Kim Riddlebarger of the Riddleblog posed a question in his post A Weird Similarity :
"Which God? Allah, or the Triune God of the Bible? Who speaks for God? Omran or Falwell? Which sacred book, the Bible or the Koran?"
To which I responded:
"The Bible does not speak for the 'Triune' God - it speaks for YHWH, the non-Triune God. Ancient pagan peoples worshipped a plurality of gods and some of their human heroes were regarded as 'divine'. By way of contrast, the Hebrew scriptures taught (and "salvation is from the Jews") the one, indivisible God YHWH.
"Besides making most of the New Testament unintelligible, the doctrine of the 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 'Trinity' was not officially accepted by the churches until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The acceptance of the Creed in which it is incorporated is held to be necessary for salvation, despite the fact that the apostles never found such a statement necessary.
"Many preachers and theologians reason that because this doctrine has been taught for so many years, it is somehow thus endowed with weight, with truth. The only truth in this view is that it has been taught long enough to become 'traditional'. Jesus himself told the Pharisees that they made 'void the word of God' by their tradition. (Mark 7:13. See also Ps. 119:126)
"The doctrine of the Trinity focuses completely upon the personality of Jesus and the effect which it is assumed he produced upon his contemporaries. To accept this, is to accept that the issues for which he lived and died were issues applicable only to that time and those circumstances."
Another commenter called 'mholst' asked me to elaborate on a particular statement and said that he/she was interested in what I had to say so I responded with:
"When I said that "the doctrine of the Trinity focuses completely upon the personality of Jesus..." I meant that focusing on the man - through the teachings of virgin birth, divinity, trinity - obscures the message of the New Testament with layer upon layer of theological absurdity and complexity and conceals the fact that the issues for which Jesus of Nazareth was crucified are universal and living and confront all of us today precisely as they confronted the inhabitants of 30 AD Jerusalem.
"The priestly establishment in Jerusalem had their own idea of the divine will and saw themselves as its expression. The followers of Jesus took a contrary view and saw him as embodying and projecting the divine will. The Jerusalem of Pilate and Herod Antipas became a stage where two opposing points of view based on two opposing sets of values was played out.
"In its self-righteous arrogance, the priestly establishment of Jerusalem asserted that Jesus could not be the representative Israelite, the 'chosen of the Lord' because he did not meet their criteria for 'messiahship.'
"The churches of Christendom, in turn, assert that the 'chosen of the Lord' must meet their criteria, as proclaimed through their doctrines. The disinformation projected by church doctrine about 'Jesus Christ' imposes a barrier between Jesus and the rest of humanity, it misrepresents the values he stood for, it falsifies the issues that brought him into collision with the priests, and conceals the motives of those who caused him to be crucified.
"If Jesus of Nazareth were to appear today, he would be unrecognisable in terms of the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, and the Miraculous Incarnation - doctrines supposedly based on the New Testament. Our predicament, when faced with the man himself, would mirror that of the disciples who had to choose between either the teachings, authority and weight of tradition represented by the priestly establishment, or the weight of moral authority represented by the values and principles espoused by Jesus.
"They chose Jesus and what he represented over the priestly establishment and what it represented. They recognised that there is only one criterion for messiahship - the man destined to rule the world in righteousness must be a man who possesses certain qualities of character.
"All the criteria first imposed by the Jerusalem establishment and now by Christian church doctrine add up to nothing.
All three comments, my two and mholst's one, were removed by Kim as quick as 'lightning spreads from east to west' and replaced with:
"Vynette's comments have been removed for being heretical--she's a known anti-Trinitarian and mystic--but more to the point, they are off topic. Stay on topic, or off you go!"
Kim has the right to ban anyone from his blog but my comments were in response to questions asked. Seeing they've been denied to the readers of the Riddleblog, I'm posting them here.
Of course, I'm an anti-Trinitarian, but because it's unscriptural and for no other reason. But a mystic? A person given to religious mysteries or occult rites and practices? Kim seems to be under some sort of misapprehension that orthodox Christianity is not full of 'religious mysteries' - virgin birth, trinity, miraculous incarnation, and etcetera etcetera...so I rather think...