask why does any one of them need the other two? Once again, you run into a contradiction. I appeal, once again, to Reductio ad Absurdum.

"This scripture clearifies the diety of not only the Son , but also the Father. Jesus came that we might know that of Him who is true (God the Father) and know that we can be in Him who is true by being in the Son."

So, is God the Son not also "Him who is true?" Is God the Father the only person in the godhead who is true? Once again, this verse makes no sense if you accept the trinity.

Since when does the fact that every church YOU'VE been to baptizes in the name of the Trinity justification for doing so?

We both agree that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally God. The difference is that you believe they are all united in one being AS one being, and I believe that they are separate beings. I will dedicate this round, then, to defending the individuality of each person of the Godhead. At the end of my argument, I will refute your points, and defend my own.

First off, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is not the Father. Lets look at what Matthew 28:19 has to say about this...

"First, let's turn our attention to Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The grammatical construction of this verse is very revealing with regards to Trinitarian doctrine. First, each person of the Trinity is identified individually with use of the definite article preceding each (the Father…the Son…the Holy Spirit). The use of the definite article for each person of the Trinity identifies each as unique and distinct from the others. Yet at the same time, this verse groups each into a singular entity by use of the singular form "the name of". What is this name? The singular name of God is Yahweh/Jehovah, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share that name." (http://www.contenderministries.org...)

These are more than just "titles", but actual references and names.

This is not the only passage that contradicts your position. Take a look at the following...

John 5:31-32---
"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid."

God testifying for Himself? Sounds a bit schizophrenic to me.

John 8:16-18---
"But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

Jesus stands with Himself? The one that should really stump you is "my other witness is the Father, who sent me", because Jesus just got done saying that a testimony for Himself would be invalid. Yet you still think that they are the same person?

He still did testify for Himself, but that means little to humans. He needed another testimony from another being, and that being was God the Father; an ENTIRELY seperate being.

John 11:41-42---
"So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, 'Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.'"

Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father (being Himself), I thank myself that I have heard myself. I knew that I always hear myself, but I said this to myself for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe I sent myself."

Doesn't make sense does it. Jesus is OBVIOUSLY talking to another being. While we are on the topic of addressing seperate beings, read John 17. Jesus, in this passage, is praying to the Father. It is COMPLETELY ludicrous to say that He is praying to Himself. This, again, would show signs os schizophrenia.

Before I continue on, I would like to make exactly clear what I believe concedrning this doctrine, because I don't think I have as of yet.

I believe that All three persons are completely united as one God. The Father cannot cease to exist without the other two ceasing to exist as well. I believe also that they exist in three distinct persons, each posessing every attribute of God, and each being individual in their function.

Having siad that, I will move on.

I could use far more scripture to defend this, but for the time being I will move on.

JESUS IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT.

We can use Matthew 28:19 as proof here, but other than that there is more.

John 15:26---
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."

Here Jesus is sending the Holy Spirit out from the Father. Once again, it is ludicrous to say that Jesus is refering to Himself three times. Also, if you truly believe that they are all one being, you once again would have to diagnose God with schizophrenia; a most disrespectful thing to do.

John 16:7---
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you."

Jesus once again is refering to sending the Holy Spirit. This time, however, He is saying that He must go in order for the Spirit to come. I takes some faith to think that He is refering to Himself.

In the sense that they are all completely unified as one God, the Holy Spirit IS Jesus. Thet are, however, defined as twon seperate beings, and therefore we must, by faith, accept them as two seperate beings, performing two seperte roles in the Godhead.

John 14:16---
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,"

Once again, the same as above. Jesus talking about Himself three different times? Ludicrous.

THE FATHER IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT

Again, we can go to Matthew 28:19, but I will leave that as it is and go elsewhere for now.

Rom. 8:26-27---
"Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Acording to the will of God. God does things according to the will of God? Thats redundant.

All of the above verses concerning the Holy Spirit are evidence of this claim as well, but for the sake of space, I will not continue on this in this argument. I can address it further in my final argument if need be.

Now to your points.

"The question is, why should I or anyone else not take that verse at face value?"

I am simply not sure how to answer this. I do take it at face value, as do you. The difference is, we have a different view on the Trinity doctrine, so we cannot see eye to eye. I guess the best I can do to answer this is to say, I do take it at face value, because I too believe there is but one God.

"Without the slightest pause, she explained that to refer to God...in the singular would be utterly insufficient and even disrespectful."

