WHAT MAKES TRINITY AND INCARNATION

UNBELIEVABLE BELIEFS IN THE EYES OF MUSLIMS

Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim / In the Name of God, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

What follows are some purely logic and philosophical reasons, with historical notes at the
end, as shown and developed by contemporary non-Muslim philosophers and theologians,
of why both trinity and incarnation cant be held to be doctrines taught by any of the
Messengers of God and furthermore what makes those beliefs to be simply and merely a
clear case of grossly mistaken human reasoning erroneously elevated to the degree of
sacred truths. We Muslims have known this in its core meaning since more than 1,400
years ago, as God and His last Prophet, Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught us on
these points.
I

ON TRINITY

As Richard Cartwright expresses in his notorious essay On the Logical Problem of the
Trinity1 (Philosophical Essays, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1987, pg. 171):
At this point I need to anticipate an objection. It will be said that a philosopher is
trespassing on the territory of the theologian: the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery,
beyond the capacities of human reason, and hence the tools of logic are irrelevant to it.
The objection is based on a misunderstanding. The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed
supposed to be a mystery. That simply means, however, that assurance of its truth cannot
be provided by human reason but only by divine revelation. It is to be believed "not
because of the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God who reveals it.""
But a mystery is not supposed to be refutable by human reason, as if a truth of reason
could somehow contradict a revealed truth; on the contrary, putative refutations are
supposed themselves to be refutable. Nor is a mystery supposed to be unintelligible, in the
sense that the words in which it is expressed simply cannot be understood. After all, we
are asked to believe the propositions expressed by the words, not simply that the words
express some true propositions or other, we know not which.
Now lets go into his reasoning (as L.M. Geerdink summarizes it2, though it can be verified
by reading, as I have done, Richard Cartwrights original essay):
Richard Cartwright tries to analyze the logical form of the doctrine of the Trinity. He
divides the doctrine in two sections, the doctrine in narrow sense and the doctrine in wider
sense.
He summarises the doctrine in narrow sense in the following seven propositions:
1 The complete text is available here: http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/Notes/trinity.html
2 http://leongeerdink.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Summary-Cartwright.pdf

1. The Father is God

2. The Son is God
3. The Holy Spirit is God
4. The Father is not the Son
5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit
7. There is exactly one God.
In wider sense it also contains the following propositions:
8. The Father is neither made, nor created, nor begotten
9. The Son is from the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten
10. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, neither made nor created
nor begotten, but proceeding.
We should also bear in mind that the proposition below has a prominent place in the
doctrine of the Trinity:
11. What Father is, such is the Son and such the Holy Spirit.
Having set out what the doctrine states, Cartwright now tries to explicate what this doctrine
means ...
He first examines what happens when we interpret the is" as a having the sense of is
identical with". This will not do, because if x = y and y = z then x = z. This cannot be the
logical form of the doctrine of the Trinity, because it is true that the Father is God (1) and
also true that The Son is God (2) but false that the Father is the Son (4).
The second analysis that he tries is to consider that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
are consubstantial, i.e. having the same substance. Is God" can then be analyzed
analogue to is human". This can be represented as follows:
1b The Father is a God
2b The Son is a God
3b The Holy Spirit is a God
4b The Father is not the Son
5b The Father is not the Holy Spirit
6b The Son is not the Holy Spirit

