This or another irritated question many a Christian will ask when he happens upon our texts. Before you answer the question with "No, I can do without!" please read just a little bit further.

If you should answer this question with "Yes", than some of the texts you read here, must hurt and appear to be blasphemy, as if we would like to put down Jesus Christ. I have had very emotional first reactions from Christians when talking about the concept of the "holy trinity".

I can understand that very well. I myself believe in God and in Jesus Christ and it would rub me wrong and actually hurt me, if I would hear something said about them, that appears to be blasphemy, depreciative, disrespectful or a lie. But no matter how understandable and subjectively justified these feelings may be, this does not absolve us from the responsibility of having to verify whether this emotional reaction is in harmony with the truth.

Tell somebody, that is devoted to Buddha and follows his teachings that Buddha is not the enlightened guide but rather a misled leader, who keeps men from Jesus Christ, salvation and eternal life. Your counterpart will be enraged and fend off your "attack" in one or another way depending on his character.

Now, we do not talk about as significant differences as between the Christian faith and Buddhism. Both, you and I, belief, that there is only one true God and that Jesus Christ is our Saviour.

• Is he the triune God that is proclaimed by almost all churches?
• Is he the one God, that the Bible bears witness to from the first to the last page?

After many years of studying the Bible and verification through exchanges of opinions with other believers I am still convinced and more strongly than ever, that the triune God of the churches is in absolute contradiction to the one God of the Bible.

Obviously, I do not expect you to just believe me. My contention is so significant and its verification is possible for each and every believer – therefore I consider it to be our responsibility to search for the truth for ourselves, each for himself.

In response I have often heard something like that:

• "It is not really that important, whether the doctrine of the holy trinity is correct. It is much more important that people hear the good news and therefore be saved."
• "All of our knowledge in this world is partial. Let us wait until we are with Jesus."
• "All of our knowledge is partial. Therefore it makes no sense to delve deeper into this subject."

These arguments are obviously wrong, inter alia for the following reasons:

If spreading the gospel was of highest importance, it would be even more important to not speak erringly about God and thereby spread a false gospel.

Just imagine, how many Jews and Muslims will reject the gospel if it includes the concept of holy trinity without looking any further at it, because it contradicts their deeply held conviction that there is only one god and that he neither lived as a human being on earth nor has died.

This dogma prevents hundreds of millions of people from accepting the good news, Jesus and salvation – last but not least the people that God had made the old covenant with. I am not proclaiming, that all of these would accept the gospel if it was not burdened with the dogma of the holy trinity, but that just its inclusion may prove to be killer-criterion precluding any further verification of the other teachings.

If the concept of holy trinity was true, than all these people not reaching salvation would be very tragic but it would be unavoidable.  However, if the dogma was false, would then not everyone that spreads it – or just silently condones or supports it – be jointly responsible for those people being lost eternally?

It is true that we now only know partially [1] , but this does not necessarily mean, that we can not recognize the truth even in very basic questions. If it was otherwise, this would be the end of all discussions about faith.
Furthermore the supporters of the concept of the holy trinity proclaim vehemently to know, that God consists of three persons and that those are of equal nature and power. They make it a church dogma instead of saying "we are quite uncertain about the relationship between God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and their nature".

To make something a church dogma, to spread it and not to refrain even from most brutal violence [2] is not a way of paying tribute to the insight that we only have partial knowledge. This is especially the case since – as any adherent of the dogma of holy trinity that has a good knowledge of the bible will admit – it is written nowhere in the Bible. Despite of this knowledge they claim, that the concept is implied, suggested or alluded to in various Bible texts and was thus slowly deduced and - stretching over a period of a few centuries - formed to what today is a church dogma.

We see thus: the argument that our knowledge is partial can not justify the promulgation of the concept of holy trinity, not even suffice to just accept it without further verification. Never minding the objections made against this argument above, the least one could expect from a sincere advocate  of this argument is that they refrain from going beyond the statements, terms and images found in the Bible.

A doctrine elevated to a church dogma (teaching fundamental to the faith, a conditio sine qua non), which – and we can prove this - is contradicted by the Bible, can not be backed or accepted based on this argument! We are to be witnesses for Jesus and to spread his gospel. In order not to be found a false witness, I have to do whatever is possible to discover the truth and to pass it on.

In our days it is in many ways so much easier to find the truth ourselves than it was in the former 19 centuries:

• We have Bibles in many languages and translations, interlinear translations, Bible commentaries and books about history, languages and cultures in biblical times.
• Last but not least because of the internet we have access to a great variety of information and opinions.
• On average we have got more time for matters of faith, since the portion that is required for subsistence is much smaller than in prior centuries.

Notwithstanding the advantages outlined in the previous section, we should also be aware of the distinct disadvantages we are at, compared to the people of the first century. This holds especially true in comparison to those that had grown up under the old covenant, since almost all writers of the books of the New Testament had this background:

• The language and the culture of the New Testament are unfamiliar to us.
• Most of the time we read the Bible in false chronological order, while all the writers and recipients of scriptures contained in the New Testament – just like Jesus himself – considered the Old Testament to be the Holy Scriptures.
• While reading the Bible we are under the influence of nineteen hundred years of church doctrine and practice as well as the songs, pictures and the tradition of the Christian Occident.

Annotation [3]

Which believer - in light of these extraordinary opportunities and in awareness of the aforementioned dangers - can possibly afford not to put aside the question "Who is God?" and trust the concept of the holy trinity without verifying it first?

For this reason and with the most sincere desire, that God is worshiped and adored in spirit and in truth, as the one who he is, we post these texts on this site in the world wide web.

We plead with you: Thoroughly check the dogma of trinity and counter-arguments to it against the Bible - in a reliable translation.