Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Runningman]

You don't believe that God's nature has qualities of omnipresence, omnipotence? What type of God do you worship?

I'll respond to your other judaizing comments when I get a chance....

God's words possess qualities such as love, joy, peace, etc. Fruits of the Spirit. Your confusing The God with something that isn't the God again.

 

[Runningman]

its funny because he really doesn't believe John 17:3 because Jesus is claiming equality with the Father in eternal life and goes on to say in the context that He was alone together with the Father before creation sharing the same glory together as the eternal Father/Son dynamic Duo od the Godhead.

I'll refer you to what I informed @synergy about:

The same kind of clear declaration about who God is appears in John 17:3 in which Jesus point blank said of the Father that He is "alone the true God" but Jesus is the one who was sent. Two categories here: the Father who is alone the true God and the one sent by Him. There is a sender, a sent, a God, and a non-God in John 17:3.

 

[amazing grace]

its funny because he really doesn't believe John 17:3 because Jesus is claiming equality with the Father in eternal life and goes on to say in the context that He was alone together with the Father before creation sharing the same glory together as the eternal Father/Son dynamic Duo od the Godhead.

LOL yeah a real Batman and Robin! (couldn't help myself!)

Jesus didn't share in God's glory - Jesus received his own glory.

Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [Luke 24:26].... this is the glory that Jesus was to receive and it's the glory spoken of in John 17:5 - not a glory he already had but a glory that Jesus was going to receive. Just as we will share in his glory - AT A FUTURE TIME but John 17:22 Jesus speaks as if we have already been given that glory........ The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. [John 7:39]

His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him and had been done to him. ..... And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. [John 12:16,23] Jesus was glorified through his death, resurrection and ascension.

Any 'supposed, inferred' equality shared at John 17:3 would be in the fact that eternal life lies in knowing them BOTH, i.e. the Father as the only true God and knowing Jesus Christ whom He has sent ..... the closing argument of the Gospel of John :
John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[synergy]

God's words possess qualities such as love, joy, peace, etc. Fruits of the Spirit.

You still don't believe that God's nature has qualities of omnipresence, omnipotence? What type of God do you worship?

Your confusing The God with something that isn't the God again.

Someone can be God (possessing the attributes of God) without being the God (the Father). That is exactly what John 1:1 says about the Word. When will you start believing John 1:1, and the rest of the Bible for that matter?

 

[synergy]

In John 1:1, the Word or Logos refers to God's self-expression, wisdom, and His words of creation which is in line with the definition of Logos. After that in John 1:14, God's words became flesh, i.e, Jesus was created. You have not presented any evidence that the Word is a pre-existent incarnate being.

You did it again in John 1:18 because it says "no one has ever seen God" but then just moments ago you claimed that the Word is God. If that were so, then you have just created a contradiction since surely thousands of people saw Jesus contrary John saying no one has ever seen God. John 1:18 is about Jesus revealing or explaining the unseen God, not being the unseen God himself.

Your argument about 1 Cor. 8:6 collapses immediately as well. Right off the bat in 1 Cor. 8:6. Paul said “for us there is one God, the Father" which is an explicitly declaration about who God. Read it again and you may notice Paul didn't say the "Father and Son" are that one God nor mention the Holy Spirit at all. With someone as important as accurately defining who God is, it would seem if you had your way then Paul must have failed, but it's you who is the failure. Paul accurately identified God and you can't stand it. So the Deuteronomy 6:4 Shema is regarding the Father. The one and only God, who is YHWH, is the Father.

The same kind of clear declaration about who God is appears in John 17:3 in which Jesus point blank said of the Father that He is "alone the true God" but Jesus is the one who was sent. Two categories here: the Father who is alone the true God and the one sent by Him. There is a sender, a sent, a God, and a non-God in John 17:3.

You are really straining with John 20:17 which means simply what it says and you can't change the fact that Jesus identified his and his brother's God as the Father only. The reason you see Jesus' definition of God as an argument is because you don't actually have the same religion, beliefs, or ideology as Jesus does because you cannot repeat what Jesus says without importing your personal philosophy to change what he said.

I am glad you have the chance to express your disagreement with Scripture, but 1 Timothy 2:5 couldn't be anymore explicit than what it says. It says "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” This means that God is one party, humanity is a different party, and Jesus is the mediator between them. Jesus is a go-between for God an humanity. Why? Well, Jesus is a high priest that's why. Just like the other high priests before him who mediated between God and man, Jesus is doing the same kind of thing.