Unfortunately this will also not do. It is true that (1b)-(6b) is consistent, but this set cannot
be made consistent with (7) which states that there is exactly one God.
The reason for this is that (1b)-(6b) logically entail that there are at least three Gods.
Cartwright summarises the problems of analyzing the doctrine of the Trinity that we have
seen above as follows:
But the whole question concerns the relation of the Persons to the essence. If each
Person is identical to the essence, there cannot be more than one Person. And if, on the
other hand, the Persons are to be thought of as sharing a common nature, in the manner
of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, there cannot be fewer than Three Gods. How, in short,
can there be three divine Persons and yet only one God?
Having stated the usual problems with the doctrine of the Trinity he now examines a last
possible analysis which attributes to Peter Geach.
According to Cartwright, Geach contends that unqualified identity statements do not make
sense. An identity statement can only be understood if it is specified as what two things
are identical. Identity is thus said to be relative". x and y may be the same F, while at the
same time they are not the same G. For instance, we can read the same novel as novel,
while at the same time reading different copies of it. We can try to analyze the doctrine of
the Trinity as stating that the Father is the same God as the Son while at the same time
the Father is not the same Divine Person as the Son. Analyzing the Trinity like this also
sets restrictions on sentences of the form seen in (11), which is needed because the
Father is unbegotten (8), while the Son is begotten (9).
Cartwright believes that the relativity of identity also breaches orthodoxy because it still
entails that there are at least three gods. He argues this on the basis of a simple argument
that goes as follows:
(1) Every Divine Person is a God
(2) There are at least three Divine Persons
(C) There are at least three Gods
He believes that the conclusion is warranted by the principle that if every A is a B then
there cannot be fewer B's than A's. For instance he gives the example that when every cat
is an animal, there cannot be fewer animals than cats.
In order to defend this principle, Cartwright attacks Geach's contention of it by arguing that
all Geach's counterexamples to this principle make use of an ambiguity. He discusses in
detail Geach's example concerning the surman. According to Geach (1) x is the same
surman as y i x is a man and y is a man and x and y have the same surname. Secondly,
(2) a surman is anything that is the same surman as something. We can count the surmen
by assigning a number to all surmen and we assign the same number to x and y i x is the
same surman as y.

According to Geach we should conclude that there are less surmen in Leeds then there
are men.
Cartwright now contends that Geach's definitions (1) and (2) invite confusion.
They generate two different senses for the term surman". Using the first definition x is the
same surman as y" means x has the same surname as y" while in the second definition it
is used as x is the same surnamed man as y". It is thus ambiguous between counting
surnames and surnamed men. Thus, after disambiguating it, we should not be surprised
that there are fewer unique surnames then men in Leeds, but that does not mean that
there are less surnamed men in Leeds then there are men (assuming as Geach does that
all men have a surname).
Cartwright concludes his essay by stating that he believes to have shown that all three
analysis fail, and that we are thus no closer in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity
than the Cappadocians. Whenever we try to analyze the doctrine of the Trinity we either
divide the substance or we confound the Persons. (end of quote of L.M. Geerdink)
II

ON INCARNATION

Regarding this doctrine, let us hear how this doctrine has been classically defined.
The Chalcedonian Creed (451) formulates the following3:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and
the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in
manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us
according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of
the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation,
born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same
Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly,
unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken
away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring
in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and
the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets
from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself
taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Now, as David Werther (Essay on Incarnation on Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy4) examines and recounts when summarizing the different philosophic issues
concerning the incarnation:
John Hick counts limited power and knowledge among the plausible candidates [of what
is essential for being truly human] and argues that this spells trouble for the adherent of
3 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html
4 http://www.iep.utm.edu/trinity/

