70 Comments

Comments RSS
  1. Zia Shah

    The Council of Nicaea and the three others
    The best way to understand the doctrine of ‘Trinity’ is to study its historical evolution. It took four Ecumenical Councils from year 325 CE till 451 CE, spread over more than 100 years and 450 years after Jesus Christ was put on the cross, for the doctrine to arrive in what is its current form. Contrast all this to the simplicity and beauty of the Muslim creed, “There is no God but Allah!” No wonder, it has always amazed Muslims, why the Trinitarian Christians do not opt for something better. We extend a cordial invitation to all the Christian brethren in the words of the Holy Quran, “Say, ‘O People of the Book! come to a word equal between us and you — that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partner with Him, and that some of us take not others for Lords besides Allah.’ But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we have submitted to God.’ ” (Al Quran 3:65)For details go to:
    http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-council-of-nicaea-and-the-three/1qhnnhcumbuyp/76#
    Dan keep reading this information. I will answer all your questions below, and may God help you see that ‘one is not equal to three’ and ‘three is not equal to one.’ Because your ancestors have over the centuries gone through these fallacies of these four councils, it is becoming difficult for you to see clearly on this issue. This is the archetype, in your psyche, that you have, in the words of Carl Jung. Ask any of your Jewish friends as to why God is one in person and one in substance! More to follow.

  2. Zia Shah

    Please read my comments in reverse order — Read my comments in reverse order, from bottom up, that is how they have been developed. Each comment is meant to be an argument against some dogma of Christianity, mostly about ‘Trinity.’ It is not just an intellectual exercise. It is a heart felt invitation to all the Trinitarian Christians to something better, which will uplift them and fulfill them spiritually!If they become Unitarian that will be in fulfillment of a dream of Thomas Jefferson. Please see my Jefferson knol for the details:http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/president-thomas-jefferson-was-he-a/1qhnnhcumbuyp/26#

  3. Zia Shah

    Answering the comment below — Dan Marcum thanks for your comment. The difficulty for those that are not indoctrinated in the mysteries of Trinity is that we never know when you are going to talk about ‘three persons,’ or ‘one substance.’Søren Kierkegaard, who crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, had come to be regarded as a highly significant and influential figure in contemporary thought, had suggested: “It is not the business of any Christian writer or preacher to dilute Christianity to suit the general educated public. The doctrine of the incarnation was to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, and so will it always be, for the doctrine not only transcends reason; it the paradox par excellence; and it can be affirmed only by faith, with passionate inwardness and interest. The substitution of reason for faith means the death of Christianity.” So follow his advice, if you want people to still believe in ‘Trinity.’It is said about ‘Trinity,’ that more you talk about it the more confusing it gets. Please keep writing and we can demonstrate this phenomenon for the benefit of the rest of the world.Also consider reading the chapter ‘Trinity,’ in the book, ‘Christianity: A Journey from Facts to Fiction.’ Here is the link:http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/index.html

    • Dan Marcum

      Zia, thank you for your comment. If you would like to learn about the Triune God, please read “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed, which you can preview online here: http://goo.gl/wDWrYour reply did not address my objection though, which is this: the Trinity is defined as three Persons in one God. Therefore, anyone who believes in three gods is not a Trinitarian Christian. But you say, “Another area where all Christians except for the Unitarians short circuit reason is when they choose to continue to believe in three gods in one form or the other.”Either correct your article according to the fact that all Trinitarian Christians believe in ONE God by definition, or prove that the Trinity is defined as you said. Prove that the Trinity is defined as three gods or else correct your article. Until then, you know that your claim is equal to a lie in the sense that it is impossible for you to prove that it is true.

    • Zia Shah

      Happy new year to you and all the Christian brethrenDan thank you for continuing the discussion. If you believe in One God that makes me all the more happy because that is what I want people to do. My point is only that your understanding is different from that of the Unitarian Christians, the Jews and the Muslims. The three groups that I mention have precisely the same concept and historically Trinitartians have created a new thought. I only want to draw attention to the differences between their concept and that of the Jews and the Unitarians on this issue, which I and others who are not indoctrinated in Trinity find far more satisfying. I would also invite you to check out my two short quotes above from Christian sources. Google the quotes:It is stated in 1890 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, “The Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter at the beginning of the third century still forming the large majority.” In The Encyclopedia Americana we read, “Unitarianism as a theological movement began much earlier in history; indeed it antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The Road which led from Jerusalem to the Council of Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”Please also review a different knol by me titled ‘The concept of Trinity has no legs to stand on.’http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-concept-of-trinity-has-no-legs-to/1qhnnhcumbuyp/38#

    • Dan Marcum

      Zia,Your quotes are incomplete and they mislead people from the true intent of the Encyclopedias. The Encyclopedia Brittanica is correct that Unitarians were, at one point, a majority, however it also says, “The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has its ultimate foundation in the special religious experience of THE CHRISTIANS IN THE FIRST COMMUNITIES. This basis of experience is older than the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Christianity, Vol. 4, p. 485, my emphasis)That is almost exactly what we say as Christians. We say that the idea of the Trinity is that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three Persons in One God, and we say that this idea was present in “the first [Christians] communities,” even BEFORE the Unitarians, even though it wasn’t formally expressed yet. What does it mean to be formally expressed? It means that the word “trinity,” and the formula “three persons in one God,” are newer than the doctrine; these words were only invented because they were required to specify the meaning of our doctrine in debates with the Unitarians. Before that, people believed in Jesus’ Divinity and they believed in the Holy Spirit and they believed in one God, but there was less precision about the relationship between these ideas. Substantially, however, the orthodox idea about God’s nature remained the same for as long as it was being debated with the Unitarians, and this idea was that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all separate persons united in a common divinity. Hence, the Encyclopedia says, “Thus, THE NEW TESTAMENT established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies” — I.e., controversies with the Unitarians. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p. 126, 1979, my emphasis)As for your second quote, the Encyclopedia Americana does say that fourth century trinitarianism differed from early Christian teaching, however it also maintains that the early Christians still believed in Jesus’ Divinity: “the early Christian belief [was] that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, and that as the risen, glorified Messiah or Lord, He was now at the right hand of God.” (Encyclopedia Americana, Trinity, p. 116) Once again, this comes down to a question of development: the word “Trinity” is a fourth-century word, that is true, and the formula “three persons in one God” is a development of later theology, that is true too, but that is not the question. The question is about the idea these terms are meant to express, namely, that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God, and they are only One Deity. And that idea, according to these Encyclopedias, was substantially present all the way back in “the first [Christian] communities.” Why don’t you mention THAT in your articles, Zia?

    • Zia Shah

      Dan please read my comment above about the Council of Nicae. More to follow.

    • Zia Shah

      Dan you are perhaps suggesting, in the first part of your post that Trinity was the original view and Unitarianism was a later invention. That is perhaps, what the Church wants gullible people like yourself, to read into history. But that is not true, Arius was not a heretic, his was the orthodox position! Jesus Christ was a Jew. For the first 50 years there was also the controversy whether every Christian should be circumcized or not. There is 1300 year history of Judaism before to confirm Arius position and strict monotheism. The Unitarian Christians are orthodox and on the Original Truth and not the Trinitarians.One easy way to learn about Jewish history is to watch a PBS documentary:Empires – The Kingdom of David – The Saga of the Israelites ~ F. Murray Abraham, Rene Auberjonois, Jake Borowski, and Keith David (DVD -Mar 8, 2005) It is available on Amazon.com only for $12.00.

  4. Zia Shah

    Macedonius: Another confusion about Trinity — The Holy Spirit was not divine either — Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about Macedonius:”Greek bishop of Constantinople (Istanbul) and a leading moderate Arian theologian in the 4th-century Trinitarian controversy. His teaching concerning the Son, or Logos (Greek: “the Word”), oscillated between attributing to him an “identity of essence” (Greek: homoousios) and “perfect similarity” with the divinity of the Father, or Godhead. After Macedonius’ death about 362, a heretical Christian sect that rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit arose; because of the similarity of their teaching to Macedonius’ doctrine of the Son, they were called Macedonians (see Macedonianism).About 339 Macedonius usurped the episcopal throne of Constantinople from the orthodox incumbent with the support of the Arian faction, a heretical group that denied the absolute divinity of the Son. Except for the conservative, or orthodox, ascendancy (346–351), he held office until 360. Although he maintained an ambiguous theological stance, he repressed the orthodox Nicene element in Constantinople. Owing to his semi-Arian orientation or to political differences, he lost favour with the Roman emperor Constantius II (reigned 337–361) and, at a local church council in 360, was deposed and exiled.””Macedonius.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 05 Jan. 2010 .