John 1:1 and 1:14:
The claim that the Logos merely means an impersonal “word” or plan ignores the grammar and context of John's Prologue. John does not say the Word came into existence but that “the Word was with God and was God,” using continuous past tense language that places the Logos already existing “in the beginning,” before creation. Furthermore, John repeatedly treats the Logos as a personal agent who creates all things (John 1:3), gives life (1:4), and is rejected by the world (1:10–11). Those are actions impossible for an abstract attribute. When John says the Word “became flesh” (1:14), he is not describing a created man coming into existence but the eternal divine Logos entering human nature, which is why the same Gospel later records Jesus Christ declaring pre-existence: “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58).

John 1:18:
Your heretical view that “no one has ever seen God” disproves Christ’s deity misunderstands the verse entirely, because John immediately explains that the “only-begotten God/Son who is at the Father’s side has made Him known.” The point is not that the Son is separate from the divine identity, but that the invisible Father is revealed through the Son who uniquely shares His nature. Scripture consistently distinguishes between seeing God in His unveiled essence and seeing Him through His self-revelation; thus the Son, who is eternally “in the bosom of the Father,” perfectly reveals the unseen God precisely because He shares the same God nature, not because He is a mere created representative.

1 Cor 8:6 and the Shema:
Your heretical claim that Paul the Apostle excludes the Son from the one God in 1 Cor 8:6 evaporates when one recognizes that Paul is deliberately expanding the Shema of Deut 6:4 to include both the Father and the Son within the divine identity. The Shema says “YHWH our God, YHWH is one,” yet Paul splits the language of that confession between “one God, the Father, from whom are all things” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” In Jewish monotheism “Lord” (Kyrios) is the Greek title used for YHWH, and Paul assigns that divine role to Christ as the agent of creation itself, something no Jew would attribute to a creature. Rather than excluding Jesus, Paul includes Him within the unique identity of the one God confessed in Israel’s creed.

John 17:3:
Appealing to John 17:3 to exclude Christ from deity misunderstands the prayer entirely, because Jesus is addressing the Father within the context of the incarnation and the mission of redemption. Calling the Father “the only true God” contrasts the true God with idols while identifying eternal life as knowing both the Father and the one He sent. The very same Gospel that records this prayer also opens by declaring the Word was God and closes with Thomas confessing Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), demonstrating that recognizing the Father as the true God does not deny the Son’s Deity.

John 20:17:
When Jesus Christ says “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” in Gospel of John 20:17, He is speaking as the tabernacling mediator who truly shares human nature, not denying His God nature. Christian theology has always affirmed that the Son became fully human; therefore, as man He worships the Father and calls Him “my God.” Yet the same chapter contains Thomas’s confession that Jesus Himself is “God,” which Jesus accepts rather than correcting. The distinction Jesus makes actually proves the opposite of the objection: He says “my Father and your Father,” not “our Father,” showing that His relationship to the Father is unique and not merely identical to that of believers.

1 Tim 2:5:
The statement in 1 Tim 2:5 that there is “one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” does not deny Christ’s deity but explains why the incarnation was necessary. A mediator must represent both sides, which means Christ must truly belong to both God and humanity. That is precisely why Paul emphasizes “the man Christ Jesus”—because His humanity enables Him to represent us—while the broader New Testament repeatedly affirms His divine status (e.g., Philippians 2:6–11). Unlike Old Testament priests, Christ is not merely another human intermediary; He uniquely reconciles humanity to God precisely because He is both truly man and the divine Son who shares the Father’s nature.

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

 

[synergy]

It seems that what I said about a Creed was misunderstood: "And not read a Creed forumlated some 200 years later back into an earlier document." John 8:24 is not in the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, nor the Chaceldonian Creed at least not to my knowledge.

The theological meaning behind John 8:24—that salvation depends on rightly believing who Jesus truly is—is already embedded in those creeds when they confess that Jesus Christ is “true God from true God,” “of one substance with the Father,” and the incarnate Son, which is precisely the identity Jesus is revealing in John 8:54.

I'll answer in the way the unbelieving Jews answered: Who are you? And Jesus responded: Just what I have been telling you from the beginning and from the beginning he had been telling them that God was his Father which made him the Son of God, the Messiah.

When the Pharisees asked Jesus who he is, He then declared, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (v.58), invoking the divine name revealed in Book of Exodus 3:14 where God identifies Himself as “I AM.” This is not simply a claim of preexistence but an appropriation of the eternal divine identity itself, which is precisely why the Jewish listeners immediately attempted to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). Thus Jesus’ response perfectly answers their question “Who are you?”—He identifies Himself as the eternal “I AM,” sharing the very divine identity of Israel’s God.