the Chalcedonian account of the incarnation, for the complements of these properties,
unlimited knowledge and power, are essential for being truly divine.
. . . there is an obvious puzzle as to how the same being can jointly embody those
attributes of God and of humanity that are apparently incompatible. God is eternal, whilst
humans have a beginning in time; God is infinite, humans finite; God is the creator of the
universe, including humanity, whilst humans are part of Gods creation; God is omnipotent,
omniscient, omnipresent, whilst humans are limited in power and knowledge and have a
bounded location; and so on. Let us call this the incompatible-attributes problem (Hick,
1993,102).
The worry, then, is that the classic account of the incarnation is flawed in the most
fundamental sense; it runs counter to what Aristotle called the most certain principle:
nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect (Metaphysics,
Bk. IV, Part 3). If being truly human and being truly divine are indeed incompatible, then
Jesus could no more have fulfilled the conditions of the Chalcedonian account of the
incarnation than he could have been a spherical cube.
Rejecting the Law of Non-contradiction
Toward the end of his journal, A Grief Observed, C.S. Lewis asks Can a mortal ask
questions which God finds unanswerable? and readily replies in the affirmative.
Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours
are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half of the questions we askhalf
our great theological and metaphysical problemsare like that (Lewis, 1961, 81).
Though there is no reason to think that Lewis had questions about the incarnation in mind,
one could respond to the objection that the Chalcedonian account of the incarnation runs
counter to the law of non-contradiction, by arguing that this law no more applies to the
incarnation than geometric properties do to colors. Asking if God the Sons human nature
is compatible with his divine nature, would be like asking if purple is perpendicular. It is
what philosophers call a category mistake, the error of applying concepts and distinctions
to subjects where they have no purchase. In this regard, Thomas V. Morris cites H. M.
Relton as asserting that the person of Christ is the bankruptcy of human logic; Soren
Kierkegaard (1813-1855) as holding that the incarnation is a breach with all thinking, and
notes Gareth Moores reference to those for whom The doctrine of the incarnation
expressed a divine mystery which we mere mortals could not expect to understand, and it
was bordering on the blasphemous for any feeble, logic-chopping human intellect to attack
it (Morris, 1986, 24-25).
To evaluate rejecting the law of non-contradiction, as a response to the charge that some
essential human and divine properties are incompatible, lets assume, for the sake of the
argument, that the law does not apply to the incarnation. Since it tells us that nothing can
both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect, making our assumption
amounts to holding that God the Son could possess any property (e.g. having unlimited
power) and its complement (e.g. having limited power).

If this were so, there could not be any problem with God the Son being truly human and
truly divine, no matter how we understand humanity and divinity. But the same problemfree possibility would also go for God the Son being truly divine and incarnate as a
doorknob, the number seven or a piece of toast. Furthermore, apart from the law of noncontradiction, God the Son Incarnate could both have any property (e.g. being human) and
its complement (e.g. not being human), at the same time and in the same respect.
However, if having a property does not rule out its absence, then all property distinctions
(e.g. being incarnate and not being incarnate) break down. As such, doing away with the
law of non-contradiction, in order to defend the doctrine of the incarnation, leads to the
loss all meaningful property distinctions, and the significance of theological assertions.
What we need is a way to work within the metaphysical constraints of Chalcedon, not a
way to shake them off altogether.
Rejecting the All-or-Nothing Account of Identity in Favor of Relative Identity
Our first attempt to address the incompatibility problem plaguing the Chalcedonian account
of the incarnation rejecting the law of non-contradiction led to the breakdown of
meaningful property distinctions. A less radical approach for responding to the
incompatibility problem requires a fresh look at the concept of identity. So far, in our
reasoning, we have assumed that Jesus of Nazareth could be identical to God the Son
only if Jesus possessed every property had by God the Son, and vice versa. In doing so,
we have supposed that identity is an all-or-nothing affair. This view of identity is expressed
in a principle Leibniz called the indiscernibility of identicals:
For any property P and any persons X and Y, if X is identical with Y then X has P if and
only if Y has P (cf. Plantinga, 1976, 15).
Given both the law of non-contradiction and the indiscernibility of identicals, it is difficult
indeed to see how Jesus of Nazereth could be identical to God the Son. Suppose Jesus is
limited in power and God the Son is essentially all-powerful. The law of non-contradiction
rules out the possibility of Jesus having both unlimited and limited power, and also the
possibility of God the Son having both limited and unlimited power. But, the indiscernibility
of identicals requires Jesus to have unlimited power in order to be identical to God the
Son, and God the Son to have limited power in order to be identical to Jesus. It seems,
then, that an acceptance of both the law of non-contradiction and the indiscernibility of
identicals rules out the Chalcedonian view that a single individual can be both truly divine
and truly human. So, if we want to affirm Chalcedon and retain the law of noncontradiction, it makes sense to consider rejecting the all-or-nothing account of identity
expressed by the indiscernibility of identicals.
Some suggest that instead of thinking of identity as sameness in all respects, as in the
indiscernibility of identicals, we should think of it as sameness in just some respects. On
this account of identity, relative identity, two things, X and Y, can be identical in some
respects but not others. So, for example, Senator Barack Obama and President Barack
Obama are the same person but not the same official. As an official, Senator Barack
Obama is a member of the legislative branch of government, while President Barack
Obama, as an official, is a member of the executive branch of government.

