The Beastly Blogger
The Yardstick of Scripture

Trinity on Trial : A Prologue

Ancient pagan peoples worshipped a plurality of gods and all their human heroes were regarded as 'divine'. By way of contrast, the Jewish scriptures taught (and "salvation is from the Jews") no other God but one.

Besides making most of the New Testament unintelligible, the doctrine of Trinity has much in common with that of the pagans who said "the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men." (Acts 12:22, 14:11)

The Christian religion should not be confused with Christian faith and Christian living for they are as apart as the poles. As it exists now, the Christian religion is merely the redressing of paganism with a misleading nom-de-plume in order that homage may be paid to old pagan gods, which worship would rightfully be denied them if they were recognised as such. The pinnacle of the subtlety of the serpent.

The genesis, fountainhead, and Achilles Heel of all the 'divinity' teachings of the Christian churches is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. Notwithstanding its current status in the different sects of Christendom, it is the pillar upon which the entire structure rests.

Finding it necessary to explain away the perceived 'embarrassing' birth of Jesus by promulgating this false teaching, the early Graeco-Roman fathers subsequently found problems which could only be addressed and answered by promulgating yet more false teachings.

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, these 'cover' stories continued all the way to the 19th Century and the adoption of the doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception'.

As I've already stated, no serious challenger has come forward to refute the arguments presented in 'Virgin Birth on Trial'. So now we can proceed to an examination of the doctrine of the 'Trinity'.

The Trinity is the cornerstone of most denominations of Christendom. It is a teaching which says, in effect:

  • That there is one God;
  • That this God may take on any of three persons - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

This 'teaching' is generally stated to be a 'great truth' or a 'mystery'. In fact it is an attempt to marry two opposing principles - monotheism versus the plurality of 'gentile' theology. A sort of 'have your cake and eat it too' doctrine that I have labelled the "Constantinian Compromise."

Christians have the assurance of Jesus that there is no mystery that shall not be revealed so, by his permission, we will examine this doctrine to see how it measures against the yardstick of Scripture.



Sorry for being late to the party - but I have commented on the virgin birth on trial. Or maybe it was the translation post - however it was about Luke 3:23. I'll look around for the virgin birth on trial

However, I'm in your corner on the trinity (lack thereof) so continue on!

Jeff Downs

The Trinity is the cornerstone of most denominations of Christendom. It is a teaching which says, in effect:

That there is one God;
That this God may take on any of three persons - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

This is sad. You are going to put the "Trinity" on Trial, but you have not even starting accuretly the doctrine. Your credibility has just gone down the tubes.

You have defined modalism, not trinitarianism.

The following paga maybe of interest

Mike O

Hello, Vynette. I see that there are recent posters over on the Virgin birth topic again.

Now that you have some 'serious contenders (hopefully)', can that topic be pursued at the same time as this one?

Mike O

I'm new to your site ... to you have a link somewhere that states your position on scripture - whether it is all inspired, authoritative, etc? I guess what I'm getting at is, do you consider the entire bible, as we have it today (66 books) entirely inspired according to 2 Timothy 3:16? The Bible as we know it today was assembled years after 2 Timothy. This will help me to understand where you are coming from on these topics (trinity, virgin birth, etc).



It is not necessary to deconstruct and identify every post-biblical speculation and formulation now comprising the theological complexity of the Trinity to demonstrate that the entire edifice is unscriptural.

It is sufficient to state only the 'essence' of the doctrine.

But since you insist on dogmatic niceties, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity should suffice.

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system."

My statement seems a little more...transparent.



Of course we can continue with the Virgin Birth topic.

As to your question about Scripture, I'll put up an entry tomorrow.




Over at - Dale is doing a fine job showing the trinity to be inconsistent and contradictory - wouldn't you agree?


Hello Vynette,
I followed your link from the EO.

I'd like to agree with Jeff Downs, that the wording of "take on any of three persons" does sound like modalism.

The orthodox understanding of the trinity is that the three persons of God exist simultaneously (Jesus prays to God the Father, the Father and the Spirit are present at Jesus' baptism).

The trinity is a truth, in that it is the only logical reading of the Bible (assuming inspired infallibility of the originals). It is a mystery, in that finite beings like ourselves cannot truly understand our infinite God. It is hard to understand, but it comes from a logical reading of the text.


Mr. Downs is correct. What is described above is not Trinitarianism but what is termed Modalism, Sabellianism, or Patripassianism. And it isn't a matter of taking the effort to indentify "every post-biblical speculation and formulation now comprising the theological complexity of the Trinity", but a matter of dealing with the Trinity as is believed by Trinitarians today. Anything else is relevant only to the historian, or Modalists themselves, who are represented in the United Pentecostal church and "Jesus only" churches.


Paul, arguably the father of Christian theology, had a very basic message to impart. Time and again, he asserted that he stood “…saying NOTHING except what Moses and the Prophets did say should come; how that the Christ should suffer …” (Acts 3:18; 17:2,3). A nub of Paul’s message was the suffering of God’s agents. Many times he is recorded as arguing logically in public with both Jew and Greek how Jesus by his suffering fulfilled Jewish Scripture. He is NEVER recorded as arguing the case for “virgin birth” or “trinity”.

It seems to me that Paul and other New Testament disciples forgot to teach much of what the churches of Christendom have remembered to teach, and the churches have returned the favour by forgetting to teach much of what the disciples remembered to teach.

The comments to this entry are closed.