  5. Zia Shah

    Semi-Arianism — another proof that Trinity has no legs to stand on — The interesting thing about Trinity is that more you talk about it the more confusing it gets, never satisfying human logic and rationality. I picked up quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica about ‘Arianism’ and ‘Semi-Arianism’ on the same day and they do not agree about belief of Arius with each other. Trinity is in daily conflict with itself, it has done only one thing, it is a machinery for confusion and making heretics. The quote here from Encyclopedia says, ‘Son and Spirit derived their divinity from the Father.’ The quote of Encyclopdia a few comments down about Arianism says, ‘It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being.’ Please come out of this maze and follow the simple and beutiful Muslim creed, ‘There is no God but Allah, the One and Only.’ Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about Semi-Arianism:”Semi-Arianism is a 4th-century Trinitarian heresy in the Christian church. Though it modified the extreme position of Arianism, it still fell short of the church’s orthodox teaching that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same substance.Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate essences (ousiai) or substances (hypostaseis) and that the Son and Spirit derived their divinity from the Father, were created in time, and were inferior to the Godhead. Semi-Arians, however, admitted that the Son was ‘like’ (homoiousios) the Father but not of one substance (homoousios) with him. This doctrinal controversy, revolving around two words distinguished by a single iota (ι), gave rise to the popular expression, ‘It makes not one iota of difference.’ To Orthodox Christians, however, the iota was of great importance. Both Arianism and semi-Arianism were condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325).””semi-Arianism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 05 Jan. 2010 .

  6. Kalle Schwarz

    is the trinity a person ? — is the one god a person ? yes, simply per definition .jesus could not be the one god, because he was dead, and while he was dead he could not awake himself from the dead . so it’s clear, i’s not one person, there are at least two persons .the holy spirit is not a person (simply per definition of spirit) . it’s the unity of the two persons but it is not a person itself .if it is a person, than the unity of the three persons is again a fourth person, and this four persons are again a fifth person and so on .btw. dear dan, the bible is always telling from the living god and never from the dead god . the one god couldn’t dy, because if s/he does, the universe immediately is also dead and gone .please stop this discussion . you are both victims of a patriarchal culture

  7. Zia Shah

    Ebionite — I appreciate your help Kalle Schwarz.One of the questions raised by Dan Marcum, in his comments below, is as to what is the Orthodox view in Christianity. The simple answer is that the Jews are strict monotheists and so were the early Christians. They were circumcised according to the Jewish tradition. It was a political move of St Paul to give up circumcision to recruit the gentiles. There are so many proofs for the open minded Christians to see that Unitarian Monotheism was the Jewish position and also position of Jesus Christ and the early Christians. The Exhibit that I want to present in this comment are the ‘Ebionites.’ Each of my comments here is a separate evidence against the dogmas of Christianity especially ‘Trinity.’Encyclopedia Britannica says about Ebionites, as it explains that they did not consider Jesus to be God but a Prophet:”Ebionites are member of an early ascetic sect of Jewish Christians. The Ebionites were one of several such sects that originated in and around Palestine in the first centuries ad and included the Nazarenes and Elkasites. The name of the sect is from the Hebrew ebyonim, or ebionim (‘the poor’); it was not founded, as later Christian writers stated, by a certain Ebion.Little information exists on the Ebionites, and the surviving accounts are subject to considerable debate, since they are uniformly derived from the Ebionites’ opponents. The first mention of the sect is in the works of the Christian theologian St. Irenaeus, notably in his Adversus haereses (Against Heresies; c. 180); other sources include the writings of Origen and St. Epiphanius of Constantia. The Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (ad 70). Its members evidently left Palestine to avoid persecution and settled in Transjordan (notably at Pella) and Syria and were later known to be in Asia Minor and Egypt. The sect seems to have existed into the 4th century.Most of the features of Ebionite doctrine were anticipated in the teachings of the earlier Qumrān sect, as revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They believed in one God and taught that Jesus was the Messiah and was the true “prophet” mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. The Ebionites believed Jesus became the Messiah because he obeyed the Jewish Law. They themselves faithfully followed the Law, although they removed what they regarded as interpolations in order to uphold their teachings.””Ebionite.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 06 Jan. 2010 .

  8. Zia Shah

    Three persons and one substance: How could that be? — Dan Marcum still insists, in his comments below, that three persons in One God is somehow one. So, in order to try to explain it again to him let me tell you something about ‘substance.’In the old days when protoplasm and biology was not well understood it could be considered conceiveable that well intentioned theologians made the mistake of creating ‘Trinity.’ But, now that we know what man is made of, it is no longer tenable to confuse these issues. Man is made of 46 chromosomes and as such is made of DNA, proteins, enzymes etc and almost has 60% water in his body. Whereas, God the Father is Transcendent, beyond time, space and matter. So you see Jesus Christ and God the Father are not of the same substance. If this was not clear to those indoctrinated in Trinity yet, think of the mother Mary, what does this conundrum make of her? What substance is she? The Holy Quran has explained this very eloquently in one line:”The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort.” (Al Quran 6:102)The Holy Quran regards mother Mary as a very pious and chaste lady and one of the 114 chapters of the Holy Quran, is named after her. Praying, that all the Trinitarians become Unitarians as our Third President Thomas Jefferson hoped for.

  9. Zia Shah

    Testimony of EP Sanders about Jesus Christ — In his book ‘The Historical Figure of Jesus’ Sanders analyzes what we know about Jesus, may peace be upon him, through detailed textual analysis. On the issue of his divinity and title as ‘Son of God,’ he writes:”The early Christians, then, used ‘Son of God’ of Jesus but they did not think that he was a hybrid, half God and half human. They regarded ‘Son of God’ as a high designation, but we cannot go much beyond that…. The first followers of Jesus, however, when they started calling him ‘Son of God’, would have meant something much vaguer: a person standing in a special relationship to God, who chose him to accomplish a task of great importance.”Sanders, E.P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, The Penguin Group, England, 1993, p.244-245.

  10. Zia Shah

    Testimony of Thomas Sheehan about Jesus Christ — In his highly acclaimed book, ‘The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity,’ Sheehan analyses the person of Jesus and relates how one Messianic figure was changed to the literal ‘Son of God’ and part of a Trinity:”Today, at the dawn of her third millennium, the Christian church is undergoing a crisis over the truth about Jesus of Nazareth. The crisis grows out of a fact now freely admitted by both Catholic and Protestant theologians: that as far as can be discerned from available historical data, Jesus of Nazareth did not think he was divine, did not assert any of the messianic claims that the New Testament attributes to him, and went to his death without ever intending to found a new religion called ‘Christianity.'”Sheehan, Thomas, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God became Christianity, Random House, USA, 1986

  11. Zia Shah

    Jesus Christ never claimed to be God — Sometimes a question is raised as to whether Trinitarianism was the orginal Christian position or the Unitarianism. The simple answer is that the Jews believed in only God the Father and so did Jesus Christ himself. If this claim can be established then obviously Unitarianism is the orthodox position and Trinitarianism a later invention.The Holy Quran says:And when Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?’”, he will answer, “Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things. “I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me — ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over all things. “If Thou punish them, they are Thy servants; and if Thou forgive them, Thou surely art the Mighty, the Wise.” Allah will say, ‘This is a day when only the truthful shall profit by their truthfulness. For them are Gardens beneath which streams flow; therein shall they abide for ever. Allah is well pleased with them, and they are well pleased with Him; that indeed is the great triumph.’”(Al Quran 5:117-120)Scores of proofs will be cited from the Bible in proof of the above Quranic claims in due course of time, in this knol. For starters read about his earnest prayers to God the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane.Jesus was known to be a prophet. According to Matthew 21:11, when he went to Jerusalem, the multitude said, “This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth.” He was also called prophet many other places such as Matthew 13:57, Luke 13:33, Luke 24:19 and John 6:14. In essence, he has been called a prophet in all the Gospels. Also see:http://www.muslimsunrise.com/dmddocuments/2007_iss_1.pdf#page=30

