Why I'm not a trinitarian

Caroljeen

Well-known member
The main reason that I'm not a trinitarian is because of how God expressed himself in the Old Testament in the first person singular, I, me, mine, myself, over and over again.
God's chosen people, the Israelites, understood and passed down to their children that God was one "person". (Ex 3:14, Deut 6:4) For God to be three persons/one being would mean that God, the God who loves truth (Num 23:19, Zech 8:19,1 John 5:6), misrepresented himself to his chosen people by letting them believe that He was one person and not three. If this were true, the Israelites gave false witness of God. (Isa 43:1-13) This is misleading and deceitful. God has no reason to be either.

Therefore, I read the NT with the understanding that God is an "I" just like I am an "I". One personal being. This is how Jesus' disciples would have understood God also. The doctrine of God is fundamental. Why didn't Jesus explain the trinity to his disciples so that they would give a proper witness to the truth of God? (Jer 9:23-24) Instead it took over 300 years to come to a full of expression of the doctrine of the Trinity.

@stiggy wiggy
 
Last edited:
The main reason that I'm not a trinitarian is because of how God expressed himself in the Old Testament in the first person singular, I, me, mine, myself, over and over again.

Genesis 1:26

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

And yes, most of the time He expressed Himself in the first person singular. That is because He is One.

God's chosen people, the Israelites, understood and passed down to their children that God was one "person". (Ex 3:14, Deut 6:4) For God to be three persons/one being would mean that God, the God who loves truth (Num 23:19, Zech 8:19,1 John 5:6), misrepresented himself to his chosen people by letting them believe that He was one person and not three. If this were true, the Israelites gave false witness of God. (Isa 43:1-13) This is misleading and deceitful. God has no reason to be either.

Therefore, I read the NT with the understanding that God is an "I" just like I am an "I". One personal being. This is how Jesus' disciples would have understood God also. The doctrine of God is fundamental. Why didn't Jesus explain the trinity to his disciples so that they would give a proper witness to the truth of God? (Jer 9:23-24) Instead it took over 300 years to come to a full of expression of the doctrine of the Trinity.

John 1:1 "I the beginning he Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God."

There is no way that can be read without evoking two Persons. How can one be with his identical self? The Word (Logos) is Christ Himself, the full expression of God the Father. Scripture teaches the reality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A belief in the Trinity is not a belief in their identity, but rather in the divinity of the three Persons. True, the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but neither is the word "rapture," but the content of both are taught. As far as Jesus not teaching the CONCEPT of the Trinity to His disciples, He did tell them that when they had seen Him they had seen the Father, yet that obviously was not tantamount to saying He and the Father were indistinguishable, but rather that they were both divine.

Paul's epistle's have invocations for his readers to pray to both the Father and Jesus. Surely you don't think he was encouraging believers to pray to someone other than God.
 
Genesis 1:26

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

And yes, most of the time He expressed Himself in the first person singular. That is because He is One.
I was going to post the same thing. Pretty much check and mate.

To that I might add John 1:1....In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

Here the Word (that became flesh) was with God while at the same time was God.

My personal belief is that if Caroljeen denies Christ Jesus' divinity.....then she denies much of the bible. Then again maybe she hasn't seen the tons of verses that show Jesus is God.

As far as the Holy Spirit being God...

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and withhold some of the proceeds from the land? 4 Did it not belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How could you conceive such a deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God!

In Acts 5 the Holy Spirit is identified as God.
 
I was going to post the same thing. Pretty much check and mate.

To that I might add John 1:1....In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

Yes, in fact I pointed that out too in the rest of my response which I initially screwed up and had to go back and edit:

John 1:1 "I the beginning he Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God."

There is no way that can be read without evoking two Persons. How can one be with his identical self? The Word (Logos) is Christ Himself, the full expression of God the Father. Scripture teaches the reality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A belief in the Trinity is not a belief in their identity, but rather in the divinity of the three Persons. True, the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but neither is the word "rapture," but the content of both are taught. As far as Jesus not teaching the CONCEPT of the Trinity to His disciples, He did tell them that when they had seen Him they had seen the Father, yet that obviously was not tantamount to saying He and the Father were indistinguishable, but rather that they were both divine.

Paul's epistle's have invocations for his readers to pray to both the Father and Jesus. Surely you don't think he was encouraging believers to pray to someone other than God.
 
