The doctrine of the trinity describes an essential union of a divine and human nature, and a supposed union of three distinct created spirits:
They both confess, that there is no exact representation, no perfect example of any such union in nature, and yet they will be representing it over and over again; sometimes by a tree and its branches, sometimes by the sun and its light, sometimes by a mind and its faculties, sometimes by body and soul; and that nothing may be wanting in them towards the representation of it, they represent it at length by that which is not; an essential union of a divine and human nature, and by a supposed union of three distinct created spirits.—
Animadversions, Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 273
Examining the Unions
The natural inquiry concerning the unions with-in the trinity Godhead is,
How three (distinct, several, individual) divine beings, essences, or substances, should remain three several individual substances, and yet at the same time be united into one divine substance, called God?—
Howe, Calm and Sober Enquiry concerning the Possibility of a Divine Revelation, Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 283
In order to try to comprehend the unions between the distinct spirits or substances we can summarize them by representing them as premises to an argument and examining them using logic1.
The first premise being,
- FATHER is not SON
- SON is not HOLYGHOST
- HOLYGHOST is not FATHER
The second premise being,
- FATHER is God
- SON is God
- HOLYGHOST is God
And the conclusion of the argument being that God is a trinity.
However, such an argument is not structurally sound because the premises are not compatible with one another.
Another structural feature of an argument that could render it fatally flawed would be one whose premises are incompatible with one another. And an argument that has such premises is one from which any conclusion, no matter how outrageous, can be drawn.—
T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning
This can be more easily seen when the premises are simplified:
- FATHER is not SON is not HOLYGHOST
- FATHER is SON is HOLYGHOST
What the doctrine of the trinity is proposing is an argument where its two main premises contradict one another. If the doctrine of the trinity is a logical doctrine then both of the above premises when taken together would be true. However, it is not possible for both statements to be simultaneously true because they contradict one another and contradict a fundamental law of ontology, the Law of Noncontradiction.
On what principle of philosophy, or by what rule of language, can it be correct to say, that the Father is a divine person, the Son is a divine person, and the Holy Ghost is a divine person, and therefore there are three divine persons; and yet, when it is asserted, that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, it should at the same time be denied, that there are three Gods?—
Two Letters touching the Trinity and Incarnation, Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 240
Examining the Numbers
To try and restate the entire argument around numbers instead of persons we end up with the same result. Given no other information, what should the natural conclusion to these two premises be:
Premise 1: God is one
Premise 2: God is three
The natural conclusion is two conclusions taken together that are just as contradictory as the proposition:
Conclusion 1: God is one
Conclusion 2: God is three
In other words it is just as EQUALLY valid to draw from those two premises that God is three as it is to draw from them that God is one. If the conclusion of any argument for the number of God SHOULD BE that God is one, then any additional proposals or premises for any other number for God are irrelevant and the need for a doctrine to explain what God is one means is unnecessary. In other words, if the goal is to preach that God is one, why then confuse the minds of men with notions that God is anything other than one?
Aristole set forth the most fundamental principle of logic called the Law of Noncontradiction when he stated that, “it is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be.” 2 Restated another way, “it is impossible that contradictory statements be simultaneously true.” 3 The doctrine of the trinity violates this important principle because it attempts to be simultaneously that which it is and that which it is not.
One Yet Simultaneously Many
It is not logically possible according to the Law of Noncontradiction for God to be one spirit and simultaneously three distinct spirits; to assert otherwise would be to assert that the nature of God is contradictory in nature.
Can the human mind even comprehend a contradictory God existing as Indivisible and yet simultaneously Divisible; One yet Three? If we say that God is One and then say that that One is a unity of Three Somewhats, we have already broken down in thought our conceptualization of God as One.
But what is it that is thus pretended to be impossible? ‘Tis but this, that there be Three Somewhats, which are but One God: and these Somewhats we commonly call Persons.—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 208
I now perceive that it has always been impossible to make one of three, or three of one, - one perfect and infinite being equal to three perfect and infinite beings. There may be gifted minds capable of comprehending this doctrine, but such is not mine. It is plain to me now that I have all my life been worshipping three distinct beings; never having been able, with the most strenuous efforts, to combine the three in my own mind so far as to form a simple idea.—
Mary Dana, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 2
In the study of parts, known as Merelogy, the ancient philosophers such as Aristole first developed part-whole reasoning with axioms such as “the whole is a sum of its parts”. When that field of study and reasoning is applied to the trinity, the proposition that the trinity sets forth can be described as “the whole is a sum of its parts and each part is the whole sum”.