  12. Zia Shah

    Cathari: Another clue that Christian dogmas were imposed on the point of sword — In my mind this knol is not a debate but a friendly invitation to all the Christians. Read on and in the words of Sir Francis Bacon, “Read not to contradict … but to weigh and consider.” The comments have to be read in reverse order, from the bottom up as they were created. Each of my comments is a separate refutation of dogmas of Christianity.The history of Cathars is another clue that through out history, since the conversion of Constantine I, the doctrines of Christianity were imposed by politcal force and sword and not free will of the people.The Cathari heresy came about after the first two Crusades, it is possible that it was triggered by Crusaders picking up some of the Muslim ideas and realizing the futility of the Christian dogmas. Cathars had rejected the Catholic sacraments, crucifixion, resurrection and incarnation, this is what Encyclopedia Britannica says about Cathars or Cathari:”The Cathar doctrines of creation led them to rewrite the biblical story; they devised an elaborate mythology to replace it. They viewed much of the Old Testament with reserve; some of them rejected it altogether. The orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation was rejected. Jesus was merely an angel; his human sufferings and death were an illusion. They also severely criticized the worldliness and corruption of the Catholic Church. The Cathar doctrines struck at the roots of orthodox Christianity and of the political institutions of Christendom, and the authorities of church and state united to attack them. Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) attempted to force Raymond VI, count of Toulouse, to join him in putting down the heresy, but this ended in disaster; the papal legate was murdered in January 1208, and the Count was generally thought to have been an accessory to the crime. A crusade—the Albigensian Crusade—was proclaimed against the heretics, and an army led by a group of barons from northern France proceeded to ravage Toulouse and Provence and massacre the inhabitants, both Cathar and Catholic (see Albigenses). A more orderly persecution sanctioned by St. Louis IX, in alliance with the nascent Inquisition, was more effective in breaking the power of the Cathari. In 1244 the great fortress of Montségur near the Pyrenees, a stronghold of the perfect, was captured and destroyed. The Cathari had to go underground, and many of the French Cathari fled to Italy, where persecution was more intermittent. The hierarchy faded out in the 1270s; the heresy lingered through the 14th century and finally disappeared early in the 15th.” “Cathari.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 07 Jan. 2010 . Some of the ideas in this comment are picked up from Prof. William R Cook’s, lecture number 15 of the series ‘The Catholic Church: A History,’ published by the Teaching Company, in 2009.

  13. Zia Shah

    Saint Arian a proponent of Monotheism — Alexandrian presbyter Arius should have been declared a saint rather than a heretic. The world history would have been so different! Jews, Christians and Muslims would then have had one faith, called the Abrahamic Faith! But, in any case, Read on, and in the words of Sir Francis Bacon’s advice, ‘Read not to contradict … but to weigh and consider.’Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about Arianism, I have put some of my words in [ ] brackets:”Arianism is a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. [it preexisted in form of Judaism, Jesus Christ was a Jew]. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. Arius’ basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated, so the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence….The controversy seemed to have been brought to an end by the Council of Nicaea (ad 325), which condemned Arius and his teaching and issued a creed to safeguard orthodox [Arius’ view was orthodox, examine Judaism] Christian belief. This creed states that the Son is homoousion tō Patri (‘of one substance with the Father’), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. In fact, however, this was only the beginning of a long-protracted dispute.””Arianism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 05 Jan. 2010 .The controversy never came to an end. Trinity has been forced on to human consciousness by political force, in one Ecumenical Council after another as we shall examine here in detail, God willing.The term ‘begotten’ itself means that Jesus Christ is not eternal. Trinity is Paradox par Excellence! No matter how you look at it, it does not make any sense.

    • Dan Marcum

      You call Arian “a proponent of monotheism,” but you are confused about the controversy with Arius. Both Arius and his opponent Athanasius adhered to monotheism. The controversy with Arius was not about the number of gods, all Christians agreed (and still do) that there is only one God. The controversy with Arius was whether Jesus Himself IS the one God. That is why the Arian controversy is defined as a Christological controversy: was the Christ the one single God (as orthodoxy says), or was He instead a creature (as Arian said)?So not only are you confused about the definition of Trinity, but you are confused about the historical context of the debate. Turn the pages of your history books back to the Arian controversy; see its context, know its subject, and you will see that NO CHRISTIAN at that time believed in two or more gods. All were united in belief in One God, the controversy was, is Jesus that God or not?

    • Zia Shah

      It is a counting issue. Is it not, one or three? It boils down to that every so often?Let me name the three persons again:1. God the father.2. The Holy Ghost.3. Jesus Christ.I see three persons! Do you? If Christ was a creature, as Arius believed, then he was not God. So, in that sense Arius was closer to Jewish or Muslim Monotheism, that is what I am celebrating!

    • Dan Marcum

      You say this is a counting issue of three persons. But we teach that the three persons are One God. Now count that for me, and tell me: when we call the three persons one God, how many gods do we teach? One! The Trinity is defined as One God, so if you count more than one god, you are a worse counter than I imagined.And Arius was actually CLOSER to polytheism than Trinitarians, for according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://goo.gl/P0ND), Arius worshiped Jesus even when he (Arius) believed Jesus was only a creature, while Christians have always worshiped only God, for we believe, Jesus is the one God who revealed Himself to all.

  14. Zia Shah

    Da Vinci code and the search for the Holy Grail — The character Sir Leigh Teabing, in the Da Vinci code says, “We are in the middle of a war. One that has been going on forever to protect a secret so powerful that if revealed it would devastate the very foundations of mankind.” What could that secret be?François Bérenger Saunière (1852-1917) was a priest in the French village of Rennes-le-Château, in the Aude region, officially from 1885 to 1909. Dan Brown in his best-selling 2003 novel the Da Vinci Code, has named the the character Jacques Saunière who is the curator of Louvre museum after him. Many documentaries about the Da Vinci code refer to fact that François Bérenger Saunière had found a secret that made him a very rich man. What was that secret? Did he find some secret documents? Did he find the holy Grail? Did he find that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus Christ? Did he find the Royal blood line of Jesus through Mary Magdalene going all the way back to King David; or did he find that Jesus did not die on the cross? I propose that the sense of secrecy and a hype, about a certain secret that the book the Da Vinci code has aroused in the masses, is actually hiding in open sight. It is none other than the fact that Jesus did not die on the cross! What would finding a descendent of King David or Jesus Christ do in the modern life. World has moved beyond kingship. What would be the big impact if we all come to believe that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus Christ? What could a untensil the Holy Grail achieve unless it was Alladin’s lamp? What would the discovery of a secret organization do? There are perhaps scores out there! There is however, one secret that will demolish the dogmas of Christianity, if majority come to see and believe it! That open secret is that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. As far as the Western population is concerned this is still a secret, most have not heard about it. It is as if it were hidden in open sight. It is fair to say that, it is the elephant in the room that the movie, the novel, the commentaries and the documentaries fail to capture! This is the Holy Grail, if you discover the full truth of this for yoursel, it will not only fulfill your intellectual curiosity but would fulfill you spiritually. Your search for the Holy Grail starts with a BBC documentary, Jesus in Kashmir: This thirty minute documentary by BBC, examines what happened to Jesus Christ after he was put on the cross, based on Bible, historical and medical evidence:Part Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DXCZFRsyl8Part IIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T340DUSq9SYPart IIIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cy8M…rom=PL&index=2 The discovery of clues in the documentary will lead you to a book, Jesus in India, by none other than the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/jesus-in-india/1qhnnhcumbuyp/43# After you have read this book, for additional satisfaction, you may want to read a book with a similar name, Jesus in India – King of Wisdom. This is a book and a documentary movie by Paul Davids. The film was chosen by the Sundance Channel for a national U.S. television broadcast as its Christmas documentary for 2008, with a prime time airing December 22nd and a repeat broadcast the day after Christmas and on the day of New Year’s Eve. Additionally, the International Television Division of NBC Universal offers the film for broadcasts around the world.To read the foreword of the book go to:http://www.reviewofreligions.org/download/RR201001.pdf Your search through different websites, books and movies will eventually lead you to a hidden treasure of spiritual knowledge: http://www.Alislam.org But you will not be able to open the lock of the treasure unless you first cleanse yourself in a bath of humility, patience, honesty and diligence!

