Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Peterlag]

The Apostle Thomas said in John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

John 20:28 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “My Lord and my God” can easily be understood that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

 

[synergy]

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.

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 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.'

So your position is that Jesus just let the Pharisee walk away with the “misunderstanding” that He was claiming equality with God—and never corrected it? That doesn’t make sense. It paints Jesus as either careless, ineffective, or just plain incompetent in communicating something that is central to His identity, which is hardly a credible conclusion on your part.

Regarding Philippians 2:6–11—who exactly do you know that can be described as existing in the “form of God”? That’s not a category that applies to ordinary human experience. The only people who talk like that are those detached from reality or smoking strong weed, not making a serious theological claim.

 

[Rockerduck]

John 20:28 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “My Lord and my God” can easily be understood that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

Answer another question. Did Jesus receive worship? Every knee shall bow. Who do we pray to? If the first 2 commandments are true and God is a Jealous God, Jesus is worshipped also.

 

[synergy]

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.

What "beginning" do you think John is talking about? The beginning of unitarianism that will forever live in infamacy? Rather, the phrase “in the beginning” unmistakably echoes Genesis 1:1, placing the Word at the point of creation, not within it, and John explicitly distinguishes the Word from creation by stating that all things came into being through Him—meaning He cannot be part of what was created. Your appeal to personification fails because John doesn’t merely describe the Word with poetic traits; he attributes to the Word agency, relationship (“with God”), and identity (“was God”), which go far beyond literary devices like wisdom speaking or blood crying out. Those are clearly figurative in context, whereas John’s prologue builds a theological argument culminating in the Word becoming flesh—something no abstraction or impersonal attribute can do. Comparing the Word to a tool like a pipe wrench actually undermines your position, because John does not present the Word as an instrument separate from God, but as sharing in God’s very nature while also being personally distinct. What you’re calling “assumptions” are simply the natural conclusions drawn from the full scope of the text, whereas your interpretation depends on stripping away its context and forcing it into a framework that the passage itself does not support.

 

[synergy]

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.

When John says “no one has ever seen God,” he’s speaking of the Father’s invisible essence, not denying the Son’s unique role as the one who reveals Him; otherwise, the very next clause (“the only-begotten…has made Him known”) becomes incoherent. You create a contradiction only by assuming that “seeing God” must exclude the incarnate Son, which is precisely the point John is correcting. The Son makes the unseen God known because He uniquely shares His nature. Reducing “in the bosom of the Father” to mere “thoughts” is equally forced. John consistently uses relational, personal language, not abstract categories, and “bosom” denotes intimate fellowship, not mental projection. If Jesus only existed as an idea, then statements about His coming into the world, revealing the Father, and being uniquely “with” Him lose all meaning. What you’re calling “plain” is actually a selective reading that strips John’s prologue of its clear emphasis on personal preexistence and replaces it with a philosophical construct the text itself never states.

 

[amazing grace]

So your position is that Jesus just let the Pharisee walk away with the “misunderstanding” that He was claiming equality with God—and never corrected it? That doesn’t make sense. It paints Jesus as either careless, ineffective, or just plain incompetent in communicating something that is central to His identity, which is hardly a credible conclusion on your part.

My position is NOT TO BE IN ALLIANCE with those WHO DID NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS WHO HE SAID HE WAS --- THE SON OF GOD, THE MESSIAH. How many times did Jesus try to tell them who he was -- that he was the Son of God and that God was his Father? “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.

Regarding Philippians 2:6–11—who exactly do you know that can be described as existing in the “form of God”? That’s not a category that applies to ordinary human experience. The only people who talk like that are those detached from reality or smoking strong weed, not making a serious theological claim.

Jesus Christ.

The one and only unique human Son of God who so fully represented God his Father that Paul described him as being in the form of God. The form of God is not an 'essence'; it is an outward appearance --- study the word 'form'.

 

[synergy]

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.

Simply asserting that Paul only mentions the Father is blind to the fact that he deliberately reworks the Shema by splitting its defining terms—“God” and “Lord”—between the Father and Jesus Christ, while still affirming one divine identity (Monotheism). In a Jewish monotheistic context, “Lord” (Kyrios) is not a throwaway title; it is the very term used in the Greek Scriptures for YHWH, and Paul assigns it to Jesus in the same breath that he describes Him as the agent “through whom are all things,” a role that, by your own standard, belongs exclusively to God. Your appeal to others being called “lord” is a category error, because none of them are ever placed within the Shema or credited with creation itself. Claiming Paul was merely being selective with information doesn’t solve the problem—it highlights it: why would a strict Unitarian deliberately include Jesus in the very framework that defines the one God of Israel??? What you’re calling “denial” is actually a refusal to ignore the full structure of Paul’s statement, whereas your interpretation depends on isolating half the verse and dismissing the other half when it no longer fits your conclusion.

