Christians..."Trinity"?

[captainbryce]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

Well, the Trinity is a fundamental belief held by the early church and is regarded as key to the Christian understanding of the nature of God. It is seen as necessary in understanding the whole "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" deal. If one rejects this notion, then are they really in line with any resemblance of early Christian belief, or is it a sort of pseudo-Christianity?

Then again, many of the teachings of early Christianity are not adhered to by all, but that does not necessarily make that person non-Christian. I would say you're one of those non-conventional hipster Christ-followers.

But of course, who am I to say what you are and are not? No one, that's who.

 

[savagewind]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

No I do not believe it is fair for someone else to say you are Christian or not. Welcome to Religious Forums Captain.

 

[captainbryce]

No I do not believe it is fair for someone else to say you are Christian or not. Welcome to Religious Forums Captain.

Thanks.

 

[captainbryce]

Well, the Trinity is a fundamental belief held by the early church and is regarded as key to the Christian understanding of the nature of God. It is seen as necessary in understanding the whole "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" deal. If one rejects this notion, then are they really in line with any resemblance of early Christian belief, or is it a sort of pseudo-Christianity?

When you say it is a fundamental believe held by the "early church", I would have to question what you consider the "early church" to be. I'm aware that the Roman Catholic Church considers itself to be the church established by Jesus Christ (even though there is nothing in the bible to support this). But the fact is, "Trinity" didn't become an official doctrine of that Church until the Counsel of Nicea and the Nicene creeds in 325AD. God never mentions a trinity in the Old Testament, Jesus never mentions a trinity in the New Testament, and if it was really supposed to be a fundamental belief with regard to salvation in Christ, why doesn't the bible say that? If it was so important that I believe in trinity, why is it a concept that has to be crafted through extrapolation? Why didn't Jesus simply say "I am God" and "We are part of a Holy Trinity"?

Forgetting that the concept of trinity isn't even logical, for every scripture that one chooses to interpret as implying a trinity, I can find two more that directly reject it as an option. So I don't believe that this is a fundamental belief, let alone one that was established by Christ. But beyond that, I don't even think that a belief in trinity is relevant to salvation at all. In the bible, Christ defines what it means to be a Christian in the book of John. He says that we must be "born again", and that everyone who believes in him and calls on his name shall be saved. There are no stipulations regarding belief in trinity. So I don't think it's fair for other so-called Christians to suggest that someone is not a Christian because they reject a doctrine of the Church. Particularly when that doctrine is not relevant to salvation.

 

[Katzpur]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

I'm also a Christian, and I also reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Obviously, that tells you where I stand with respect to the fairness of this stance.

 

[captainbryce]

I'm also a Christian, and I also reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Obviously, that tells you where I stand with respect to the fairness of this stance.

Forgive me for my skepticism, but you're also a Mormon aren't you?

 

[Vouthon]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

I do not think that anyone has the right to tell you that you are not a Christian. You are whatever you self-identify yourself as being and profess. No one, no human power, has the right to deprive you of religious liberty and freedom of expression.

The Trinity is the central dogma of orthodox Christianity whether in its Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant manifestations.

However the rejection of this dogma does not mean that a person is not a "Christian". It simply means that one is not an orthodox Christian belonging to the aforementioned mainstream branches.

The word 'Christian' means "follower of Christ". It therefore provides for a wide ambiguity of meaning and a broad manifestation of formulations. It is even used to identify people who associate merely with the cultural aspects of Christianity but have no real religious faith. There are "Atheist Christians" believe it or not.

If you see yourself as a follower of Christ then you are a Christian. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Trust me I can sympathise since I too have been accused of not being a Christian on this very forum and others

 

[4consideration]

I do not think that anyone has the right to tell you that you are not a Christian. You are whatever you self-identify yourself as being and profess. No one, no human power, has the right to deprive you of religious liberty and freedom of expression.

The Trinity is the central dogma of orthodox Christianity whether in its Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant manifestations.

However the rejection of this dogma does not mean that a person is not a "Christian". It simply means that one is not an orthodox Christian belonging to the aforementioned mainstream branches.