You argue the majestic plural. This is a fairly sound argument, and it could very well go either way. The scripture could be read either way, and there is not a deffinite answer on either side, so I think that we will have to let this one go.

"have you ever heard of the royal 'we'?"

Your grasping at straws here. This would be the only time IN THE WHOLE BIBLE that God does this, and the whole idea of it is extremely weak. God does not dop this sort of thing anywhere else in the Bible, and it is weak to claim He does here.

In reference to John 1, the word is obviously a person. The word is given a gender. "He was in the beginning with God". Also, God wrote the Bible through men, while in John it says "The word was with God and the word was God". Notice that in the greek, when it says the word was with God, the word for "with" could also be transleted as "in the presence of". Finally, the Bible is not God. It cannot be God. It is His word, but not Him. I I write book expressing my feels perfectly, does that make the book me?

"why do we need God the Father and God the Holy spirit?"

This is like asking "why do I need my appendix?". We are not asking why God is necessary, but if He is three persons or one.

Gabriel didn't say God the Son because he didn't have to. There is only one God.

Thats all the space I have. Thanks!

Renzzy

Unfortunately, by trying to demonstrate that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate "beings" (which, once again, means there are three separate Gods. They can't be three and one at the same time) you contradict your own doctrine, which states that they are ONE being comprised of three persons. Three persons equates to three personalities, which equates to multiple personality disorder. Therefore, the Trinitarian god is either three gods, or one schizophrenic God.

As to Matthew 28:9, I have already demonstrated that Jesus was NOT referring to three separate persons by virtue of the fact that every one of the disciples baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost" are not names, but titles. Jesus told them to baptize in THE NAME, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That name is the Lord Jesus Christ. Not the Lords Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christs.

All of your points leave out the fact that Jesus was both a man, and God. Jesus the man was God's Son, but God Himself dwelt in him. This is another central Christian doctrine which I don't think you'll dispute. Therefore, in John 5:31, God is testifying that the man, Jesus (who called HIMSELF the Son of Man,) is, indeed, the Messiah. The same goes for John 8:16-18. The two parties in question are not "God the Son" and "God the Father" but the man, Jesus, and the God who dwelt in him. This is in no way inconsistent with my view. The same applies to John 11:41-42. No duality of gods is needed to explain these verses, only the recognition that Jesus, in addition to being God in human flesh, he was also "the Son of Man."

"I believe that All three persons are completely united as one God. The Father cannot cease to exist without the other two ceasing to exist as well. I believe also that they exist in three distinct persons, each possessing every attribute of God, and each being individual in their function."

Do you realize that if three beings are completely united as one, then they are one being, not three beings? It's impossible to be completely distinct and completely united at the same time. Not because I say so, but because of the DEFINITIONS of the words "completely united" and "completely separate." Once again, the Trinity shows itself to be a circus of words, not a coherent understanding of the nature of God.

"JESUS IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT"

The pillar of cloud is not the pillar of fire, but are they, too, separate persons within the godhead? Of course Jesus is not the same as the Holy Spirit because Jesus is God in human flesh, and the Holy Spirit is God indwelling us. Nevertheless, they are manifestations of the One True God.

Once again, Jesus is not referring to himself, Jesus the man is referring to God. In Matthew 9:38 he says "Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest." If Jesus was "God the Son" and each person of the godhead possesses all of the attributes of God, then Jesus was the Lord of the Harvest. Why, if Jesus WAS the Lord of the Harvest, would he tell his disciples to pray to the Lord of the Harvest?

Take a look at John 15:26 again, because it poses significant problems for the Trinity. Jesus says, "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father." According to the Trinity, the Son, Father, and Holy Ghost are co-equal. However, this verse seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Son. How exactly do you reconcile that to your doctrine?

"He is saying that He must go in order for the Spirit to come."

Exactly. If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate persons in the godhead, why would that be the case?

"They are, however, defined as two separate beings."

Really? Exactly where in scripture can I find a verse that, first of all, asserts that there are separate persons within the godhead, let alone three, and furthermore that "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are two of them?

That question leads naturally to another. The phrase "God the Father" is throughout the new testament. However, the phrases "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" do not. If, as you say, these three are quite separate, but each fully God, why does the first phrase appear in scripture, but not last two? Based on this fact, it would make more sense to assert that God the Father is God, but that the Son and Holy Spirit are inferior, subservient persons within the godhead.

