Quennel Gale at QMAX21@blackplanet.com
Quennel Gale
There are many concepts and terms that seem very difficult to comprehend. But in essence, once one completes a thorough study of a particular concept or term it becomes fairly simple to grasp. One such concept, which seems very difficult to understand by both Christians and non-Christians alike, is the term “Trinity”. Many Christians give up trying to define the Trinity and insist that the term is too difficult to explain making it a great mystery. Because many orthodox Christians hold to this belief, Unitarian groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, Oneness Pentecostals, and other Unitarians reject the doctrine of the Trinity as either being pagan or theologically illogical.
What is a Trinity? How can it be defined? Is it logical? Here in this synopsis we will answer this among other questions for the reader. Since there are many papers, books and articles on the Trinity our goal is to explain the most important aspects of the doctrine in simple terms for the reader to digest and understand on their own. The first place to turn in our quest to define the Trinity is simply the dictionary:
Trinity: in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. (Britannica.com)
According to the dictionary, the Trinity is defined as being ONE GOD in THREE individual persons. The reason we first appeal to the dictionary is because there are many non-Trinitarian groups who like to claim that the Trinity is 3 gods. What is interesting is how these same groups also tend to use the dictionary in trying to define and defend concepts and terms particular to their perspective beliefs. If the dictionary describes Trinity as being “ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS” then it is a total misrepresentation in trying to equate Trinity to being three gods. The dictionary also has a term for this and it is called Tritheism, not Trinity:
the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Gods (Merrian Webster Online Dictionary)
Notice how Tritheism is the doctrine of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being 3 gods and not orthodox Christian doctrine. It is highly suspicious to change a word from its intended meaning (Trinity) to something totally different (Tritheism). To utilize this form of response is what we call a "strawman argument" which is defined as "someone using an argument which attacks a preceding argument that is different from, and usually weaker than, the preceding opposition's best argument".
As you can see a "strawman argument" misrepresents the original argument by making it much easier to answer for the responding apologist. If non-Trinitarians can prove that the Trinity is indeed three gods then it would be much easier for them to prove orthodox Christian beliefs as being polytheistic in nature. This proves that non-Trinitarian apologists can’t answer the concept of the Trinity legitimately because no truthful counter response requires a person to render the definition of a word as something totally different from what it originally meant in response to a preceding argument. This polemic tactic is very common among anti-Trinitarian groups (Muslims, Jehovah Witness, Oneness sects) who have already made up in their minds that the Trinity just has to be false.
This argument by anti-Trinitarian groups reminds us about the words Jesus spoke the Jews who opposed him in his ministry:
Now all of these groups may claim that they aren’t liars and may say that they’re telling the truth about the Trinity however truth doesn’t consist of using fallacious arguments to rebuttal a particular doctrine of theological belief nor does it require misunderstanding THE SPEECH OF "TRINITY". Such polemic methods (of not understanding clear speech) were attributed to the devil by Jesus himself!! Basically many Unitarians exhibit some form of fallacy in their argument against the Trinity. If you look at the word fallacy it is defined as:
The word fallacy clearly means something that is based on wrongful logic, whether presumptuous or intentional. This word originally comes from the word which means to deceive!! In the Bible people who deceive others (such as one of the definitions of fallacy) are those who clearly follow the leading of Satan, the master of deceit and craftiness. If a person has to change the meaning of Trinity from its original meaning of “One God in three Persons” then this person has committed a deceitful and deceiving response.
Since the word Trinity is defined as “One God in Three Persons” then the anti-Trinitarian apologist must refute the original definition and not attempt to change the meaning from “One God in three persons” to “three gods”. The problem for many Unitarians is that no credible dictionary defines “Trinity” as being described as 3 gods in one. They usually claim that the belief of 3 gods is called Tritheism.