However, such a proposition is only plausible if the remedial meanings of the words whole and part are abandoned and mystical ones take their place. In this mystification, the whole of God is likened to the Godhead and the parts of God are likened to Persons, Beings, Intellects, Spirits, Properties, Characteristics, Manifestations, Subsistences.
They are so far from agreeing, that they are infinitely divided among themselves;... whether it be a Trinity of Minds, Essences, Somewhats, Attributes, Faculties, Modes, External Denominations, or what not, which is to be adored.—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 288
Often times it is responded that the doctrine of the trinity does not violate the Law of Noncontradiction because the “sense” of the two premises of God being one and God being many are not equal. They say, in one sense God is one in essence and in another sense he is three in Persons. Such responses only try to circumvent the obvious contradiction by mystifying the distinction between the two premises and in doing so making the proposition harder to conceptualize.
Fully Human Yet Simultaneously Fully Divine
The primary claim of the trinity of a “supposed union of three distinct spirits” has over the course of Church history developed hand-in-hand with it's secondary claim of a “supposed union of divine and human natures” also known as the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ. However, an essential union of truly divine and truly human natures is an ontological and mereological impossibility as stated according to the antisemmetry postulate,
Two distinct things cannot be part of each other.—
Achille Varzi, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Merelogy
Opposite natures cannot be joined while remaining in opposition; a house divided cannot stand 4. The Scriptures state that God is spirit 5 and that man is flesh 6, which is to say, that the substance of God is incorruptible and the substance of man is corruptible. According to Paul, it is not possible for incorruption to wed corruption, and likewise neither can both incorruption and corruption simultaneously co-habit the same Being. Nor is it possible for the co-habitation of an infinite nature with a finite one. If the natures of God and man are so diabolically opposed it is therefore not possible for God to inhabit the body of a man or vice versa. Yet, this is the claim made by the doctrine of the trinity and incarnation: that two opposing, contradictory natures can co-exist simultaneously with-in the whole of God.
On the other hand, the small number of texts which are brought forward as evidence of the deity of our Lord, can be explained without doing such violence to our reason, as the doctrine of two complete natures in one person – one infinite and the other finite – always must.—
Mary Dana, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 6
It is important to understand the doctrine of the trinity because it claims to describes “who” and “what” God is. Yet, even today the trinity is classified as a mystery of the Christian faith 7. To try and better understand this mystery, we can take a look at its origins or rather the introduction of it into the Christian religion by the early “church fathers”.
The first corruptions of Christianity were derived from heathenism, and especially from the principles of the oriental philosophy.—
Joseph Priestley, An History of the Corruptions of Christianity p. 205
Many of the early church fathers read the philosophies of Plato.
Platonism influenced Christianity through Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Augustine was heavily influenced by Platonism as well.—
By the third century Plato's teachings were combined with mysticism to form Neoplatonism and at the First Council of Nicaea 325 A.D were canonized along with the doctrine of the trinity.
In the third century, Plotinus recast Plato's system, establishing Neoplatonism, in which Middle Platonism was fused with mysticism.—
The link between mysticism and the vision of the Divine was introduced by the early Church Fathers, who used the term as an adjective, as in mystical theology and mystical contemplation.—
Wikipedia, Christian Mysticism
The doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation have no solid or good foundation in revelation or scripture... They are of paganick or heathen descent and origin, and were introduced into the Church by Platonick philosophers, when they came over to Christianity.—
Arthur Bury, The Naked Gospel, Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I pp. 238-239
In 600 A.D. the impossibility of the doctrine of the trinity and the abuses of the Church gave rise to the Muslim religion.
