Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Alter2Ego]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2. Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3. Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom. Below are four such examples:

A. In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.


B. In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.


C. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


D. Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?


2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?


3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

 

[mikesw]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2. Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3. Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom. Below are four such examples:

A. In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.


B. In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.


C. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


D. Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?

alter_ego has to simply deny the Son as deity and the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus. This invalidates alter_egos doctrine from the start. Uh oh. Maybe I saw this before but alter_ego is apparently of the JW cult. I'm not always remembering what these newbies beliefs are.
I have shared that in recognition of these three ones in scripture who all are God that honest, intelligent Christians resolve this with the Shema of Deut 6:4.

2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?

One option is that the Word who was with God and was God was born as a son among humans. But really "begotten" is a mistranslation and should just say "only" or "one and only." But that is beyond comprehension of the JW heresy and Unitarian heresy.

3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

Too bad alter_ego is scared to watch the video i posted by the premodernist youtube channel. The councils were nothingburgers to Christians -- no new doctrine. The only thing the Roman rulers wanted was a quiet, unified body of people.

 

[Runningman]

alter_ego has to simply deny the Son as deity and the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus. This invalidates alter_egos doctrine from the start. Uh oh. Maybe I saw this before but alter_ego is apparently of the JW cult. I'm not always remembering what these newbies beliefs are.
I have shared that in recognition of these three ones in scripture who all are God that honest, intelligent Christians resolve this with the Shema of Deut 6:4.

One option is that the Word who was with God and was God was born as a son among humans. But really "begotten" is a mistranslation and should just say "only" or "one and only." But that is beyond comprehension of the JW heresy and Unitarian heresy.

Too bad alter_ego is scared to watch the video i posted by the premodernist youtube channel. The councils were nothingburgers to Christians -- no new doctrine. The only thing the Roman rulers wanted was a quiet, unified body of people.

Care to explain how agreeing with the Bible is denying the Son? I think you are conflating your beliefs with Scripture when they are actually miles apart. There is no "God the Son" in the Bible. You're in a different religion than Christianity. In the Bible there is the Son who is the Messiah and Son of God, but it doesn't extend to deity. So when you talk like this, you actually make people think you're manipulative, trying to gaslight the conversation, hurl false accusations, and poison the well. That's all it does. If you had a goal to convert anyone, you have only repulsed others to your cause completely. Why would anyone want to be a part of your religion if it would make them foul too?

 

[mikesw]

Care to explain how agreeing with the Bible is denying the Son? I think you are conflating your beliefs with Scripture when they are actually miles apart. There is no "God the Son" in the Bible. You're in a different religion than Christianity. In the Bible there is the Son who is the Messiah and Son of God, but it doesn't extend to deity. So when you talk like this, you actually make people think you're manipulative, trying to gaslight the conversation, hurl false accusations, and poison the well. That's all it does. If you had a goal to convert anyone, you have only repulsed others to your cause completely. Why would anyone want to be a part of your religion if it would make them foul too?

You are agreeing with your confused ideas about the bible. You are claiming a new doctrine as if everyone before you was deceived. That is quite arrogant and demands that you have evidence to convince theologians and scholars. Prepare the physical gathering place to make your argument

 

[Runningman]

You are agreeing with your confused ideas about the bible. You are claiming a new doctrine as if everyone before you was deceived. That is quite arrogant and demands that you have evidence to convince theologians and scholars. Prepare the physical gathering place to make your argument

Well, here we are again. We have John 17:3 that explicitly states the Father is the only true God. Take a break and read it as many times as you need to until it sinks in because it's not going anywhere. So here we are with the Bible explicitly stating that the only true God is the Father. Just in case that isn't enough, there is still 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Paul explicitly said the Father is the one God for us. If you can't be honest about what these things say, how you can expect anyone to take you seriously when you disregard them and keep droning on about your trinity?

There is also the matter of the entire Bible referring to God as a singular person, i,e., He, Him, His, I, but never a they or a them. The trinity is a they, therefore it should follow that God is called a "they" or "them" if that's what people in the Bible believed about God, but they don't because they don't agree with your religion. The writers of the Bible are monotheistic Jews. That's why Jesus didn't talk about more than one person who is God, but rather only the Father.

