True Monotheism: A Reader on the Trinity

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It is important to fully understand any topic, before we enter into the arguments against it. The purpose of this reader is to introduce the Muslim and the Christian alike into the proto-orthodox (present day Christian theology) teaching of the Trinity. By doing this, we enable ourselves to think rationally and logically instead of polemically. This is important, for if we truly want to engage in discussion with each other, there must be a foundation from which we can operate.

What is the Trinity?

I have found the following definition communicates what needs to be said with the greatest clarity: Within the one
Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. – [1]

As monotheists, we accept that God is one, what is meant by one will be discussed later. For our purposes, the word ‘Person‘ stands out in this definition of the Trinity. What is its definition, how are we to interpret this term?

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being” and “person.” It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the “being” of man—human being. A rock has “being”—the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both “what” and “who” when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings—God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of “cat kind.” Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who’s. – [2]

For some, this teaching may not be enough to develop a holistic understanding of what the Trinity is. To satiate their thirst for a more historically rooted definition, we turn to ‘On the Trinity‘, by the early Church Father, St. Augustine:

All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father has begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized; nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, the same Trinity sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as of fire, but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven, You are my Son, whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount, or when the voice sounded, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again; but that it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. This is also my faith, since it is the Catholic faith.

Some persons, however, find a difficulty in this faith; when they hear that the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, and yet that this Trinity is not three Gods, but one God; and they ask how they are to understand this: especially when it is said that the Trinity works indivisibly in everything that God works, and yet that a certain voice of the Father spoke, which is not the voice of the Son; and that none except the Son was born in the flesh, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; and that none except the Holy Spirit came in the form of a dove. They wish to understand how the Trinity uttered that voice which was only of the Father; and how the same Trinity created that flesh in which the Son only was born of the Virgin; and how the very same Trinity itself wrought that form of a dove, in which the Holy Spirit only appeared. Yet, otherwise, the Trinity does not work indivisibly, but the Father does some things, the Son other things, and the Holy Spirit yet others: or else, if they do some things together, some severally, then the Trinity is not indivisible. It is a difficulty, too, to them, in what manner the Holy Spirit is in the Trinity, whom neither the Father nor the Son, nor both, have begotten, although He is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Since, then, men weary us with asking such questions, let us unfold to them, as we are able, whatever wisdom God’s gift has bestowed upon our weakness on this subject; neither let us go on our way with consuming envy. Should we say that we are not accustomed to think about such things, it would not be true; yet if we acknowledge that such subjects commonly dwell in our thoughts, carried away as we are by the love of investigating the truth, then they require of us, by the law of charity, to make known to them what we have herein been able to find out. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect (for, if the Apostle Paul, how much more must I, who lie far beneath his feet, count myself not to have apprehended!); but, according to my measure, if I forget those things that are behind, and reach forth unto those things which are before, and press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling, I am requested to disclose so much of the road as I have already passed, and the point to which I have reached, whence the course yet remains to bring me to the end. And those make the request, whom a generous charity compels me to serve. Needs must too, and God will grant that, in supplying them with matter to read, I shall profit myself also; and that, in seeking to reply to their inquiries, I shall myself likewise find that for which I was inquiring. Accordingly I have undertaken the task, by the bidding and help of the Lord my God, not so much of discoursing with authority respecting things I know already, as of learning those things by piously discoursing of them. – [4]

Quite a lengthy read, but does it aid us in our understanding of this complex subject? Truth be told, no, it doesn’t help us in understanding. What is does help us in realizing though, is that the concept, dogma and teaching of the Trinity is as equally confusing to the early Church as it is to the modern Church. Just as they were unable to understand it for themselves, we also find it difficult to ascertain its sensibility. Lest, I digress, St. Augustine does attempt to quell some of these burning questions.

If the Father and the Son are of the same substance, and are the same being, how do we reconcile the issue of their wills being independent (or apparently so):

For if some things were made by the Father, and some by the Son, then all things were not made by the Father, nor all things by the Son; but if all things were made by the Father, and all things by the Son, then the same things were made by the Father and by the Son. The Son, therefore, is equal with the Father, and the working of the Father and the Son is indivisible. Because if the Father made even the Son, whom certainly the Son Himself did not make, then all things were not made by the Son; but all things were made by the Son: therefore He Himself was not made, that with the Father He might make all things that were made. And the apostle has not refrained from using the very word itself, but has said most expressly, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; using here the name of God specially of the Father; as elsewhere, But the head of Christ is God. – [4]

I did say he attempted to answer, as the response he gives is of very little substance. His logic seems circular if anything, and it does not elevate our understanding. For now, we are finished with the individual words of men. We must now focus on the Creeds which all Christians must accept. Perhaps in these we will find some alleviation to this problem of understanding the Trinity.