It is very common for Unitarians to misrepresent the Trinity because of their inability to answer or define it properly. It’s very suspect for them to totally ignore the given definition of this word and claiming how it isn’t “One God in Three Persons” but “three gods”. Yet these same Unitarians would immediately appeal to the dictionary if it supported their view on a topic or issue.
If the Trinity is described as 3 persons WITHIN ONE GODHEAD, why do Unitarians claim that it is 3 gods in one? Why can't they address the Trinity in its original content instead of CHANGING PERSONS TO MEAN GODS? The answer lies in the theology taught by their church, mosque, or Kingdom hall. It should be noted to the reader that many Unitarian believers never attempt to actually research their beliefs in-depth from the Bible and many just pickup what they were taught at their perspective place of worship and assume that it is true.
Muslims believe the Trinity to be an error simply because they believe that the Quran must be truth, no questions asked. Jehovah Witnesses disbelieve the Trinity because they believe whatever the watchtower organization says JUST HAS TO BE TRUE. Oneness Pentecostals also follow this same pattern of thinking and just like the JW, whatever scriptural study or exegesis is based upon the assumed precepts of their church organization. It is very common to see JW, and Oneness Pentecostals use many of the same verses in proving that God can’t be a Trinity. This isn’t studying the Bible it is merely parroting theological dogma already present within a particular organization.
So why is the Trinity such a taboo doctrine to these groups of worshippers? The answer lies within the underlying notion of each group of Unitarians believing that the concept of “ONE” God excludes the possibility of God being more than one person. On the surface this argument sounds indestructible but in essence it is as foolish as trying to skydive without a parachute. Such polemic tactics has cause many laymen Christian followers to question the dogma of the Trinity and put off the Unitarian argument by saying “Well!! The Trinity is a Mystery which won’t be fully understood on this side of heaven”.
It should be noted that anything is a mystery when a person never actually knows the definition of the word in question. Unlike what Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals want you to believe, the word "ONE" doesn't refer to ONE person only, and it can’t be used as a defense against the Trinity. The dictionary will clearly illustrate this to you:
GROUP-A number of persons, animals, or things existing or brought together; an assemblage; cluster. (The New international Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary Encyclopedic Edition. 1999. Trident Press International)
The term "ONE" in reference to God can't be used to prove that God is only ONE PERSON as Muslim, JW and Unitarian apologists and followers would have you to believe. The historical definition of ONE has never meant just a single numerical thing ONLY! “One” can be defined as unit or group in which both are more than a single numerical ONE, but are as ONE working together. This means that the idea of using “ONE” to prove that God isn’t a Trinity is a false argument. Here we present even more definitions for you to look at:
ONE-Being a single UNIT, object or entity. b.) Forming a single entity OF TWO OR MORE COMPONENTS.
GROUP-An assemblage of persons or objects located or gathered together: Two or more figures COMPRISING A UNIT or a design, as in sculpture. A number of things or individuals considered together because of similarities. (Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary 1984.)
Therefore we have exposed Unitarian apologists for propagating misinformation in their theological exegesis to their audience. If a Muslim, JW, or Oneness follower says that God is "ONE", he could either be one person, one unit (more than one as one) or one group (more than one as one). If the “ONE God means non-plurality of persons” argument is to be held as being valid then the word “one” must be proven to refer to “non-plural entities” every single time. Needless to say that such a theory is foreign and totally false in the conceptual usage of the word itself.