Scripture doesn't teach that Jesus was God the Son, nor does it teach that Jesus was God. What scripture teaches is that Jesus is the Son of God the Messiah. It teaches Jesus' humility --- he did think more highly of himself over others in his status as the Son of God, the Messiah but emptied himself of said status and reputation --- he did not grasp at equality with God but remained humble in service to others and obedient to God - therefore God highly exalted him and gave him a name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. In order to live in genuine dependence on God; he could not be God.

Philippians 2:6–11 clearly supports the deity of Jesus Christ. The passage begins by stating that Christ existed “in the form of God,” meaning He possessed the very nature of God, yet He did not regard equality with God as something to exploit for His own advantage; instead He “emptied himself” by taking the form of a servant and becoming human. The “emptying” therefore refers not to surrendering deity but to the voluntary humiliation of the incarnation. Because of this obedient humiliation, the Father “highly exalted Him and gave Him the name above every name,” resulting in every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord—language taken directly from Book of Isaiah 45:23 where YHWH declares that every knee will bow to Him alone. By applying that exclusive worship text to Christ, the passage places Jesus within the very identity of Israel’s God while still distinguishing Him from the Father. Thus the text does not teach that Jesus is merely a dependent non-divine Messiah; it teaches that the divine Son humbled Himself in the incarnation and is now universally confessed as Lord, which ultimately brings glory to the Father who exalted Him.

 

[Runningman]

John 1:1 and 1:14:
The claim that the Logos merely means an impersonal “word” or plan ignores the grammar and context of John's Prologue. John does not say the Word came into existence but that “the Word was with God and was God,” using continuous past tense language that places the Logos already existing “in the beginning,” before creation. Furthermore, John repeatedly treats the Logos as a personal agent who creates all things (John 1:3), gives life (1:4), and is rejected by the world (1:10–11). Those are actions impossible for an abstract attribute. When John says the Word “became flesh” (1:14), he is not describing a created man coming into existence but the eternal divine Logos entering human nature, which is why the same Gospel later records Jesus Christ declaring pre-existence: “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58).

You're only begging the question and a lot. You have made a lot of assumptions that are not revealed by John 1:1. I am just going to add quotes around your assumptions going forward. First of all, John 1:1 doesn't say it's about the "beginning" [of creation] nor does it say the Word existed before the creation. You also have the issue of making the word a personal being when it is demonstrably not (1 John 1:1-3). Your assumption is that the Logos must be a literal personal being and that abstract things cannot be personified in Scripture. Yet you have no examples of the Word being a pre-existent being in the Bible, and you ignore that other abstractions, like the Logos, are personified in the Bible. For example, Wisdom speaks in Proverbs 8, sin reigns in Romans 5, and blood cries in Genesis 4. I don't see you making any arguments about those things being a personal being though. Why is that? Maybe a part of you understands that words are not an actual person? The Bible is a work of literature and it does occasionally employ personification of non-person things. Your comment about the Logos "creating, giving life, being rejected" also does not necessitate it be a person. Your argument is akin to the attributing a pipe wrench with fixing the kitchen sink rather than the plumber who used it, all in an effort to deny the plumber his due. This is the same kind of thing you do with God, but you turn His spoken words into an idol.

I'll reply to the rest later.

 

[amazing grace]

The theological meaning behind John 8:24—that salvation depends on rightly believing who Jesus truly is—is already embedded in those creeds when they confess that Jesus Christ is “true God from true God,” “of one substance with the Father,” and the incarnate Son, which is precisely the identity Jesus is revealing in John 8:54.

What verse of scripture says we must confess that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God"? "One substance with the Father"? "the incarnate Son" --- none of those phrases are scriptural thus have to be read into scripture.

So, we go from John 8:24 to John 8:54? Doesn't matter because in neither verse is Jesus claiming to be God, insinuating or inferring that he is God ---- that is pure assumption.

When the Pharisees asked Jesus who he is, He then declared, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (v.58), invoking the divine name revealed in Book of Exodus 3:14 where God identifies Himself as “I AM.” This is not simply a claim of preexistence but an appropriation of the eternal divine identity itself, which is precisely why the Jewish listeners immediately attempted to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). Thus Jesus’ response perfectly answers their question “Who are you?”—He identifies Himself as the eternal “I AM,” sharing the very divine identity of Israel’s God.