    • Dan Marcum

      Zia,You quote from the Da Vinci Code, but this is a work of fiction. Go to http://goo.gl/7a48 and you will see what the Da Vinci Code is categorized as:”Fiction / Mystery & Detective / GeneralFiction / SuspenseFiction / ThrillersMystery fiction”Imagine if I started quoting Humpty Dumpty as a source of historical information! That is about as outrageous as your quotation of Dan Brown’s book. Actually, Humpty Dumpty is even MORE relevant than the Da Vinci Code, because your credibility is now about as shattered as Humpty Dumpty was. Anyone reading this now can see that your claims are totally baseless. First, you misdefined the Trinity as three gods, when it is defined as ONE GOD in three Persons. Then, you quoted two encyclopedias (Brittanica and Americana) to say that the Trinity is a 4th century invention, when in reality Brittanica says that the doctrine originated in the FIRST Christian communities (Encyclopedia Britannica, Christianity, Vol. 4, p. 485) and in the New Testament (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p. 126, 1979), and Americana still admits that the early Christian belief was always that Jesus was divine (Encyclopedia Americana, Trinity, p. 116).Now you have run out of encyclopedia quotes to twist out of context, so you start quoting fictional works instead? Hahahaha! I hope no one takes you seriously anymore, Zia, for your own good.God bless!

    • Zia Shah

      Dan you did not read the passage. I am not using Da Vinci code as a proof. It was only to engage the reader to tell them about the documentary that Jesus did not die on the cross.All the dogmas of Christianity:1. Divinity of Jesus2. Ressurection3. Atonement4. Original Sinare all fabrications and there is no basis for any of these. Watch the movie, please, ‘Jesus in Kashmir’ that I suggested in this comment. I will come back to your claims as to what was original in the Christian communities, Unitarianism or Trinitarianism. Could we settle that by showing what Jesus Christ himself believed in?

    • Dan Marcum

      Zia, I am not going to argue with you about the Da Vinci Code. It is outrageous for you to bring up the Da Vinci Code in such a discussion and put its fictions in the same context as Jesus’ Resurrection. But if you want to talk about who Jesus claimed to be, read the book I suggested before, “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed, available for preview here: http://goo.gl/69MI

  15. Zia Shah

    The Kingdom of David: a documentary — Dan Marcum in one of his comments below is perhaps suggesting, that Trinity was the original view and Unitarianism was a later invention. That is perhaps, what the Church wants gullible people, to read into history. But that is not true, Arius was not a heretic, his was the orthodox position! Jesus Christ was a Jew. For the first 50 years there was also the controversy whether every Christian should be circumcized or not. There is 1300 year history of Judaism before Christianity to confirm Arius position and strict monotheism. The Unitarian Christians are orthodox and on the Original Truth and not the Trinitarians.One easy way to learn about Jewish history is to watch a PBS documentary:Empires – The Kingdom of David – The Saga of the Israelites ~ F. Murray Abraham, Rene Auberjonois, Jake Borowski, and Keith David (DVD -Mar 8, 2005) It is available on Amazon.com only for $12.00.

    • Dan Marcum

      The Trinity is the belief that there is One God, and He is the Father, Jesus, AND the Holy Spirit, three persons, each God Himself. Because it is defined as One God, it IS a monotheistic belief. Christianity has ALWAYS confessed that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Spirit is God, and yet there is only One God; the belief was there even before the word “trinity” was used as a name for it.So the question, Zia, is not about monotheism. The question is, what was first in Christianity, the belief in Jesus as the one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the belief that only the Father is God, which came first? In Christianity, Trinitarianism came first. Pointing to early Judaism is irrelevant because the Jews never took up the question of the Trinity until Christ came. The Jews merely stated belief in one God, which Christianity states just as emphatically. The Jews never said anything about the nature of this God except that they admitted His nature was unknown to them. Jesus, however, built the Church with the revelation that this One God is Three Persons, even the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit, united as one single Deity.

    • Zia Shah

      Dan: Monotheism of Judaism was not complex like that of Christianity. The debates about nature of God happened in Christianity for over a century to determine role of Holy Ghost and nature of Jesus Christ, as I mentioned in my Council of Nicae post. Fortunately, Jews did not have any reason to worry about these details which they will find non-sensical. God of Judaism is a ‘jealous God,’ precisely for the reasons that Christians violated. He created universe over 6 days and rested on the seventh. He did not ask for any help or get any from the Holy Ghost or Jesus Christ. I am copying some details from a website about Judaism. I will write more myself on this issue later. The Nature of G-d Level: Intermediate • Most areas of Jewish belief are open to significant dispute, but not the nature of the Creator • There are several well-accepted beliefs about the nature fo the Creator The nature of G-d is one of the few areas of abstract Jewish belief where there are a number of clear-cut ideas about which there is little dispute or disagreement. G-d Exists The fact of G-d’s existence is accepted almost without question. Proof is not needed, and is rarely offered. The Torah begins by stating “In the beginning, G-d created…” It does not tell who G-d is or how He was created. In general, Judaism views the existence of G-d as a necessary prerequisite for the existence of the universe. The existence of the universe is sufficient proof of the existence of G-d. G-d is One One of the primary expressions of Jewish faith, recited twice daily in prayer, is the Shema, which begins “Hear, Israel: The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd is one.” This simple statement encompasses several different ideas: There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation. G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to G-d is merely man’s imperfect attempt to understand the infinite. G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as “The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone,” meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other. G-d is the Creator of Everything Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d. Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity. All comes from G-d. As Isaiah said, “I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

    • Dan Marcum

      Zia,You are proving my point with these Jewish statements like, “There is only one G-d,” “No other being,” “G-d is a unity,” “a single, whole, complete indivisible entity,” “He cannot be divided into parts.” God revealed to the Jews that there is only ONE divine being, even God Himself. That is as much as He revealed to them. Christianity does not deny His unity, rather we have codified it into our doctrine: we say “ONE God in three persons.” “ONE God,” only one Being.Look at how similar the Catholic Encyclopedia is to the statements you quoted from the Jewish website: “Obviously there can be only one infinite being, only one God. Did several exist; none of them would really be infinite,” “God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical.” You can find these quotes at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on God (http://goo.gl/Q6Ta). You see? There is only One of Him, He is only One Being, and that is what we mean when we say He is One. When we say He is Three Persons, we are not referring to more than one being, for they are all the same being: God Himself.The Jewish Scriptures, clearly, are rightly concerned with emphasizing that God is a single Being. Christianity says the same. What we say is, God is One in Being, just as the Jews said, but we also say He is three Persons. A person is different from a being: an animal is a being but not a person, while a man is one being that is one person. God is one Being that is Three Persons. Anyone who says this is impossible is placing man’s limitations upon God, for it is impossible for a man to be more than one person, but God is greater than man.

  16. Kalle Schwarz

    a new prophet — in our times there will be a last prophet, equally to christians, muslims and jews .s/he will establish the rule of god on earth and distroy all evil .s/he is a super being and will appear first on knol, because google is the only company with the motto : don’t be evil .this big prophet has a little prophet in itself . we call it knol star and s/he is the best of all persons who are living on earth .the logic is that we vote the best person, we know, and these persons also vote the best persons they know . so the best of all persons come to the center and this is the little prophet .so if you want to test the will of god, please vote .

  17. Zia Shah

    If Jesus Christ died for three days he could not be eternal, at least not any longer — Kalle Shwarz in his comment below has suggested a good line of reasoning!First of all the term ‘begotten,’ suggests that Jesus the Son was not eternal with God the Father. Secondly, when he died for three days after crucifixion, he lost any claim to eternity. In other words, Jesus is not eternal at all, he is not of the same substance as the Eternal God the Father.Trinity has only one claim to fame, it is Paradox Par Excellence. From whatever angle you examine it, it yields new proofs against itself.Time to move on from Trinitarianism, not to atheism but to Unitarianism!