Genesis 1:26

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

And yes, most of the time He expressed Himself in the first person singular. That is because He is One.
When you say that "He is One", what do you mean? "One" what?

The next verse (27) explains what God did. Notice that he didn't us plural pronouns in verse 27 to explain verse 26. How do you explain that?

Gen 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. NRSVUE

I believe that God was sharing his plans with the angels in vs 26.

John 1:1 "I the beginning he Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God."

There is no way that can be read without evoking two Persons. How can one be with his identical self? The Word (Logos) is Christ Himself, the full expression of God the Father. Scripture teaches the reality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A belief in the Trinity is not a belief in their identity, but rather in the divinity of the three Persons. True, the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but neither is the word "rapture," but the content of both are taught. As far as Jesus not teaching the CONCEPT of the Trinity to His disciples, He did tell them that when they had seen Him they had seen the Father, yet that obviously was not tantamount to saying He and the Father were indistinguishable, but rather that they were both divine.

Paul's epistle's have invocations for his readers to pray to both the Father and Jesus. Surely you don't think he was encouraging believers to pray to someone other than God.
I hadn't gotten into the NT in my first post. I'll will share my thoughts on the Father, Son, and the Spirit, after you answer my questions in the opening post.

What do you think the disciples knew about God when Jesus came on the scene? How did the disciples understand the Shema?
 
I believe that God was sharing his plans with the angels in vs 26.
The bible doesn't teach the angels were creating Adam with God....nor does it teach the angels were made in God image.

I see it as a stretch making the angels as part of the US.

In Gen 3 verse 22 we read....22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.......there it is again.
 
When you say that "He is One", what do you mean? "One" what?

One God. Three Persons.

The next verse (27) explains what God did. Notice that he didn't us plural pronouns in verse 27 to explain verse 26. How do you explain that?

No. How do YOU explain the previous verse? Remember, I'm the one who believes in His singularity AND His plurality.

I believe that God was sharing his plans with the angels in vs 26.

No. He did not make man in the likeness of angels.

I hadn't gotten into the NT in my first post. I'll will share my thoughts on the Father, Son, and the Spirit, after you answer my questions in the opening post.

What do you think the disciples knew about God when Jesus came on the scene? How did the disciples understand the Shema?

I doubt they even knew God had a Son. How could they have known?
 
One God. Three Persons.



No. How do YOU explain the previous verse? Remember, I'm the one who believes in His singularity AND His plurality.
God is speaking to those in his presence when he was in the process of creating. Those he was speaking to were not God because he was speaking to them and then He (singular) made man not they. My guess is the angels.
Or maybe he was consulting with himself.
No. He did not make man in the likeness of angels.
How do you understand "the image of God"? Was there an "image of God" present at the beginning?
I doubt they even knew God had a Son. How could they have known?
By OT prophecy. Not an eternal son but a begotten son through Mary.

You still haven't addressed my comments on God allowing the Jews to be false witnesses. Isa 43
 
God is speaking to those in his presence when he was in the process of creating. Those he was speaking to were not God because he was speaking to them and then He (singular) made man not they. My guess is the angels.

Remember: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Are you thinking He was soliciting the angels help in creating mankind as well as also having considered the angels to have already been made in His likeness? I guess the former is possible, and if we consider His likeness to entail the possession of will, intellect and emotion, which I do believe angels possess, I guess the latter is also possible, but I'm far from convinced. I think the plural pronoun connotes the Trinity. As far as to whom His words were addressed, I'm not sure an addressee is required for divine thoughts spoken. When He said, "Let there be light" He was not giving a command to someone else.

Or maybe he was consulting with himself.

How do you understand "the image of God"?

I think I prefer the translation "the likeness of God," which as I said above I believe indicates will, emotion and intellect.

Was there an "image of God" present at the beginning?

By OT prophecy. Not an eternal son but a begotten son through Mary.

You still haven't addressed my comments on God allowing the Jews to be false witnesses. Isa 43

That's because I didn't understand your comment. You did not explain what specifically in that chapter would make the Jews out to be false witnesses if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all divine, as I believe they are.

Look, I don't consider either of our beliefs to be heresy. I do not pray to a concept, neither one of Trinitarianism nor one of Oneness. I pray to a Living God, our Father God through Jesus Christ, recognizing that Christ is at the right hand of the Father and that the Holy Spirit helps me with my utterance, since He knows the mind of God, being God Himself. It is a great mystery that is too profound to be conceptualized properly. It must be apprehended, not comprehended.
 