 

[synergy]

My position is NOT TO BE IN ALLIANCE with those WHO DID NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS WHO HE SAID HE WAS --- THE SON OF GOD, THE MESSIAH. How many times did Jesus try to tell them who he was -- that he was the Son of God and that God was his Father? “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.

So you continue to paint the picture that Jesus would just let the Pharisee walk away with the “misunderstanding” that He was claiming equality with God without correcting them. You're portraying Jesus as either careless, ineffective, or just plain incompetent in communicating something that is central to His identity. Carry on with your continuous downgrading of the tabernacled Word who was God.

Jesus Christ.

The one and only unique human Son of God who so fully represented God his Father that Paul described him as being in the form of God. The form of God is not an 'essence'; it is an outward appearance --- study the word 'form'.

The God that I know has an outward form of God that even Archangels need to shield their eyes from at all times. Thank you for revealing how the unitarian god is a sham.

 

[synergy]

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.

John 17:3 doesn’t weaken monotheism—it establishes it—while simultaneously dismantling your Unitarian conclusion. When Jesus calls the Father “the only true God,” He is affirming the exclusive reality of the one God over against all false gods, but in the very same breath He places Himself alongside the Father as the object of saving knowledge: eternal life is knowing both the Father and Jesus Christ whom He sent. That is not a casual addition, because throughout Scripture salvation belongs to God alone, yet here Jesus includes Himself as essential to that saving relationship. A mere human or abstract agent cannot be inserted into the knowledge that constitutes eternal life without violating the very monotheism you claim to defend. This is fully consistent with John’s Gospel as a whole, which opens by declaring the Word was God and closes with Thomas confessing Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” So rather than excluding Christ, John 17:3 reinforces monotheism while revealing that Jesus shares in the very identity and saving work that belong to the one true God—something your interpretation cannot account for without creating the very contradiction you’re trying to avoid.

 

[Doug Brents]

I am glad that you gave me a thoughtful reply as I can see you are trying to understand how God is not defined as a trinity in John 1:1 nor can the Word and God be confused with being the same God as the Father, or the Son, or the Trinity. Contextually, under critical thought, John 1:1 doesn't make sense with your explanation and contradicts trinitarianism, ironically.

It was indeed a thoughtful answer, thank you for that, but I am not trying to understand how God is not defined as a trinity. On the contrary, He is at least twice referenced as the three in one location (Matt 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14).

Another clear example is in John 1:18, which says "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known." so If God is a trinity then this verse doesn't make any sense. John 1 sets the stage for the Father being that one and only God that Jesus made known.

Yet you overlook and ignore the phrase I bolded above, which states again that the Son is Himself God.

Your soul isn't really yours to bargain with. If you know God and He knows you, you couldn't remove yourself from His hand even if you wanted to because "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand."

Then I am securely in His hand. Are you? Have you surrendered your will to the God who hung on a cross to pay the price for your sins? Have you accepted Him as He says He is?

 

[amazing grace]

So you continue to paint the picture that Jesus would just let the Pharisee walk away with the “misunderstanding” that He was claiming equality with God without correcting them. You're portraying Jesus as either careless, ineffective, or just plain incompetent in communicating something that is central to His identity. Carry on with your continuous downgrading of the tabernacled Word who was God.
The God that I know has an outward form of God that even Archangels need to shield their eyes from at all times. Thank you for revealing how the unitarian god is a sham.

You're disregarding what I actually said but that doesn't surprise me.

When Jesus says he is the Son of God, that God is his Father --- He is using the term in the conventional sense as presented in the OT (Israel being called God's 'son' (Ex. 4:22,23; Isaiah 1:2; Jer. 31:9, etc) so they see it as a claim to equality with God --- it is a false accusation. There is no need for Jesus to respond to a false accusation. The gospel accounts of Jesus' trial make it very clear that Jesus was condemned and executed on the basis of false accusations made by false witnesses. What need would there have been to look for false evidence and false witnesses if Jesus had indeed claimed equality to God?

AND amazingly, Trinitarians agree with Jesus' enemies --- They also claim that Jesus claiming equality to God.

 

[synergy]

You're disregarding what I actually said but that doesn't surprise me.

