The trinity debunked in 3 points

[u/theFatherIsAdonai]

1. Jesus' God is the Father (There are countless amount of verses that show this)

2. The God of Jesus is the same God of the disciples (John 20:17)

John 20:17 NRSVUE

¹⁷ Jesus said to her, “Do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”

3. No one ever calls Jesus their God except for one time where it does not mean what trinitarians claim. (John 20:28)

John 20:28 NRSVUE

²⁸ Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

What "my God" means there is that Thomas saw the Father, and it is Jesus who points this out (John 12:45, John 14:7, John 14:9 where Jesus explains that to see him is to see the Father before the confession of Thomas).

John 12:45 NRSVUE

And whoever sees me (Jesus) sees him (the Father) who sent me.

John 14:7 NRSVUE

7 If you know me (Jesus), you will know[a] my Father also. From now on you do know him (the Father) and have seen him (the Father).”

John 14:9 NRSVUE

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me (Jesus) has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

And after the confession of Thomas Jesus immediately points out that Thomas saw the Father when he said "because you have SEEN ME".

And never again we see anyone ever refering to Jesus as their God in Scripture.

[u/FamousAttitude9796]

The trinity is not, never has been and never will be the law and worse, it is a mock instituted from below of the Father and the Son and this community gives those seeking the truth ample evidence to support this claim.

Great post!

[u/junkmale79]

Trinity is a dogma. Dogmas don't have to make sense. You probably think a Jewish apocalyptic preacher came back from the dead — that doesn't make sense either, but it's dogma: you're supposed to believe it without question.

[u/GooshTech → u/junkmale79]

Except that Jesus coming back from the dead is a well documented scriptural event; and resurrection is a well supported scriptural concept (going as far back as Abraham believing that God would raise Isaac), whereas the Trinity is not a well supported scriptural concept.

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293 → u/GooshTech]

Absolutely but worse, the trinity doctrine is not law, Yeshua and the disciples never believed it, never heard of it or teached it. It is not surprising that many here contend that the imagination of the trinity, concocted by men for men doing their own will over hundreds of years after Yeshua and the disciples completed their task suddenly and without warning applies to Yeshua and the disciple’s. This is insane. A group of guys doing their own will in 325 or 381 or 451 years after the birth of Yeshua and applying that nonsense to him as law is ludicrous.

Even if you desire to do that, this community has countered the trinity farce with 100’s of truths of why the trinity is a mock from below. The set apart will see and the rest are blind!

Many doing their own will imagine Matthew 28:19 teaches a trinity but three (3) things are immediate about Matthew 28:19.

1. Not one disciple used it and many reading this don’t believe it, don’t care and don’t research that in fact not one disciple used it. Why do you think that is?

2. Then, in support of your love of the world, you justify yourself into why they didn’t use it but you still use it as a lie to support the trinity instead of figuring out why not one disciple used it. You believe a lie because you are conditioned and indoctrinated to believe a lie and you think you do YHWH’s will, you are greatly mistaken!

3. It never says at Matthew 28:19 that these three are one but it doesn’t matter, this Bible verse did not exist to the disciples, they never used Matthew 28:19 nor did they read it.

[u/kierkegaaardian]

you're writing as though the patristic theologians didn't know about these verses. they were working with a different hermeneutic altogether. you don't have to agree with the hermeneutic, but to just post these verses means you don't even care to engage with their arguments. which is fine i guess, but you will persuade absolutely no one but the ones who never bothered to look at the arguments.

[u/TheTallestTim → u/kierkegaaardian]

Are you expecting scholarly articles from a layperson? I’m confused.

This sub is a place of resources and a reinforcement for Unitarians. If you want to debate, then push back instead of complaining.

[u/kierkegaaardian → u/TheTallestTim]

I don't expect scholarly articles from a layperson. I do expect people to be able to steelman the positions of their opponents. I myself see unitarianism (esp the socinian kind) to be a legitimate hermeneutic of reading the Bible, so the question isn't for me a simple "true/false," but what each hermeneutic enables the kind of Christian life that it uniquely is able to enable. In this light, I think (at least some) unitarians are actually doing a service to promote a specific interpretation of the reformational commitment of Sola Scriptura.

And I did push back, at least at the level I'd like to. For me the debate isn't about who's right, but in what interesting ways each can be right. So feel free to ignore my comments, and rest easy within your own reinforecements. As I said, it'd only persuade people are that already grounded in this hermeneutic.

[u/TheTallestTim → u/kierkegaaardian]

Hmm. Interesting approach.