  18. Zia Shah

    Our God: Proving the existence of God by rational means — My fear is that after reading the whole of this knol and its links Christians will become atheists. I would rather have them Unitarian than agnostics or atheists, so linking this book here. It is a very easy and simple reading.Here is the foreword of the book: I have long wanted to write a book on the subject of the existence of God, for the benefit of young people in particular. I wanted to set out in a brief and simple manner the arguments which prove the existence of God—Who is our Master and Creator—and to describe His attributes and the advantages and means of establishing communion with Him. For a number of reasons, I have, until now, been unable to fulfil this desire. A few days ago, however, someone asked me about the existence of God in his own peculiar manner, thus rekindling my old desire. I took this to be an appeal from beyond and embarked upon writing this book. No one has any capacity to undertake anything without Allah and I place my trust in Him alone.It would be incorrect to think that I have prepared myself for this task, or that I wish to shed any light upon it from a purely intellectual point of view. The only purpose I have in mind is to share my existing knowledge on the subject with the young and ordinary people in a simple and concise manner. If God so wills, it might grant guidance to some lost soul, or refresh someone’s stagnating faith, or serve to comfort some anxious and restless heart, or, perchance, our dearly beloved might come to realise that the true aim and purpose of our lives is to recognise our Lord, Whose love is greater than any other.Before I begin I pray to the Almighty: ‘O my Lord, You are aware of all my shortcomings and my knowledge and deeds are not hidden from You. Grant me, through Your grace, the strength to complete this book in accordance with that which pleases You. Grant power to my words and lead my pen along the path of righteousness and truth, so that people may recognise You and attain the goal of their lives. O my Helper and Guide, though I consider myself true in my intentions, You know me better than I know myself. If You are aware of any ill-intentions on my part, do have mercy on me and purify me so that this book may not be deprived of the blessings which You send down in support of the truth. Be it so, O God. Amen.’ The whole text can be read online:http://alislam.org/library/books/OurGod.pdf

  19. Zia Shah

    Make President Thomas Jefferson proud — He once wrote and hoped:I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.”For the rest of the story read the article in April 2007 volume of Review of Religions go to the following link:http://www.reviewofreligions.org/download/RR200704.pdf#page=43

  20. Zia Shah

    Testimony of Bishop John Shelby Spong about Jesus Christ — In his book ‘Why Christianity Must Change or Die’ the controversial Bishop writes:”Thus it was that by drawing on their sacred history, the first century Jewish folk found the words to talk about the God presence that they had met in Jesus. They knew no God except a God defined as an external being with supernatural powers, and so they described the God presence they met in Jesus in the only God language they knew how to use. God had come down by spiritual conception or by an outpouring of heavenly spirit upon him. Jesus was a spirit person, a window in to the holy, an incarnation of the divine. Underneath the description, however, lay an experience, and it is that experience that beckons us even as we set the literalness of their description of that experience aside.”Bishop Spong here expands the idea that referring to Jesus as ‘God Incarnate’ was not a literal statement at all, but merely an expression of how the people felt that Jesus, may peace be upon him, was a special figure with great closeness to God. Spong, John Shelby, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, HarperColins Publishers limited, New York, 1999, p.112

  21. Zia Shah

    Joseph Priestley and Trinity — Dan Marcum keeps questioning some of my references. I do not want that to create a false impression that the issue is some how debatable. Logic, rationality, biology, geology, archeology, history, all other religions are all on my side. Only thing upholding the belief in Trinity is gullibility of Trinitarians, a 1600 year tradition and political force. Read my comments in reverse order, from bottom up, that is how they have been developed. Now let me present to you a great man Joseph Priestly, a friend of President Thomas Jefferson and also of Benjamin Franklin. Without further adoo, here comes, Joseph Priestly!!According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Joseph Priestley discovered 10 new gases including oxygen and a gas later identified as carbon monoxide. Just like his contributions to science his writings on religion are masterly and earned him the friendship and tutorship of President Thomas Jefferson. Priestley argued, for example, that the real ‘mystery’ of the Trinity was that so many Christians believed it. For Jesus did not teach it, the Bible did not proclaim it, and Reason could not honor it. Jesus lived as a human being, claimed to be nothing more than the ‘son of man,’ whose mission was to show all humankind how they should live and what God expected of them. The Old Testament honored monotheism, as did the New Testament, rightly read.(Edwin Scott Gaustad. Sworn on the altar of God: a religious biography of Thomas Jefferson. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. Page 112.)Priestly further writes:“Now I ask, wherein the doctrine of Trinity differs from a contradiction? It asserts, in effect, that nothing is wanting to either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constitute each of them truly and properly God; each being equal in eternity and all divine perfections; and yet that these three are not three Gods, but only one God. They are, therefore, both one and many in the same respect, in each being perfect God. This is certainly as much a contradiction as to say that Peter, James and John, having each of them everything that is requisite to constitute a complete man, are yet, all together, not three men, but only one man.”(Joseph Priestley. A history of the corruptions of Christianity Page 321. Published by The British and foreign Unitarian Association in 1871.) Whole of his book can be read at http://www.archive.org or Google.com, books section.

    • Dan Marcum

      I am trying to figure out what you can mean by saying, that everything is on your “side.” I showed you an error in your article where you say that Trinitarians believe in three gods and I asked you to correct your article according to the fact that, by definition, the Trinity is called One God. You have not corrected yourself yet, and you haven’t told me why. Instead, you have begun saying that the Trinity is not historical, or archeological (???), and you still have refused to correct your article. Zia: History, Archeology, Biology… these are all separate issues to the definition of the Trinity.It is defined as one God, yes or no? Those who profess it profess belief in one God, by definition.Let me try to make this more simple, Zia. Three simple points:(1) Trinitarianism is defined as belief in one God in three persons.(2) Therefore, Trinitarian Christians must, by definition, believe in one God.(3) Therefore, your article is false when you say, “all Christians except for the Unitarians…believe in three gods in one form or the other.”Do you see your problem, Zia? Are you going to correct it?

    • Zia Shah

      Three persons are three. They are three! They are three! Have I said it three times now or not? If you cannot hear me, hear Joseph Priestly. He says, “This is certainly as much a contradiction as to say that Peter, James and John, having each of them everything that is requisite to constitute a complete man, are yet, all together, not three men, but only one man.”

    • Dan Marcum

      Three Persons in ONE God. How many? One! Three Persons in One God, Three Persons in One God. Have I said one single thing? Yes. But I’ve said it three times. You quote Joseph Priestly, but see how absurd his argument is: “This is certainly as much a contradiction as to say that Water, Ice, and Steam, having each of them everything that is requisite to constitute water, are yet, all together, not three substances, but only one substance.” Do you see where he goes wrong? If mere matter can be one substance, and have three properties, then certainly God is greater, and can be one Being, but three Persons. You obviously don’t know what the Trinity is defined as, but you still won’t hesitate to criticize it. I pray that that is simply a result of your inexperience, but let me try to help you understand what we mean by our doctrine that God is one Being in Three Persons: A person is different from a being. An animal is a being but not a person, while a man is one being that is one person. God is one Being that is Three Persons. Anyone who says this is impossible is placing man’s limitations upon God, for it is impossible for a man to be more than one person, but God is greater than man.

    • Zia Shah

      Dan you are getting yourself in a trap now! Anyone who is not a fundamentalist Christian, will be able to see the fallacy in your arguments. You brought up the example of water, ice and steam. That is a wrong metaphor in this situation. At a given temperature it is either, water, ice or steam, they cannot all co-exist. It would have been applicable if God the Father sometimes changed into Jesus Christ and sometimes changed into Holy Ghost. In that case Jesus Christ could not pray to God the Father, for there would be no God the Father at that time!