I don't care what the Pharisees THOUGHT Jesus was claiming.......they didn't believe he was who he said he was to begin with and this is not the only place where they totally misunderstood what he was saying.

Saying 'I am' is NOT an appropriation of the eternal divine identity. They picked up the stones to stone him for claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God which they believe he was NOT. Blasphemy, besides being the offense of claiming to be God can entail doing something/saying something disrespectful towards God or towards the things pertaining to God, i.e. the Temple, the Priesthood or sacred things in general or showing contempt, mockery and irreverance toward God, or claiming God's authority and blessings on you when you don't actually have it or deserve to be able to make that claim. This last item is what they believed Jesus to be doing. Look at the list and tell me do you see anything listed that COULD pertain to these Pharisees? Isn't it ironic how their behavior toward Jesus could also be considered blasphemous?

Philippians 2:6–11 clearly supports the deity of Jesus Christ. The passage begins by stating that Christ existed “in the form of God,” meaning He possessed the very nature of God, yet He did not regard equality with God as something to exploit for His own advantage; instead He “emptied himself” by taking the form of a servant and becoming human. The “emptying” therefore refers not to surrendering deity but to the voluntary humiliation of the incarnation. Because of this obedient humiliation, the Father “highly exalted Him and gave Him the name above every name,” resulting in every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord—language taken directly from Book of Isaiah 45:23 where YHWH declares that every knee will bow to Him alone. By applying that exclusive worship text to Christ, the passage places Jesus within the very identity of Israel’s God while still distinguishing Him from the Father. Thus the text does not teach that Jesus is merely a dependent non-divine Messiah; it teaches that the divine Son humbled Himself in the incarnation and is now universally confessed as Lord, which ultimately brings glory to the Father who exalted Him.

Philippians 2:6-11 says nothing about possessing the very nature of God. Any lexicon or concordance will show you that 'form' is the outward appearance. Jesus did not rely on his status as king, as the Son of God, or as the Messiah but emptied himself of this status and remained a humble and obedient servant - of his own choice, Jesus lived in total obedience to his Father and he chose to be 'obedient unto death, even death on a cross'. It was through this 'one man's obedience that many will be made righteous (Rom. 5:19). Also just read and compare Isaiah 45 with Philippians 2, there is another way of understanding what is being said which makes a crucial difference. Isaiah reads: 'to ME every knee shall bow' and Philippians reads: 'at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow'. So, it is in, by, or at the name of Jesus that every knee shall bow to Yahweh 'to me'.
Jesus doesn't have to be God - it is very possible that this is what is meant in the context of Philippians and it is all done 'to the glory of God the Father.'

 

[Runningman]

John 1:18:
Your heretical view that “no one has ever seen God” disproves Christ’s deity misunderstands the verse entirely, because John immediately explains that the “only-begotten God/Son who is at the Father’s side has made Him known.” The point is not that the Son is separate from the divine identity, but that the invisible Father is revealed through the Son who uniquely shares His nature. Scripture consistently distinguishes between seeing God in His unveiled essence and seeing Him through His self-revelation; thus the Son, who is eternally “in the bosom of the Father,” perfectly reveals the unseen God precisely because He shares the same God nature, not because He is a mere created representative.

First of all John is the one who said "no one has ever seen God" so it isn't my construct, meaning it is not heresy. The first part of your comment, therefore, is meaningless, unless you are trying to say apostle John is a heretic, you cannot be taken seriously either way about that comment.

The next part about making God known is about explaining who God is, not visually seeing God. So you are still stuck with the issue that if Jesus is God and everyone including Jesus has never visually seen God, then you have a contradiction.

The rest of this verse is about Jesus existing only in the foreknowledge or mind of God, hence John says the begotten Son was in the "bosom" of the Father, meaning Jesus was in God's heart, so to speak. The bosom is, of course, not literally God's chest, but a reference to God's thoughts.

John point blank shows that the only kind of pre-existence Jesus had was in the thoughts and feelings of God. Stop there. Think about it before you reply and don't try to change it.

 

[Runningman]

1 Cor 8:6 and the Shema:
Your heretical claim that Paul the Apostle excludes the Son from the one God in 1 Cor 8:6 evaporates when one recognizes that Paul is deliberately expanding the Shema of Deut 6:4 to include both the Father and the Son within the divine identity. The Shema says “YHWH our God, YHWH is one,” yet Paul splits the language of that confession between “one God, the Father, from whom are all things” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” In Jewish monotheism “Lord” (Kyrios) is the Greek title used for YHWH, and Paul assigns that divine role to Christ as the agent of creation itself, something no Jew would attribute to a creature. Rather than excluding Jesus, Paul includes Him within the unique identity of the one God confessed in Israel’s creed.

