Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Runningman]

you probably do not realize that Jesus was here as a human, a man. This is perfectly fine to recognize that Jesus served while he was here. Do you have to keep overlooking details like this? the preaching does not have to speak of the deity of Christ since the issue in focus is on the people's repentance.

There is a timeline in the Bible. Peter and John showed that even after Jesus was resurrected and taken to heaven that they didn't believe Jesus is God, but still remembered him as a servant who was empowered and that kind of empowerment they requested for themselves. This runs entirely counter to the nonsense you keep pumping out on this board everyday. I'm going with what the disciples believed; they believed Jesus is a servant like David, not God incarnate, not God in the flesh, not currently God after ascension.

 

[Peterlag]

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." 1 John 5:7
"God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16
Wives are to be subservient to their husbands. Does that mean that they are not equal?
The body of Jesus is what was "begotten". It DID have a beginning in Mary's womb. The Spirit of Jesus, the Word of God, had no beginning and no end.
Just because Roman emperors enforced it doesn't mean that it was false. Yes, it was a sin on the part of the emperors, but the Trinity truth is not the cause of their sin.
The Trinity concept, not the title, was around ever since Jesus came on the scene. It was not suddenly invented in the 300's A.D.

By the way, the New World Translation is a fraud, so I wouldn't be pointing the finger at the Trinity truth, if I were you.

Two verses you mentioned...

1 Timothy 3:16 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. There are some Greek manuscripts that read, “God appeared in the flesh.” This reading of some Greek manuscripts has passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them. Trinitarian scholars admit, however, that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position. The reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not “God” but rather “he who.” Almost all the modern versions have the verse as “the mystery of godliness is great, which was manifest in the flesh,” or some close equivalent.

And concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.

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.

 

[mikesw]

There is a timeline in the Bible. Peter and John showed that even after Jesus was resurrected and taken to heaven that they didn't believe Jesus is God, but still remembered him as a servant who was empowered and that kind of empowerment they requested for themselves. This runs entirely counter to the nonsense you keep pumping out on this board everyday. I'm going with what the disciples believed; they believed Jesus is a servant like David, not God incarnate, not God in the flesh, not currently God after ascension.

i guess you want to say that John wrote as a prophet and did not know he shared the logos as deity and the One who became flesh. He did this as an elaboration and correction of Philo and Greek philosophy that recognized sort of a co-creator with God.. But that must have been without him realizing what he was actually saying -- if I understand your confused point. Scripture is not for the faint of heart. You also reject that Paul used the deity of Christ as the recognized knowledge held by the Galatians when he mentions Gal 3:19-20. It is not the humanity of Jesus that is an issue. The denial of the preexistence passages and deity passages is your dominant errors.

 

[Runningman]

i guess you want to say that John wrote as a prophet and did not know he shared the logos as deity and the One who became flesh. He did this as an elaboration and correction of Philo and Greek philosophy that recognized sort of a co-creator with God.. But that must have been without him realizing what he was actually saying -- if I understand your confused point. Scripture is not for the faint of heart. You also reject that Paul used the deity of Christ as the recognized knowledge held by the Galatians when he mentions Gal 3:19-20. It is not the humanity of Jesus that is an issue. The denial of the preexistence passages and deity passages is your dominant errors.

John didn't ever indicate he believed Jesus is God incarnate. You misunderstand his other writings. If John believed in Jesus the way you say, you have contradicted his beliefs in Acts 4 and 1 John 1:1-3. Jesus as "the Word made flesh" is better understood as a creation and the Word is itself a thing; John identified the Word as eternal life. Something Jesus had and revealed to others because eternal life was granted to Jesus by God.

John 5
26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

 

[Runningman]

Two verses you mentioned...

1 Timothy 3:16 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. There are some Greek manuscripts that read, “God appeared in the flesh.” This reading of some Greek manuscripts has passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them. Trinitarian scholars admit, however, that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position. The reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not “God” but rather “he who.” Almost all the modern versions have the verse as “the mystery of godliness is great, which was manifest in the flesh,” or some close equivalent.

And concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.

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.

1 Timothy 3:16 was one of the more reckless alterations perpetuated by trinitarians. They did not read the context before penning this in: "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,"

In their haste, they essentially made it says that God was judged by the Spirit (also God) and found innocent. It's unthinkable that God would need to be brought under judgement, but that is what the trinitarian alteration of 1 Timothy 3:16 requires.

 

[mikesw]

John didn't ever indicate he believed Jesus is God incarnate. You misunderstand his other writings. If John believed in Jesus the way you say, you have contradicted his beliefs in Acts 4 and 1 John 1:1-3. Jesus as "the Word made flesh" is better understood as a creation and the Word is itself a thing; John identified the Word as eternal life. Something Jesus had and revealed to others because eternal life was granted to Jesus by God.

John 5
26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

when there is something that seems to be contradictory, it has to be resolved rather than erasing the testimony of scripture. throw away your eraser.

 

[Runningman]

when there is something that seems to be contradictory, it has to be resolved rather than erasing the testimony of scripture. throw away your eraser.

Maybe we agree that this is supposed to be how Scripture is in harmony rather than Scripture versus Scripture. That's the way I understand the Bible. I know that John said the Word is a thing in 1John 1:1-3. I also acknowledge that the "Word was God" is the way your theologians have opted to translate John 1:1. I know God is not a thing, I know that the "Word was God" is only stated one time in the Bible, never repeated by anyone else. I know that who God is is important and therefore is not a secondary doctrine in Scripture. I know the vast majority of verses identify the Father as that one and only true God alone.

Scripture works together on these points, which is what I have been showing you, but you see everything as a debate. The "Word" in John 1:1 is personified. Why else would John come right out and prove he doesn't believe Jesus is God in Acts 4 if he literally believed "The Word" who was made flesh is literally Jesus? I'm just going with the testimony of Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Maybe we agree that this is supposed to be how Scripture is in harmony rather than Scripture versus Scripture. That's the way I understand the Bible. I know that John said the Word is a thing in 1John 1:1-3.

When your knowledge is false, it is not worth calling this "observation" real. If you cannot see the difference of usage and topic, this is the natural outcome of your flattening of scripture into meaningless

I also acknowledge that the "Word was God" is the way your theologians have opted to translate John 1:1. I know God is not a thing, I know that the "Word was God" is only stated one time in the Bible, never repeated by anyone else.

You want that every writer address the logos that was perceived culturally but only corrected and used in apologetics by John? The gospel writers had different purposes and topics. You escape that difficulty by rejecting John 1.

At least you know God is not a "thing." But you do not realize that theos is a general term that can have meaning in interpretation beyond the flattening of scripture that you routinely do.

I know that who God is is important and therefore is not a secondary doctrine in Scripture. I know the vast majority of verses identify the Father as that one and only true God alone.

No one said there was another god. We are talking however how the deity of Christ can happen within the recognition that there are no other gods. You have trouble concentrating on the main points.

Scripture works together on these points, which is what I have been showing you, but you see everything as a debate. The "Word" in John 1:1 is personified.

So you reject, without sufficient argument, that metalepsis is appropriate to describe the use of logos being part of the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures. You miss the divine providence that God shows by introducing Philo's writings at the right time to turn them to Jesus.

Why else would John come right out and prove he doesn't believe Jesus is God in Acts 4 if he literally believed "The Word" who was made flesh is literally Jesus? I'm just going with the testimony of Scripture.

You seem to think that everyone has to preach "follow Jesus since Jesus is deity." This aspect of Jesus is more for the followers of Christ to see the cohesive plan God designed. When people however dismiss that plan, it can bring to question whether they have the provisions of Christ in their lives.

 

[Runningman]

When your knowledge is false, it is not worth calling this "observation" real. If you cannot see the difference of usage and topic, this is the natural outcome of your flattening of scripture into meaningless

You want that every writer address the logos that was perceived culturally but only corrected and used in apologetics by John? The gospel writers had different purposes and topics. You escape that difficulty by rejecting John 1.

