The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

sojourner said:

You’re assuming facts not in evidence. You don’t understand the theology of the story and you don’t know what the scholars taught.

Click to expand...

I think this statement sums up your whole argument....

The "theology" is dodgy and based on misinterpreted scripture to begin with. It is based on later apostate men who were foretold by Jesus as "weeds" sown among the "wheat"....understanding that the apostasy took place in the early centuries, (after the death of the apostles) we can discount just about everything they taught as it came from their adopted pagan ideas and traditions...none of it came from God's word.

'By their fruits you can recognize them', Jesus said. The 'fruitage' of the early church after the first century was a steady decline into full blown apostasy......by the fourth century, it hit rock bottom with the tyrannical power of Roman Catholicism, using torture to force confessions of heresy and spilling innocent blood by all manner of grisly means, it was absolute proof that Christ was not among them.

And as for the "scholars" who interpret the scriptures in order to produce the "theology" upon which you base your faith....I believe that they were never guided by God's spirit in the first place. I can see by their conduct that hey were the spawn of God's enemy who found them to be rich soil for his planting.

Matthew 7:21-23 is proof of that. It is the "few" who travel the road to life....the "many" are convinced that they are serving their "Lord" by the way they plead their case with him....but his rejection is final and absolute. He has NEVER recognized them as his own.

We choose our path and therefore we choose our destination.....

Hockeycowboy said:

It’s clear you have an agenda, although, at the outset, you implied you didn’t. What was that about?

Click to expand...

I'm looking for good arguments that would refute the Trinity. That's it. I pray to the Father through Jesus Christ but I'm not in any religion. I remember an old friend who was a Jehovah's witness. He told me how his religion didn't believe in the trinity and that it's a creation of the bishops in the 3rd or 4th century. Recently, I read about Athanasius and how he was an opponent of the nontrinitarians and how he convinced the Christians of his day that the Trinity was true. I remembered my friend and what he told me. I began to wonder if my friend was right. Maybe the Trinity was made up in the 3rd century. So, I asked myself, if my friend is right, then how did Athanasius convince the people of his day that the trinity was true. That's when I began to do research and found what historians say about the topic. When I found this forum, I thought it would be a good idea to post the question here to see if I can get a good argument that would refute the trinity. I'm following where the evidence leads.

That's basically the truth and I'm sticking by it! jk

Deeje said:

The "theology" is dodgy and based on misinterpreted scripture to begin with.

Click to expand...

You're not in a position to make that determination with any authority or confidence. You're not a theologian, and you're not a textual scholar.

Deeje said:

It is based on later apostate men

Click to expand...

Conjecture not supported by evidence.

Deeje said:

who were foretold by Jesus as "weeds" sown among the "wheat"

Click to expand...

Belief without foundation other than bias.

Deeje said:

understanding that the apostasy took place in the early centuries, (after the death of the apostles)

Click to expand...

The Apostles passed on their authority. Apostles serve the Church still. Otherwise, Paul's injunction to "abide in the apostles' fellowship and teaching" makes no sense, if it's meant to speak to us today. Therefore, if you don't fellowship with the bishops, you're not abiding by biblical commandment.

Deeje said:

The 'fruitage' of the early church after the first century was a steady decline into full blown apostasy......by the fourth century, it hit rock bottom with the tyrannical power of Roman Catholicism,

Click to expand...

Historical analysis from bias.

Deeje said:

And as for the "scholars" who interpret the scriptures in order to produce the "theology" upon which you base your faith....I believe that they were never guided by God's spirit in the first place.

Click to expand...

You *believe* -- no proof -- no evidence that this is so. It's simple blind bias.

Deeje said:

I can see by their conduct that hey were the spawn of God's enemy who found them to be rich soil for his planting.

Click to expand...

You don't know these scholars, so you have no idea of the "conduct." A baseless accusation whose purpose is to defame the Church and make your cult look good.

Your posts come off sounding all knowledgeable, but what we really have from your posts is nothing more than baseless and biased beliefs without any proof. The doctrine of the Trinity is valid, because the Apostles say it's valid. It makes theological sense to me and to millions of others. If you don't want to believe it, that's your hang-up, not ours. But you don't get to libel it without getting blowback here.

