Having made an argument directly from apostolic sermons given in the book of Acts, the contents of which explicitly call Jesus a man and give no hint, implication, or suggestion that he was anything other than a man, I now I wish to make an argument from silence that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught anything even close to Trinitarian dogma. It would be easy for me to say, "Where's the explicit scripture?" At which point a Trinitarian would trot out the ones already given. I will give alternative understandings of those, and others, following this page. But before I do that, I would like to come at this from a different angle.

 

 In spite of the fact that some Jews - mainly the theologians - misunderstood Jesus to be saying that he was God, he denies any such claim - Jesus explicitly called himself the Son of God, not God. To the Jews, calling yourself God was blasphemy, a stonable offense. If the apostles taught that Jesus was God, then THAT would be the main area of conflict between the apostles and the Jews - the writings of the apostles should be FULL of polemic material on this subject. What we actually find are arguments about whether Jesus was the Messiah, arguments about circumcision, arguments about whether Jews and Gentiles should eat at the same table etc. NOT ONE SINGLE WORD about any kind of conflict with the Jews over Jesus' alleged Godhood. The silence is deafening. From the time of the post-apostolic Greek fathers that issue DOES arise between the leaders of the Church and the Jews. Why then? Because many of the post-apostolic fathers taught that Jesus WAS God, and so came into conflict with the Jews.

 

Quoting Andrews Norton from his book, "Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ."

 

"But what have been stated are not the only consequences which must necessarily have followed from the communication of the doctrine in question. It cannot be denied by those who hold the doctrine of the deity of Christ that, however satisfactorily it may be explained, and however well it may be reconciled with that fundamental principle of religion to which the Jews were so strongly attached, the doctrine of the Unity of God, yet it does, or may, at first sight, appear somewhat inconsistent with it. From the time of the Jew who is represented by Justin Martyr as disputing with him, about the middle of the second century, to the present period, it has always been regarded by the unbelieving Jews with abhorrence. They have considered the Christians as no better than idolaters; as denying the first truth of religion. But the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost bitterness and passion. They sought on every side for objections to it. There was much in its character to which the believing Jews could hardly be reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, explanations, and controversy relating to questions having their origin in Jewish prejudices and passions. With regard, however, to this doctrine - which, if it had ever been taught, the believing Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would have manifested the most determined opposition - with regard to this doctrine, there is no trace of any controversy. But, if it had ever been taught, it must have been the main point of attack and defense between those who assailed, and those who supported Christianity. There is nothing ever said in its explanation. But it must have required, far more than any other doctrine, to be explained, illustrated, and enforced; for it appears not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Unity of God, but equally so with that of the humanity of our Savior; and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connection with it. It must have been necessary, therefore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it in its relations, and carefully to guard against the misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every side. Especially must care have been taken to prevent the gross mistakes into which the Gentile converts from polytheism were likely to fall. Yet so far from any such clearness of statement and fullness of explanation, the whole language of the New Testament in relation to this subject is (as I have before said) a series of enigmas, upon the supposition of its truth.

 

The doctrine, then, is never defended in the New Testament, though unquestionably it would have been the main object of attack and the main difficulty in the Christian system. It is never explained, though no doctrine could have been so much in need of explanation. On the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth the apostles express themselves in such a manner that, if it had been their purpose to darken and perplex the subject, they could not have done it more effectually. And still more, this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary article of faith; though it is now represented by its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity. With a few exceptions, the passages in which it is imagined to be taught are introduced incidentally, the attention of the writer being principally directed to some other topic; and can be regarded only as accidental notices of it. It appears, then, that while other questions of far less difficulty (for instance, the circumcision of the Gentile converts) were subjects of such doubt and controversy that even the authority of the Apostles was barely sufficient to establish the truth, this doctrine, so extraordinary, so obnoxious, and so hard to be understood, was introduced in silence, and received without hesitation, dislike, opposition, or misapprehension. There are not many propositions to be proved or disproved merely by moral evidence which are more incredible."

 

From Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity, printed by I.R. Butts, Boston, 1827:

 