The qualifiers in the Obama example, person and official, are count nouns, nouns we
can modify numerically. It makes sense to speak of two persons or officials, but not of two
courages or honesties. It follows, then, that while person and official are count nouns,
courage and honesty are not.
For our present purposes, lets suppose that Jesus of Nazareth is the same person as God
the Son, but the two differ relative to X, where X does duty for some count noun. Lets
suppose that, relative to this count noun, Jesus is limited in knowledge and power and the
like, and therefore not all-powerful and all-knowing, while God the Son is all-powerful and
all-knowing and the like, and so not limited in power and knowledge.
Such an interpretation seems to be necessary if an appeal to relative identity is to show
that Jesus of Nazareth and God the Son can be identical, notwithstanding property
differences. However, it requires attributing essential human properties, like limited power,
to Jesus but not God the Son, and essential divine properties, like unlimited knowledge, to
God the Son but not Jesus of Nazareth. As a result, it is hard to see how an appeal to
relative identity can be compatible with Chalcedons requirement that the divine and
human natures be . . . without division, without separation . . . coalescing in one person
(prosopon) and one hypostasis. . . (Olson, 1999, 231), in keeping with the third
Chalcedonian thesis. (End of quote of David Werther)
David Werther further analyses other attempts to comply with the law of non contradiction,
which can easily found to be deficient and ad hoc reasonings.
The previous lines should be enough to show the futility and unreasonability (in the
accurate sense of non-sense doctrine) of both trinity and incarnation.
III

ON HISTORICITY

To end our review, as for historicity, we will quote here two authors.
Let us start with Cher-El L. Hagensick (The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to
Constantine5):
The historian S. H. Hooke tells in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the
primary god of heaven, the Father, and the King of the Gods; Enlil, the wind-god was
the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the lord of
wisdom. The historian, H. W. F. Saggs, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of
three gods of roughly equal rank... whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their
natures.
Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian,
Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison, In the
unity of that one, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize
[sic] that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well
known the Romish Church does at this day.
5 Complete text in (with the bibliography of historical studies used for his article):
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

Egypts history is similar to Sumerias in antiquity. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart,
lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics at the
University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a transcendental, above creation,
and preexisting one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face,
Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity. The well-known historian Will Durant concurs
that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one
supreme and triune deity (Oriental Heritage 201). Additionally, a hymn to Amun written in
the 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they
have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re... before [men], and his body is
Ptah (Hornung 219).
Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads?
No. However, Durant submits that from Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity... (Caesar
595). Dr. Gordon Laing, retired Dean of the Humanities Department at the University of
Chicago, agrees that the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus
probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of a triune God, and was
influential in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Nicaean and
Athanasian creeds.
These were not the only trinities early Christians were exposed to. The historical lecturer,
Jesse Benedict Carter, tells us of the Etruscans. As they slowly passed from Babylon
through Greece and went on to Rome, they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and
Menerva. This trinity was a new idea to the Romans, and yet it became so typical of
Rome that it quickly spread throughout Italy. Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter,
Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. That Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from
pagan culture is amply shown by Durant: Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted
it (Caesar 595).
Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman
triads? No. However, Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman
Gods to the comparison of Roman paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. Dr.
Jaroslav Pelikan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the Churchs respect
for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used
and cited the [pagan] Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called Sibyllists by
the 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was even a medieval hymn, Dies irae, which foretold
the coming of the day of wrath based on the dual authority of David and the Sibyl
(Emergence 64-65). The attitude of the Church toward paganism is best summed up in
Pope Gregory the Greats words to a missionary: You must not interfere with any
traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity (qtd. in
Laing 130).
In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the
Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as before Me there was no God formed,
Neither shall any be after Me (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and there is no other God...I am
the Lord and there is none else (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary
affirms that [no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous... (Chumash
458). Even though Word, Spirit, Presence, and Wisdom are used as personifications
8