SLPCCC said:

I'm looking for good arguments that would refute the Trinity. That's it. I pray to the Father through Jesus Christ but I'm not in any religion. I remember an old friend who was a Jehovah's witness. He told me how his religion didn't believe in the trinity and that it's a creation of the bishops in the 3rd or 4th century. Recently, I read about Athanasius and how he was an opponent of the nontrinitarians and how he convinced the Christians of his day that the Trinity was true. I remembered my friend and what he told me. I began to wonder if my friend was right. Maybe the Trinity was made up in the 3rd century. So, I asked myself, if my friend is right, then how did Athanasius convince the people of his day that the trinity was true. That's when I began to do research and found what historians say about the topic. When I found this forum, I thought it would be a good idea to post the question here to see if I can get a good argument that would refute the trinity. I'm following where the evidence leads.

That's basically the truth and I'm sticking by it! jk

Click to expand...

As hockeycowboy explained, it's more than what some consider the teaching of the trinity as erroneous scripturally and logically ("the Father is greater than...I am.") that turns some away from the traditional churches. But just for the subject at hand, Jesus himself declared, "If you loved me, you would rejoice
that I'm going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. ..." John 14:28. How do you figure that the Father is greater than or perhaps equal to Jesus? How does fit into the trinity formula?

Hockeycowboy said:

Hello, @SLPCCC , hope you and yours are well.

I just thought I'd add something to this part of the post that was addressed to you....

And this is something I just learned about recently, with the help of a member, @tigger2 .....
If in John 8:58, Jesus was stating He was God, and those Jews knew that.... then why didn't they ever accuse him of saying that - or implying that - at His Sanhedrin trial the day he died?? The religious leaders there - the priests, scribes, Pharisees, etc - were looking for even false witnesses against Jesus! Anything! Yet, in all 4 Gospels, not once did anyone ever accuse Jesus of claiming He was God! Only as the Son of God.

Powerful evidence! To anyone.

Click to expand...

I would think so. But I guess for some it's not enough.

sojourner said:

You're not in a position to make that determination with any authority or confidence. You're not a theologian, and you're not a textual scholar.


Conjecture not supported by evidence.


Belief without foundation other than bias.


The Apostles passed on their authority. Apostles serve the Church still. Otherwise, Paul's injunction to "abide in the apostles' fellowship and teaching" makes no sense, if it's meant to speak to us today. Therefore, if you don't fellowship with the bishops, you're not abiding by biblical commandment.


Historical analysis from bias.


You *believe* -- no proof -- no evidence that this is so. It's simple blind bias.


You don't know these scholars, so you have no idea of the "conduct." A baseless accusation whose purpose is to defame the Church and make your cult look good.

Your posts come off sounding all knowledgeable, but what we really have from your posts is nothing more than baseless and biased beliefs without any proof. The doctrine of the Trinity is valid, because the Apostles say it's valid. It makes theological sense to me and to millions of others. If you don't want to believe it, that's your hang-up, not ours. But you don't get to libel it without getting blowback here.

Click to expand...

Don't Catholics, and by that I mean Roman Catholics, believe the pope inherits Christ's throne on earth? Btw, where do the apostles say the trinity is valid? By the way also, what is your definition of the trinity?

sojourner said:

This doesn't mean "most Christians have killed," as you said.


This doesn't mean "most Christians have killed," as you said.


This doesn't mean "most Christians have killed," as you said.

You see what you want to see, and you put it out there as truth. This is the MO of your ilk.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me what were the major denominations of most of the countries of those engaging in WW1 and WW2?

sojourner said:

Yeah, but that's not what it says. It doesn't say, "He does not face them now." That's an interpolation on your part. the bible tells us that all -- ALL -- have fallen short. ALL humans. If Jesus did not sin, then Jesus was not only human.

Click to expand...

So then instead of figuring what things mean, I hope you accept the following: John 14:28 when Jesus said, "The father is greater than I am." Please don't interpolate, accept what he said.

SLPCCC said:

You put a few things up that seem questionable. I'll start with Jesus being Michael the Archangel.
Please use scriptural support to support this claim. Where in the bible is Jesus called Michael the Archangel??? And what does this have to do with the topic (trinity)???

Click to expand...

If Jesus is the Archangel Michael (there is only one Archangel. Jude 9) then he is not God...he is a created servant of his God and Father. God cannot be his own servant.