Remember: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Are you thinking He was soliciting the angels help in creating mankind as well as also having considered the angels to have already been made in His likeness? I guess the former is possible, and if we consider His likeness to entail the possession of will, intellect and emotion, which I do believe angels possess, I guess the latter is also possible, but I'm far from convinced.
God is the one that created. The angels didn't create. They were present during creation as spectators, worshippers, singers, musicians, etc. It was a joyous time.
I think the plural pronoun connotes the Trinity.
How do you explain the singular pronouns in verse 27. How do you explain the singular pronouns in the entire OT? How do you explain that the Jews understood God to be one person and not three? Did God not make himself plain enough?
As far as to whom His words were addressed, I'm not sure an addressee is required for divine thoughts spoken. When He said, "Let there be light" He was not giving a command to someone else.
True. He spoke it and caused it to happen.
I think I prefer the translation "the likeness of God," which as I said above I believe indicates will, emotion and intellect.
There are a few more things but I agree.
That's because I didn't understand your comment. You did not explain what specifically in that chapter would make the Jews out to be false witnesses if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all divine, as I believe they are.
The Jews didn't believe that God was a trinity. If the doctrine of the trinity was true, the truth of what/who God is, then to be witnesses of God to the nations, the Jews should have told others that God was a trinity of persons. But the Jews believed God to be one person, an "I".

Look, I don't consider either of our beliefs to be heresy.
Neither do I.
I do not pray to a concept, neither one of Trinitarianism nor one of Oneness. I pray to a Living God, our Father God through Jesus Christ, recognizing that Christ is at the right hand of the Father and that the Holy Spirit helps me with my utterance, since He knows the mind of God, being God Himself. It is a great mystery that is too profound to be conceptualized properly. It must be apprehended, not comprehended.
Okay, do you want to move on to the NT? or just save this discussion for another time?
 
God is the one that created. The angels didn't create.

I agree. So you're now rebutting yourself when you suggested that God was talking to angels when He said "Let US create man in our likeness."

They were present during creation as spectators, worshippers, singers, musicians, etc. It was a joyous time.

Amen!

How do you explain the singular pronouns in verse 27. How do you explain the singular pronouns in the entire OT?

I already answered that, and you ignored my answer. Let me repeat it:

How do YOU explain the previous verse? Remember, I'm the one who believes in His singularity AND His plurality.

How do you explain that the Jews understood God to be one person and not three? Did God not make himself plain enough?

Yes. Just like the Jews didn't know God had an only begotten Son. You do believe He does, do you not? And you do believe that He did NOT reveal that to the Jews in the OT, do you not?

The Jews didn't believe that God was a trinity.

But He is. Just like they did not believe He had a pre-incarnate Son, but He did.

Okay, do you want to move on to the NT?

Your call. You're the one who talked me into this.
 
One God. Three Persons.



No. How do YOU explain the previous verse? Remember, I'm the one who believes in His singularity AND His plurality.



No. He did not make man in the likeness of angels.



I doubt they even knew God had a Son. How could they have known?
While the Bible doesn't say directly that angels, the heavenly spiritual creatures, are made in the image of God, I think that a good case can be made that they are. When angels make a rare appearance in the Bible, they are often said to be looking like men. In Job 1:6, they are called the Sons of God. It is difficult to imagine how a creature could be called this without being made in God's image. Angels have a spiritual life and a genuine relationship with God in that they rationally worship and serve God. The image of God doesn't appear to be defined within a narrow bandwidth of physical appearance since women are included as image bearers also. Also, spiritual quality is not narrowly limited either because sin can also diminish this image but somehow there is enough there that is still viable to call a man living in sin as made in God's image. There is also the other end, where the man Christ Jesus is the perfect, express image of God.

Angels certainly were created to have a spiritual relationship with God, to have choice and a powerful intellect. They were made to be servants and worshippers of God and to reflect his glory. One other thought is that when the "angel of the Lord" made appearances in the OT, sometimes it is hard to distinguish between whether this is a theophany of God himself or a real angel.

It seems that the only evidence for saying that angels were not made in God's image is that the scripture doesn't directly say they are. Am I 100% sure that angels were made in God's image? No, but I think the evidence they are is very strong.
 