The Athanasian Creed: [5]

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.


The Nicene Creed: [6]

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Chalcedonian Creed: [7]

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

What we have presented is a systematic regression of the presentation of the Trinity by Christian scholarship. This has been done, so that we can derive understanding from the simple language of contemporary scholarship, and then we’ve delved into the more difficult language of the ancients. Yet, the problem persists, in their explanations, their creeds, their definitions, what we see are axioms (statements taken to be true), without any logical or coherent explanations. We did derive some understanding of what Christians believe and how they are taught these beliefs, but Christians have not been taught how to explain this dogma. Where does this leave us? It leaves us with many unanswered questions, but for now, we must summarize what we have been told.

Summarizing the Dogmas:

  • God is one being, but three persons.
  • The being is the what.
  • The persons are the who.
  • All three persons belong to one substance.
  • All three persons have the same will.
  • All three persons co-equal and co-existing.
  • The Son is begotten.
  • The Holy Spirit is not begotten but is of the Father and the Son.

A Discussion on our Findings:

What is one? Is one a grouping of many into a singular unit, or a whole by itself? We can say there is one mountain, but it is of many hills, this is a grouping into one unit. We can also say there is a chair and it is a whole by itself, no part taken independently from the chair can render it a chair by itself, but a hill taken from a mountain, can be seen as a mountain in its own right. Yet, we are not speaking of the creation, but of the Creator. If we say that God is one being (who is impossible to comprehend), but has multiple whos, then we have arrived at a major problem. The problem is, if God has multiple personalities (as each person is distinct, therefore each person’s distinct nature is referred to as having a personality), then why three and not two? Why not five, perhaps six persons? It is important to remember that YHWH in the Old and New Testaments, never identifies Himself, as having multiple persons/ personalities, or of having a singular being with different persons. He never says three persons or two, He always uses the term one. These are human concepts derived from these books. When YHWH says that He is one, if we are to take His words by themselves, then He is a singular whole and not a grouping of many into one. If we were to cast away the statements of men and take His words as they are written, then we would have no need to ask these questions.

Let’s take into consideration a mug. If I were to say that I own a mug, then it is clear I own a mug. I haven’t specialized my statements and said that I own a mug that has a division down the middle, therefore it is one mug as it is generally understood. It will only become a mug with more than one compartments, if I qualify my statement by saying it can hold two liquids at once. Yet, I did not say this. There is no verse in the Old, or New Testaments where YHWH says that He is more than one person, therefore we must take His words as they are and He is one, as a whole by itself. Eventually, someone did recognize this problem. We have God saying He is a whole by itself, but out doctrine teaches that He is a whole by a grouping. To reconcile this, an emendation was made. An emendation is an alteration to a text to suit one’s bias or agenda. In this case, we had the advent of 1 John 5:7  [8] which declared the following:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

For the first time within the entirety of the Old and New Testaments, a numerical figure, exceeding one in meaning, was used to define, describe and demonstrate the nature of God. Yet, the scholars themselves have conceded and quite unanimously so, that there is no historical basis for this verse being inclusive of the earliest renditions of the New Testament corpus [9]:

For there are three that bear record in heaven … – There are three that “witness,” or that “bear witness” – the same Greek word which, in 1 John 5:8, is rendered “bear witness” – μαρτυροῦντες marturountes. There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage.

It is not consistent with the design of these notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the “results” which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page. The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: “For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, “For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:

I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age – one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.

II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions – one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.

III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity – a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine – nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor – it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it.

IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

The Problems with the Trinity:

  1. YHWH never describes Himself as more than one, thus the definition of one must be taken as it is read, a singular whole.
  2. The only verse meant to qualify YHWH as more than one person is known to be fallacious.
  3. Therefore, there was a need for this verse to exist, as some portions of the Christian community felt the need to insert such a belief into their own scripture.
  4. If we take the concept of God as being more than one to be true, why do Christians limit it to three? Where does this limit come from?
  5. The Son is not co-existing with the Father, as the divine Son is never once declared so by YHWH in the Old Testament.
  6. The Holy Spirit is not co-existing as a divine being, as he is never once declared so by YHWH in the Old Testament. The Spirit’s presence in Genesis during the creation of the earth, does not make him co-existing with God, as angels also existed at this time.
  7. They are not co-equal, as the Father is seen as the ‘head’ of Christ (Cf. 1 Cor. 11:13). This is a hierarchy, therefore not co-equal.
  8. The Son obeys the Father (Cf. John 5:30-31) and therefore cannot be co-equal.
  9. The Holy Spirit is under the command of the Father (Cf. Acts 5:32) and therefore cannot be co-equal.
  10. The Father commands Christ in various aspects of his life (Cf. John 12:49, 15:9-10), co-equal persons have the same will, one commanding the other is a hierarchy and therefore qualifies the Son-Father relationship as not co-equal.
  11. The Son questioned the will of the Father (Cf. Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34).