Acts 3:13...(NASB)
" The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him."....
Acts 3:26...(NASB)
" For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”


As I previously mentioned, Michael is called "the great Prince" in Daniel ch 12, which is a prophesy about the end times. (Daniel 12:1)

"At the beginning of the angel’s prophecy, Michael was reported as fighting for Israel against the (demonic) princes of Persia and Greece. (Daniel 10:20, 21) Now, as the prophecy draws to a close, this same Michael is “standing” for Daniel’s people. Who is this champion of the people of God?
Michael is to “stand up”.....a phrase that usually refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Daniel 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21, 25) This is the meaning that best fits the angel’s words in Daniel 12:1. And it certainly supports the fact that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations in opposition at Armageddon. (Revelation 11:15; 16:14-16; 19:11-16)"

Michael the Great Prince Stands Up — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Michael — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Jesus said that all authority was "given" to him by his Father (Matthew 28:18).....if he was God, that makes no sense. How does God give authority to one who is already God?

Philippians 2:8-11 also says...

"8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (NASB)

Who is Jesus "obedient" to?...an equal part of himself?

How does God exalt an equal part of himself to a position that is higher than he already has?

How is he given a name that is higher than what he already has? Who can be higher than "the Most High"? (Psalm 83:18)

Who are these ones confessing Jesus to be..."God" or "Lord"...a title that denotes authority like a Master with servants, or one who has authority over others. Was Jesus seen as a Master? Jesus referred to himself in his illustrations as a "Master" or a "man of noble birth" who was traveling abroad to acquire royal power. (Matthew 25:14; 19; Luke 19:12) Only upon his return to heaven was Jesus to sit at God's right hand until conditions on earth were right for his enthronement as King. (Psalm 110:1-2) Daniel saw this in vision, centuries before it even happened....500 years before Jesus was born, in fact. (Daniel 7:13-14)

Whose glory was sought? Not Jesus' glory, but "to the glory of God the Father".

A trinity of gods just doesn't add up. If all three are "God", then you have three gods....polytheism.
Scripture identifies "God the Father" but there is no mention of "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit"....these terms were invented by the Roman Catholic church.

I used the scripture of Isaiah to show that Jesus was called God. Please show where Jesus is called Michael.

Click to expand...

Please understand that is is not a doctrine for us because there is no specific scripture that says point blank that Jesus is Michael...just as there is no specific scripture that point blank states that Jesus is Almighty God. It is arrived at by examining other scripture and comparing.

In any case, scripture simply proves to us that Jesus is not part of a trinity. Before the 4th century, there was no trinity. It was produced by an apostate church (foretold by Jesus) who were by that time completely alienated from Christ and his teachings.

You might also like to compare the evidence presented here...
Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

The other point I mentioned is that there are only two who are said to command the angels....Jesus....and Michael is also said to command the angelic forces.

Revelation 19:11-16 sees Jesus riding at the forefront with his angelic army following their "King of Kings" into battle, who is identified as "the Word of God".
Revelation 12:7 also sees Michael in a similar role with his angelic forces....dealing with satan and his demons, hurling them into an abyss for a thousand years.

The inference is there for Michael and Jesus being one and the same person....but I find no foundation for believing that God is three equal parts of a trinity "godhead", when Israel knew no such God. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

sojourner said:

You're not in a position to make that determination with any authority or confidence. You're not a theologian, and you're not a textual scholar.


Conjecture not supported by evidence.


Belief without foundation other than bias.


The Apostles passed on their authority. Apostles serve the Church still. Otherwise, Paul's injunction to "abide in the apostles' fellowship and teaching" makes no sense, if it's meant to speak to us today. Therefore, if you don't fellowship with the bishops, you're not abiding by biblical commandment.


Historical analysis from bias.


You *believe* -- no proof -- no evidence that this is so. It's simple blind bias.


You don't know these scholars, so you have no idea of the "conduct." A baseless accusation whose purpose is to defame the Church and make your cult look good.

Your posts come off sounding all knowledgeable, but what we really have from your posts is nothing more than baseless and biased beliefs without any proof. The doctrine of the Trinity is valid, because the Apostles say it's valid. It makes theological sense to me and to millions of others. If you don't want to believe it, that's your hang-up, not ours. But you don't get to libel it without getting blowback here.

Click to expand...

History attests that you have nothing but empty protestations.
I rest my case....history backs me up. It doesn't lie.

Believe as you wish.....

YoursTrue said:

Don't Catholics, and by that I mean Roman Catholics, believe the pope inherits Christ's throne on earth?

Click to expand...