 

[Capbook]

Well, here we are again. We have John 17:3 that explicitly states the Father is the only true God. Take a break and read it as many times as you need to until it sinks in because it's not going anywhere. So here we are with the Bible explicitly stating that the only true God is the Father. Just in case that isn't enough, there is still 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Paul explicitly said the Father is the one God for us. If you can't be honest about what these things say, how you can expect anyone to take you seriously when you disregard them and keep droning on about your trinity?

There is also the matter of the entire Bible referring to God as a singular person, i,e., He, Him, His, I, but never a they or a them. The trinity is a they, therefore it should follow that God is called a "they" or "them" if that's what people in the Bible believed about God, but they don't because they don't agree with your religion. The writers of the Bible are monotheistic Jews. That's why Jesus didn't talk about more than one person who is God, but rather only the Father.

Jesus will not testify about Himself but there is another who testifies about Jesus and it is true.
And that testimony is not from man. It's from the Almighty God the Father Himself. (Heb 1:8)

John 5:31 "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.
John 5:32 "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.
Joh 5:34 "But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus will not testify about Himself but there is another who testifies about Jesus and it is true.
And that testimony is not from man. It's from the Almighty God the Father Himself. (Heb 1:8)

John 5:31 "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.
John 5:32 "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.
Joh 5:34 "But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.

So you agree Jesus isn't God then? Hebrews 1:8 is a teaching against the trinity.

 

[Capbook]

So you agree Jesus isn't God then? Hebrews 1:8 is a teaching against the trinity.

I believe it is you that do not agree with the Almighty God the Father Runningman.

 

[Runningman]

I believe it is you that do not agree with the Almighty God the Father Runningman.

Unitarianism is explicitly stated in John 17:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. It's supported by the whole body of Scripture about God being a singular person referred to as a He, Him, His, etc. I have told you guys this hundreds of times.

This doesn't refer to Jesus in the same sense that the Father is God. We have already talked about this. Can you explain away how this isn't referring to God in Psalm 45:6,7? Also, can you explain why God needed to be anointed above his companions? You think God had companions that he was below before? Can you also explain how this God isn't the Creator in Hebrews 1:9,10?

Hebrews 1
8But about the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”

 

[Capbook]

Unitarianism is explicitly stated in John 17:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. It's supported by the whole body of Scripture about God being a singular person referred to as a He, Him, His, etc. I have told you guys this hundreds of times.

Can I read the word "Unitarian" from those quoted verses Runningman? Or is it just like you're asking us for the word "Trinity?"

This doesn't refer to Jesus in the same sense that the Father is God. We have already talked about this. Can you explain away how this isn't referring to God in Psalm 45:6,7? Also, can you explain why God needed to be anointed above his companions? You think God had companions that he was below before? Can you also explain how this God isn't the Creator in Hebrews 1:9,10?

Classical Jews interpret the "God' in Psa 45:6,7 as referred to their Jewish Messiah Runningman. And I believe you know Who's the Messiah in Christianity.
Are we in the advantage to interpret the oracles of God which was entrusted to the Jews Runningman?

Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Hebrews 1
8But about the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”

Yes, clear enough that the Almighty God the Father, said to the Son, Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
And as to Jesus anointing, the passage shows striking interaction between the Persons of the Trinity. “God, Your God” speaks of the Father and His relational authority over the Second Person of the Trinity. The anointing has in mind the ministry and presence of the Holy Spirit,(oil) the Third Person of the Trinity.

 

[Runningman]

Can I read the word "Unitarian" from those quoted verses Runningman? Or is it just like you're asking us for the word "Trinity?"

Unitarian and Trinitarian are names of theologies. We give doctrines and theologies names in Christianity because there are so many different versions that just saying "Christian" isn't clear what one is really referring to anymore.

Classical Jews interpret the "God' in Psa 45:6,7 as referred to their Jewish Messiah Runningman. And I believe you know Who's the Messiah in Christianity.
Are we in the advantage to interpret the oracles of God which was entrusted to the Jews Runningman?

Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Yes, clear enough that the Almighty God the Father, said to the Son, Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
And as to Jesus anointing, the passage shows striking interaction between the Persons of the Trinity. “God, Your God” speaks of the Father and His relational authority over the Second Person of the Trinity. The anointing has in mind the ministry and presence of the Holy Spirit,(oil) the Third Person of the Trinity.