What do Christians Conclude of the Trinity:

Seeing as there is no scriptural basis for God being a singular being (what) with numeral persons (whos), and that there is no sufficient explanation as to how they can be co-equal, yet function in a hierarchy, or how they can be of the same will and substance yet question the other’s will, Christians themselves have abandoned all hope of deriving a true understanding of this dogma. They have classified it as a holy mystery. Surely, we see some explanations, such as the egg, water and three headed dog from hell, but these are easily dismissed. Due to its problematic nature in being explained, the Catholic Church declared [10]:

The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains “hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness” (Constitution, “De fide. cath.”, iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. “Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.

The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord’s words, Matthew 11:27, “No one knoweth the Son, but the Father,” seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: “The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it” (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae — “Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai.”). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of “the Innascible” (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil, Against Eunomius I.14; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures VI; St. John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.2, etc.).

James White did try to give some evidences in his piece on Loving the Trinity, [11] as to providing the Trinitarian scriptures within the Bible, but none of them identify God as more than one person, rather they all signify a God and then speak about other beings, they never mention ‘persons of God or substances of God‘, if one were to say God and the boy, do we say that God and the boy are of  the same substance, if not, why not? The same logic applies here. We must not let confirmation bias disturb the contents of the texts are they are laid out before us. Strangely enough, he qualifies my points of 1 -4 by never once referencing the Old Testament, he only appeals to New Testament quotes.


A doctrine about God seeks to enlighten us about the God we worship. It does not mean to explain to us what God in His reality is, but it seems to let us know who God is and what God does. For example, we cannot claim to know the nature of God, for this is incomprehensible, but we can claim to know who our God is and what He does. We say that our who is YHWH or Allaah, and we say the what (again, not substance but of attributes) is Most Loving (Al Wadud) or the All Knowing (Al ‘Alim), Al Ahad (The Uniquely One). In Islam the doctrine of God is stated in simply four verses, in Surah al Ikhlas, Chapter 112 of the Qur’aan.

Whereas the doctrine of God in Christianity is incomprehensible. The who of God is partially known, for there are many persons, many debatable persons. Christians themselves differ as to whether YHWH is the Trinity or YHWH is the Father. The what of God is unknown, for the attributes of one person do not co-exist with the attributes of another person within the Godhead. Therefore we say the Islamic doctrine of God is clear and simple to understand, whereas the doctrine of God in Christianity is complex, incomprehensible and so difficult to understand that even Christians have abandoned the search for understanding and have instead dubbed it a Holy Mystery (as seen above).

Christians therefore, cannot claim to know who they worship and what God does, or is. We Muslims however can and this is a basic yet enormous difference in our theologies. Christians do not know the God they worship, but we Muslims do.


[1] – “Loving the Trinity“, Page 2, James R. White, Christian Research Institute.
[2] – “A Brief Definition of the Trinity“, James R. White, Alpha and Omega Ministries.
[3] – “On the Trinity“, Book 1, Chapters 4-6, St. Augustine.
[4] – Ibid.
[5] – “Athanasian Creed“, St. Athanasius.
[6] – “Nicene Creed“, Ecumenical Council of Nicea.
[7] – “Chalcedonian Creed“, Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.
[8] – 1 John 5:7, Bible.
[9] – 1 John 5:7, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible.
[10] – “The Trinity is a Mystery“, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
[11] – “Loving the Trinity“, Pages 4 – 5, James R. White, Christian Research Institute.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.


  • what does SEPARATE mean? christians say that the trinity god cannot be in the presence of sin so the 2nd person incarnates. this means that when the sins were taken back and applied on the 2nd person , there must have been separation in the trinity. if there was no seperation then the second person was in the presence of his father god and at the same time the second person was covered with sins. either the father was in te presence o f sin because the sons spirit had all sins applied unto him, or the son was wearing a flesh/mask and all the sins were applied unto the flesh/mask. christians admit that their god was disabled for 33 years so why not admit that trinity consisted on 2members when the son was in the presence of sin? and if the 2nd person was not in the presence of sin , then what was?

  • “he are 3”. “me are 3”. “he are 3 he’s”. this is the language of polytheist trinitarian christianity

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s