As the Trinity, when first brought into the Church by the Platonists, did, by its natural absurdity and impossibility, give a check and stop to the progress of the gospel; so ever since it has served to propagate Dieism and Atheism, and to hinder the conversion of the Jews and Mahometans and the heathen nations not yet turned to Christianity.—
Arthur Bury, The Naked Gospel, Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I pp. 238-239
Even after the reformation many reformed churches still held a belief in the doctrine of the trinity. It was not until the age of enlightenment and founding of the United States that this belief was fully exposed.
It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one... But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests.—
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams 1813
The doctrine of the trinity and the scriptures themselves oppose one another. If the scriptures are the revelation and light of God then the trinity has no place in them because the trinity is still a secret, it is still a mystery - it serves no purpose other than to confuse the minds of men. If logic is consistency and noncontradiction then paradox is the opposite: inconsistency and contradiction. As has been shown so far, the trinity is a contradiction, or rather a paradox and it is mysticism, through experience, that embraces paradoxes, ambiguities, and contradictions 89.
If God is a trinity, and the trinity is a mystery, then it can be logically concluded that those that worship the triune God worship what they do not know.
What the mystical divines teach, cannot be called an explication; they deny all explications; we must say therefore ‘tis Samaritanism; for what our Savior says of the Samaritans, by way of reproof and blame, that these gentlemen profess concerning themselves, that they worship they know not what."—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 265
If a man worships what he does not know, then it is not ever possible for him to come to a knowledge of what he worships. But we know in the Scriptures that it is possible to come to a knowledge of God 10. The dispute is not whether or not God is completely knowable, the dispute is whether or not he exists as a contradiction which it is not even possible to come to the knowledge of.
In three-valued logic there exists three truth values, true, false, and indeterminate 11. Since the logic of the trinity does not evaluate to a true proposition or a false proposition, it can therefore be classified as an unknown. Paul said of the unknown God:
I found also an erection on which had been inscribed: To God—unknown; whom, therefore—not knowing—ye do worship, this One I announce to you.—
Acts 17:22 YLT
The scope of the trinity is outside of the bible because no where does it plainly and clearly teach that God is a trinity. If it were an essential doctrine that God should exist as a singleton and at the same time exist a composition, reason demands that an explication should be given by Christ or his Apostles, yet there is no single chapter dedicated to the topic. Even though the argument has been used many times before and is often scoffed at by the orthodox -- the word trinity cannot even be found in the bible. And neither will you find the terms God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost. Out of all the 66 books of the bible not once will you find any of those terms mentioned. The only support that the trinity has found for itself in the Scriptures is found through inference, allusion, and translational bias.
The ramification of the doctrine of the trinity is that Christ is God Almighty, but if that were the case then:
- God would have died at that hand of man
- God would have anointed God
- God would have raised God up
- God would have received God into heaven where he already existed
- God would sit God at his own right hand 12
- God would be his own high priest 13
- God would be both the mediated and the mediator between God and man14
Christ was a man and there are many instances in the scripture where he is called such. He walked the earth with the same nature, in personhood, that every man has. He differed only in his nature according to his actions, which were divine -- in that he did the works of God -- and in this alone did he display the nature of God. His soul did not pre-exist his body in the same way that our souls do not pre-exist our own bodies. He was separate from God in substance in the same way that we are separate from God in substance. He was made of a corruptible body in the same way that we are made of a corruptible body. The scriptures depict him shedding that corruptible body in honor of God and being rewarded by God with an incorruptible body and further made the lord over all things under God.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;—
1 Timothy 2:5 KJV, BibleGateway
I must say that if it weren't for the supposed notion of souls the scriptures would appear much less confusing and the doctrine of the trinity probably would not have been conjured up to explain the confusion.
BiblicalUnitarian provides refutations of all passages used to infer the doctrine of the trinity.
The Racovian catechism was written during the time of the reformation when men and women who held non-trinitarian beliefs were persecuted even by reformers.
Letters addressed to relatives and friends by Mary Dana is her explanation to family and friends about her conversion away from trinitarian beliefs.