No, Jews do not interpret Psalm 45 messianically. The traditional and longest standing view of who Psalm 45 is referring to is Solomon at his royal wedding. The part about Psalm 45:6,7 referring to Solomon as a god who was anointed above his companions by his God is not a reference to Solomon being God because that would be blasphemy. Elohim in Jewish theology can refer to humans who are grand like a king or judge, which perfectly describes who Solomon was.

Psalm 45 is not considered to be a messianic Psalm. Psalm 45:6,7 is transferred to Jesus, but the original context is about Solomon. It's no where remotely closely to a statement that assigns deity to Jesus anymore than it does to Solomon.

I would recommend finding some better arguments. You can't change that Psalm 45 is about Solomon. You can't just talk your away around that.

 

[Capbook]

No, Jews do not interpret Psalm 45 messianically. The traditional and longest standing view of who Psalm 45 is referring to is Solomon at his royal wedding. The part about Psalm 45:6,7 referring to Solomon as a god who was anointed above his companions by his God is not a reference to Solomon being God because that would be blasphemy. Elohim in Jewish theology can refer to humans who are grand like a king or judge, which perfectly describes who Solomon was.

Classical Jews do interpret Psalms 45 refers to the Jewish Messiah Runningman, see Wikipedia below.

According to classical Jewish sources, Psalm 45 refers to the Jewish Messiah. According to Metzudot, a classical Jewish commentary, the king mentioned in verse 2 is the Jewish Messiah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_45.

Psalm 45 is not considered to be a messianic Psalm. Psalm 45:6,7 is transferred to Jesus, but the original context is about Solomon. It's no where remotely closely to a statement that assigns deity to Jesus anymore than it does to Solomon.

I would recommend finding some better arguments. You can't change that Psalm 45 is about Solomon. You can't just talk your away around that.

If the one called "God" in that verses is king Solomon, do you believe that he is really God Runningman?

 

[civic]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2. Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3. Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom. Below are four such examples:

A. In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.


B. In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.


C. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


D. Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?


2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?


3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

God is plural.

A. This one God is known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“the LORD”)

1. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Josh. 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60; 18:21, 39; Ps. 100:3; 118:27; etc.

2. Texts where the compound name “Jehovah God” (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:4-9, 15-22; 3:1, 8-9, 13-14, 21-23; 24:3; Ex. 9:30; Ps. 72:18; 84:11; Jonah 4:6

3. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29

4. The Bible never speaks of “the gods” as a group that includes Yahweh; nor is creation ever credited to “gods”; nor does it ever enjoin the worship of “gods”; nor does it speak in any other way that would imply that Yahweh was one of a group of deities. In fact the Bible explicitly rejects these types of statements (e.g., Deut. 5:6-10; 6:4-5, 13; Is. 43:10; 44:6-8, 24).

5. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim

B. This one God, the LORD, is one single divine being

1. The Bible always refers to the LORD or God in the third person singular (he, his, him), never as they, and speakers in the Bible addressing God/the LORD always do so in the second person singular (you singular). Citing texts is really unnecessary because there are far too many occurrences, but see, for example, Gen. 1:5, 10; Ex. 3:6, 12-14; 20:7; Deut. 32:39; 1 Kings 18:39; Ps. 23:2-3.

2. Whenever in the Bible the LORD or God speaks to human beings or other creatures, he always speaks of himself in the first person singular (I, and my/mine, not us/we andour/ours). Of the obviously numerous examples, see the especially famous examples in Ex. 3:14; Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6. He says “I am the LORD” or “I am the LORD your/their God” some 164 times in the OT (especially in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Isaiah, and Ezekiel).

3. This conclusion cannot be circumvented by saying that there is one “Godhead” consisting of a plurality of divine beings. The word “Godhead” is equivalent to the word “Godhood” (-head is an old English suffix meaning the state or status of something, as in maidenhead, the state of being a maiden or virgin). In the English Bible it is used to translate three closely related words: theion (“divine being,” Acts 17:29), theiotês (“divine nature,” Rom. 1:20), and theotês (“deity,” Col. 2:9). In none of these texts does “Godhead” refer to more than one divine being. The use of “Godhead” as a term for the Trinity is not found in the Bible; it is not inaccurate per se, but it must be understood as a term for a single divine being, not a group of gods.