    • Zia Shah

      Dan Marcum writes, ‘A person is different from a being.’ This is a distinction without a difference! Person and a being are the same. To erect the facade of the Trinity, apologists have sometimes talked about ‘three persons and one substance’ and on other occasions, ‘three persons in one being.’ I am one being, when I think, I do not pray aloud. Why would Jesus Christ pray to God the Father. It is all the same being, he could just choose to keep his thoughts to himself. Let me remind every one once again about Joseph Priestly’s quote above:”The real ‘mystery’ of the Trinity was that so many Christians believed it. For Jesus did not teach it, the Bible did not proclaim it, and Reason could not honor it. Jesus lived as a human being, claimed to be nothing more than the ‘son of man,’ whose mission was to show all humankind how they should live and what God expected of them. The Old Testament honored monotheism, as did the New Testament, rightly read.” Cheer up and be a Unitarian, it will make you happier!

    • Dan Marcum

      My dear Zia, you are all bluster and no blast. When I make the point that water, ice, and steam are all the same substance, the best you can do is call it a “trap” and say the very same? You say, “At a given temperature it is either, water, ice or steam,” what is the difference between saying this and saying they are all the same substance? My very point was that these three things can be one substance, contra Priestly, who said that three things cannot have all the attributes of a given substance, and yet be one; well, the example of water disproves him, you cannot deny that. So you point out a dissimilarity: “they cannot all co-exist.” Zia, an analogy lies in the similarities, not in the differences; you might as well go on and point out that they are pieces of creation rather than God, as if it mattered, for God’s creation can be ruled and limited by temperature and pressure as God wills, as He is the One who so ordered the world that temperature prevents water from being at the same time ice and steam. But do not apply this same rule to the One Who subjected His creation to it! Will you make temperature prevent God as well, just because He makes it rule water?Zia, ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you — for as you stand now, you cannot see even the blindingly obvious: that God is greater than His creation, that a being differs from a person as much as a horse differs from a man (re-read my prior post, for it needs no defense); you cannot see how one person (Jesus) can pray to another (the Father), and yet they remain united in being, even though it is proper to a person (such as man) to pray, and not just to any being at all (such as animals); yet worst of all, you cannot even comprehend that the Trinity is itself defined as one God, not three. Well, I cannot help you any more than by explaining it, but you have not even been willing to reason at that. God help you, Zia, and may you be blessed to see God as He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Amen.

  22. Zia Shah

    The gene of Original Sin may have reversed for some — In the comments here we have been mostly discussing Trinity, this is not to give an easy pass to Original Sin, ressurection or Eucharist etc.Biology has proven that Homo sapiens are more than 6000 years old. Adam and Eve lived 6000 years ago. So, we are not all descended from Adam and Eve. It would seem from the comments of Kalle Schwarz here that he and I do not have the genes of Original Sin! Is it possible that we may be innocent and may not need Jesus Christ to die for us. Even if he died for some, biology has shown no mechanisms, as to how dying of Jesus, may peace be upon him, could affect the gene of Original Sin in case of Dan Marcum, one of our contributors here.It is also theoretically possible that mutations may reverse, what if some one claims that his gene of Original Sin reversed spontaneously and he does not owe it to Jesus Christ.I do believe that Jesus Christ was a holy Prophet and we owe some of our wisdom to him. For example, blessed are the meek, for …

  23. Zia Shah

    Water, ice and steam: Too easy to diffuse — My partner in this argument Dan Marcum is not ready to give up yet! I hope and pray that he eventually understands the arguments that we are building here. In one of his comments below he brought up the age old cop out of Trinitarian apologists, water, ice and steam.This is a wrong metaphor in this situation. At a given temperature it is either, water, ice or steam, they cannot all co-exist. It would have been applicable if God the Father sometimes changed into Jesus Christ and sometimes changed into Holy Ghost, depending on need and circumstances. In that case Jesus Christ could not pray to God the Father, for there would be no God the Father at that time, any where!This metaphor has been made by apologists to only confuse the gullible! For additional details please go to a knol, ‘Jesus son of Mary: An alliance of the Unitarians.’http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/jesus-son-of-mary-an-alliance-of-the/1qhnnhcumbuyp/98#

  24. Zia Shah

    The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s self inflicted wound — Let me invite all open minded readers to read a book, by Unitarian Christians, ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound’ by Sir Anthony Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting.This important work is a detailed biblical investigation of the relationship of Jesus to the one God of Israel. The authors challenge the notion that biblical monotheism is legitimately represented by a Trinitarian view of God and demonstrate that within the bounds of the canon of Scripture Jesus is confessed as Messiah, Son of God, but not God Himself. Later Christological developments beginning in the second century misrepresented the biblical doctrine of God and Christ by altering the terms of the biblical presentation of the Father and Son. This fateful development laid the foundation of a revised, unscriptural creed that needs to be challenged. This book is likely to be a definitive presentation of a Christology rooted, as it originally was, in the Hebrew Bible. The authors present a sharply-argued appeal for an understanding of God and Jesus in the context of the original Christian documents.Sir Anthony Buzzard teaches at Atlanta Bible College. Charles F. Hunting is a retired pastor and college business manager.

  25. Dan Marcum

    Mistake in your article. Trinitarianism is Monotheistic — You said in your article, “Another area where all Christians except for the Unitarians short circuit reason is when they choose to continue to believe in three gods in one form or the other despite the fact that the whole universe speaks of One Creator.”The idea that Christians believe in three gods is a mistake. You should correct it. Trinitarian Christians believe in one God, in fact, that is part of the definition of Trinity: three persons in ONE God.

    • Zia Shah

      Thanks for your comment. The difficulty for those that are not indoctrinated in the mysteries of Trinity is that we never know when you are going to talk about ‘three persons,’ or ‘one substance.’Søren Kierkegaard, who crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, had come to be regarded as a highly significant and influential figure in contemporary thought, had suggested: “It is not the business of any Christian writer or preacher to dilute Christianity to suit the general educated public. The doctrine of the incarnation was to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, and so will it always be, for the doctrine not only transcends reason; it the paradox par excellence; and it can be affirmed only by faith, with passionate inwardness and interest. The substitution of reason for faith means the death of Christianity.” So follow his advice, if you want people to still believe in ‘Trinity.’It is said about ‘Trinity,’ that more you talk about it the more confusing it gets. Please keep writing and we can demonstrate this phenomenon for the benefit of the rest of the world.Also consider reading the chapter ‘Trinity,’ in the book, ‘Christianity: A Journey from Facts to Fiction.’ Here is the link:http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/index.html

    • Anonymous

      Mr. Markum, It seems like you are contracdicting yourself by saying that you believe in three persons in ONE god. While Christianity is very much a monothiestic religion, the concept of Trinity is not. Trinity itself, does not support a unique entity. For centuries, the Jews believed in one God alone and no person being a part of Him and then all off a sudden God becomes three persons?The word Trinity does not even exist in the Bible. The only verse that Christian clergy of the past have produced to ferment their argument for Trinity is in 1 John 5:7. And much controversy surrounds this verse because of its translation. Some bibles say there are three witnesses, the father and the son and the holy ghost and there are some which read: “For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood and the three are in agreement”.Of course, it is only an interpretation that this should mean three beings or persons. But then again, if Trinity were meant to be sucha vital part of Christianity, there would have been more reference to the infamous Johannine comma in the Bible, starting with the Old Testament.

    • Dan Marcum

      Anonymous,You said, “For centuries, the Jews believed in one God alone and no person being a part of Him and then all off a sudden God becomes three persons?” The Jews believed in one God, and Christianity did not change that belief, we STILL believe in one God. However, the Jews never took up the question of the nature of God as three Persons versus one Person. Search through the Old Testament all you like, and you will find that, yes, it states that there is one God (as we believe), but you will find nothing about God as one person only, for they never asked the question. Christianity, however, has been taught by Christ that there is one God, and He is the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit, one single Deity.You say “The word Trinity does not even exist in the Bible.” That is a Latin-root word, the Bible was written in Greek. What you DO find in the Bible is that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but there is only one God. The word “trinity” is simply a Latin word that was used as a name for this phenomena. The word “trinity” is only a question of semantics; the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is what you are concerned with, and that doctrine is contained in the Bible. To see, read “Theology for Beginners,” by Frank Sheed, available for preview here: http://goo.gl/69MI

    • Zia Shah

      “When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity — we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil.”Ref:Andrews Norton. A statement of Reasons for not Believing the Doctorine of Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ. Hillard Gray and Co., 1833. Page 287.