1. Vallicella, Bill. Is The Doctrine of the Trinity Logically Coherent? ↩
2. Aristole M 4.4.1006a ↩
3. McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict pp. 600-601. Regis, E. 388-89. ↩
4. Mark 3:25 ↩
5. John 4:24 ↩
6. Genesis 6:3 ↩
8. McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 647 ↩
9. O'Brien, Barbara. The Paradox of Paradoxes ↩
10. Colossians 1:10 ↩
11. Wikipedia. Three-valued logic ↩
12. Ephesians 1:20 ↩
13. Hebrews 6:20 ↩
14. 1 Timothy 2:5 ↩
Of the principles and duties of natural religion
'Tis not possible for any Man in his Wits (though never so much addicted to Paradoxes) to believe otherwise, but that the Whole is greater than the Part; That Contradictions cannot both be true; That three and three makes six; That four is more than three. —
Wilkins, John, Of the principles and duties of natural religion p. 60
We ought not in every case to cry out, “I stand in my rank; here I fix my foot, and will not suffer myself to be in the least measure removed from hence." ...[But rather each one of us ought to be] prepared to give up his opinion when another that is better offers.—
Racovian Catechism Preface eiii
For it is certain that the first man was so created by God as to be endowed with free will; and there was no reason why God should deprive him of it after his fall.—
Racovian Catechism p. 325
I do not deny, however, that, by the habit of sinning, the nature of man is infected with a certain stain, and a very strong disposition to wickedness.—
Racovian Catechism p. 326
For God, after having by his decree excluded from salvation a great, indeed the greatest, part of those to whom the gospel is proclaimed, does nevertheless, by the preaching of the gospel offer salvation to all; and thus acts in one way while he pretends to act in another.—
Racovian Catechism p. 333
It by no means follows from hence that God has decreed absolutely and necessarily concerning each individual man before his birth, and therefore without any regard to the good or evil of his conduct, that one should perish everlastingly, and another be saved...—
Racovian Catechism p. 338
This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, i. e., Nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or prophecies might frighten us out of our wits; might scare us to death; might induce us to lie, to say that we believe that two and two make five. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary. Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and been admitted to behold the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three one, we might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.—
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Sep 14, 1813
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.—
Thomas Jefferson to Van der Kemp, 1816
The Presbyterian clergy are loudest, the most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical, and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not find in his Euclid the proposition which has demonstrated that three are one, and one is three, nor subscribe to that of Calvin that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to Calvinistic creed.—
Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshiped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the god whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent and governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.—
Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
An History of Corruption on Christianity
Theodosius, in whose reign persecution for the sake of religion made greater advances than in any other within this period.. Immediately upon his baptism, which according to the superstitious notions which influenced many persons of that age, he had deferred till his life was in danger by sickness, he published a decree commanding that, “in order that all his subjects should make profession of the same religion which the divine apostle Peter taught the Romans, the doctrine of the Trinity should be embraced by those who would be called catholics; that all others,” whom he says he judged to be mad, “should bear the infamous name of heretics, and that their assemblies should not be called churches, reserving their farther punishment in the first place to the vengeance of heaven”—
Priestley, Joseph, An History of Corruption on Christianity pp. 173-174
Theodosius, who in 448 made a law, by which it was ordered, that all books, the doctrine of which was not conformable to the councils of Nice and Ephsus, and also to the decisions of Cyril, should be destroyed, and the concealers of them put to death.—
Priestley, Joseph, An History of Corruption on Christianity p. 177
Calvin went upon the same plan, persecuting many worthy persons, and even procuring Servetus to be burned alive for writing against the doctrine of the Trinity. He also wrote a treatise in order to prove the lawfulness of putting heretics to death—
Priestley, Joseph, An History of Corruption on Christianity p. 192
The Arian controversy afforded the bishops of Rome several opportunities of extending their power. Athanasius himself engaged the protection of pope Julius; and it was chiefly by the influence of the see of Rome that the trinitiarian doctrine came to be established.—
Priestley, Joseph, An History of Corruption on Christianity p. 285
When that law was made, in the reign of William and Mary, which makes it blasphemy, punishable with confiscation of goods and imprisonment for life, if persisted in, to deny the doctrine of the trinity—
Priestley, Joseph, An History of Corruption on Christianity p. 356