C. However, the Bible never says that God is “one person.”

1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated “substance” in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 “God” refers specifically to the Father.

2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person.

3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but ironically the Hebrew literally means “his faces.”

D. The use of plural pronouns by God in Genesis 1-11

1. As already noted, the Bible always refers to God in the singular, and he always speaks of himself with singular pronouns (I, me, mine, my) when addressing creatures. These singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three “persons” as long as these persons are not separate beings.

2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretations cannot account for these occurrences.

a. A plural reference to God and the angels is not likely in these texts. In 1:26 “our image” is explained by the parallel in 1:27, “in God’s image.” In 3:22 “like one of us” refers back to 3:5, “like God.” In 11:7 “let us go down and there confuse their language” is explained immediately in 11:8-9, “So the LORD [Yahweh] scattered them abroad from there … The LORD confused the language of the whole earth.” Angels were evidently present when God created human beings (cf. Job 38:4-7), but the Bible never includes them as participants in creating human beings. Nor does the Bible ever speak of humans as being in the image of angels.

b. That the plural is in some way literal is evident from 3:22 (“like one of us”) and from 11:7 (“Come, let us go down”), which parallels the people’s statements “Come, let us …” (11:3, 4).

c. The “literary plural” (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to OT texts in which God is speaking, not writing.

d. The “plural of deliberation” or “cohortative plural” (as in “Let’s see now …”) with reference to a single person is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and clearly cannot explain the plural in Gen. 3:22 (“like one of us”).

e. The “plural of amplitude” or of “fullness” (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of “God”) is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.

f. The “plural of majesty” (the royal “we”) is possibly attested in 1 Kings 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these is a certain use of that idiom; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.

3. There are two factors that may explain why these intradivine plural pronouns occur only in Genesis 1-11.

a. These plural pronouns express communication among the divine persons, rather than communication from God to human beings or angelic creatures.

b. It may be significant that the use of these plural forms is reported only in Genesis 1-11, prior to the revelations to Abraham, when the focus of biblical revelation became the fostering of a monotheistic faith. The history of the OT is a history of the struggle to establish Israel as a community committed to belief in one God. In that context it would have been confusing to have referred overtly to the three divine persons of the triune God. This also explains why there is no overt revelation of the three persons in the OT.

E. The uniqueness of God should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons

1. Only one God, thus unique: see I.A

2. None are even like God: see I.B

3. God cannot be fully comprehended: Is. 40:18, 25; 1 Cor. 8:2-3

4. God can be known only insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18

5. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16

6. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench

a. Separate from the world: Is. 40:22; Acts 17:24

b. Contrasted with the world: Ps. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17

c. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6; 102:25; Is. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

hope this helps !!!

 

[Peterlag]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2. Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3. Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom. Below are four such examples:

A. In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.


B. In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.


C. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


D. Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?


2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?


3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

There is no Trinity...

Trinitarians piece together statements that are scattered all over the Bible. They basically use bits and pieces of words and half verses along with their own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as they pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there, and then they construct their "own God" which is the product of their own human thinking. This is why they cannot present one single biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[amazing grace]

Jesus will not testify about Himself but there is another who testifies about Jesus and it is true.
And that testimony is not from man. It's from the Almighty God the Father Himself. (Heb 1:8)

John 5:31 "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.
John 5:32 "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.
Joh 5:34 "But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.

Yes, there is another who testifies of Jesus and the testimony which He gives about Jesus is true and is not from man . . . .

Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” John 8:16-18

The testimony of TWO people is true . . . Jesus is one who bears witness about himself and the Father who sent him bears witness about him . . . If Jesus is God and the Father is God and here they are referenced as two separate and distinct individuals does that equal two gods? If not, why not?

 

[Alter2Ego]

alter_ego has to simply deny the Son as deity and the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus. This invalidates alter_egos doctrine from the start. Uh oh. Maybe I saw this before but alter_ego is apparently of the JW cult. I'm not always remembering what these newbies beliefs are.
I have shared that in recognition of these three ones in scripture who all are God that honest, intelligent Christians resolve this with the Shema of Deut 6:4.