At least you know God is not a "thing." But you do not realize that theos is a general term that can have meaning in interpretation beyond the flattening of scripture that you routinely do.

No one said there was another god. We are talking however how the deity of Christ can happen within the recognition that there are no other gods. You have trouble concentrating on the main points.

So you reject, without sufficient argument, that metalepsis is appropriate to describe the use of logos being part of the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures. You miss the divine providence that God shows by introducing Philo's writings at the right time to turn them to Jesus.

You seem to think that everyone has to preach "follow Jesus since Jesus is deity." This aspect of Jesus is more for the followers of Christ to see the cohesive plan God designed. When people however dismiss that plan, it can bring to question whether they have the provisions of Christ in their lives.

Then what is your workaround for the Word being a thing if the the Word is God? What is your workaround for apostle John and Peter's confessed atheism in the deity of Jesus in Acts 4? You have talked a lot, but you haven't really addressed what Scripture explicitly states to debunk the deity of Jesus.

There are any number of places where if people believed Jesus is God the and they had to conviction to represent him as such, then they would have did so, yet did not.

When you talk about Jesus, do you exhaustively represent him as a servant, a man, a son of God, a creation, like everyone else does or do you consider it blasphemy? Everyone in the Bible talked about Jesus this way. That's the disconnect you have with Scripture.

The style of Scripture reading you are proposing is called eisegesis. You are trying to prove something that there is little or no evidence for in most cases. No one even called Jesus "God in the flesh, the Creator, God Almighty" etc in the Bible. God, Jesus, and the prophets didn't represent Jesus that way you do. You're knowledge is false.

 

[Peterlag]

Okay so who died?
a.) God
b.) Jesus
c.) Meat (flesh) died that was not attached to anyone

 

[Runningman]

Okay so who died?
a.) God
b.) Jesus
c.) Meat (flesh) died that was not attached to anyone

B

 

[Peterlag]

There's no verse that says they wanted to stone Jesus because he said he was God or that they believed he was God. They would have thought he was insane had he said he was God and they would have left him alone.

 

[Peterlag]

19 reasons why Jesus is not God...

1.) “The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible.” - Christian Doctrine: Teachings of the Christian Church, p. 97, Professor Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., 1968, J. Knox Press.

2.) “The doctrine of the Trinity itself is not a biblical doctrine, and this indeed is not by accident but rather of necessity. It's the product of theological reflection upon the problem, which is raised necessarily by the Christian kerygma.” - The Christian Doctrine of God, Volume 1 (Dogmatics), Emil Brunner, Westminster Press, 1950.

3.) “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief.” - Dictionary of the Bible, Jesuit Catholic Trinitarian John L. Mckenzie, p. 899, Simon & Schuster, 1995.

4.) “No passage of Scripture discusses or explains the oneness and the threeness of God.” - NIV Disciple's Study Bible, note on Matthew 3:16–17, p. 1172.

5.) “Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.” - The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p. 16 Westminster Press, 1972.

6.) “Many scholars generally agree that there's no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament.” - The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.

7.) “Both exegetes and theologians are in agreement today that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity or an explicit doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament." - Roman Catholic Perspectives, ed. Francis Schüssler Fiorenza & John P. Galvin, Volume 1 (Fortress Press, 1991), p. 160.

8.) “Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning the doctrine of the Trinity—only triadic liturgical formulas invoking God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, “Monotheism – Judaism, Christianity, Islam,” section “Christianity,” online edition, Apr. 2, 2026.

9.) “As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.” - A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 38.

10.) “In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity.” - An Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm, 1945, p. 344.

11.) “To Jesus and Paul, the doctrine of the Trinity was apparently unknown since they say nothing about it.” - Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. Washburn Hopkins (Yale University Press, 1923), p. 336.

12.) “The explicit Trinity doctrine was thus formulated in the post biblical period” - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, p. 1098.

13.) “The formulation "one God in three persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” -New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume 14, p. 299.