What rule of language, it can be correct to say, that the Father is a divine person, the Son is a divine person, and the Holy Ghost is a divine person, and therefore there are three divine persons; and yet when it is asserted, that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, it should at the same time be denied that there are three Gods?—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 240
A natural contradiction implies an inconsistency, and impossibility, in the nature of the thing describe, as there described; a numerical contradiction is an error, committed in the summing up of things.—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 281
He lays it down, as a principle, that a man, who is obliged to believe a thing, must know what that thing is, before he can believe it. He contends, that a person can neither affirm, nor deny, --- believe, nor disbelieve a proposition, which he does not understand; that it is impossible to assert something of nothing, or of that respecting which we have no idea; and that a man may as well be required to do a thing, when he knows not what it is that he has to do, as to believe, when he cannot comprehend what he is to believe.—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 287
It advanceth and so fully proveth this point, That Christ and his Apostles did not propound any Articles as necessarily to be believed to make a man a Christian, but this, That Jesus is the Christ, or Messias, I think it may with great justice be rupted one of the best books that hath been published for at least these sixteen hundred years. The main points for which he contends are, that Christ and his Apostles required no further profession, than that Jesus was the Messiah; that the primitive Christians suffered solely on account of this profession, and not for their faith in any particular doctrines; and that it is antichristian to insist upon anything, as a part of the religion of Jesus, which Jesus himself has not authorized.—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 314-315
...the reasons why we affirm, that from eternity there was but One God, the Creator of the universe. If from eternity there have been two or more Gods, either they are united in one and the same essence, or each of them has a distinct essence to himself. But for them to exist in one and the same essence, is impossible; for though they should be one in their denomination of gods, yet as begotten and unbegotten they must be different: seeing what is begotten resembles its parent, whereas the unbegotten is like nothing, being neither made of, nor for anything. But if it should be said that many gods are one, as the hand, foot and eye are but parts of the same body, Socrates will tell you, that what is compounded of, and divisible in parts, is both made and corruptible. But God is uncreated, impassible, and undivisible, therefore not consisting of parts.—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol I p. 325-326
They [early Unitarians] were known by the name of Anabaptists, because they agreed with that sect on the subject of Baptism; but their opinions were entitled to much more weight, and were the result of more deliberate and profound thought, than those of the German and Dutch Anabaptists. They objected to the doctrine of the Trinity...—
Antitrinitarian Biography Vol II
Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends
And when I look around me, and observe how the great majority of mankind are blindly following the lead of others, how few there are who think for themselves, how few are willing to test their religious opinions by comparing them with other systems of faith, by bringing them all to “the law and the testimony” of God’s inspired word—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends IV
At this age of the world, a rational religion is certainly needed to counteract the prevalence of infidelity; and nothing but a rational religion will do this. Those in high places may sound the alarm, if they please, and tell us that it is dangerous to use our reason in matter of religion, but it will all be in vain.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends V
I conscientiously and firmly reject the doctrine of the Trinity… I received it, as many others do, without thorough investigation, though, I must confess, it has often perplexed me beyond measure. Still I held it, as it seems to me all must do, as a strange mystery, which I must not attempt to comprehend—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 2
From this address [John 20:28] of Thomas, many commentators are of the opinion, that the doctrine of Christ’s divine nature may be established, and conceive that the sentence, when filled up, would be thus: ‘I am not faithless; I doubt no longer; thou art my Lord and my God.’ But, on the contrary, others justly observe, that Thomas used the term God in the sense in which it is applied to kings and judges, who were considered as representatives of Deity, and preeminently to the Messiah.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 22
Again, he says, that they who style themselves orthodox “constantly assert, that the will, power and wisdom of the whole Trinity is one and the same; and that what one wills, does, and knows, they all will do and know, by virtue of this unity of essence.” Again, “that where the numerical essence is one and the same, the will and actions of that essence must be one and the same. And where the will and actions are numerically distinct and diverse, there the individual essence must also be distinct and different. And this Damascen declares to be the doctrine of the holy Fathers. Hence, it demonstratively follows, that of the essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be numerically one and the same, the will and all the other actions of these three, must be numerically one and the same; so that, what the Father wills and does, the Son and Holy Ghost must will and do also… If the three persons in the Trinity have one mind and will, how could Christ say he came not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him? “I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which sent me.”—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 30
