The Trinity: A False Doctrine

As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on my opponent to show why, for example, scriptures like Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One Lord") should not be taken at face value. My opponent, I hope, will excuse any sarcasm or irreverence that I may fail to repress, as my family and I have had rather bad experiences revolving around the Trinity doctrine. Ours and several other families were forced to leave a homeschool group because we refused to sign a "confession of faith" which included the Trinity doctrine. This definition of the Trinity doctrine is one I have heard dozens of times and found on several websites, so I believe it will be acceptable. "The doctrine that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God." A central word used in the trinity doctrine is "person" so it seems appropriate to define this as well. Person - "A self-conscious or rational being." First, based on these two definitions, the Trinity is a polytheistic belief. If each of the persons in the Godhead is a self-conscious rational being, equal and co-eternal with the other two, then what we have are three Gods. To say otherwise is simply playing with words. This is an outright falsification of the Trinity from the outset, as the basic tennet of both Judaism and Christianity is that there is only one God. Second, we are created in God's image. We are obviously not three persons in one being, therefore it is impossible to say that God is three persons in one being without contradicting scripture. Thrid, there are no scriptures that explicitly state the Trinity doctrine. One would think that such a foundational doctrine and basic definition of God would be found SOMEWHERE in scripture, but it is conspicuous only by its abscense. Fourth, there are countless scriptures which DO explicitly state the contrary: not only that there is only one God, but that God is One. I mentioned Deuteronomy 4:6 already. I find it interesting that Moses didn't tell the children of Israel in this passage that there was only one God, but that the Lord God is ONE LORD. I have a question for my oponent in this regard. How much more explicit would scripture have to be for you to renounce the Trinity doctrine? Would it have to say "the Trinity is a false doctrine and God is not one in three persons, but simply one?" Or would it have to read "God is One. No more, no less. One. Not two, One. Not three, One." But wait, it does! Ephesians 4:4-6 "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." This scripture is extremely problematic for Trinitarians. Not only does it repeatedly say the word "one," as if specifically addressed to Trinitarians, but it says that "God the Father" (notice, it doesn't simply say "God") is "above all, and through all, and in you all." Now, perhaps I'm simply not intelligent enough to grasp this, but isn't "God the Holy Spirit" supposed to be through us and in us, not "God the Father?" Let's look at John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Of course, this verse goes on to identify "the Word" as Jesus Christ. Here Trinitarians once again have a problem, because Jesus was obviously not present when the world was created. "God the Son" may have been, but if "the Word" refers to God the Son, then God the Son is also God, because as this scripture says, "the Word was God." Thus, according to the Trinity doctrine, God the Son is not only a separate person within the Godhead, he is the entirety of the Godhead. This is an obvious contradiction. Either the word is God, or the word is a person within the Trinity that is God. Therefore, the Trinity doctrine cannot be true by virtue of Reductio ad Absurdum. A common scripture given as a justification for the trinity doctrine is Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This is the only sense in which I sympathize with my opponent. There are most certainly scriptures that give the appearance of three. However, when balanced by other scriptures, it is obvious that there cannot be three. In the case of Matthew 28:19, it is balanced by the rest of the New Testament, wherein not a single baptizm was ever conducted in that way. Instead, you will find that all recorded baptizms in scripture AND in history, up until several decades after the death of Jesus, were done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, we face two possibilities: either the disciples were disobeying a direct command from the Jesus himself, or they had a correct understanding of what Jesus meant. When we consider the fact that "the Father," "the Son" and "the Holy Ghost" are not names at all but titles, these two scriptures begin to dovetail. The Lord Jesus Christ IS a name, and according to Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Thus, in baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the disciples had a revelation of what Jesus meant in Matthew 28:19. Another scripture which is frequently used to support the trinity is parallel in all four gospels. It is the account of Jesus' baptism. Matthew says: "16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." As frequently as this scritpure is used, it is certainly difficult to read a trinty into it. It says Jesus saw the Spirit of God, not "the Holy Spirit" or "Got the Holy Spirit" descending like a dove. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is completely absent. The best this scripture can do is prove that there are two persons, not three. This leads to a central question in this debate. Why, if God is a Trinity of persons (which, interestingly, would mean that God has multiple personality disorder) did He not make it more explicit? He certainly could have, if He chose, yet he did not. As I believe I've shown, there was ample opportunity to eliminate all ambiguity on the subject by consistently referring to the separate persons. The Trinity also leads to another interesting problem: who exactly should we pray to? My father was quite alarmed one day while having lunch with a friend, to hear this friend pray quite separately to the Father, then to the Son, and finally to the Holy Spirit. This is the icing on the cake as far as polytheism is concerned, and I believe it is something my opponent should consider while writing his rebuttal. Once again, please forgive me if my tone waxed sarcastic, but as I said, I have little respect for the Trinity doctrine. If this offended you in any way, I leave it to you to change my perspective on the matter.