"According to the will of God. God does things according to the will of God? Thats redundant."

I'm afraid you have the same problem, since, according to you, the Holy Spirit IS God. If the Holy Spirit is God, then God does things according to the will of God. No, God in us does things according to His will. It is the same person. Language, or rather, our lack of understanding of it, is getting in the way.

"I do take it at face value, because I too believe there is but one God."

I'm afraid not. If the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit isn't the son, but they're all fully God, then you believe there are three separate Gods.

The royal "we" is just one of several explanations of the verse in question. Another explanation can be found on the website I posted earlier, http://www.jewsforjudaism.com.... As I think I said earlier, many misconceptions are simply the result of a "lost in translation" situation. As you obviously know, the Bible was written in Hebrew, not English. This is just such a situation. By the way, this is not the only time God refers to Himself in this way. See Genesis 11:27.

"In reference to John 1, the word is obviously a person. The word is given a gender."

If grammatical attribution of gender makes something a person, then wisdom, too, is a person, because in Proverbs 1:20 it says "Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets," and in Proverbs 9:1 it says "Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars." Obviously wisdom is a person, because wisdom is given a gender.

"This is like asking 'why do I need my appendix?'." No it's not. The appendix is part of a whole. According to you, though, each person in the godhead is fully and completely God, not just a constituent part of God. If each one of them is completely God, then why do we need the other two?

"Gabriel didn't say God the Son because he didn't have to. There is only one God."

Then why do you continue to refer to "God the Father" "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" if it is not necessary to differentiate? If the three persons are separate, then it WOULD have been necessary to clarify which one, exactly, was coming down in the form of Jesus. Since it was obviously not necessary, then it is reasonable to conclude that there is no separation. If the three persons are not separate, then they are one and the same.

I believe I have proved conclusively that the Trinity is a false doctrine, based both on scripture and on reasoning. The trinity did not become accepted doctrine until the council of Nicea, which was essentially a politically motivated meeting, protested by a large number of Christian bishops and presided over by a Roman emperor, who, although he had final say, knew nothing about scripture and cared nothing for truth. Ever since then trinitarians have couched their illogical belief in obscure definitions, especially with regard to the words "person" and "being." Only when you reduce these arguments to their logical basis does this become clear. The Bible makes no distinction between a "person" and a "being," and furthermore does not identify God as either. How then can you form a doctrine about the VERY NATURE OF GOD around such an ambiguous, non-Biblical concept?

I don't blame you for holding this belief, as it's probably been forced on you sine you were a child. But now that you know the truth, turn away from the lie.

"the Trinitarian god is either three gods, or one schizophrenic God."

Wrong. Are you saying that God does not have the power to do as He chooses? Are you saying that God is bound to only one person because being three in one is "illogical"? How disrespectful! I don't know about you, but the God I worship had NO BARRIERS AT ALL. God is not bound by logic. If He was, He would not be God.

"I have already demonstrated that Jesus was NOT referring to three separate persons"

If you have not studied the language it was written in, then you are grasping at straws again. The language indicates that there were there seperate names for three separate beings. The way people were/are baptized does not mean much. (http://www.contenderministries.org...)

"All of your points leave out the fact that Jesus was both a man, and God."

Tell me, why should I not take this verse at face value? Jesus says that HE testifies for Himself, and thast the FATHER testifies for Him. You simply READ INTO IT that Jesus as man and Jesus as God are acting separately. The fact of the matter is, Jesus was fully masn and fully God, but the two were coexistent in one body. They acted as one. Jesus did not come and live a double life in a manner of speaking, but Jesus came down and inhabited the body of a man to accomplish the will of the Father. It was one being, not two.

"Do you realize that if three beings are completely united as one, then they are one being, not three beings? It's impossible to be completely distinct and completely united at the same time."

Think of it like this. Trinitarians believe that ONE entity (God) is comprised of three beings. Saying this is no more illogical than saything that one shape, namely a triangle, is comprised of three angles.

Man is a being of one self consciousness, while God is a being of THREE self consciousnesses; being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each having different names, and each having different roles.

In a triangle, there are not three separate TRIANGLES, but three separate ANGLES. In saying "the Father is God", or "the Son is God", you must notice that the "is" is not an "is" of identity. This is an "is" of PREDICATION. If I say "my eyes are blue", I am not saying that my eyes are a COLOR, but rather that they have the PROPERTY of being blue.