of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the
authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2).
We can conclude without much difficulty that the concept of the Trinity did not come from
Judaism. Nor did Jesus speak of a trinity. The message of Jesus was of the coming
kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness. As for his relationship with the Father,
Jesus said, ... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me,{#
Joh 5:30} and in another place my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me;{# John 7:16}
and his words my Father is greater than I {#Joh 14:28} leave no doubt as to their
relationship.
The word trinity was not coined until Tertullian, more than 100 years after Christs death,
and the key words (meaning substance) from the Nicene debate, homousis and ousis, are
not biblical, but from Stoic thought. Nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity mentioned.
According to Pelikan, One of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century
history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the Trinity was not an explicit doctrine of
the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament, but had evolved from New Testament
times to the 4th century. (Historical Theology 134)
If the Trinity did not originate with the Bible, where did it come from? (end of quote of
Hagensick)

Now finally lets quote from another author, Ed Torrence (Pagan Roots of Trinity
Doctrine6 by Ed Torrence, 2002):

The Trinity doctrine is not unique to, nor original with, Christianity. It has deep Pagan
roots, dating back to at least two centuries BC, and has been prominent in many Eastern
religions ever since.
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church Councils (Western and Eastern churches)
brought the Trinity doctrine into Christianity. This occurred before there was a final split
between the two over authority. Even those who voted the idea into Roman Catholic
dogma declared it was a mystery that had to be accepted by faith. The theologians that
wrote the Catholic Encyclopedia admit that there is no Old Testament indication of a triune
God, and very little in the New Testament that can be construed that way. They also admit
that it was a product of tradition that evolved over four centuries. The RCC gives equal
credence to tradition and scripture. In this case tradition is almost the whole criteria for this
dogma, aside from a few scriptures that are wrenched out of context and misinterpreted,
trying to give the idea legitimacy.
The evolution of this doctrine within Christianity began with The Apostles Creed,
progressed to the Nicene Creed, and finally culminated in the Athanasian Creed.
6 From: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/pagan-roots-of-the-trinity-doctrine-ed-torrence2002

The Apostles Creed which was not written by the Apostles at all, but by the RCC [Roman
Catholic Church]. While this simple statement of faith had nothing to say about a Trinity, or
even hint that Jesus was God, it laid the groundwork for further expansion, and was
modified several times over the years.
The Nicene Creed established in 325 AD, was the next step. At the insistence of the
Roman emperor, Constantine, and for the purpose of establishing unity between
Christianity and Pagan beliefs, Jesus was declared to be coequal, coeternal, and
consubstantial with God. This established, Constantine made Christianity the state religion
of the Roman Empire. Before Constantines rule the Christians suffered much persecution
at the hands of Rome.
The Athanasian Creed espouses the Trinitarian concepts of Athanasius, a fourth century
theologian. The time of its original writing is not known, nor is its author. Most historians
agree that it was probably composed in the fifth century, though some claim it may have
been as late as the ninth century. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia is vague about its origin.
The Christian Churchs roots were originally from Judaism, which was, and still is, a
monotheistic (One-God) religion. There is no belief in a polytheistic (Plural) God in the Old
Testament. On the contrary, OT scriptures declare the singleness of God.
Isa. 43:10:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may
know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed,
neither shall there be after me.
Isa. 45:18:
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and
made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am
the LORD; and there is none else.
The Nicene and Athenian creeds are in direct denial of these scriptures as well as many
others. First, they had to declare that Jesus was God, and that he was eternalwhich also
contradicts scripture.
Num. 23:19:
God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he
said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus was a man; and he referred to himself as the Son of Man many times.
Psa. 2:7:
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I
begotten thee.