Bear in mind also that the term worship… was used in the early ages of the Church with as great latitude as the term God, and did no more always mean supreme homage than the term God always meant the supreme Being. Nebuchadnezzar “fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel,” but not as the supreme God; and the eastern sages worshipped the infant Jesus, but not as the supreme God.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 33
First, that Watts did not believe the Trinity, as usually understood, to be ‘plainly taught in any single text;’ secondly, that in his mind it was not so expressed in the Scriptures at large as to be intelligible to ‘reason and conscience;’ and thirdly, that the ‘strange and perplexing notion of three real persons going to make up one true God,’ is not a ‘necessary and important part of the Christian doctrine,’ whatever may be thought of its reality.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 54-55
Namely that the early Fathers did not believe that the Trinity was taught in Scriptures, and that those who believed in and contended for this doctrine themselves, did not receive it as it is received at the present day.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 54-59
Human nature – nature as it exists in the bosom of an infant – is nothing else but capability; capability of good as well as evil, though more likely from its exposures, to be evil than good.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 66
Those who receive the doctrine of the Trinity are the persons who are depending upon human reason. It appears to me they fall into two strange and opposite errors. They first construct the doctrine upon inference and human reason, and then they prostrate reason to receive it.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 78
But when all you say amounts to this, we are right, and you are wrong – you are blind, but we can see; I acknowledge that I am not in a fair way to be convinced.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 79
In the New Testament I constantly find that men where commanded to believe that the Messiah was the Son of God; but in the present day a very different faith is required of us. Instead of saying, “I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” men are required to say, “I believe that thou art the living God himself.”—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 92
I not long ago heard two orthodox divines of the Calvinistic school congratulating themselves upon the perfection of their system, remarking that they prized it because all the parts of it “dovetailed” together so nicely. Yes, Sir, it is certain they do dovetail in a beautiful manner, but it is only as a system of human invention that they do so; they certainly do not harmonize with human reason, nor, it is plain to me, with Scripture; certainly not with the character of God as revealed to us in the Bible.—
Dana, Mary, Letters addressed to Relatives and Friends p. 108
Principles of nature
If the assertion be made, that one is equal to three, and that three are no more than one, all numerical distinction is totally destroyed, and man consents to become a fool upon the plainest points. Trinitarian declarations are direct contradictions to each other; the part is as great as the whole, and the whole is no greater than the part; three infinites put together make only one, and the destruction of two of them does not diminish the mass of existence or perfection.—
Palmer, Elihu, Principles of nature p. 17-18
This doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity has borrowed from the ancient heathen ideas, and the church has incorporated it for the purposes of mystery and ecclesiastical imposition. It was found among the reveries of Plato, and being transferred to the followers of Jesus, it has appeared under the modification, and with the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus modified, it became the foundation of a cruel and ferocious dogma, that external damnation should be the portion of him who called in question this holy mystery.—
Palmer, Elihu, Principles of nature p. 18
Reasons for not believing the doctrines of the Trinitarians
Beings, whose existence is dependent on the will of another, cannot be equal in power to the being on whom they depend.—
Andrews, Norton, Reasons for not believing the doctrines of the Trinitarians p. 8
The Age of Reason
As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism - a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of manism with but little deism.—
Paine, Thomas, The age of reason p. 29
If Jesus is God, any god can do what he did and forgive his tormentors and so Jesus does not deserve any credit for what he did. On the other hand, if he is an ordinary human being like us with our own frailties and shortcomings, then he deserves to be admired and emulated. By making him a God, the vested interests have taken the shine off the glory of his humanity.—
William, Xavier, World Religions KL 7831-7833
Other Places on the Internet
The Christian doctrine of the trinity -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- was not formalized until the 4th or 5th century C. E. (A), yet the historical concept of a triune deity is much older than that, with evidence dating from the 7th millenium B.C.E. (B). Even in early Christianity, this trinity had a female member, the Holy Ghost.—
Mary and the Trinity