Anyone who looks just a little beneath the surface of Trinitarian claims is confronted with a very troubling issue. Once he looks carefully into the actual facts concerning these claims, and if he is honest with himself, he will notice something quite disturbing. Why do so many Trinitarian claims have such a suspicious quality about them? And why do Trinitarian apologists usually refrain from disclosing all of these facts? And why do so many Trinitarian claims appear to be contrivances designed to suit their doctrine?
Indeed, Trinitarian apologists no longer even bother to advance 1 John 5:7 since this verse has now been exposed as a complete fraud. A similar thing has occurred with their favorite rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16. Both these verses were once favorites of Trinitarian apologists. Not any longer. Since the truth is now upon them, Trinitarian scholars are now forced to confess there is absolutely no support for them in either of these passages.
But that is only the beginning of these suspicious claims. Trinitarian apologists are not in the habit of entertaining the ancient manuscripts of Acts 20:28 which read "church of the Lord" rather than "church of God" since that would not be congenial to their apologetic mission. Even further, they do not like to point out that a respected and widely accepted Trinitarian translation, the RSV, translates the verse as "blood of His own Son" rather than "His (God's) own blood." Even further, some Trinitarian apologists will claim that renderings like the RSV are unwarranted when there are plain linguistic facts which demonstrate such claims to be completely false. Is it reasonable to expect a person to rest his faith upon such suspicious claims and dishonest assertions?
And these disturbing problems occur over and over and over. The same suspicious character of their claims arise when we come to John 1:18. Why do so many ancient manuscripts say "only begotten Son" rather than "only begotten God." Again, do they really expect people to rest their faith upon such specious claims? And why do Trinitarians translate the Hebrew word EL as "God" at Isaiah 9:6 but refuse to consistently do the same thing when the very same word refers to men, mountains and trees? Why do they translate this exact same word as "mighty" when it refers to King Nebuchadnezzar but refuse to do likewise at Isaiah 9:6? Moreover, why do they translate EL as "Mighty One" when the context makes it quite clear that the word is a reference to God himself in other places but refuse to translate it as "mighty" or "power" at Isaiah 9:6? How do they decide when they want the word EL to be translated as "mighty" or "power" or "strength" and when they want to translate the same word as "God"? Suspicious.
And it certainly does not stop there. Trinitarian scholars admit the Greek grammar of Hebrews 1:8 allows a different translation than the one they prefer. And strangely enough, that different translation fits perfectly with the context. Why then do they deny it? Many Trinitarian scholars also completely deny that Romans 9:5 refers to Jesus as "God." But despite these facts, we are supposed to accept the insistences of Trinitarian apologists that it does indeed refer to Jesus as "God" and rest our faith upon a spurious claim.
Under every turned stone one finds the same thing. At John 1:1, their own Trinitarian scholars admit the second occurrence of the Greek word theos ("God/god") means "divine" in a qualitative sense (what the Word was). Yet they translate the word as it if was the quantitative sense (who the Word was). Why do they resort to such things? And why do these same Trinitarians inconsistently translate John 10:33 as "A man make yourself God" rather than "A man make yourself A god" in light of the definite article missing in both places in the Greek text and especially in view of Jesus' response about God calling men "gods"? Was this translation a "made to fit" exercise?
And why do Trinitarians ignore verses like John 12:45 and John 14:9 when they interpret John 20:28? Are such observations too inconvenient to their claims? When they interpret John 10:30, why do they also ignore John 17:22 where Jesus prays his disciples will be one "just as we are one." Is it because this would completely nullify their claims?
Why do Trinitarian apologists claim Jesus was omniscient, all-knowing, in spite of the fact that Jesus himself said ONLY one person, the Father knows the day and hour of his return? And why do they cite verses where Jesus is said to "know all things" but hypocritically pass over 1 John 2:20,27 which say Christians "know all things?"
Why do Trinitarian apologists isolate the words in Titus 2:13, "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," in order to claim this verse refers to Jesus as "our God and Savior," when they know very well the whole text actually refers to Jesus as "the glory of our God and Savior"? This is the evidence people are supposed to stake their faith upon?
Why do Trinitarian scholars disagree on the proper translation of Zechariah 12:10? Why do Trinitarian apologists expect us all to simply choose the rendering that favors Trinitarian doctrine without any serious inquiry into the truth of the matter?
At every turn one finds the same thing. And it gets even worse. Why do Trinitarian apologists so often misrepresent the testimony of the earliest Christians? Why do they suggestively imply that Justin Martyr was a Trinitarian just as they are, when Justin called Jesus "another god" who was subject to the "most true God"? And why do they suggest Irenaeus was a Trinitarian, just as they are, when Irenaeus repeatedly insisted the Father alone was the only true God? Why do they mispresent these men as they do? And why do they pretend Tertullian was a Trinitarian when he insisted the Son was inferior to the Father and there was a time when the Son did not exist?
Why do Trinitarians resort to rampant eisegetical interpretations while screaming how wrong it is to do such things out of the other side of their mouth? For example, why do they imagine a three person God into Genesis 1:26 and Matthew 28:19 when there is absolutely no reason to do so? Why do they insist the "US" and "OUR" of Genesis 1:26 are the three persons of the Trinity without having any evidence whatsoever that they should indeed make such claims? Are we really supposed to just use our imaginations without regard for the facts?
And why do Trinitarians find it so necessary to spill so much ink trying to justify their doctrine? Should not the identity of our God be just a little more simple than this? The entire Bible is about God but we are supposed to believe that the true identity of God is not that easy to see? They resort to writing volumes of books to try and justify their doctrine. Why is it so necessary to write volumes upon volumes of books that try to justify the true identity of God? Did God really make it that difficult to figure out who he is? Why do Trinitarians indicate that God is like a puzzle that must be figured out and put together? Isn't that just a bit absurd?
And why is it that Trinitarian apologists so often seem to be denying the above facts are significant? Is it because they need to downplay the facts? And why do they deny other facts that indicate their doctrine is wrong? For example, why do they conveniently deny "the Lord" of 2 Corinthians 3:17 is Jesus even though the context demands it is Jesus? Is it because it does not fit their doctrine which demands Jesus is not the Spirit? And why have so many contrivances been designed to avoid the implications of evidence which indicates their doctrine is wrong? Why do they find it necessary to do such things? And why do those contrivances fall apart under the scrutiny of intelligent minds?
These are mere examples. The suspicious character of Trinitarian claims are found everywhere one looks. Why? If their claims have any veracity whatsoever, why do they have so many suspicious problems attached to them? When such observations are made, the Trinitarian would like to pretend their doctrine is being misunderstood and these misunderstandings make it appear their claims are suspicious when they are quite valid. But is that really the case? Is it misunderstandings? No. It is the cold hard undeniable facts and that will be clearly demonstrated here.