You are either not the sharpest tool in the shed or you are gaslighting the discussion. Once again, Paul's non-heretical definition of God being the Father in 1 Cor. 8:6 is not my construct. Paul is only providing as much information as is necessary to know who God is and, in doing so, saw no need to mention anyone else aside from the Father so the Shema is only about the Father. Paul was Unitarian and never defined God the way your clique does. Actually, no one of any authority of standing in Scripture ever repeated your conclusions. Your denials of Scripture and pivoting to make new arguments doesn't even make sense. You have not changed 1 Cor. 8:6 nor can you, nor does denying what it says make it go away or mean that I will stop brining up what it says. And your kyrios argument has already been dealt with repeatedly so you know already how lame it is to keep repeating. Why? There are others in the Bible called kyrios who are neither God nor Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

John 17:3:
Appealing to John 17:3 to exclude Christ from deity misunderstands the prayer entirely, because Jesus is addressing the Father within the context of the incarnation and the mission of redemption. Calling the Father “the only true God” contrasts the true God with idols while identifying eternal life as knowing both the Father and the one He sent. The very same Gospel that records this prayer also opens by declaring the Word was God and closes with Thomas confessing Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), demonstrating that recognizing the Father as the true God does not deny the Son’s Deity.

This verse is the slam dunk verse since it directly and explicitly states that the Father is alone the true God, which is what the Greek word monos means. It means singular, sole, alone, only, referring to the Father as a singular person who is the true God, which rules out Jesus as being God with Him. Why? Because the Father and Son are not the same person in trinitarianism, but in Christianity the Father is alone the true God. Of course your heretical misinterpretation of Thomas' words cannot coexist with Jesus' Christianity as he never taught anyone he is their god or God according to the Bible. Jesus consistently came to glorify the Father, the one he calls his God and Father, even post-ascension the Father is still Jesus God per Revelation 3:12.

 

[Rockerduck]

Rockerduck, nothing that you said at Post 433 resembles three verses of scripture from God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Why am I not surprised?

You have never responded to my question. If you died tonight, are you absolutely sure, without a doubt, positive you are going to heaven? This is not a guessing game, its yes or no.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The Bible - Jesus' words. Next question??

 

[Runningman]

The Bible - Jesus' words. Next question??

Hi Bob, nice to see you around. How've you been lately? Out of curiosity, if someone asked to you quote Jesus' words about the trinity, which verse or passage would show them first?

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus does not share the glory of being God...

He shares the glory of being the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

 

[amazing grace]

The Bible - Jesus' words. Next question??

If the Trinity was the central claim by Jesus and the NT --- Why itsn't it more obvious?

 

[FreeInChrist]

Really, Rockerduck? None of the Trinitarians that showed up in this thread have thus far been able to present a single verse of scripture that says God is a Trinity. Perhaps you should try to succeed where they have all failed. Start by presenting your first three "Trinity" scriptures. Three scriptures at a time for each person is how I approach these types of discussions.

Proceed.

Can anyone play?

In the "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" = single name, 3 participants.
Matt 28: 19 = 1

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." = single blessing, 3 participants
1 Cor 13:14 = 2

(And in case you do not understand this shows the three acting together as one divine source of blessing.)

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.= single act of salvation 3 participants
1 Peter 1:2 =3

Again all three are involved in salvation........= 1 essence, 3 persons !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Father – foreknowledge Spirit – sanctification Jesus Christ – atoning blood

One plan of salvation, three divine participants.

 

[Peterlag]

If the Trinity was the central claim by Jesus and the NT --- Why itsn't it more obvious?

More Obvious? It's not even a little obvious. There's no teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it.

 

[amazing grace]

More Obvious? It's not even a little obvious. There's no teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree - my wording was wrong - I should have said : If the Trinity was the central claim by Jesus and the NT --- Why itsn't it obvious? Thanks for bringing that to my attention!

 

[Doug Brents]

More Obvious? It's not even a little obvious. There's no teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree - my wording was wrong - I should have said : If the Trinity was the central claim by Jesus and the NT --- Why itsn't it obvious? Thanks for bringing that to my attention!

I find it interesting listening to blind people discussing the beauty of the shapes and textures of clouds.