Look at the devotional character of the New Testament. If the Apostles worshipped God in three persons, it will so appear in their conduct and writings; this circumstance will characterize their devout expressions everywhere. And this the more especially, because they were Jews, a people who worshipped God with a strict and most jealous regard to his unity. They could not have changed their practice in this particular without the change being most strikingly observable. Yet we have no intimation of such a change. They appear to have gone on with the worship of the One God of their fathers, without any alteration. Look at this fact. When Paul was converted, he must have passed -- supposing the Trinity to be a christian doctrine -- from believing Jesus a blasphemous impostor, to believing him the Lord Jehovah. Is there the least hint of such an amazing change? He speaks with admiration and rapture of the new views and feelings which he enjoyed with his new faith. But all the rest together was not so astonishing and wonderful as this particular change. Yet he nowhere alludes to it. Is it then possible that it could have been so? that so great a revolution of feeling should have taken place, and no intimation of it be found in any act or expression? He speaks frequently of his prayers. And how? "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom." It is plain therefore to whom Paul directed his worship. His epistles contain many doxologies and ascriptions of praise to God. And in what terms? Always to One person, God the Father. And not once, either in his epistles, or in any other writing of the Bible, is a doxology to be found, which ascribes praise to Father, Son and Spirit, or to the Trinity in any form. This fact is worth remarking. The New Testament contains, I think, twenty-eight ascriptions in various forms; and from not one of them could you learn that the doctrine of the Trinity had been dreamt of in that day...

 

If [the Jews] had supposed him to be the God of their fathers, is it possible that they should have treated him with violence and contempt? If they did not suppose it, yet knew that he claimed to be such, and that his Apostles so regarded him, they must have looked upon him with horror as the highest blasphemer. And would not this have sometimes appeared? This is a very strong point. When he was accused before their Council, and the charge was blasphemy, they were evidently at no small straits to support the charge. The only evidence which they could at last adduce was, that he had said he could raise up the Temple in three days. Now if he had ever claimed, in any way, to be Almighty God, or had given any intimation that he desired to be so considered, would they not have remembered it against him at such a moment? When they were eager to seize on the most trifling circumstance, when they sought long for false witness before they could find one; is it to be believed they would pass by such a charge as this? And as they were entirely silent concerning it, is it not certain that he could never have made any such claim?

 

...The conduct of the Jews toward the disciples after their Lord's death, proves that they knew nothing of the Trinitarian doctrine. They were active in establishing a new dispensation of religion, and thus drew on themselves the obloquy, abuse, and persecution of their countrymen. Wherever they went, they were assailed by the Jews with outrage and violence. They were accused of speaking blasphemous words against the holy place and the law; of turning the world upside down; of designing to overthrow the religion of their fathers; and were scoffed at as followers of a master who had died the ignominious death of a malefactor. But they were never accused of worshipping him, or preaching him as God. Amidst all their enemies' accusations -- about the fairness of which we cannot think they would have been very scrupulous -- they never brought forward this. And yet, in the eye of a Jew, it must have been the most hateful thing in their system. To teach that that Nazarene enthusiast, whom they had despised and slain, was the very God whom they had always honored and worshipped, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! -- nothing could have so excited them against the new religion and its active propagators. Yet it never formed the ground of their opposition. Is it not therefore certain, that the Apostles never held such a doctrine?

 

Of the same nature is the following argument. There arose several controversies in that age, especially with those Jews who had been converted to Christianity. Some of these are treated of in the Epistles. But it is very observable, that amongst the questions which thus arose and required explanations from the Apostles, there is no record of any question or controversy respecting the Object of worship. And yet, if the new religion was adding two new objects of worship to that of the old, this would have been, to a Jew, by far the most important, most interesting, and most perplexing of all the peculiarities of the gospel. No such doctrine could have been added to the ancient faith of the Jews, with whom the Unity of God was the proud and distinguishing tenet, without its occasioning some controversy, between those who received and those who persecuted the new birth. Yet no such controversy took place; neither is there the slightest appearance in the new Testament, that any objection, difficulty, or doubt arose in any quarter upon this ground. Is it not impossible, then, that any such doctrine should have been taught?

 

Again I say, "The silence is deafening."

 

Speaking in the context of the Christological debates of the 4th century, Charles Freeman says,

 

"The original conception of Jesus in the context of the Jewish world in which he lived and taught was that he was fully human. It was impossible to conceive, in fact blaphemous for a Jew to believe...that he could be divine. This possibility could not even be considered until Christianity spread from the Jewish into the Greek world where the boundaries between human and divine were less clearly defined. Even here there were many Christians who continued to see Jesus as no more than a man, though one of great spiritual qualities (page 58).

 

However, mainstream Christian teaching soon came to accept that Jesus was divine. In retrospect, this was perhaps the most significant development ever to take place in Christian theology. It further distanced Christianity from Judaism and, in so far as any empirical evidence for a divine presence is difficult to discern, it meant that there would be acute speculation about the nature of that divinity, especially in an intellectual tradition as sophisticated as that of the Greeks...As we have seen, the Greek philisophical tradition was as alive in the Christian world as it was within paganism" (page 59).

 

  (A.D. 381 - Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State - by Charles Freeman)

 

Next: Arguments Concerning the Scriptures That Seem to Say That Jesus is God