10

Jesus was begotten, (born) at a point in time, according to the Jewish prophecies. The
Athanasian Creed also states that Jesus was God incarnated. This contradicts scripture
also, because God does not change.
Mal. 3:6:
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
If there is no scriptural basis for the doctrine of a triune God, then from whence did this
idea come?
Rome, the seat of emperors for the Roman Empire and the power base of political popes,
was heavily influenced by the philosophy and paganism of the former Grecian Empire,
which took in much more territory than the Roman Empire ever achieved. Greek literature,
sociology, religion, and superstitions played a great part in the formation of Roman
government, philosophy, and religion. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Romans
incorporated much of their custom and culture into Christianity, just as the Jewish
believers did in Jerusalem.
When the Apostle Paul was in Athens he observed, among the worshippers of many
pagan gods, an altar to the Unknown God. He took advantage of their superstitions to
preach to them of the one true God. Among these people were Epicureans and Stoics
philosophers who were amazed at Pauls preaching of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Up until the rule of Emperor Constantine, the Christians of the Roman Empire were
persecuted. Constantine, however, in the early fourth century saw a chance to help restore
the former glory of the Empire by bringing about religious unity. In exchange for the
cooperation of the Roman Christian Bishops he made Christianity the official state religion.
However, this came at great cost to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. From this time forward
Christianity became a mixture of the Christian faith and Paganism.
One of the most common beliefs among Pagan cultures was in a trinity of gods. We find
this among the Egyptians, Indians (of India), Japanese, Sumarians, Chaldeans, and of
course, the Babylonians, to where historians trace the roots of trinitarism.
Church history shows a gradual assimilation of Pagan ideas into Christianity, brought
about mostly by the Roman or Western Church, which became a political/religious
extension of the Roman Empire. Foremost among the pagan ideas was the adoption of the
trinity doctrine into the dogma of the church. Pagan holidays (holy days) were also
incorporated into tradition by Christianizing them, thus we end up with Christmas being
celebrated on Dec 25th; Easter, which combined the resurrection of Christ with the pagan
goddess Ester, and Halloween combined with All Saints Day.
In time, the political power of the Roman Popes and the wealth they controlled exceeded
that of the Emperors, and the Church became a Monarchy with power over kings and
nations. Religious tolerance went out the door, and the Church embarked on crusades and
inquisitions to purge out by ex-communication, torture, war, and murder, all those who

11

disagreed with official Church doctrine or resisted the authority of the Pope. Christ-like
behavior became a thing of the past, and Jesus teachings neglected and changed.
The Reformation, brought about by Martin Luther, threw off the yoke of the Papists and
declared justification by faith instead of salvation by obeying the Roman church. However,
the Pagan doctrines and traditions of Catholicism carried over into Protestantism and
remain intact to this day.
The Trinity doctrine was by no means adopted unanimously by church leaders of the day.
Bitter battles ensued, and three versions of the trinity debated, as well as the non-trinity
belief, until the present one was adopted. It was a vote of men that established it, not
revelation from God or scriptures. Christianity had rejected the God of Abraham, Moses,
and Jesus, and replaced Him with a Pagan invention. (end of quote of Ed Torrence).
A CALL TO OUR BROTHERS
In brief, both trinity and incarnation are no more than man-made opinions that constitute
unreasonable beliefs, or to be clearer, irrational opinions in the accurate sense of nonsensical doctrines.
Really, do our Trinitarian and incarnationists Christian brothers (which comprise the large
majority of Christians so far) consider such distorted beliefs as beliefs needed to be
saved?
It is time to assume to call of truth.
To our Christian brothers and friends, we call them to worship only God. This is what
Jesus, may the peace of God be upon him, came to teach: how to worship God with his
pure example of submission, service and love.
As a last point, if a Christian really thinks that God shows us the best way to establish a
relationship with Him, would it not be proper to think that after the Message of Jesus,
peace be upon him, was subject to so much distortions, God out of His mercy would
probably clarify again for us the proper relationship with Him?
And that is where a sincere Christian is invited to go beyond Unitarian Christianity (which a
few Christians adhere to in a hundred different ways though). Notwithstanding these
intelligent and self-evident notions anyway rejecting trinity and incarnation, that is still
wholly open to the varieties and feebleness of self-made researchers of truth. The
invitation, leaving aside both prejudices as well as modern caricatures that make news
from Middle East many times, both planted to distract our spirits, is right to the mercy and
the gift of the Divine: Islam. But only a combination of sincerity, courage, intelligence and
first and last, permanent prayer, may open and keep this way. InshaAllah. Wa min Allah
Tawfiq.
Nureddin Cueva, Lima, Peru / murid_of_the_path@yahoo.es
Shaban 1435 / Junio 2014

12