If the Trinity was indeed three gods, as alleged by Unitarian groups they must show historically where orthodox Christian beliefs held to this view. It isn’t enough to claim that something is “three gods” and then proceed to refute the Trinitarian argument. Such polemic methods constitute as being a mere shallow exegetical response. As you can see below the first Christians adhered to the Apostles and Jesus teachings of the Trinity by never claiming that it was 3 gods:
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr. " For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. "In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For 'the Word was made flesh .' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John . He became Bishop of Lyons. "The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father 'to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)
Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. " We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. " (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. A disciple of Origen. Defended Christianity. He wrote much about Christianity. "If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority... There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132). " For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis,1.111.4)
" Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less , since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
None of the first bishops, apostles and early Christians ever believed the Trinity to represent 3 gods in one nor did they believe that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost were separate individual gods. Such assertions by Unitarian apologists are an intentional assault upon orthodox Christian beliefs. Even in various Christian orthodox letters to the churches, early Christians clearly affirmed their belief in the Trinity and never claimed that it was 3 gods in one or that any of the 3 members were separate gods:
"God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged" (Gregory Thaumaturgus, Declaration; c. A.D. 260).
"...we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor" (Methodius, Oration on the Psalms, 5; c. A.D. 305).
"We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some; nor do we as Sabellius work confusion [into it]" (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16. 4; c. A.D. 348).
All evidence shows that Christians worshiped ONE deity in THREE persons, not three gods in one god. Unitarian apologists have always claimed how modern Christianity perverted the original teachings of Jesus in following the dogma of the Trinity but the historical evidence sufficiently contradicts their claims. Where are the early opponents against the alleged heretical beliefs of the Trinity? Where are the apostle’s writings refuting the change from the proper doctrine of Unitarianism? No such evidence exists and it leaves Unitarian apologists with nothing more than mere conspiracy theories as to how the Trinity developed and intentional misrepresentation of the concept itself.
Unlike the many Unitarian apologists (Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals), who have no thorough knowledge of historical Christianity, early Christians didn't confuse the trinity to the interpolative definition of 3 gods. Apparently they weren’t ignorant of the fact that the word “ONE” is never meant to exclude a plural manifestation of a particular thing. Hence, the belief in the Trinity, God is ONE in 3 persons, doesn’t contradict the meaning of “ONE” since this word clearly includes plural elements that are considered as ONE.
The fundamental problem between the Trinitarianism and Unitarianism stems from the lack of knowledge about the meaning of the word “ONE”. Contrary to what many Unitarians want to believe, claiming that “GOD is ONE” doesn’t disprove the Trinity. However there exist an even more fundamental problem in the discussion of the Trinity and this involves noting the difference between the idea of ONE God in THREE persons and three gods.
As we seen before in our explanation of the Trinity, Unitarian believers have a hard time understanding how ONE can be three at the same time BUT YET still be ONE and not THREE separate things. Since we’ve already shown that “ONE” can refer to “more than one” and still be counted as being “ONE” now we will proceed to document the next misunderstanding known as “3 in 1”.
In the discussion of the Trinity, when Christians refer to ONE God in THREE persons we are saying that there is ONE DIVINE BEING who exist eternally in three individual persons. Many explicitly take this to refer to the Trinity being three gods however anti-Trinitarians have a notorious habit of simply rejecting something that isn’t immediately classified into a simple formula to their liking. To believe that “one” can only be a single numerical thing only clearly shows how the lack of critical thinking permeates the Unitarian atmosphere. I guess these guys have never seen calculus, number sets, and other advanced mathematical formulas.
Many Unitarians clearly believe that the Trinity is three gods and nothing more than a weak attempt by Christians to explain the unexplainable-“1 God in 3 persons”. However the Unitarian position is a contradiction within itself by believing the theory of “Trinity is three gods”. To believe such nonsense would in effect confuse "person" with the word "being". To claim that God is 3 gods in one god clearly states that they are 3 separate beings. This is a total misrepresentation of the Trinity for there is a subtle difference between the two words:
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. (Source: http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html; bold emphasis ours)
Notice how a Trinity is “ONE BEING” in “THREE PERSONS” and not “THREE GODS (BEINGS)”. A “being” is WHAT SOMETHING IS while a "person" IS AN INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THIS CLASSIFICATION. Unitarian believers commit the fallacy of false dilemma by asserting that three separate Beings cannot be one, something that informed Trinitarians have never taught nor believed. Even the dictionary shows the difference between "person" and "being" as noted here:
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something
conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) :
the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE;
especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing;
especially: PERSON (Merrian Webster Online Dictionary)
Notice how "being" is defined as the 'existence' of something or the qualities that constitutes something as an existing thing. "Being" is basically the state or quality of an existence for ANY PARTICULAR THING. This quality distinguishes what THIS PARTICULAR THING IS. For example "dog" is the “being” for a German shepherd since it distinguishes it from other things which aren’t dogs. The German shepherd's quality of existence is a "dog". Hence, if you had a German shepherd, a bulldog and a Chihuahua, you would have ONE being in three dogs since no matter how different they are or distinct, each is still ONE LEVEL OF EXISTENCE-“DOG”. The German shepherd isn’t a cat, nor the Chihuahua a snake is it? No.