The word 'Christian' means "follower of Christ". It therefore provides for a wide ambiguity of meaning and a broad manifestation of formulations. It is even used to identify people who associate merely with the cultural aspects of Christianity but have no real religious faith. There are "Atheist Christians" believe it or not.

If you see yourself as a follower of Christ then you are a Christian. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Trust me I can sympathise since I too have been accused of not being a Christian on this very forum and others

This. Well said, too.

 

[Katzpur]

Forgive me for my skepticism, but you're also a Mormon aren't you?

Yes, I am, but I'm afraid I don't follow your meaning. What is it you're skeptical about?

 

[SageTree]

I'm not telling you that you have to accept the Trinity, but I'd like to share some thoughts:

I have/had a hard time understanding the Trinity, but I won't get into that completely.

The Orthodox teaching of the Trinity has helped get my head around the explanation more.
A really useful site to read through and chew on: http://oca.org: The Holy Trinity


The Athanasian Creed is a creed less used/known, most often used in Western Churches,
is something else to see a richer expression of 'orthodox/catholic' (Not Orthodox/Catholic).

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.


Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

But again, I'm not pushing. It's a mystery that I meditate on myself daily and seek to understand more fully.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Sculelos]

God is God but all parts of God is more like 4 in one.

God is the infinite part, he is the greatest, he is also not physical, he is timeless, he is the father.

Time is the Mother.

When God started time he Begat Jesus, then Jesus created us.

However we must make it out of the Mother alive to be one with Jesus forevermore so that ALL God's fullness might be fulfilled. (Some will not make it)

The Holy Spirit is when all these parts come together as one.

 

[Shiranui117]

I would second Vouthon in this regard.

And by "early Church," what we mean is the teachings of the Apostles, and of their personal students, the Church Fathers. The Trinity was taught prior to Nicaea; it's not like it poofed itself into existence in 325. Jesus and the Holy Spirit were clearly thought of as divine. Really, had Jesus came right out and taught us blatantly about the Trinity, the Jews would have killed Him on the spot. They would have done the same thing to the early Christians. The Apostles themselves probably only had an inkling at the time of the Trinity, and could only make heads and tails of it like many of us today; the early Church's teaching on the Trinity is one that was borne out of much experience with God, feeling the three Persons, and being permitted to gain glimpses into the mystery of the Trinity.

FWIW, in case you haven't had a good explanation on the Trinity and reject the dogma because you can't understand it, here's my best attempt to try to explain it:

Originally Posted by Shiranui117
Before we continue, the following two disclaimers need to be made:
1: When we Christians speak of the Trinity, we do NOT define it as God having schizophrenia or multiple-personality disorder; the Trinity is not God switching between three different "modes" or "masks."

2: When we Christians speak of the Trinity, we do NOT mean to say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three wholly separate entities. We do not have three Gods, but One.

Now that that's out of the way, here is the actual definition of what the Trinity is, courtesy of OrthodoxWiki:

Orthodox Christians worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—the Holy Trinity, the one God. Following the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers, the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia). It is paradoxical to believe thus, but that is how God has revealed himself. All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist. God is beyond and before time and yet acts within time, moving and speaking within history.

God is not an impersonal essence or mere "higher power," but rather each of the divine persons relates to mankind personally. Neither is God a simple name for three gods (i.e., polytheism), but rather the Orthodox faith is monotheist and yet Trinitarian. The God of the Orthodox Christian Church is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the I AM who revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush.The source and unity of the Holy Trinity is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and also from whom the Spirit proceeds. Thus, the Father is both the ground of unity of the Trinity and also of distinction. To try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity, says the holy Gregory the Theologian, and so the Church approaches God in divine mystery, approaching God apophatically, being content to encounter God personally and yet realize the inadequacy of the human mind to comprehend Him.
​

Now, to define those Greek terms that showed up in that quote:

-Hypostasis: A person.
-Ousia: An essence; i.e. that which makes an entity that particular entity; for example, the essence of Shiranui117 is different from the essence of captainbryce.
-Homoousios: Of one essence.

In this case, since Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same Divine Essence, they all are one "being," each Person being fully God. It is not a case of 1/3+1/3+1/3=1, or of 1+1+1=3, but 1+1+1=1. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not just "parts" of God, but are each fully God in their own right. Three distinct Persons, yet one God. Distinct, yet not separate. United, yet not confused or mixed.

