The Trinity Delusion An examination of the doctrine of the Trinity

Exposing Trinitarian Claims

The Fallacious Nature of Trinitarian "Evidence"

This is a new page. There is much more to come on this page.

A. Errors Concerning Scripture

Dubious Claim 1. Genesis 1:26 - "Us" and "Our"

  • Eisegesis: Trinitarians simply read their preconceived doctrine into the text.
  • Scholarly Disagreement: Numerous Trinitarian scholars offer several other interpretations.
  • A Singular vs. Plural Interplay also occurs in this verse concerning Man.
  • The image and likeness of "US" is identified in this passage as "THEM", male and female.

Dubious Claim 2. Genesis 18:1-2: Three = Trinity

  • Two of the three are explicitly identified as angels at Genesis 19:1-2.

Dubious Claim 3. Genesis 18:1-2: YHWH on earth = Jesus, YHWH in heaven = the Father

  • The angels say to Lot that they were sent by YHWH to destroy Sodom and Gommorah.
  • Lot then indicates that he understands the angels' statement to mean YHWH will destroy Sodom and Gommorah
  • We then YHWH destroys Sodom from YHWH out of heaven.

Dubious Claim 4. Psalm 110:1: the Father talking to the pre-existent Jesus

  • Peter explains this Psalm was not fulfilled until Jesus rose from the dead.

Dubious Claim 5. Isaiah 9:6: Jesus is identified as "God"

  • To claim that this verse identifies Jesus as "the Mighty God" would then require a consistent intepretation which would then identify Jesus as the God the Father, the "Eternal Father."
  • The Trinitarian translation tries to claim the child-son is the Eternal Father when the Eternal Father is the Father of this child-son.
  • The ancient Israelites common gave names to infant children and to geographical places which do not describe the child but which descriptively honored their one God.
  • The name in question does not describe the Messiah but what God the Father, the Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Ruler of Peace, is accomplishing through His Messiah. "The zeal of YAHWEH of Hosts will accomplish all this.

Dubious Claim 6. Isaiah 42:8: Jesus is YAHWEH because YAHWEH will not give his glory to another

  • The glory God gave Jesus, Jesus gives to his disciples.
  • Isaiah reveals that God created Israel for His glory.
  • A careful reading of the context reveals that "give my glory to another" does not mean "give my glory to another besides me" but "give my glory to another besides Israel."

Dubious Claim 7. Isaiah 43:11: Jesus is YAHWEH the Savior

  • YHWH has raised up many Saviors who are not YHWH
  • YHWH raised up Jesus to be Savior
  • Simeon testifies that Jesus is God's salvation.

Dubious Claim 8. Isaiah 44:6: Jesus is YAHWEH of Hosts

  • In context, Israel is personified as "Jacob."
  • The context reveals that the words "his Redeemer" means "Jacob's Redeemer" and Jacob's redeemer is YHWH of Hosts.

Dubious Claim 9. Zechariah 12:10: Jesus is YHWH who is pierced

  • John the Apostle quotes this verse as "look upon HIM" not "look upon ME."
  • Some Hebrew manuscripts do read "look upon HIM." This alone nullifies the Trinitarian claim as unreliable evidence. Possibilities are not established facts.
  • Jewish translators and some Christians scholars have testified that the markings in the Hebrew text for the "look upon ME" versions, indicate the verse must be translated as "look upon me concerning whom" and not "look upon me whom."

Dubious Claim. John 1:1 - Jesus is God

  • Trinitarians assume the Logos is a reference to a person and mentally replace the words "the Word" with "Jesus" and read their preconceived doctrine into the text.
  • The verse does not say, "the Word is God," or "Jesus is God," or "Jesus was God." John 1:14 reads, "the Word became flesh.
  • Trinitarians define the word "God" in two different ways (i.e. the Word was with [1. the Father] and the Word was [2. divine]) even though both instances of the word "God", Greek theos, are joined by the conjunction kai ("and"), and the Greek word order is, "with God and God" (pros ton theon kai theos). That John used two different definitions of the same word in one breath, "God and God," is extremely unlikely.
  • John points us back to Genesis chapter 1 three times, (1) "In the beginning," (2) All things were made through the Word, and (3) the light shines in the darkness.
  • We know that "in the beginning" God created all things by his spoken Word.