"Being" also refers to a living thing also especially a person. Unitarians have taken this to mean that a person proves that God is 3 gods or 3 separate beings. However, the word "being" is defined here as the living thing while "especially" is used to point to PERSON as the prime example of a living thing. "Being" is never defined as PERSON. Person is defined as thus:
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL-- sometimes used in combination especially by
those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play :
GUISE (Merrian Webster Online Dictionary)
Person is THE INDIVIDUAL and not the existence of something. If Unitarians believe that Christians worship 3 gods (beings) in 1 god (being) they would unknowingly refute themselves since they would be clearly saying that the Trinity is 3 states of existence in one existence BUT WITH NO PERSONS. In order for the idea of “three gods” to be an accurate refutation of the Trinity the Unitarian believer must show that the level of existence or “being” is different for each member of the Holy Trinity. To make the accusation of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being different gods, because they aren’t the same individual, only shows that Unitarian believers can’t tell the difference between the meaning of “BEING” (the nature or existence WHAT SOMETHING IS) from “PERSON” (an INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THIS CLASSIFICATION).
Since the term of “three gods” is an undefined notion only showing “being” and not the “person” or level of consciousness within this "being". Unitarians would literally be saying that the Trinity is NOT JESUS, NOT THE FATHER, AND NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT IN 3 GODS due to the fact that “person” is used to describe the personality and self awareness of each individual!!! How can you call these 3 gods (beings) in one god (being) and then refer to this as a trinity? If they were three beings in one being this would prove that the state of existence is the same and therefore one mode of existence making the father, son and holy ghost one being (God) with no personality.
It should be noted that we have taken the 3 gods in 1 argument and explained it and not just the 3 god’s theory due to the fact that the word “ONE” can refer to more than one numerical thing as ONE. Therefore the Trinity is just a word to use to describe God as ONE God with 3 persons. Hence God in orthodox Christian thinking is ONE God but ONE GOD in being a UNIT or GROUP which are also definitions of ONE. If Unitarians disagree with this then they have some very good explaining to do since ONE has never only meant a single numerical thing only in the first place.
Basically if a person alleges that “trinity is three gods” he/she is essentially confusing persons to mean gods. For anyone who is familiar with simple formal logic this is a very fallible conclusion. Here we illustrate these examples to show the incorrect conclusion of many Unitarians:
If I yell loudly at my cat Adrian then he will run away.
(Meaning: the
cat ran away because I yelled at him.)
That doesn’t necessarily mean:
If my Cat Adrian ran away then I yelled loudly at him.
(Meaning: that my
cat can run away for many different reasons other than being yelled
at.)
If you look at the example you will notice that my cat Adrian did run away because I yelled loudly at him. However it doesn’t mean that every time Adrian runs away that I did yell loudly at him. Now let’s illustrate this example with the Unitarian thinking on the Trinity:
Response: This confuses the term “person” with the term “god”
Standard Formal Logic Rebuttal:
Person can be defined as being “god”
That doesn’t necessarily mean:
If “god” is described then it refers to “person”
Here lies the problem with Unitarian thinking on the Trinity. Because the Trinity is defined as being three in one they assume that it must be three gods due to the plurality of persons. However, even if a person can be defined as “god” this doesn’t mean every time “god” is mentioned that it refers to a “person”. There were many ancient gods that were animals, storms and various nature deities. Hence, this is also a major logical reason to reject the idea that “3 gods= 3 persons”.