One option is that the Word who was with God and was God was born as a son among humans. But really "begotten" is a mistranslation and should just say "only" or "one and only." But that is beyond comprehension of the JW heresy and Unitarian heresy.

Too bad alter_ego is scared to watch the video i posted by the premodernist youtube channel. The councils were nothingburgers to Christians -- no new doctrine. The only thing the Roman rulers wanted was a quiet, unified body of people.

mikesw:

You are already flunking the exam I gave you in the other thread (your answers to my original four questions), and you have the audacity to show up here with your silly comments?

MY QUESTIONS AT POST 567:

Post in thread 'The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning'

Nov 17, 2025

mikesw:

If Jesus were still a god while on earth, humans would not have been able to kill him. What is it about that don't you get? Scripture says he became lower than angels while he was on earth.

Hebrews 2:7​

You made him a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands.

Hebrews 2:8​

All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him.

Hebrews...​

• Alter2Ego

YOUR ANSWERS AT POST 718:

M

Post in thread 'The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning'

Nov 21, 2025

mikesw:

I asked you four direct questions at Post 567, which you are now dodging.



Until you answer those four questions, my conversation with you is over.

oh my. You sure are getting pushy in your advocacy of heresy. You try to load the discussion without including the pre-existence of Jesus and the deity passages about Jesus in John 1. And who really cares if you fail to continue sharing your heresy...

• mikesw

You gave wrong answers to Question #1 and Question #2. I haven't had time to check your answers to Question #3 and Questions #4. I also gave you a fifth question a few minutes ago. I will check on your answers Questions 3, 4, and 5 next time I log in.

 

[Alter2Ego]

God is plural.

A. This one God is known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“the LORD”)

1. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Josh. 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60; 18:21, 39; Ps. 100:3; 118:27; etc.

2. Texts where the compound name “Jehovah God” (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:4-9, 15-22; 3:1, 8-9, 13-14, 21-23; 24:3; Ex. 9:30; Ps. 72:18; 84:11; Jonah 4:6

3. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29

4. The Bible never speaks of “the gods” as a group that includes Yahweh; nor is creation ever credited to “gods”; nor does it ever enjoin the worship of “gods”; nor does it speak in any other way that would imply that Yahweh was one of a group of deities. In fact the Bible explicitly rejects these types of statements (e.g., Deut. 5:6-10; 6:4-5, 13; Is. 43:10; 44:6-8, 24).

5. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim

B. This one God, the LORD, is one single divine being

1. The Bible always refers to the LORD or God in the third person singular (he, his, him), never as they, and speakers in the Bible addressing God/the LORD always do so in the second person singular (you singular). Citing texts is really unnecessary because there are far too many occurrences, but see, for example, Gen. 1:5, 10; Ex. 3:6, 12-14; 20:7; Deut. 32:39; 1 Kings 18:39; Ps. 23:2-3.

2. Whenever in the Bible the LORD or God speaks to human beings or other creatures, he always speaks of himself in the first person singular (I, and my/mine, not us/we andour/ours). Of the obviously numerous examples, see the especially famous examples in Ex. 3:14; Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6. He says “I am the LORD” or “I am the LORD your/their God” some 164 times in the OT (especially in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Isaiah, and Ezekiel).

3. This conclusion cannot be circumvented by saying that there is one “Godhead” consisting of a plurality of divine beings. The word “Godhead” is equivalent to the word “Godhood” (-head is an old English suffix meaning the state or status of something, as in maidenhead, the state of being a maiden or virgin). In the English Bible it is used to translate three closely related words: theion (“divine being,” Acts 17:29), theiotês (“divine nature,” Rom. 1:20), and theotês (“deity,” Col. 2:9). In none of these texts does “Godhead” refer to more than one divine being. The use of “Godhead” as a term for the Trinity is not found in the Bible; it is not inaccurate per se, but it must be understood as a term for a single divine being, not a group of gods.

C. However, the Bible never says that God is “one person.”

1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated “substance” in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 “God” refers specifically to the Father.

2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person.

3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but ironically the Hebrew literally means “his faces.”