SageTree beat me to the punch with the OCA's website

This is from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s book “The Orthodox Way.” (pp. 29-31)

The central and decisive affirmation in the Creed is that Jesus Christ is “true God from true God”, “one in essence” or “consubstantial” (homoousios) with God the Father. In other words, Jesus Christ is equal to God the Father; he is God in the same sense that the Father is God, and yet they are not two Gods but one. Developing this teaching, the Greek Fathers of the later fourth century said the same about the Holy Spirit; he is likewise truly God, “one in essence with the Faher and the Son. But although Father, Son and Spirit are one single God, yet each of them is from all eternity a person, a distinct centre of conscious selfhood. God the Trinity is thus to be described as “three persons in one essence”. There is eternally in God true unity, combined with genuinely personal differentiation: the term “essence”, substance” or “being” (ousia) indicates the unity, and the term “person” (hypostasis, prosopon) indicates the differentiation. Let us try to understand what is signified by this somewhat baffling language, for the dogma of the Holy Trinity is vital to our own salvation.

Father, Son and Spirit are one in essence, not merely in the sense that all three are examples of the same group or general class, but in the sense that they form a single, unique, specific reality. There is in this respect an important difference between the sense in which the three divine persons are one, and the sense in three human persons may be termed one. Three human persons, Peter, James and John, belong to the same general class “man.” Yet, however closely they co-operate together, each retains his own will and his own energy, acting by virtue of his own separate power of initiative. In short, they are three men and not one man. But in the case of the three persons of the Trinity, such is not the case. There is distinction, but never separation. Father, Son and Spirit—so the saints affirm, following the testimony of Scripture—have only one will and not three, only one energy and not three. None of the three ever acts separately, apart from the other two. They are not three Gods, but one God.

Yet, although the three persons never act apart from each other, there is in God genuine diversity as well as specific unity. In our experience of God at work within our life, while we find that the three are always acting together, yet we know that each is acting within us in a different manner. We experience God as three-in-one, and we believe that this threefold differentiation in God’s outward action reflects a threefold differentiation in his inner life. The distinction between the three persons is to be regarded as an eternal distinction existing within the nature of God himself; it does not apply merely to his exterior activity in the world. Father, Son and Spirit are not just “modes” or “moods” of the Divinity, not just masks which God assumes for a time in his dealings with creation and then lays aside. They are on the contrary three coequal and coeternal persons. A human father is older than his child, but when speaking of God as “Father” and “Son” we are not to interpret the terms in this literal sense. We affirm of the Son “There was never a time when he was not”. And the same is said of the Spirit.

. . .Each possesses, not one third of the Godhead, but the entire Godhead in its totality; yet each lives and is this one Godhead in his own distinctive and personal way.
​

Elsewhere in the book, the Metropolitan speaks of the relationship between various members of the Trinity. I will summarize it as follows:
-The Father is the source(Greek: arche) of the Trinity, and so is in a certain sense "greater" than the Son and Spirit. Not by virtue of being more God than the other two, but by virtue of being the source of the Trinity. It is from Him that the Son is begotten and it is from Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds.
-The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and is also called the "Logos" or "Word" of the Father. The traditional interpretation of this is that the Son is the Word by which God spoke the world into being. The Son is not a created being, for as it says in John 1:2-3, "He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."
-The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father THROUGH the Son (The Latin filioque, "proceeds from the Father AND the Son", is not original and toes the line of heresy). Yet the Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the Father or the Son. As for how "being begotten" is different from "proceeding from," we cannot say.

When speaking of God's essence, we Trinitarians do not refer to "essence" as a general class or nature; for example, a human nature. Rather, we speak of God's Essence as signifying "the whole God as he is in himself," as Ware said. This shows an essence that is unique to God alone; for instance, I am different from you in how I am within myself, and you are different from me in how you are in yourself.

The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese has a page about this, too.

If you have any questions, or want a tl;dr version, feel free to ask.

 

[captainbryce]

Yes, I am, but I'm afraid I don't follow your meaning. What is it you're skeptical about?

