The three that is one and is not, but shall be forever so . . .
There are a lot of things from Sunday school and my early church life that I barely recall. Almost all of the Old Testament, outside of the creation and noah's arc and the cherry picking of psalms. Even most of the New Testament outside of the gospels and the utter mythology of Revelations. Revelations was tough for me growing up because I never remember taking it seriously, but I know I accepted it as a truth at one point no matter how much I questioned it. Anyways, one of the things I never understood (as far as I can recall) was the Trinity. It never made sense!
I would ask these questions and people thought I was an idiot or something, as though they saw something in the text of the New Testament that I didn't. Why is the word Trinity never used? Why Doesn't it say The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit? Why are the Gospels not in uniform on ANY of these ideas? Why are the scriptures so vague about this and, often times, flat out wrong in its own presentation?
I got many answers back and none of them were satisfying. "Just read the word". "Look at how unique he is". Blah Blah Blah. It was much later, when I really started reading historical and non-christian sources, that I discovered that the very concept of the Trinity is completely made up. That is why it never made sense to me when I was a believer . . . because IT'S NOT A REAL THING. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Tertullian . . . these are the dudes that are the "fathers" of this idea, according to recorded history. Guess what . . . they're not in the bible and neither is their idea. It really just feels as though it was invented to try and unify the discrepancies, which would make sense. Just read the Synoptic Gospels and it is so clear that there is this chasm that cannot be avoided.
I've understood for a long time that the Bible does not agree with itself, but, when I grew up, the gospels were taught to me as the greatest and most true thing ever. As a matter of fact, the entire Bible was presented as The Truth. Sticking to topic . . . if the Trinity is part of this "one and only truth", then why isn't it clear? AT ALL? The book of Mark is the first recorder of the Gospels. Most historians place it between 65-70 AD which would be about 35 years after the death of Christ. In Mark, there is no virgin birth, he is only referred to as the "son of God", the original manuscript ends with the women walking away from the tomb and not telling ANYONE . . . and yet, this is the source material of Matthew and Luke. Have you ever gone to a birthday party where you played telephone, where the original sentence did not stand the test of 10 people? There's the idea.
The Trinity is an early explanation out of early controversies, in an ancient world, to try and explain what is and is not and what shall forever be. If I can't trust in a small multiple person process that only lasts minutes and can't stand the test of that small amount of time, then I can't trust an ancient and illiterate people where the story started in one language and was then written down in another . . . 35 years later. That God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit couldn't have taken the time to properly indicate something so crucial to the salvation of humanity is not only unintelligible, it is also irresponsible. If we are to accept the Trinity so as to gain salvation, then I have every right to call these super natural figures out for their neglect, disregard and absence of love. I say absence of love because if this figure cared enough to create these silly controversies, then they are more than powerful enough to solve the controversies.
All of this was, early on, known as the "Trinitarian Controversy". It is still worth every breath of a skeptical conversation.