If the three persons hold to the same “being” or level of existence then “persons” can only be used to describe their individual personality. As we seen above, God refers to the “being” or “existence” of the deity of the Almighty while “person” refers to the individuals within this classification. This means that if we are to assume that the Trinity is three gods then the Unitarian must prove that the three levels of existence are different for each member. This means for example God the father must be a bird, Jesus a cat and the Holy Spirit a plant. We used that example to show how the three god theory must be valid, not as an insult to the Almighty.
Notice how each, snake, bird, cat are different beings and not the same. Unitarians can't even distinguish between a 'being' and a 'person' because if they could, their misunderstanding of the Trinity wouldn’t exist. Since Unitarians believe that a Trinity is 3 beings lets utilize some examples using their fallacious thinking. According to their thinking these example would constitute as 3 beings:
If you have: ONE BRAND of Soda pop named COCA COLA IN 3 BOTTLES
"Being" or mode of existence: ONE BRAND of Soda.
(Remember:
Being refers to what SOMETHING IS)
According to Unitarian thinking: We must conclude that each bottle pop is 3 different brands even though WE ONLY HAVE ONE BRAND "COCA COLA" in 3 bottles.
Rational thinking & explanation: Here the "being" is the brand of pop while the bottles are the individuals of that brand.
Notice how
Conclusion: Since each bottle is different does this make it more than one brand of Pop? No. Here you have One brand in three bottles. This means that ONE here refers to UNIT or Group.
Now we proceed with our next example:
If you have: "Homo Sapiens" in three persons (Bob, Susie, Don)
"Being" or mode of existence: ONE SPECIES-Homo Sapiens.
(Remember: Being refers to what SOMETHING IS)
According to Unitarian thinking: We must conclude that each person is 3 different species even though WE ONLY HAVE ONE SPECIES "HOMO SAPIENS" in 3 persons.
Rational thinking & explanation: Here the "being" is the level of species of human existence while the persons are the individuals of that particular species.
Notice how
Conclusion: Because you have three persons (Bob, Susie, Don) we can’t say that each is three beings or three forms of existence since each distinct person is only ONE level of being or existence “Homo Sapiens”. Bob isn’t “Homo erectus” while Susie is “Homo habilis” right? No. Therefore for these 3 persons to be three separate beings their level of existence must be different and not be of the same species, kind or level of existence.
As you can see in this example, “homo sapiens” is plural in nature while describing three distinct persons. Though “homo sapiens” is plural, its reference is only likened to one being of existence, modern day human beings. If we utilize anti-Trinitarian theology by claiming "because of the plurality of the word, we have 3 Homo sapiens in the sense of three beings" this would be explicitly wrong. Each individual is both the same level of existence or, in the case of natural classification, species. While God is not a species, for he doesn’t reproduce sexually or asexually, this word can clearly be used to describe human beings who do reproduce in effort to further the understanding of this example. If anti-Trinitarians claim that these three people make three Homo sapiens in laymen’s terms they would literally be saying that each person is a different species, which is utter nonsense.
Like the Hebrew word “Elohim” which refers to either a singular or plural entity, “homo sapiens” can be likened to either one person or many. However no matter what number or personage is present it still only refers to one level of existence, HUMAN BEING. Therefore if we illustrate this example we can say that:
Notice how the plural word “Homo Sapiens” is singular when referring to one person as well as plural when referring to all three. This is the same case with the Hebrew word for God “Elohim”. Both words denote either a singular or plural entity however the only difference between the two is that “homo sapiens” refers to a specific class of human being, while “Elohim” is more general and must refer to a specific name of the deity given. All together you have three persons UNDER ONE BEING. It would be correct to say that all three are different persons but it would be wrong to say all three are different “homo sapiens” for this word is a genus name with a specific epithet or characteristic that refers to humankinds all together. Neither individual is the entire human race but only a person.