Why should my regarding of Jesus' actions and words of John 8 over and against your biased opinions surprise anyone?

When Jesus says he is the Son of God, that God is his Father --- He is using the term in the conventional sense as presented in the OT (Israel being called God's 'son' (Ex. 4:22,23; Isaiah 1:2; Jer. 31:9, etc) so they see it as a claim to equality with God --- it is a false accusation. There is no need for Jesus to respond to a false accusation. The gospel accounts of Jesus' trial make it very clear that Jesus was condemned and executed on the basis of false accusations made by false witnesses. What need would there have been to look for false evidence and false witnesses if Jesus had indeed claimed equality to God?

We were discussing John 8, and now you’ve scattered the discussion across the entire Bible in order to avoid the force of the text in front of you. In John 8, Jesus doesn’t merely use “Son of God” in some generic, corporate sense like Israel in the Old Testament—He makes the unmistakable claim “before Abraham was, I AM!” which is why His audience immediately picked up stones for blasphemy; they understood exactly what He was claiming, and it wasn’t a “false accusation” invented later. Your appeal to Israel being called God’s “son” is a category mistake, because no Israelite ever claimed preexistence before Abraham or used language that echoes the divine name. As for the trial, the presence of false witnesses doesn’t prove Jesus never made divine claims. So your argument fails on both fronts: it ignores the immediate context of John 8 where Jesus makes a clear, provocative claim to divine identity, and it misuses the trial narrative as if corruption in the process somehow erases the very claims that provoked it in the first place.

AND amazingly, Trinitarians agree with Jesus' enemies --- They also claim that Jesus claiming equality to God.

We agree with Jesus' actions and words as documented in John 8, not your twisted biases.

 

[Doug Brents]

AND amazingly, Trinitarians agree with Jesus' enemies --- They also claim that Jesus claiming equality to God.

Jesus claimed to be God.
If Jesus is NOT God, then He was a sinner and cannot be our savior.
If Jesus is not a sinner, then He MUST be God.

So which is it for you?
A) Is He God?
B) Or is all faith worthless and meaningless and all people are going to Hell for eternity?
There are no other options; it is either A, or B, there is no option "C".

 

[amazing grace]

Why should my regarding of Jesus' actions and words of John 8 over and against your biased opinions surprise anyone?

We were discussing John 8, and now you’ve scattered the discussion across the entire Bible in order to avoid the force of the text in front of you. In John 8, Jesus doesn’t merely use “Son of God” in some generic, corporate sense like Israel in the Old Testament—He makes the unmistakable claim “before Abraham was, I AM!” which is why His audience immediately picked up stones for blasphemy; they understood exactly what He was claiming, and it wasn’t a “false accusation” invented later. Your appeal to Israel being called God’s “son” is a category mistake, because no Israelite ever claimed preexistence before Abraham or used language that echoes the divine name. As for the trial, the presence of false witnesses doesn’t prove Jesus never made divine claims. So your argument fails on both fronts: it ignores the immediate context of John 8 where Jesus makes a clear, provocative claim to divine identity, and it misuses the trial narrative as if corruption in the process somehow erases the very claims that provoked it in the first place.

We agree with Jesus' actions and words as documented in John 8, not your twisted biases.

I didn't go ACROSS THE ENTIRE BIBLE - What I did was reference verses the Pharisees would have been familiar with in regard to the usage of 'son' of God and made reference of Jesus's trial.....but regardless, I do not stand with the false accusations of the Pharisees, the unbelieving Jews. This is what Jesus thought of them:

I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”
[John 8:18,19] .....They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”[John 8:39-47]

Jesus didn't claim literal preexistence either. Abraham did not see Jesus as the Pharisees understood him to say....

Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” [John 8: 54-57]
Jesus didn't say that he 'had SEEN Abraham' or that Abraham had SEEN him --- he said Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day' and he saw it by faith ----
Hebrews 11:8a, 9,10 By faith Abraham obeyed ...... By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. .... By faith Abraham saw Jesus' day when he would come into his kingdom.

If you look throughout John 8 --- you can see the constant referral to the Father, the only true God and how Jesus keeps putting God before himself throughout this conversation and if they could SEE referencing God as his Father, Jesus is saying that He is the Son of God, the Messiah.

 

[amazing grace]

Jesus claimed to be God.
If Jesus is NOT God, then He was a sinner and cannot be our savior.
If Jesus is not a sinner, then He MUST be God.

So which is it for you?
A) Is He God?
B) Or is all faith worthless and meaningless and all people are going to Hell for eternity?
There are no other options; it is either A, or B, there is no option "C".

