The Trinity Delusion An examination of the doctrine of the Trinity

101 Questions for Trinitarians






1. Do you think it is honestly reasonable to believe the doctrine of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Christianity when no one in the Bible ever bothered to state or explain such a doctrine?

2. Do you honestly think it is reasonable to suggest the Scriptures reveal a three-person-God when in fact they never mention a three-person-God and a three-person-being can only be imagined into the Scriptures?

3. Do you think it is reasonable to suggest the Scriptures reveal a three-person-God when the Scriptures themselves testify Jesus came to reveal the true God to us and it was his God and Father he revealed to us?

4. Do you think it is honest to insist that no one should ever resort to the faulty practice of eisegesis yet approve of Trinitarians frequently and routinely imagining their doctrine into the Scriptures by an act of their own will? Are you even aware that this routinely occurs?

5. Does it not trouble you that God's identity changes from one Scripture to the next according to Trinitarian interpretations of those Scriptures? Does it not trouble you that "God" in any given Scripture is identified to suit the occasion, that is, to suit Trinitarian doctrine?

6. Do you think it is honestly reasonable to believe that the one God is three He's who are also one single He?

7. Are you not the least bit troubled by the fact that Trinitarian academics and apologists never present their doctrine as "three HE's who are one HE" even though that it indeed what they believe and only present their doctrine as "three WHO's and one WHAT," consistently refraining from telling others their one God is "three WHO's that are one WHO", "three HE's who are also one HE"?

8. Do you honestly think it is reasonable to be aware that the very purpose of singular personal pronouns such as "He", "Him", "I", and "Me", is to signify a single person is being discussed but yet insist that these words in the Scriptures do not refer to a single person but rather refer to three persons?

9. Do you honestly think it is reasonable to insist the one God of the Shema (Deut 6:4) is a three-person-being when Jesus a Jew born under the Law was required to observe the Law, he testified this particular command was the foremost commandment, and he himself obeyed this commandment not by serving a three-person-God but by serving his Father alone as his only God?

10. Do you honestly think it is reasonable to insist that anyone who does not recognize a three-person-God is worshiping a different God when Jesus himself did not recognize a three-person-God as his God? Do you honestly think it is reasonable to insist that anyone who worships the Father alone as his God is worshiping another God when the Father alone was, and is, the God of Jesus?

11. Do you think it is honestly reasonable to insist that you and Jesus have the same God when your one God is a three-person-being yet believe that Jesus' one God was not a three-person-being?

Do you think it is honestly reasonable to believe you should serve a three-person-God when Jesus declared that his Father and his God is our Father and our God?

Do you honestly think it is reasonable to believe that the ancient Israelites were unaware that their God was a three-person-being until it was revealed by Jesus and his apostles when Jesus himself said concerning the the Jews and the worship of God, "we worship what we know."

Do you honestly think it is reasonable to believe your three-person-God can be trusted when He did many, many things which we know would lead the ancient Israelites to believe their God was one person?

Are you not troubled by the fact that your three-person-God is so elusive that you must catch hints of Him here and there on the pages of the Scriptures as if God is playing a game with you and you must figure it out.

Do you think it is honest to suggest Jesus could do miracles because was God when (1) the apostles did many miracles, and (2) Jesus himself said he drove out demons by the Spirit of God and he testified that "it is the Father abiding in me who does the works"?

Do you think it is honest to declare that the word "Lord" indicates Jesus is God when the Scriptures say God made Jesus Lord and that the Lord has a God?

Do you think it is honestly reasonable to insist the statement, "For us there is one God, the Father," does not identify the Father alone as the one true God?

Do you think it is honestly reasonable to insist that Jesus' statement to the Father who alone was his only God, "that they may know You, the only true God," does not demonstrate that only his Father is the only true God?

Do you think it is honest to insist that the Holy Spirit is a person because the Spirit demonstrates the attributes of a person but deny the One God is a person even though the one God demonstrates these same attributes?

Do you think it is honestly reasonble to believe that baby Jesus was conceived/begotten/born by the third person of the Trinity but somehow the first person of the Trinity turned out to be Jesus' Father and not the person who conceived/begat him?

Do you think it is honestly reasonable to insist that Jesus was omniscient when he himself declared that only the Father "knows the day and hour" of his return?

Do you think it is honestly reasonable to believe the Holy Spirit is a separate third person when Jesus declared only the Father knows the day and hour thereby excluding anyone other person?

Do you honestly think it is reasonable to claim the author's purpose at Hebrews chapter one is to demonstrate Jesus is God by showing he is better than the angels when the author tells us that he become superior to the angels?

Do you honestly think it is reasonable to claim the author of Hebrews suggested the angels bow down to Jesus because He is God rather than because he sits on the throne of God and in this way they have been subjected to him?

Do you honestly think it is reasonable to insist that God the Father would say to Jesus, "O God.... God, your God, has anointed you to be above [the angels]? (Hebrews 1:8-9). Do you think it is honestly reasonable that God would address God as God and then indicate God's God would anoint God? Even further, do you think it is honestly sensible to suppose God anointed God to become superior to the angels?

Do you honestly think it is reasonable to insist God would say, "They shall look upon ME whom they pierced" but then say, "they will mourn for HIM" (Zechariah 12:10). And do you think it is honest to completely disregard how the Apostle John quoted this verse, "they shall look upon HIM"?

Does it not trouble you that Trinitarian doctrine insist Jesus is NOT the Holy Spirit yet 2 Corinthians says, "the Lord is the Spirit" and the context (2 Cor 3:3-4:5) testifies quite plainly that Paul was stating that the risen Jesus is the Holy Spirit?

Do you not find it the least bit troubling that you have never been able to fully grasp what Paul meant when he said, "the first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam life-giving Spirit"? (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Do you think it is honest to declare that Peter is identifying Jesus as "our God and Savior" (2 Peter 1:1) and fail to disclose to anyone that one of our oldest manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, reads, "our Lord and Savior"?

Do you honestly think it is reasonable that John would write the words of John 1:1 in the following order, "the word was with the God and God was the word" and expect readers to define the first instance of the word "God" as the Father but define the second instance of the word "God" as "not the Father" even though both instances of the word "God" are joined together by the conjunction "and"?

Does it make honest sense to you to believe that God created all things by means of His spoken Word and at the same time believe that God created all things by means of another Word which is in fact not His spoken Word but is a person?

Do you think it is honest to interpret John 17:5 to mean Jesus had this glory before the creation of the world, does not now have it, and is asking to receive it back again, when in fact (1) Jesus immediately thereafter speaks as if God had already given it to him, and (2) Jesus said in this same context that he had given this same glory to his future disciples?

Do you think it is honest to interpret John 20:28 as Thomas identifying Jesus as "God" when (1) the context is about seeing and believing, and (2) Jesus had taught Thomas that to see him was to see two persons not just one, he himself and the Father (14:9), and (3) Thomas used a distinct Greek language construction which was used to refer to two persons rather than one? Moreover, do you think it is honest that Trinitarians either ignore these facts and fail to disclose them to you?



Created: August 28, 2012
Last Updated: August 28, 2012

HOME