  26. Zia Shah

    Jesus son of Mary: An alliance of the Unitarians — I have just made a new knol.This is an international repository for the Muslims, the Unitarian Christians and the Jews to demonstrate to the Trinitarians that their ideas are a later invention. The Orthodox and the correct position is One God of Israel and before that in history ‘God of Abraham!’ The Holy Quran says: “Say, ‘O People of the Book! come to a word equal between us and you — that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partner with Him, and that some of us take not others for Lords beside Allah.’ But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we have submitted to God.’ ” (Al Quran 3:65)http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/jesus-son-of-mary-an-alliance-of-the/1qhnnhcumbuyp/98#”When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity — we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil.”Ref:Andrews Norton. A statement of Reasons for not Believing the Doctorine of Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ. Hillard Gray and Co., 1833. Page 287.

  27. Zia Shah

    Andrew Norton — Was he denied Islam? — “When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity — we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil.”Ref:Andrews Norton. A statement of Reasons for not Believing the Doctorine of Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ. Hillard Gray and Co., 1833. Page 287.This book is more than 400 pages and is available in Google-Books.

  28. Anonymous

    Your efforts are commendable. Thank You

    • Zia Shah

      Thank you so much. Also pray to One God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad for me.

  29. Narayana Rao

    Congratulations for becoming a Centurion Knoller — Happy to note that you posted more than 100 knols.Included your name in the list of centurion knollers. Yours is the 75th entry in the list.Hope many visitors come to know of your articles visit them and read them and understand the issues.http://knol.google.com/k/centurion-knollers-knol-authors#

    • Zia Shah

      Thank you so much for your kindness. Whenever you get a chance please also include some of my links in your writings and knols.I am duty bound to be grateful for your kindness.”The reward of goodness is nothing but goodness.” (Al Quran 55:61)

    • Narayana Rao

      “The reward of goodness is nothing but goodness.” (Al Quran 55:61)Goodness can be personal and goodness can be in relation to others. It is nice that reward is goodness which means others will be good to you if you are good to others in general.In Sanskrit the same thing is said as “Dharmo rakshati rakshitah” Dharma, the proper conduct protects people who protect it. But of course in real life we know there are many exceptions. But that is the challenge that God provided to everybody. Despite the exceptions, can you discover the general rule and stick with it in spite of aberrations?

  30. Anonymous

    Reason in Action — According to Islam the purpose of Jesus’ life was to confirm that the scriptures were the true word of God. Then they believe that between Jesus and Mohamed the scriptures got corrupted and God sent Mohamed to give the world the correct Word of God. If this were true, that would mean that the scriptures that Jesus had, and the scriptures that Jews and Christians have today are different from eachother. EVIDENCE 1: We found the dead sea scrolls which are a copy of the scriptures from slightly before the life of Jesus. They perfectly match the scriptures today, which means that they were not corrupted between Jesus and Mohamded. EVIDENCE 2: If the Bible got corrupted and the Quran was the uncorrupted version of it, then there would be similarities in the histories that these books present. Basically the only history that overlaps are dates and names. INTERNAL EVIDENCE FROM THE QURAN: The Quran says that muslims can be corrupted or controlled in any way by Satan. However, there’s a passage that says that Satan had control over Mohamed for a period of three weeks, and Mohamed didn’t even have memory of that period. Satan had complete control over Mohamed in that period, which means that he wasn’t a Prophet.I welcome and look forward to hearing your response to these claims. email: davidgetchell.uconn@gmail.com post ISLAM as the subject.

  31. Zia Shah

    Even President Bush had to accept that the Bible is not literally true — This is in response to the comment below. I have made knols on New Testament and Old Testament, where I have provided plenty of evidence of textual corruption of the Bible:http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-new-testament-how-was-it-compiled/1qhnnhcumbuyp/87# http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-old-testament-how-was-it-compiled/1qhnnhcumbuyp/88#Or read Bart Ehrman especially his book ‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them).’I have made several knols about the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him. Any questions about him please write in those knols and I will answer those God willing. Let us stick to the topic of this knol here. Those knols are:http://knol.google.com/k/tribute-to-islam-the-prophet-muhammad-and-quran-by-non-muslim-writers#http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-message-mohammed-messenger-of-god-a/1qhnnhcumbuyp/33#http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/muhammad-seal-of-the-prophets/1qhnnhcumbuyp/109#

  32. Zia Shah

    Independent proof for Christianity — Christian apologists should make a case that the nature speaks and demands a God who is ‘three persons in one being’ or ‘three persons and one substance.’ Then go onto show that God told all races and humans about Trinity and told them that He will be sending his only begotten son eventually, stay tuned! He would have obviuosly told the Jews in no uncertain terms about what kind of Messiah they should be waiting for. And finally when Jesus did come, he should have at least told his disciples that he is on a mission to die for others, so watch out! At least then Peter would not have had any need to resist Jesus’ arrest as he did in the Garden of Gethesme. Christianity has been a journey from fact to fiction. Brothers and sisters time to wake up and do some reading:http://www.alislam.org/library/books/chr…index.htmlhttp://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-ne…umbuyp/87#

    • Anonymous

      Written by Temitope Abiiba, I don’t have to follow the footsteps of any prophet than the ones of the high priest, who is also the eternal prophet, also the incorruptible, who is also the Son of God (YAHUSHUA). In quote Hebrews Chapter 7 verse 26 says “ For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.Should I have 700 wives like King Solomon, or should I consult a sorceress like King Saul, or should I visit a prostitute like Samson?, should I be confused because they are professed to be prophets by some people? The answer is NO.The explanation to all these is just that although we have human prophets used by God (YAHUWAH), they are still prone to errors because they are humans though prophets.So, I don’t need to argue about the acts or writings of individuals in the Bible or about ALCOHOL, ABSURDITIES, ABRAHAM, CONTRADICTIONS, GENEALOGY OF JESUS, ISHMAEL OR ISAAC as you remarked.So if you are looking for a perfect prophet, He is Jesus Christ (YAHUSHUA), – “the stone that was cut out of the mountain without hand, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver and the gold”- Daniel Chapter 2 verse 45. “and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain and fill the whole earth” – Daniel Chapter 2 verse 35. This is a prophesy interpreted by Daniel , speaking precisely of Jesus Christ (YAHUSHUA) which is the stone that was cut out of the mountain (YAHUWAH) without hand, and fill the whole earth.Let me make you understand what this means – “STONE THAT WAS CUT OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN WITHOUT HAND” – this means He (YAHUSHUA) the stone was begotten of (God) YAHUWAH the mountain – when a stone is cut from a stone, the stone cut out will not be called any other name, it will still be called stone – you can only differentiate these two stones as the bigger stone and the smaller stone. This makes Jesus Christ (YAHUSHUA) has the same divine qualities of God (YAHUWAH), which makes me call Jesus Christ (YAHUSHUA) God. No other being in heaven and on earth is divine except YAHUWAH and his Son YAHUSHUA, remember the stone was cut out of the mountain.You should also understand what this means – “AND THAT IT (the cut out stone) BRAKE IN PIECES THE IRON, THE BRASS, THE CLAY, THE SILVER AND THE GOLD” – this means Jesus Christ (YAHUSHUA) will break in pieces any counterfeit religion. As you know there are many religions in this our end time. “AND THE STONE THAT SMOTE THE IMAGE BECAME A GREAT MOUNTAIN AND FILL THE WHOLE EARTH”This means Jesus Christ (YAHUSHUA) will rule over the whole earth, as KING. You need the Spirit of God (YAHUWAH) to understand this revelation, and the point in time that we are in that revelation.The Holy Bible is still for me the best guide for humanity, as it described in details the LIFE and CHARACTER of Jesus Christ (YAHUSHUA), which is more than enough for me to understand the person of God (YAHUWAH).