It is the same with God and His three persons. When we say the Father IS God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, we are saying that they are all DIVINE, or that they all share the attributes of diety. It is not like saying "Joe is Bill". That is an "is" of identity.

Take for example the two following premises.

1)The Father is God.
2)The Son is God.
3)The Father is not the Son.

If the "is" is an "is" of identity, then this is a logical contradiction. Take into consideration the next premise.

1)Ice is H2O
2)Liquid water is H2O
3)Ice is not liquid water

In this case the "is" is an "is" of predication, and is not logically contradictory at all.

This argument is (unfortunately) not my own. This is a paraphrase of the arguments made by William Lane Craig. You can find a very plausible and logically sound argument for the Trinity Doctrine, along with the argument I just posted in this video. (http://youtube.com...)

"The pillar of cloud is not the pillar of fire, but are they, too, separate persons within the godhead?"

This makes no sense at all. God was simply IN the pillar of fire/cloud. The pillar itself was not God. Besides, this would be an "is" of identity.

1)The pillar of fire is God.
2)The pillar of cloud is God.
3)The pillar of fire is not the pillar of cloud.

Logically not sound, because it is an "is" of identity.

"Once again, Jesus is not referring to himself, Jesus the man is referring to God."

This is an HUGE misconception of Jesus. When Jesus came as a man, He did not come an invade the body of an already existing and conscious human being. There was not the consciousness of a man in the mix. This was only a consciousness of God manifested in flesh and blood.

Saying that Jesus the man and Jesus the God were doing two diferent thing is ridiculous, because when God came to earth in the form of man, it was in one of the three consciousnesses of God. The only consciousness in that body was the consciousness of God.

"He was both fully God and fully man. In the incarnation these two natures came together in a union which demands that we speak of Christ as one person. We cannot split up His two natures and say that as God He did this, and as man He did that. Everything that Jesus did, He did so as God manifest in the flesh. He slept as God manifest in the flesh. He healed as God manifest in the flesh. When considering Jesus' ministry, then, we must take into account the genuineness of His humanity."
(http://www.apostolic.net...)

"Why, if Jesus WAS the Lord of the Harvest, would he tell his disciples to pray to the Lord of the Harvest?"

It's simple. We are to pray to God the Father, through Jesus Christ, who is the mediator. We pray with the help of the Holy Spirit, who "makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered".

"this verse seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Son. How exactly do you reconcile that to your doctrine?"

SEEMS is the key word there. I am not exactly sure what to say to you, but let me put it to you this way.

Acts 5:3-4 tells us in plain terns that, when lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias and Saphira lied to God. This is not reasonably debatable. John 15:26 says nothing plainly concerning the Spirit's equality, and therefore I think thats, once again, you are grasping at straws.

"If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate persons in the godhead, why would that be the case?"

I am sorry, I miss spoke. Jesus is not saything that He MUST go in order for the Spirit to come, because this would be putting a barrier on God. Rather He is saying that the Spirit will not come unless the Son leaves.

I am no expert, but my take on it is this: The Son leaves to be the mediator between God the Father and man, and the Spirit comes to make intercession for us. Once again, I am no expert. This is simply my take on it. If you want a complete and logical defense of the Trinity, visit William Lane Craig's website, at www.reasonablefaith.org.

"Exactly where in scripture can I find a verse that, first of all, asserts that there are separate persons within the godhead, let alone three, and furthermore that "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are two of them?"

You need to EXTENSIVELY study greek, and you will find what you are looking for. If you look at the video link I gave you, you will find an example of his starting at 4:24 and ending at 6:36.

"The phrase "God the Father" is throughout the new testament. However, the phrases "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" do not."

This is insignificant. In the story of Ananias and Saphira the Holy Spirit is openly called god, and in 1 John we see clearly that the Son is God.

"If the Holy Spirit is God, then God does things according to the will of God."

Go to the comment section to see my response.

"this is not the only time God refers to Himself in this way."

Doesn't matter. It is still far to uncommon and ridiculous of an argument.

"If grammatical attribution of gender makes something a person, then wisdom, too, is a person"

"And the Word became flesh..." The Bible was not, and is not flesh. How do you explain that one?

We are debating whether or not God is triune, not why we would need the other persons.

"Then why do you continue to refer to "God the Father" "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" if it is not necessary to differentiate?"

This is explained above.

Although I found you arguments very impressive, I'm afraid you have a long way to go before you disprove the Trinity.