Dubious Claim. John 10:33 - The Jews affirm that Jesus was making himself "God."

  • Jesus indicated that these Jews were lying murderous children of the devil.
  • The definite articles is missing in this verse (it does not say "the God"). While Trinitarian wish to translate the verses as, "you being A man," they refuse to consistently translate it as "make yourself A God."
  • If an ancient Koine Greek speaker wanted to say, "your being a man make yourself a god," this is exactly how he would say it.
  • Jesus indicates how HE understood their charge by the way he responds to them.
  • Jesus responds to their charge by quoting Psalm 82:6, "I said, 'You are gods.' The full verse reads, 'You are gods, sons of the Most High."
  • These Jews, being the leadership of Israel would have applied Psalm 8:5 to themselves.
  • Psalm 8:5 is a parallelism, "you are gods" parallels "sons of the Most High."
  • Jesus responds by quoting this verse and asks them why he would be blaspheming to call himself a son of God (the Most High), and thereby "a god" if indeed this verse is calling these Jews "gods" and "sons of God."
  • Jesus' response is to illustrate their hypocrisy which is why he indicates, "the Scripture cannot be broken." In other words, they cannot nullify what God said about them and so with what kind of hypocrisy do they charge him with blaspheming when they have to agree that God Himself called them, these Jews, "gods" and "sons of the Most High."

Dubious Claim. John 20:28 - Thomas calls Jesus "God" and Jesus blesses Thomas for doing it.

  • Trinitarians make a convenient exception to a rule of Greek grammar of themselves concerning this verse and Trinitarian scholars, theologians, and apologists are quite aware of this fact even though they do not make a habit of telling anyone else. According to the Granville Sharp Sixth rule, the Greek structure here is how someone would refer to two persons in the Greek language. According to the Granville Sharp First rule, one definite article ("the") qualifying both nouns (Lord, God) means a Greek speaker is referring only to one person, ("the Lord and God). In order to distinguish that grammar construction and to signify one is referring to two persons rather than one, a Greek speak qualifies each noun (Lord, God) with the definite article, ("the Lord and the God"). Thomas used the Greek speaking convention for referring to two persons and not one.
  • The immediately preceding and immediately following context is about seeing and believing (verses 27, 29).
  • Jesus had taught Thomas and the disciples that to see and believe in him was to see and believe in the Father (John 12:44-45, 14:9). By definition this means that Thomas could have said to Jesus even at that point in time, "My Lord and my God" meaning "My Lord Jesus and my God the Father."
  • At John 20:17, Jesus refers to one person, his God and Father, by using one definite article, "the Father of me and Father of you and God of me and God of you," rather than "the Father of me and Father of you and the God of me and God of you," which indicates to us if John wanted to have signified one person was in view at John 20:28, namely Jesus, he would have written it as, "the Lord and God of me" rather than, "the Lord of me and the God of me."

Dubious Claim. Acts 20:28 - Luke is referring to Jesus as God who bought with his own blood.

  • Trinitarians conveniently ignore that fact that important manuscripts say, "church of the Lord" rather than "church of God." This in itself nullifies the Trinitarian claim. Possibilities are not established facts.
  • Irenaeus, writing ca. 180 A.D. quotes "church of the Lord."
  • Even IF one argues it should read "church of God" rather than "church of the Lord,", it is highly questionable whether it should read "which he bought with his own blood" or "which he bought with the blood of his own."
  • The RSV, and other scholars, translate the "church of God" version as "church of God which he bought with the blood of his own [son]."
  • The word "own" was commonly used in this manner by ancient speakers of Koine Greek. Without an explicitly stated accompanying noun, it implicitly referred to their beloved and there is ample evidence of this fact in ancient writings, in the New Testament, and right here in Luke's own writings. In other words, "the blood of his own" would readily mean "blood of his own beloved" to an ancient Greek speaker thereby indicating these words are referring to God's beloved son.