D. The use of plural pronouns by God in Genesis 1-11

1. As already noted, the Bible always refers to God in the singular, and he always speaks of himself with singular pronouns (I, me, mine, my) when addressing creatures. These singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three “persons” as long as these persons are not separate beings.

2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretations cannot account for these occurrences.

a. A plural reference to God and the angels is not likely in these texts. In 1:26 “our image” is explained by the parallel in 1:27, “in God’s image.” In 3:22 “like one of us” refers back to 3:5, “like God.” In 11:7 “let us go down and there confuse their language” is explained immediately in 11:8-9, “So the LORD [Yahweh] scattered them abroad from there … The LORD confused the language of the whole earth.” Angels were evidently present when God created human beings (cf. Job 38:4-7), but the Bible never includes them as participants in creating human beings. Nor does the Bible ever speak of humans as being in the image of angels.

b. That the plural is in some way literal is evident from 3:22 (“like one of us”) and from 11:7 (“Come, let us go down”), which parallels the people’s statements “Come, let us …” (11:3, 4).

c. The “literary plural” (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to OT texts in which God is speaking, not writing.

d. The “plural of deliberation” or “cohortative plural” (as in “Let’s see now …”) with reference to a single person is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and clearly cannot explain the plural in Gen. 3:22 (“like one of us”).

e. The “plural of amplitude” or of “fullness” (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of “God”) is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.

f. The “plural of majesty” (the royal “we”) is possibly attested in 1 Kings 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these is a certain use of that idiom; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.

3. There are two factors that may explain why these intradivine plural pronouns occur only in Genesis 1-11.

a. These plural pronouns express communication among the divine persons, rather than communication from God to human beings or angelic creatures.

b. It may be significant that the use of these plural forms is reported only in Genesis 1-11, prior to the revelations to Abraham, when the focus of biblical revelation became the fostering of a monotheistic faith. The history of the OT is a history of the struggle to establish Israel as a community committed to belief in one God. In that context it would have been confusing to have referred overtly to the three divine persons of the triune God. This also explains why there is no overt revelation of the three persons in the OT.

E. The uniqueness of God should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons

1. Only one God, thus unique: see I.A

2. None are even like God: see I.B

3. God cannot be fully comprehended: Is. 40:18, 25; 1 Cor. 8:2-3

4. God can be known only insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18

5. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16

6. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench

a. Separate from the world: Is. 40:22; Acts 17:24

b. Contrasted with the world: Ps. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17

c. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6; 102:25; Is. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

hope this helps !!!

civic:

If you think I have time to read your wall of text, think again. If you want to have a discussion with me, post three scriptures at a time, and we will discuss those before moving on to another three.

BTW: You are confused when you make the erroneous claim that God is plural. If you want us to discuss that along with two or three of your supposed "Trinity" verses, let's do that. But let me be clear: I will not respond to any post in which the other person is elephant hurling. That sort of behavior indicates the person is not interested in being corrected by scripture.


Notice what it says at paragraph 2 from the following website:


“This phrase refers to a debate tactic in which the critic uses summary arguments from various areas to give the impression that voluminous supporting data exists, when little or none is actually given.”

What is Elephant Hurling? – Page 3 – The Starting Point Project

No, it’s not an Olympic event, although we’ve had some unusual ones in the past (tug-of-war, club swinging, live pigeon shooting, croquet and underwater swimming to name a few). This phrase refers to a debate tactic in which the critic uses summary arguments from various areas to give the...

thestartingpointproject.com

 

[Capbook]

Yes, there is another who testifies of Jesus and the testimony which He gives about Jesus is true and is not from man . . . .

Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” John 8:16-18

The testimony of TWO people is true . . . Jesus is one who bears witness about himself and the Father who sent him bears witness about him . . . If Jesus is God and the Father is God and here they are referenced as two separate and distinct individuals does that equal two gods? If not, why not?

They are one in the nature of being God amazing grace.
The word "God" is not the personal name of the Father, it is His divine nature. (Rom 1:20, Acts 17:29)

 

[mikesw]

mikesw:

You are already flunking the exam I gave you in the other thread (your answers to my original four questions), and you have the audacity to show up here with your silly comments?