Doesn't the church of LDS reject the trinity doctrine?

 

[captainbryce]

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

:sarcastic

 

[captainbryce]

And by "early Church," what we mean is the teachings of the Apostles, and of their personal students, the Church Fathers. The Trinity was taught prior to Nicaea; it's not like it poofed itself into existence in 325. Jesus and the Holy Spirit were clearly thought of as divine. Really, had Jesus came right out and taught us blatantly about the Trinity, the Jews would have killed Him on the spot. They would have done the same thing to the early Christians. The Apostles themselves probably only had an inkling at the time of the Trinity, and could only make heads and tails of it like many of us today; the early Church's teaching on the Trinity is one that was borne out of much experience with God, feeling the three Persons, and being permitted to gain glimpses into the mystery of the Trinity.

I just don't see any biblical evidence of any of this. This is all highly speculative assumptions. The Jews would have killed him on the spot? What is that based on exactly? He performed miracles for them and they didn't kill him on the spot. Furthermore, this suggestion contradicts the fact that they were "clearly thought of as divine" in your words. If that was the case, then they shouldn't have had any problems with a "Trinity" teaching at all because according to trinitarians, such a belief is a natural extension of divinity.

FWIW, in case you haven't had a good explanation on the Trinity and reject the dogma because you can't understand it, here's my best attempt to try to explain it:

I appreciate the thought. But the truth is, I had many people give me their "best attempts" to explain it. But ultimately anyone's best is still not good enough. You cannot make sense out of something that is by definition nonsensical. No matter how good of a teacher you are, you cannot explain an illogical concept "logically". It just doesn't work. But beyond that, it isn't just the fact that I don't "understand" trinity, it's that I find it to be non-biblical, and a dogmatic doctrine that is not necessary to salvation.

the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia). It is paradoxical to believe thus, but that is how God has revealed himself.

So far, this explanation defies logic and is self contradictory. One the one hand, you say that you do not believe in three seperate entities, but on the other hand you believe that God is three "persons". That is a contradiction because "person" and "entity" are synonymous with respect to individuality. If you are a separate person from me, then you are by definition a separate entity from me also.

All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist. God is beyond and before time and yet acts within time, moving and speaking with history.

I believe that God is beyond time, but I also believe your definition specifically necessitates that God be THREE, not one.

The God of the Orthodox Christian Church is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the I AM who revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush. The source and unity of the Holy Trinity is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten

If the son was "begotten" by the Father, then the Son could not "coexist" with the Father eternally, because that would be another contradiction. The term "begotten" denotes coming AFTER the one who begat you.

To try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity,

Just as how trying to comprehend how to make a square peg fit into a round hole would lead to insanity.

It is not a case of 1/3+1/3+1/3=1, or of 1+1+1=3, but 1+1+1=1.

Yes, I realize this. And this is exactly why the trinity is not logical. Because 1+1+1 does NOT equal 1, it in fact equals 3. I do not believe that God is illogical, therefore any doctrine that rejects basic logic MUST be wrong.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not just "parts" of God, but are each fully God in their own right. Three distinct Persons, yet one God. Distinct, yet not separate.

I think there is more scriptural evidence that would contradict this philosophy. I think the bible makes it clear that the Father is GREATER than the son, that their are things that the son does NOT know, and that the son has his own God. If the son were also God, how could there be things that he doesn't know? How could he have his own God? How could he be less than his other "person"? It doesn't make any sense and it actually defies scripture.

 

[Katzpur]

Doesn't the church of LDS reject the trinity doctrine?

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the Trinity doctrine. As a member of that Church, I also reject the Trinity doctrine. Maybe you misunderstood something in my post.

 

[savagewind]

For the people who believe God and Trinity is the same and believing leads to salvation, how please? What is everyone's advantage to believe it, other than salvation? In other words; how does it work? Salvation has to be related to sowing something because it is written "you will reap what you sow". So? Why must I believe God is trinity to be saved?

 

[SageTree]

:sarcastic

Not my language.

But of course in such debate steeped in misunderstanding, the language chosen will be more assertive and exclusive.


However, I do think it's funny, that out of all that I added, that is what you decided to comment on.