Now let’s illustrate this issue to you with the Trinitarian concept of God. First we define what the term “GOD” means:
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : THE
BEING perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and
ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine
Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a
being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and
to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular
aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler (Merrian Webster Online
Dictionary)
Now the word “God” or “god” denotes the “being” or classification of the level of existence of the person, being of object in question. Notice how God can be a person but as we mentioned before this can only disprove the notion of the Trinity if the "being" for each is different. Hence, if a person is God then this person would be an individual of a larger classification OF THE SAME BEING. Therefore if God is a Trinity we clearly have ONE "being" with Three persons. Hence, this can be illustrated as this:
ONE BEING = God whose name is YHWH
The Father = YHWH
The Son = YHWH
The Holy Ghost=
YHWH
If you have: "GOD" in three persons (The Father, Jesus, The Holy Ghost)
"Being" or mode of existence: ONE GOD-YHWH.
(Remember: Being refers to what SOMETHING IS)
According to Unitarian thinking: We must conclude that each person is 3 different BEINGS even though WE ONLY HAVE ONE BEING "YHWH" in 3 persons.
Rational thinking & explanation: Here the "being" is the level of existence while the persons are the individuals of that 'BEING' or existence.
Notice how
Conclusion: Because you have three persons (The Father, Jesus, The Holy Ghost) we can’t say that each is three beings or three forms of existence since each distinct person is only ONE level of being or existence “YHWH GOD”. The Father isn’t “an angel” while Holy Spirit is “man” right? No. Therefore for these 3 persons to be three separate beings their level of existence must be different and not be of the same 'being', kind or level of existence.
Since we have three individuals can we assume that each is a separate God? No because in the Trinity each person carries the identity of being “YHWH” this means that the name of the “BEING” in question is YHWH. Hence if Jesus, the father and the Holy ghost are separate in person this doesn’t make them separate beings. Therefore:
2. If Angel is used to describe supernatural deities of the Bible
Then if we have more than 1 angel this doesn't mean that the "being" of
distinct Angels are different EVEN THOUGH THIS WORD CAN BE SINGULAR OR PLURAL "ANGELS.
It should be noted that we used these two examples to illustrate how ONE BEING can be numerically more than one or collective but yet still unequivocally be considered ONE. Anti-Trinitarians may claim that if you have three persons as angels you would have three angels making it similar to three gods. However this is nothing more than a matter or semantics for in Hebrew plural words are used to describe singular entities all the time. In English this effect does not reproduce for no other secondary language can carry the full meaning of the original revelation. In the Bible, God is described as a plural being with singular verbs as well as being described as a plural being with plural verbs.
These two examples above only serve to illustrate how something can be more than one but yet one. The previous examples, soda pop, homo sapiens, etc were used to show how more than one person can be considered under one being or level of existence along with debunking anti-Trinitarian arguments of how “three persons make something three gods”.
The word "God" describes the "being" of the Almighty showing WHAT IT IS. While the "person" defines each conscious person within this "being". In accordance to the definition of ONE which also refers to a "UNIT" or "GROUP", the Trinity can’t be polytheistic in nature. Therefore to assume that separate individuals mean separate beings Unitarians are equivocating the words of “person” to be the same as “being” which is absolutely wrong and misleading. Remember, a “person can be a being” but that doesn’t necessarily mean that a “being is always a person”. If Unitarians have a hard understanding this then they should make an effort to return back to grade school to learn definitions of words as well as take a course in learning how to utilize critical thinking.
Quennel Gale at QMAX21@blackplanet.com