Oh my. You are getting persnickety. You are seeking to distort scriptures and you complain about my response?

MY QUESTIONS AT POST 567:

Post in thread 'The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning'

Nov 17, 2025

mikesw:

If Jesus were still a god while on earth, humans would not have been able to kill him. What is it about that don't you get? Scripture says he became lower than angels while he was on earth.

Hebrews 2:7​

You made him a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands.

Hebrews 2:8​

All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him.

Hebrews...​

• Alter2Ego

YOUR ANSWERS AT POST 718:

M

Post in thread 'The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning'

Nov 21, 2025

mikesw:

I asked you four direct questions at Post 567, which you are now dodging.



Until you answer those four questions, my conversation with you is over.

oh my. You sure are getting pushy in your advocacy of heresy. You try to load the discussion without including the pre-existence of Jesus and the deity passages about Jesus in John 1. And who really cares if you fail to continue sharing your heresy...

• mikesw

You gave wrong answers to Question #1 and Question #2. I haven't had time to check your answers to Question #3 and Questions #4. I also gave you a fifth question a few minutes ago. I will check on your answers Questions 3, 4, and 5 next time I log in.

I'm not curious enough to look at your questions again. All you are trying to do is deny Christ. Should I be a party to that?

Remember it is not these questions you ask that are the focus but rather the passages showing the divinity of Christ have to first be denied. His pre-existence is also strongly demonstrated. So those passages also have to be denied. We can also avoid the trinity concepts and just reflect on the divinity of Christ, which then destroys the unitarian beliefs before they take root.

I'm sorry if I'm short with you, but the arguments keep going around in circle where the pre-existence of Jesus is denied and never explained reasonably in these discussions. I figure you have been doing thus stuff for over a dozen years and have not learned anything about the true Jesus. We'll see if you come around.

 

[synergy]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2. Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3. Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom. Below are four such examples:

A. In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.


B. In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.


C. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


D. Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.

There were also pagan monotheistic gods.

Aten of ancient Egypt under was the sole object of worship with no accompanying deities.

Io in certain Maori traditions was a solitary creator god described as eternal and unaccompanied by any other gods.

Ngai in some East African religions, who is worshiped alone as the single creator God.

So what is the point you're trying to make?

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?

Depends what you mean by "essential". You need to define your terms. Here's one time where Jesus expressed the essentialness of having to believe he is "I AM":

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.

Also, while the word “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture, the teaching arises from the full set of biblical data: the Father is called God (e.g., John 6:27), the Son is called God (John 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13), the Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3–4). It's like saying Tom is Human, Dick is Human, and Harry is Human There are 3 persons but only one humanity.

2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?

The Bible makes a distinction between Jesus’ divine nature (eternal, unbegotten, equal with the Father) and His human nature (which prays, obeys, learns, submits, and can die). Thus when Scripture shows Jesus submitting to the Father (John 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:28), that's an expression of His incarnate humanity, not indicators of any inferiority in His deity. Likewise, the term “begotten” (monogenēs) is biblically understood not as “created” or “having a beginning,” but as “unique,” “one of a kind,” or “of the same nature,” a concept seen in John 1:18 where the Son exists “in the bosom of the Father,” implying eternal relationship rather than origin. This is why Jesus is eternally the Son, not a created person.

3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

The Deity of Jesus facts were already present from the beginning of Christianity. The Word, who was God, tabernacled as Jesus on Earth. And since God can never cease to be God then Jesus is God. Unfortunately, it took 300 years for Christianity to be legalized and only then could they safely convene without being eaten alive by lions. And humans being humans meant that heresies like Arianism would appear. JWs and Unitarians are examples of modern day Arian heretics.

The councils under Constantine (Nicaea, A.D. 325) and Theodosius (Constantinople, A.D. 381) did not invent the Trinity but settled controversies—particularly Arianism—that had already been debated for decades among Christians. While the emperors had political motives for unity, the bishops who defined the doctrine were Christian theologians who appealed to Scripture and earlier writings (e.g., Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) already affirming the divinity of the Son and the Spirit long before imperial involvement. Thus in Trinitarian interpretation, Rome did not create the doctrine but institutionalized and standardized what they believed the church had already taught informally from apostolic times.