Jesus did not claim to be God and YES, THERE IS AN OPTION C - Jesus was who he claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah.
I will stand with Jesus Christ and with his Father, the only true God.

 

[Runningman]

What "beginning" do you think John is talking about? The beginning of unitarianism that will forever live in infamacy? Rather, the phrase “in the beginning” unmistakably echoes Genesis 1:1, placing the Word at the point of creation, not within it, and John explicitly distinguishes the Word from creation by stating that all things came into being through Him—meaning He cannot be part of what was created. Your appeal to personification fails because John doesn’t merely describe the Word with poetic traits; he attributes to the Word agency, relationship (“with God”), and identity (“was God”), which go far beyond literary devices like wisdom speaking or blood crying out. Those are clearly figurative in context, whereas John’s prologue builds a theological argument culminating in the Word becoming flesh—something no abstraction or impersonal attribute can do. Comparing the Word to a tool like a pipe wrench actually undermines your position, because John does not present the Word as an instrument separate from God, but as sharing in God’s very nature while also being personally distinct. What you’re calling “assumptions” are simply the natural conclusions drawn from the full scope of the text, whereas your interpretation depends on stripping away its context and forcing it into a framework that the passage itself does not support.

The "beginning" in John 1 can be reduced down to Jesus' ministry. For one, we know that there was no pre-existent being in the beginning with God who God created through. Genesis 1 is explicit that God spoke literal audible words from His mouth and created alone. So your forced rendering of John 1:1 doesn't match remote context and isn't a narrative that exists in Scripture.

Elsewhere, the Genesis 1 narrative states in Genesis 1:3 “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Do you see how there is no description of God tag-teaming creation together as a group? Continued...“God said… and it was so” (vv. 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, etc.)

Psalm 33:9 “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.” again another reference to "God opening His mouth and talking" rather than any sort of indicator God was in a group. As you can see, God is a He, not a they or them.

So it wouldn't make sense to abruptly, out of the blue, without any precedent, nor a repeat of John 1:1 ever popping again in Scripture, to to be about John 1:1 referring to the beginning of creation or really anything else you're saying. Exegesis demands consistency, something you don't have on this point. So John 1:1 is a reference to the beginning of Jesus ministry and the creation of Jesus.

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus did not claim to be God

John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM"): Jesus uses the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14.
John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"): Jesus asserts his essential unity and equality with God.
John 14:9 ("Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"): Jesus claims to be the visible representation of God.
John 10:33 (Claim to divinity recognized by others): While not a direct quote from Jesus, this verse shows the audience understood he was "claiming to be God".
Mark 14:62 ("I am" - Response to high priest): Jesus affirms he is the Son of God, identifying with the divine power in Daniel 7.
John 20:28-29 (Accepting Thomas's confession): Jesus accepts Thomas calling him "My Lord and my God".
John 5:18 (Making himself equal with God): Jesus equates himself with the Father in working and authority.
John 17:5 (Glory before the world existed): Jesus claims eternal, pre-existent glory with the Father.

Mark 2:5-7 (Forgiving Sins): Jesus forgives sins, which the scribes rightly understood only God could do.
Mark 2:23-28 (Lord of the Sabbath): Jesus claims authority over the Sabbath, a divine prerogative .
Revelation 1:8, 22:13: Jesus takes the titles "Alpha and Omega" and "the Almighty".

and YES, THERE IS AN OPTION C - Jesus was who he claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah.
I will stand with Jesus Christ and with his Father, the only true God.

As the verses cited above clearly state, Jesus did claim to be God. So, if you accept that Jesus is who He claimed to be, God almighty who created all that was made, who can forgive sin, who is before all things, the Alpha and Omega, then you are choosing option A. If you reject option A, then you are saying that Jesus lied, blasphemed, claimed to be God when He was nothing more than a man, and so must believe in option B. There is no option C.

 

[Peterlag]

Answer another question. Did Jesus receive worship? Every knee shall bow. Who do we pray to? If the first 2 commandments are true and God is a Jealous God, Jesus is worshipped also.

The first two commandments were written long before Jesus was born.

 

[Rockerduck]

The first two commandments were written long before Jesus was born.

Yes, but the question you didn't answer is that God is worshipped and Jesus is worshipped.

 

[Peterlag]

Yes, but the question you didn't answer is that God is worshipped and Jesus is worshipped.

I answered it when I told you Jesus was not born yet concerning a verse that you are using that was written thousands of years before Jesus was born.

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.