The doctrine of Trinity is found in many pagan religions. Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are the Trinitarian godhead in Indian religions. In Egypt there was the triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus; in Babylon, Ishtar, Sin, Shamash; in Arabia, Al-Laat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1975) gives a critical piece of information:
"Trinity, the doctrine of God taught by Christians that asserts that God is one in essence but three in 'person,' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4)"
This information on Trinity contradicts the faith of most Christians. They believe that Matthew 28:19 and John1:1 and some other verses clearly provide a basis for the doctrine of Trinity. However, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition, Vol: 14, p. 306) acknowledges that the Trinity doctrine does not exist in the Old Testament, and that it was formulated three centuries after Jesus.
Three centuries after Christ
It is unanimously accepted that the doctrine of Trinity is the product of the Nicene Conference (325 AD). Huw Parri Owen, a former professor of Christian Doctrine at King's College, University of London acknowledges this fact:
". . . the early Church formulated the doctrine of The Incarnation. Here the two main landmarks are the council of Nicaea in 325 and the council of Chalcedon in 451. Throughout the centuries christology has been determined, directly or indirectly, by the formulae that these two councils produced. . . . After Nicaea, then, there was no doubt in orthodox circles that Christ was divine." (Christian Theism, T&T. Clark, Edinburg, 1984, p. 38-39).
However, this information is enough to create a lot of doubt about the divine source of the Trinity in intellectual circles. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible in the article "Deity of Christ" suggests the same fact:
"The clearest and fullest expression of the deity of Christ is found in the Nicene Creed which was originally presented at the Council of Nicea, AD 325. In the English Book of Common Prayer the translation appears as follows: '. . . one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made.' " (Vol. 2, second ed., 1977, p. 88)
Reading this, one has to ask oneself why it was that Jesus himself, in his teachings, did not express the doctrine of the trinity "as fully and clearly" as the Nicene Council did 300 years after his departure.
A divine mystery?
Questions such as, "How could the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be totally different and yet participate in the one undivided nature of God?" have given Christian scholars a hard time for centuries. To explain the nature of the Trinity, they have written volumes of books full of interpretations and speculations ending up with a divine paradox, or a divine mystery. So, it would not be worthwhile to question the meaning of Trinity further as the answer, ultimately, will be that it is a divine mystery which cannot be understood. Instead, we will question the compatibility of the doctrine with the Bible.
If we truly believe...
Christian clergymen have enthusiastically praised the Trinity for centuries. They have employed impressive language to defend this fictitious concept. Let's read E. J. Fortman's glorification:
"If we truly believe that 'the ground of reality is not the nuclear composition of matter but the Trinity,' not the division of the infinitely small but distinction at the heart of the infinitely great, we cannot but dedicate all the resources of our logic, all the energies of our mind, all the fire of our heart to the loving study of the Father, his Word and their Spirit." (The Christian Trinity in History, J. Fortman, St. Bede's Publication, 1982, Introduction).
Fortman tries to hide the plain contradiction between the Trinity and Unity by using gobbledygook and inflated language, starting with a big "if". This is one of the common defense strategies of priests when they encounter a difficult problem regarding their teachings. William Lutz, a professor in the English Department at Rutgers University has a clear definition of this attitude:
"A third kind of doublespeak is gobbledygook or bureaucratese. Basically, such doublespeak is simply a matter of piling on words, of overwhelming the audience with words, the bigger the words and the longer the sentences the better. . . . The fourth kind of doublespeak is inflated language that is designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary; to make everyday things seem impressive; . . . to make the simple seem complex." (Doublespeak, William Lutz, Harper Perennial, New York, 1990, p 5).