Dubious Claim. Romans 9:5 - Paul identifies Christ as "God."

  • The Greek grammar itself allows three possible translations, two of which do not identify Jesus as "God."
  • Numerous translations refrain from providing a translation which unambiguously identifies Jesus as "God" in this verse.
  • The Greek word eulogetes, variously translated as "Blessed" or "Praised" is never used of anyone else in the New Testament but God the Father. Most instances of this word are found in Paul's writings.
  • Only in one other place does Paul say anyone is "over all" in this manner and it is the Father.
  • A survey of Paul's vocabulary in the rest of his writings shows that he only used this kind of language when referring to God the Father.
  • Using similar language at 2 Corinthians 11:31, "God... who is blessed forever," Paul emphasizes to his readers he is not lying. The same thing is occuring here in Romans 9.
  • The "Blessed be" is the Jewish berakah, a doxology of sorts to God the Father.
  • Paul is referring to "Christ according to the flesh," which in Trinitarian doctrine is NOT God. In Trinitarian doctrine, it is Christ according to the flesh who has a God because Christ according to the flesh is NOT God and that is the reason Christ had, and has, a God.

Dubious Claim. Titus 2:13 - Paul identifies Jesus as "our great God and Savior."

  • God our Savior is mention in the preceding context in verse 10. We should first expect that the words "our great God and Savior" in verse 13 are referring to God the Father who has just been mentioned in verse 10.
  • The Granville Sharp rule allows TWO interpretations of this verse, not just one as Trinitarians often suggest. Trinitarian scholars, theologians, and apologists are quite aware of this fact.
  • The verse literally reads, "appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ."
  • The most natural reading of this verse is that Jesus is being described as "the glory of our great God and Savior" where our great God and Savior is the Father and Jesus is being described as the glory of the Father. This also satisfies the Granville Sharp rule.
  • The verse is about Jesus' second coming and we also read at Matthew 16:27 that Jesus will come in the glory of his Father. The risen Jesus is also described as the radiance of God's glory at Hebrews 1:3.
  • Some Trinitarian apologists are now trying to justify changing the noun doxa, ("glory") into the adjective "glorious" which effectively changes the entire meaning of the verse. Instead of awaiting the appearing of the glory of our great God," this would change the meaning to "awaiting the glorious appearing of our great God." However, the word "glorious" would be another Greek word altogether, endoxos, and there is absolutely no need anywhere in the entire New Testament to change the noun doxa into an adjective. It works as the noun "glory" every single time. It is clear that the only motive here is to try and and find an excuse remove a more likely interpretation in order to suit their traditions.

Dubious Claim. 2 Peter 1:1 - Peter identifies Jesus as "God."

  • Codex Sinaiticus, an extremely important manuscript, does not read "righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." It rather reads, "righteousness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This in itself nullifies the Trinitarian claim. Possibilities are not established facts.
  • The Sinaiticus rendering fits the internal evidence of this letter while the other reading does not. Peter uses the term "Lord and Savior" to refer to Jesus several times.
  • Trinitarians appeal to the Granville Sharp rule. However, there are two problems with this appeal. First, there is the peculiarity that Peter did not say, "God and Savior of us." Instead he said, "God of us and Savior." Second, the exact same Greek construction is used at 2 Thessalonians 1:12 where the only difference is that the word "Lord" is used instead of "Savior." Trinitarian translators do NOT interpret or translate this verse as identifying Jesus as "God" and/or in the same way that Trinitarian apologists insist we should at 2 Peter 1:1.

Created: March 15, 2011
Last Updated: March 15, 2011