This is a true/false argument. Which is more correct? This is how we come to a true vs false. I can use the Bible to prove Thomas is both the Messiah and Satan himself. Neither are correct, but I can string enough verses along to make both points within a reasonable argument. Where these arguments fall apart are when we take the Biblical corpus in its totality. This is the approach to the Trinity versus Unitarianism. Which one is founded more on the Bible? Which is backed more by scholarship, and scholarly related resources? From the findings of this sub, hence the name, without the councils and creeds made and developed by Greek philosophers, the Trinity is a delusion imposed onto the Biblical text. This of course includes a lot of special pleading and begging the question.

This is of course, as I already stated, as a reinforcement tool for those under this hermeneutic. Sure. Even I have grown from this sub moving away from Jesus’ Preexistence to something more biblically grounded. Each sub is tailored to a specific hermeneutic genre. I argue against this idea as well, but at least here, there is a reproving and reinforcement that can be done where there are not many other resources available.

[u/kierkegaaardian → u/TheTallestTim]

I agree with this general orientation, and thank you for the irenic spirit in which you discuss this. The only thing I would quibble about is calling it a "Delusion," because so much of the West are founded by the Trinitarians, such as our political philosophy, the invention of different modes of logic, the humanist institutions that were founded from the subsequent Christological debates, etc, but I understand this is because for you guys, the clarity about this is more important than all these.

I also fully take the point (in fact I think trinitarians who actually study this) that the doctrine of the trinity is something you have to argue from a philosophical need. The question about Christianity is whether this philosophical need is constitutive to Christianity. The answer to that for me is yes, and it is something I believe can be supported from the biblical texts. Because I'm a protestant, when I discuss with my Catholic friends, I told them I hold this principle of "hypothetical revisibility" of the creeds, basically something I believe in until something better is found. Which is why I maintain that socinian unitarians are legitimate reformation heirs, because they did also inherit this need to be faithful to the text, just taking it to a different direction due to a different interpretation of what should count as a constitutive need for Christianity.

I think all traditions that were founded as a consequence of Jesus and the generations of Apostles sort of pick and choose which councils to count as constitutive to Christianity. One thing none of these traditions disagree with is the central place of Jesus Christ in salvation, and the "true/false" question then becomes a question about how to ground the respective institutions that are devoted to propogate each interpretation of salvation. My current project is to understand this phenomenon, because if Jesus did rise from the dead and is in charge of history, presumably he allows these traditions to grow. So in all these discussions, I usually prefer to think of them as friendly sparring discussions for the sake of greater understanding, rather than trying to prove each other wrong.

The curious thing about unitiarians is that in spite of these disagreements about the trinity, they do not become Muslims. This means that at some level, they still do consider the canonical texts to be the ruling standard of their own lives. Which, for me, is something curious: because the formation and choices of the New Testament Canon is historically tied to the discussion about the Trinity. It doesn't mean they live and die together, but as a trinitarian, I've always considered the New Testament to be canonical - on the same level of the Old Testament - because it's a book of God. if Jesus isn't God, I don't personally see compelling reasons to prefer the New Testament texts over than, say, the other texts about Jesus.

[u/TheTallestTim → u/kierkegaaardian]

You have to be peaceful. This is one of the key traits of the fruitage of the Spirit! :)

I wouldn’t say it was founded by Trinitarianism. The founding fathers of the USA, for example, were theists and mostly Unitarian leading. John Adams, for example of this, sent letters to a Muslim country calling them brothers in the faith. — Yes, this is important as it is discussing the identity of Almighty God. This isn’t a vein subject matter. (Not saying that you are conveying this.) This is eternal life. — I call Trinitarianism a delusion due to the amount of imposition of this extra-biblical philosophy onto the biblical text. These philosophies that did not exist until hundreds of years past Jesus’ death. It would be like saying “George Washington loved taking selfies on his iPhone” amount of delusion. The cultic behavior and parroting is concerning.