What about the rest?
This is essentially a 'mechanics guide' to the Trinity, as it's explained.

I surely thought it'd be a helpful read.
Not one you have to accept, of course.

But still.... that is alllllll you have to say about my post?

Or is it because it was just that good, you are stunned


I keed.

 

[Shiranui117]

I just don't see any biblical evidence of any of this. This is all highly speculative assumptions. The Jews would have killed him on the spot? What is that based on exactly? He performed miracles for them and they didn't kill him on the spot. Furthermore, this suggestion contradicts the fact that they were "clearly thought of as divine" in your words. If that was the case, then they shouldn't have had any problems with a "Trinity" teaching at all because according to trinitarians, such a belief is a natural extension of divinity.

The Jews clearly didn't think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as divine. But the Church, from the earliest point, did.

EDIT: The Jews didn't yet understand the Trinity, since it was fresh revelation, so if Jesus was to walk around saying, "Hey, BTW, I'm God" they would kill Him. And even with Jesus implying His Divinity more subtly, the Jews STILL took the hint, and STILL tried to kill Him. He was able to escape them several times before finally allowing Himself to get arrested and crucified.

Also, we Trinitarians don't think of the Trinity as being a "natural extension of divinity," whatever that means. We think it's obvious because God revealed it as such, not because we arrived at it through reasoning and logic. You may understand the Big Bang perfectly, and the formation of the universe, but the formation of life within that same universe could still be a mystery to you.

I appreciate the thought. But the truth is, I had many people give me their "best attempts" to explain it. But ultimately anyone's best is still not good enough. You cannot make sense out of something that is by definition nonsensical. No matter how good of a teacher you are, you cannot explain an illogical concept "logically". It just doesn't work. But beyond that, it isn't just the fact that I don't "understand" trinity, it's that I find it to be non-biblical, and a dogmatic doctrine that is not necessary to salvation.

If Jesus is not God, then we are not saved, and His incarnation, His death on the Cross and His resurrection from the dead did absolutely nothing for us. That is why the Church defends the Trinity.

So far, this explanation defies logic and is self contradictory. One the one hand, you say that you do not believe in three seperate entities, but on the other hand you believe that God is three "persons". That is a contradiction because "person" and "entity" are synonymous with respect to individuality. If you are a separate person from me, then you are by definition a separate entity from me also.

They are distinct Persons, but not separate. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit. Yet they are all one God. They are not separate the way you and I are separate. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were, then we would have three gods, not One God.

I believe that God is beyond time, but I also believe your definition specifically necessitates that God be THREE, not one.

God is three AND one.

If the son was "begotten" by the Father, then the Son could not "coexist" with the Father eternally, because that would be another contradiction. The term "begotten" denotes coming AFTER the one who begat you.

Not necessarily. Whenever you have a star, you also have light and heat emanating from the hot gas. There is never a time when you have a star without light and heat. Just the same, there is never a time when the Father is, but the Son and Holy Spirit are not.

Yes, I realize this. And this is exactly why the trinity is not logical. Because 1+1+1 does NOT equal 1, it in fact equals 3. I do not believe that God is illogical, therefore any doctrine that rejects basic logic MUST be wrong.

God is above logic. So should our understanding of Him be also.

I think there is more scriptural evidence that would contradict this philosophy. I think the bible makes it clear that the Father is GREATER than the son, that their are things that the son does NOT know, and that the son has his own God. If the son were also God, how could there be things that he doesn't know? How could he have his own God? How could he be less than his other "person"? It doesn't make any sense and it actually defies scripture.[/quote]
The Father is greater than the Son in that He begot the Son. He is not greater in that the Son is any less God.

Jesus, in taking on our humanity, limited Himself in His Divine majesty, power and glory to condescend to our humanity. God, Who knew all, had to learn how to walk, use the potty, speak and read. God, Who is invincible and all-powerful, became a helpless infant. God, to Whom is due all honor, glory and worship, became a peasant boy in a backwoods province of the Empire. So yes, there were some things He did not know in the flesh, because He had limited Himself. He did not know the time or the hour, because He had limited that knowledge for our sake while on Earth. After His Resurrection, His Divinity becomes plain.