I don't know; you'd have to ask one. That doesn't sound right to me, though.

YoursTrue said:

Btw, where do the apostles say the trinity is valid?

Click to expand...

Roman, Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox bishops have always accepted the Trinity as valid. they're the modern Apostles.

YoursTrue said:

By the way also, what is your definition of the trinity?

Click to expand...

Read the doctrine.

YoursTrue said:

Can you tell me what were the major denominations of most of the countries of those engaging in WW1 and WW2?

Click to expand...

That still doesn't constitute "most of that group" killing. Most Christians have never killed anyone.

YoursTrue said:

So then instead of figuring what things mean, I hope you accept the following: John 14:28 when Jesus said, "The father is greater than I am." Please don't interpolate, accept what he said.

Click to expand...

You mean what Jesus-the-fully-human said? Ok. Got it. That makes sense that the Father would be greater than a fully human being.

Deeje said:

History attests that you have nothing but empty protestations.
I rest my case....history backs me up. It doesn't lie.

Believe as you wish.....

Click to expand...

History as seen through... whose perspective, again? Your historical "analysis" is full of holes -- like your theology.

sojourner said:

That still doesn't constitute "most of that group" killing. Most Christians have never killed anyone.

Click to expand...

They are complicit by their tacit support for their nations governments committing politically based bloodshed. Can you not see that that Christians were told that they can be no part of this world....that means staying out of what the devil is in control of. (1 John 5:19) What part of "the whole world" are we missing?

Paul's word in Romans 1:26--32 give us the apostles view of what God finds repulsive....

"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.


28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. . . . Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (ESV)

This is alluding to the practice of homosexuality (both gay and lesbian)....the same principle applies to those who ignore Christ's teachings on bloodshed. If you consent to what God says is abhorrent to him, you share the guilt even if you do not practice these things yourself. God will hold you equally accountable as if you fired the bullet or dropped the bomb.

Deeje said:

The inference is there for Michael and Jesus being one and the same person....but I find no foundation for believing that God is three equal parts of a trinity "godhead", when Israel knew no such God. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Click to expand...

You put a lot for me to read and study. It'll take me a while so I'll start with the above.

You believe that Jesus is Michael due to inferences that you see but not because it says so word for word. Isn't there a double standard?
The word Trinity is not in the bible either but people who believe in it see inferences being mentioned in it.

BTW The name Jehovah is not in the bible either. It's man-made. No one really knows God's name.

This is a side question: Who are the authors of the WT. Why should I trust what they write? I don't see any references.

YoursTrue said:

Don't Catholics, and by that I mean Roman Catholics, believe the pope inherits Christ's throne on earth? Btw, where do the apostles say the trinity is valid? By the way also, what is your definition of the trinity?

Click to expand...

Isn't it the Governing Body who rules over the JW? Where in the bible does it mention Governing Body? Where do the apostles say that the Governing Body is valid?

sojourner said:

The doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus is both fully God (therefore, sinless, perfect, powerful) and fully human (born of a human mother into a human body, and "subject to every temptation as we are...") That's it. If you can't handle the apparent dichotomy, that's your issue, not the Church's. I think that the fully human Jesus needed to be fed and nurtured. I think "carpenter" is a bit of a fairy tale. I think the fully human Jesus was an itinerant rabbi. I think the fully human Jesus was killed. I also believe that the fully divine Jesus became incarnate in a human womb, that the fully divine Jesus walked among us as Emmanuel, that the fully divine Jesus was resurrected and ascended -- just as all other gods. I believe a fully human Jesus prayed to his Father God. I believe a fully divine Jesus heard the prayers of suffering and alleviated that suffering through feeding, healing, and loving.

Again, if you can't handle that, that's an issue you'll have to own. The rest of the Church is quite comfortable wrestling with the image the Trinity gives us.

Click to expand...

The Trinity teaching is not accurately extrapolated from the scriptures. You think "carpenter" is a bit of a fairy tale? How so?

Following is the Defenition of the Trinity. Hope this make the understanding of the concept a little clearer.

Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Trinity

A word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.

The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:

• 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God ( Deuteronomy 6:4 ; 1 Kings 8:60 ; Isaiah 44:6 ; Mark 12:29 Mark 12:32 ; John 10:30 ).
• 2 . That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
• 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
• 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

SLPCCC said:

The word Trinity is not in the bible either but people who believe in it see inferences being mentioned in it.

Click to expand...

Where?