  33. Zia Shah

    Christian theologians want to have their cake and eat it too! — According to Encyclopedia Britannica:In the 17th century, as a counterpart to the various “confessions” of the Reformation, there appeared several “Orthodox confessions,” endorsed by local councils but in fact associated with individual authors (e.g., Metrophanes Critopoulos, 1625; Petro Mohyla, 1638; Dosítheos of Jerusalem, 1672). None of these confessions would be recognized today as having anything but historical importance. Orthodox theologians, rather than seeking literal conformity with any particular confession, will look for consistency with Scripture and tradition, as it has been expressed in the ancient councils, in the works of the Church Fathers (the early theological authorities of the church), and in the uninterrupted life of the liturgy. Most theologians will not shy away from new formulations if consistency and continuity of tradition are preserved.What is particularly characteristic of this attitude toward the faith is the absence of any great concern for establishing external criteria of truth—a concern that has dominated Western Christian thought since the Middle Ages. Truth appears as a living experience accessible in the communion of the church and of which the Scriptures, the councils, and theology are the normal expressions. Even ecumenical councils, in the Orthodox perspective, must be accepted by the body of the church in order to be recognized as truly ecumenical. Ultimately, therefore, truth is viewed as its own criterion: there are signs that point to it, but none of those signs is a substitute for a free and personal experience of truth, which is made accessible in the sacramental fellowship of the church.”Eastern Orthodoxy.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 30 Jul. 2010 .

  34. Zia Shah

    Cross examining the witness: Luke 9 — Pope Benedict XVI writes:”All three synoptic Gospels present Jesus’ question to the disciples about who the people think he is and who they themselves consider him to be (Mk 8:27-30; Mt 16:13-20; Lk 9:18-20) as an important milestone on his way. In all three Gospels, Peter answers in the name of the Twelve with a confession that is markedly different from the opinion of the ‘people,'” Let us see how worth while the testimony of Peter is? For that let me first quote a large portion from Luke chapter 9.Joseph Raztzinger–Pope Benedict XVI. The Jesus of Nazareth. Doubleday, 2007. Page 287.

  35. Zia Shah

    Cross examining the witness: Luke 9 — Pope Benedict XVI writes:”All three synoptic Gospels present Jesus’ question to the disciples about who the people think he is and who they themselves consider him to be (Mk 8:27-30; Mt 16:13-20; Lk 9:18-20) as an important milestone on his way. In all three Gospels, Peter answers in the name of the Twelve with a confession that is markedly different from the opinion of the ‘people,'” Let us see how worth while the testimony of Peter is? For that let me first quote a large portion from Luke chapter 9.Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? 26If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:18-27)Some of the criticism that applies to Mark 8 applies to this account as well. Additionally, the occasion of the whole event is different from Mark 8. Here the whole event happened as they were praying in private not so in Mark’s account. Additionally in Luke at the conclusion Jesus addresses the disciples, whereas in Mark he addresses the crowd. Here in Luke, Jesus want his status to be kept hidden from the people.In short, when you cross examine the witness, the testimony is not trust worthy and certainly not worth basing a dramatic religion on it that suggests a human incarnation, never witnessed in history before or since.Joseph Raztzinger–Pope Benedict XVI. The Jesus of Nazareth. Doubleday, 2007. Page 287.

  36. Zia Shah

    Cross examining the witness: Mark 8 — Pope Benedict XVI writes:”All three synoptic Gospels present Jesus’ question to the disciples about who the people think he is and who they themselves consider him to be (Mk 8:27-30; Mt 16:13-20; Lk 9:18-20) as an important milestone on his way. In all three Gospels, Peter answers in the name of the Twelve with a confession that is markedly different from the opinion of the ‘people,'” Let us see how worth while the testimony of Peter is? For that let me first quote a large portion from Mark chapter 8.Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ” Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” (Mark 8: 27-38)This is hardly a satisfying account of Jesus divinity and his dying for the human race. He is known to be Christ only by Peter, who is called Satan by Jesus, within few lines of his confession of Jesus’ status. Jesus calls himself son of man twice in this account and his simple count of number of days before he rises up again is wrong. This is just stating the obvious on a deeper inquiry one would find further problems with this testimony of Peter!In short, when you cross examine the witness, the testimony is not trust worthy and certainly not worth basing a dramatic religion on it that suggests a human incarnation, never witnessed in history before or since.Joseph Raztzinger–Pope Benedict XVI. The Jesus of Nazareth. Doubleday, 2007. Page 287.

  37. Zia Shah

    Cross examining the witness: Matthew 16 — Pope Benedict XVI writes:”All three synoptic Gospels present Jesus’ question to the disciples about who the people think he is and who they themselves consider him to be (Mk 8:27-30; Mt 16:13-20; Lk 9:18-20) as an important milestone on his way. In all three Gospels, Peter answers in the name of the Twelve with a confession that is markedly different from the opinion of the ‘people,'” Let us see how worth while the testimony of Peter is? For that let me first quote a large portion from Matthew chapter 16.When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:13-28)Some of the criticism that applies to Mark 8 applies to this account as well. According to historical evidence Matthew and Luke copied almost a third of their gospels from Mark, yet there are discrepencies in the three accounts. In Matthew’s version, Jesus is not only the Christ but also Son of the living God. Here Peter is given the keys but not in Mark. In Mark, Jesus addresses the crowd and here he addresses the disciples and tells them to hide the testimony. What is Jeus afraid of if he is going to die on the cross any way?In short, when you cross examine the witness, the testimony is not trust worthy and certainly not worth basing a dramatic religion on it that suggests a human incarnation, never witnessed in history before or since.Joseph Raztzinger–Pope Benedict XVI. The Jesus of Nazareth. Doubleday, 2007. Page 287.

  38. Zia Shah

    My take on Prof. Bart Ehrman — Prof. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic scholar of the New Testament. If the agnostic and the religious scholars of the Bible, hold honest discussions about the Bible, the Holy Quran wins! What does this mean? If we preserve the best and accurate in the Bible and Christianity what survives is Islam!Try me, and read the different books of Prof. Bart Ehrman and listen to his interviews and debates available on the Youtube. And, of course, if you are not a Muslim and do not know about the Holy Quran, you have to learn about it from the Muslim sources, in addition to the usual Christian experts on Islam. Here is a Google Knol for starters: http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-holy-quran-as-the-miracle-of-the/1qhnnhcumbuyp/55# My Christian friends have to remember that they have to spend enough hours in learning the Holy Quran to overcome their decades of pre-conceived biases and centuries of Islamophobic propaganda. And remember, according to Confucius, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

  39. Zia Shah

    Reality does not bend to the psychology — In the words of Michael Shermer:Of course, reality does not bend to the psychology of belief. Millions of people believe in astrology, ghosts, angels, ESP, and all manner of paranormal phenomena, but that does not make them real. Mormons believe that their sacred text was dictated in an ancient language onto gold plates by the angel Moroni, buried and subsequently dug up near Palmyra, New York by Joseph Smith, who then translated them by burying his face in a hat containing magic stones. Scientologists believe that eons ago a galactic warlord named Xenu brought alien beings from another solar system to Earth, placed them in select volcanoes around the world, and then vaporized them with hydrogen bombs, scattering to the winds their souls (called thetans, in the jargon of Scientology), which attach themselves to people today, leading to drug and alcohol abuse, addiction, depression, and other psychological and social ailments that only Scientology can cure.http://www.templeton.org/belief/

  40. Zia Shah

    President Thomas Jefferson’s views — A letter to theologian James Smith — December 8, 1822 — elaborates Jefferson’s views on the subject. “Sir, — I have to thank you for your pamphlets on the subject of Unitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for the revival of primitive Christianity in your quarter. No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the Eastern States; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestley’s learned writings on it are, or should be, in every hand. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.” “I write with freedom, because while I claim a right to believe in one God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to. Although this mutual freedom should produce mutual indulgence, yet I wish not to be brought in question before the public on this or any other subject, and I pray you to consider me as writing under that trust. I take no part in controversies, religious or political. At the age of eighty, tranquility is the greatest good of life, and the strongest of our desires that of dying in the good will of all mankind. And with the assurance of all my good will to Unitarian and Trinitarian, to Whig and Tory, accept for yourself that of my entire respect.” There are host of additional materials available on this webpage:http://www.brunswickcounty.com/Thomas_Jefferson_and_the_Doctrine_of_the_Trinity-a-1150.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s