14.) “No Apostle would have dreamed of thinking that there are the three divine persons, whose mutual relations and paradoxical unity are beyond our understanding.” - The Christian Doctrine of God (Dogmatics, Volume 1), Emil Brunner, p. 226.

15.) “Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early Church.” - New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, Volume 2, p. 84.

16.) The New Bible Dictionary acknowledges that the term “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture and that the doctrine is formulated through theological reflection on biblical material. - The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas & F. F. Bruce, 2nd ed., InterVarsity Press, 1982, article “Trinity”.

17.) The Encyclopedia Americana (1956) characterizes fourth-century trinitarianism as a later development that diverges from earlier Christian teaching.

18.) The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, acknowledges that early Christianity (including the apostolic age reflected in the New Testament) was not trinitarian in its theological framework.

19.) “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word "Trinity" itself, nor such language as "one-in-three" or "three-in-one" or "one essence" or "substance" or "three persons" can be found in biblical language.” - Christian Doctrine: Teachings of The Christian Church, p. 92, Professor Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., 1968, J. Knox Press.

 

[Runningman]

19 reasons why Jesus is not God...

1.) “The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible.” - Christian Doctrine: Teachings of the Christian Church, p. 97, Professor Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., 1968, J. Knox Press.

2.) “The doctrine of the Trinity itself is not a biblical doctrine, and this indeed is not by accident but rather of necessity. It's the product of theological reflection upon the problem, which is raised necessarily by the Christian kerygma.” - The Christian Doctrine of God, Volume 1 (Dogmatics), Emil Brunner, Westminster Press, 1950.

3.) “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief.” - Dictionary of the Bible, Jesuit Catholic Trinitarian John L. Mckenzie, p. 899, Simon & Schuster, 1995.

4.) “No passage of Scripture discusses or explains the oneness and the threeness of God.” - NIV Disciple's Study Bible, note on Matthew 3:16–17, p. 1172.

5.) “Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.” - The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p. 16 Westminster Press, 1972.

6.) “Many scholars generally agree that there's no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament.” - The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.

7.) “Both exegetes and theologians are in agreement today that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity or an explicit doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament." - Roman Catholic Perspectives, ed. Francis Schüssler Fiorenza & John P. Galvin, Volume 1 (Fortress Press, 1991), p. 160.

8.) “Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning the doctrine of the Trinity—only triadic liturgical formulas invoking God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, “Monotheism – Judaism, Christianity, Islam,” section “Christianity,” online edition, Apr. 2, 2026.

9.) “As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.” - A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 38.

10.) “In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity.” - An Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm, 1945, p. 344.

11.) “To Jesus and Paul, the doctrine of the Trinity was apparently unknown since they say nothing about it.” - Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. Washburn Hopkins (Yale University Press, 1923), p. 336.

12.) “The explicit Trinity doctrine was thus formulated in the post biblical period” - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, p. 1098.

13.) “The formulation "one God in three persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” -New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume 14, p. 299.

14.) “No Apostle would have dreamed of thinking that there are the three divine persons, whose mutual relations and paradoxical unity are beyond our understanding.” - The Christian Doctrine of God (Dogmatics, Volume 1), Emil Brunner, p. 226.

15.) “Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early Church.” - New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, Volume 2, p. 84.

16.) The New Bible Dictionary acknowledges that the term “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture and that the doctrine is formulated through theological reflection on biblical material. - The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas & F. F. Bruce, 2nd ed., InterVarsity Press, 1982, article “Trinity”.

17.) The Encyclopedia Americana (1956) characterizes fourth-century trinitarianism as a later development that diverges from earlier Christian teaching.

18.) The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, acknowledges that early Christianity (including the apostolic age reflected in the New Testament) was not trinitarian in its theological framework.

19.) “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word "Trinity" itself, nor such language as "one-in-three" or "three-in-one" or "one essence" or "substance" or "three persons" can be found in biblical language.” - Christian Doctrine: Teachings of The Christian Church, p. 92, Professor Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., 1968, J. Knox Press.

“The doctrine of the Trinity… is not directly and immediately the word of God.” - Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. I/1.