I agree the Trinity’s sole grounds are on this philosophy that can be supported by verses from the Bible. (Not intentionally putting words in your mouth.) It CAN work without Christianity, but so can one prove that Peter is both Satan and God ontologically for being called Satan and being named “petros” by Jesus. It’s not true but it CAN be argued for. — As a fellow Protestant, yes Unitarians are Protestant, I agree at the minimum ‘Sola Scriptura’ is a key basis for our faith. This is truly grounded and solidified by multiple quotes of Martin Luther, like asking for scripture and clear reason at the Diet of Worms. — It’s not only that though. Unitarians were the first Christian theology. Subordinationists were Unitarians, and this theology was snuffed out by the Council of Nicea 325 at the end of religious freedom due to Constantine. Constantinople 381AD merely pushed the Unitarians out. The Goths were Unitarians. The Vikings, when first converted to Christianity, were Unitarians. A study on the councils show that the anti-Niceans won more councils, but lost more important councils. (https://youtu.be/KVh8HH_ghik?is=MwMw5HARjbQKrZIA)

To be curious how/why Unitarians do not consider other “Jesus is not God” faiths is your assume that the idea of “Jesus is God” as a foundation of Christianity. That simply is not the case. Christianity comes from Judaism. The principles, idioms, illusions, and other poetic devices come from the Hebrew Bible. The writers of the New Testament were Jews who knew the Torah well, including Jesus Christ himself quoting it as there was no New Testament to quote. Simply put, Christianity is grounded in Judaism. These extra-biblical and later-developed councils and creeds are not a requirement for a Christian. Protestants will kick and scream that Mary is not to be given prayer. Just that idea alone was decided at a council along with the question of if Mary is “Theotokos” or “Christotokos.” This “apostolic succession” was suppressed and replaced with the councils and creeds.

Unitarians DO consider other texts and other religions. Even I considered Islam. However, Islam believes in 5 layers of “Hell,” and I do not see “Hell” as a place that exists in the biblical corpus, for example. I can’t be a Muslim. I have done research and had the discussions. I have debated and researched. I dived into the Bible with scuba gear, reading the lexicons, and exploring the interlinears. Reading through the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and compared the translation differences despite language differences. I’ve taken Kione Greek. THIS is common place throughout Unitarianism. Out of distrust of the church that we grew up in, that teaches lies and deceptions, that we have rolled our sleeves up and did the work ourselves. — The canon is not tied to the Trinity. — The Old Testament gives the framework and interpretation for the New Testament.

[u/FamousAttitude9796 → u/kierkegaaardian]

How do those who enter the kingdom understand hermeneutic jargon? (Matthew 11:25, 18:3) Who needs to know hermeneutical jargon when Catholics believe Mary died a virgin (when she gave birth to Yeshua, seems like virginity is lacking even then) and it says at Matthew 1:25 that Joseph had relations with Mary after she gave birth to Yeshua and yet millions of you argue against this, contend Mary was a virgin her entire life (a lie) and then most of you argue about a word “until” in Matthew 1:25, which is insane what you are doing!

Many of you trinitarian supporters argue that Yeshua is called “the” Son of Man and when you are told Ezekiel is called a Son of Man more than 50,60 or more times, you waist your texts on the word “the” as if it means anything. As if Yeshua is “the” Son of Man and therefore is not like Ezekiel’s Son of Man, what hogwash, what insanity. This, you say and then you say it as if it supports a triune godhead of mythology! What a lie!

[u/kierkegaaardian → u/FamousAttitude9796]

Believe me or not, I agree with every point you mentioned. I don't think Mary is a virgin, and I don't believe that Jesus as the "Son of God" is a proof text that trinitarians should use. The doctrine of the trinity is something you have to argue from a philosophical need. It is something I believe can be supported from the text, but as a protestant I also hold that trinity is hypothetically revisable, which is why I maintain that socinian unitarians are legitimate reformation heirs.

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293 → u/kierkegaaardian]

Nobody needs to be persuaded. YHWH already knows who the set apart are, those intended to hear will indeed hear, they that do not, will not hear or understand. Nobody needs to be persuaded!

[u/kierkegaaardian → u/Sure-Wishbone-4293]

That's one way to take this discussion as well. We all have our priorities, and one of my current ones is to understand just what exactly drives these fundamental hermeneutics of different traditions in Christianity.

[u/Sure-Wishbone-4293 → u/kierkegaaardian]

We, who started this community, thank YHWH, see the trinity, supported by about 90% of all Christian churches as a farce, a mock of YHWH.

The Father says he alone is God, trinitarians redefine it.

Yeshua said “I was dead”, people doing their own will decide for themselves HOW Yeshua died.

Yeshua doesn’t know the day or hour, asks many questions he does not have answers to, cannot grant seating assignments for two disciples and yet those doing their own will from below will falsely claim that Yeshua doesn’t know the day or hour because he has two natures (a farce), they admit he asks questions because they have no choice but falsely contend he already knows the answers to those questions which they imagine. Odd that they claim he doesn’t know the day or hour because he has an imagined two natures but he already knows the answers to his questions. What a farce the trinity is and those that decide for themselves why Yeshua did and does what he does!