I agree. So you're now rebutting yourself when you suggested that God was talking to angels when He said "Let US create man in our likeness."
No, God was simply including the angels in his plan. God wasn't speaking to other Gods. God wasn't speaking to two other persons with his own nature. If he was, who was doing the speaking and to whom? Besides that, why would God even need to speak to the other persons of the trinity out loud?

The next verse lets us know that God himself created man and the author uses singular personal pronouns to describe God immediately after he quoted God as speaking to others before He made man. How do you explain these things in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity
I already answered that, and you ignored my answer. Let me repeat it:

How do YOU explain the previous verse? Remember, I'm the one who believes in His singularity AND His plurality.
I didn't ignore it. Would you explain God's singularity and plurality? Not all trinitarians explain it the same way. I'd like to know what you believe.
Yes. Just like the Jews didn't know God had an only begotten Son. You do believe He does, do you not? And you do believe that He did NOT reveal that to the Jews in the OT, do you not?
I don't believe that God had an eternally begotten Son. By "God" are you implying God the Father?
I believe that God had a son with the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary who was begotten on his birth in Bethlehem. I also believe that the Son is the one person of God incarnate. The same God that the Jews worshipped as YHWH, the I am that I am.

Luke 1:35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.
But He is. Just like they did not believe He had a pre-incarnate Son, but He did.
I agree with the Jews on this one.
Your call. You're the one who talked me into this.
Moving onto the NT.
 
No, God was simply including the angels in his plan. God wasn't speaking to other Gods. God wasn't speaking to two other persons with his own nature. If he was, who was doing the speaking and to whom? Besides that, why would God even need to speak to the other persons of the trinity out loud?

The next verse lets us know that God himself created man and the author uses singular personal pronouns to describe God immediately after he quoted God as speaking to others before He made man. How do you explain these things in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity

I didn't ignore it. Would you explain God's singularity and plurality? Not all trinitarians explain it the same way. I'd like to know what you believe.

I don't believe that God had an eternally begotten Son. By "God" are you implying God the Father?
I believe that God had a son with the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary who was begotten on his birth in Bethlehem. I also believe that the Son is the one person of God incarnate. The same God that the Jews worshipped as YHWH, the I am that I am.

Luke 1:35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

I agree with the Jews on this one.

Moving onto the NT.

Rather than defend a concept, one which is far too abstract for my taste as applied to a LIVING God, let me just tell you what I believe and you can tell me whether or not we disagree on Who God is, as opposed to how we should label Him.

I believe God is our Father Who is in heaven. I believe Jesus is His only begotten Son. Both are elohim, or God, in the sense that a human can only beget a human. I believe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. He is a He, not an It. A Person, not a mere influence. I believe that when we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father. I believe that Christ is the Logos, the perfect expression of the Father. I believe that Christ co-existed with the Father even before the advent of time. I believe that everything that is, was, or ever will be is created by Christ, including Time itself. I believe that God the Father sustains the universe through God the Son. I believe that the reason God desires our praise is because of the mutual love of the Father and Son which means the Son is pleased when we praise the Father and vice-versa. I believe the Father is greater than the Son due to the fact that the Son will some day hand His Kingdom over to the Father.

And yes, I do believe I can back all of the above up with scripture, but you strike me as someone who already knows the supporting biblical passages involved, and I don't think it's a good idea for two believers to get into a Bible thumping contest.
 
Rather than defend a concept, one which is far too abstract for my taste as applied to a LIVING God, let me just tell you what I believe and you can tell me whether or not we disagree on Who God is, as opposed to how we should label Him.

I believe God is our Father Who is in heaven. I believe Jesus is His only begotten Son. Both are elohim, or God, in the sense that a human can only beget a human. I believe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. He is a He, not an It. A Person, not a mere influence. I believe that when we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father. I believe that Christ is the Logos, the perfect expression of the Father. I believe that Christ co-existed with the Father even before the advent of time. I believe that everything that is, was, or ever will be is created by Christ, including Time itself. I believe that God the Father sustains the universe through God the Son. I believe that the reason God desires our praise is because of the mutual love of the Father and Son which means the Son is pleased when we praise the Father and vice-versa. I believe the Father is greater than the Son due to the fact that the Son will some day hand His Kingdom over to the Father.

And yes, I do believe I can back all of the above up with scripture, but you strike me as someone who already knows the supporting biblical passages involved, and I don't think it's a good idea for two believers to get into a Bible thumping contest.
We disagree on Who God is.
 
Back
Top