THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING
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."
(Quote) "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." (Close quote. Quote copy-and-pasted from:
http://www.abc-coggc.org/_old_web/COGGC/gcpublications/jrad/JRAD%202-2-2.htm)
Again I say, "The silence is deafening."