The Trinity lacks any Biblical support

[FreeInChrist]

OMGosh, is this another textual variant???? How many translations carry the phrase 'going back to the Father' and how many carry the phrase 'going to the Father'?

FROM HEAVEN:
I came from the Father and entered the world ---- HOW? did he float down from heaven and enter Mary's womb?
OR did he enter the world through conception and birth? And HOW was he conceived? by the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High, i.e. God.-----so he came from God the Father entering the world through conception and birth. ----

We are told.... Matt 1: NASB95 (my preference) 34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" 35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. "

How? Who cares.... it happened and that is a fact.

LEAVING AND GOING TO THE FATHER:
now I am leaving the world and going to the Father ---- through death, resurrection and ascension, seated at the right hand of God the Father.

It's not that I do not understand what the verse is saying - I just don't understand it in the manner that you understand it.

I used KJV which is a horrendous translation IMO but it is the only one that for some reason does not get questioned as much as the others.

This tells us Jesus came.... but as He was a fully formed spirit being.... (let it go , I wont debate that again) he had to have something done to him so the HS was able to implant Him into Mary... cause it was not by sperm.

Then he was here a few short years and after his Resurrection He ended up back with the Father... again as a spirit being of sorts.... We will find out when we get there......

And before you wonder about how this could have taken place, add to your wonderment of how God Yahweh was about to form a human being we know as Adam and from his essence breathed life into him.... and then took one of his ribs and made Eve.

Why anyone would question how something like this was done is just silly. It is of great divine wonderments that
it was done .

 

[mikesw]

Of course, the confusion is my own ---- the doctrine makes no sense.
'the Father lays in the bosom of the Father' which doesn't make any sense either.

what you wrote is dyslexic rather than what the verse says. You miss the distinctions. That is not any of our fault.

I make things complex and difficult to follow??? I am just trying to follow your logic.

except for possible bad wording on my part, you conflate ideas until you cannot comprehend it. That is a sign of a hyperliteralist. If you are unable to break away from that, it is better to stay out of the discussion.

I am not the one destroying John's message. I am trying to keep it intact. John never meant his gospel to be understood in the manner in which it is being presented. John included his purpose statement toward the end of his gospel (20:31) and it has nothing to do with believing Jesus is a pre-existent second member of a Trinity:

So you are trying to use a verse toward the end of John to deny everything he has said before even though he shares that Jesus is the Son of God in a way that hardly denies the deity of Christ. That again is a sign of a hyperliteralist.

but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Weirder than the concept you are presenting? Nope. Scripture speaks of two types of bodies - one that is natural and one that is spiritual and it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural (1 Cor. 15) ---- you are presenting the spiritual first, then the natural, then the spiritual again.

Uh. really? You are going to deny Christ on a passage that is speaking not about the essence of Christ in pre-existence but rather of the resurrection of people after him? That is pure confusion of a reading.

True, in relation to John 1:18, unitarians do see 'God' as the Father.
And we recognize Jesus Christ, the only son, being in the bosom of the Father.
And that's okay because the consensus is still out as to a non-ambiguous translation of John 1:18.

The Greek showing Jesus is God in John 1:18 certainly becomes the tie-breaker. You just work too hard to deny who Christ is.

Didn't you say that Jesus preexisted as God? . . . .

the pre-existence of the incarnate Jesus is stated as God. I know that you try to make the words as if saying he had a body before being incarnate. That just shows that you do not even know the widely-available concepts that you wish to reject.

Then Mary is the Mother of God and that is NOT what scripture teaches.

I'm not going to look at the contextual point you are addressing. You should know better than giving some strict meaning of that idea.

I am glad that I read the plain and clear scripture in the manner in which they are meant to be read and if a figurative meaning comes into play --- I recognize it as such.

if misunderstanding is viewed as understanding the text, you are doing a great job of holding to that. In reality, you are just denying the text.

My confusion lies in trying to understand the Trinitarian reasoning. I don't understand it now and I didn't understand it when I was a Trinitarian which is one of the reasons I am no longer a Trinitarian.

So you just continue in ignorance. You share no indication that you even looked at the understanding of the scriptures on this.

 

[mikesw]

Is Yahweh the Father?
Is God known as the Father throughout scripture?

Really? There are few places in the OT that God is called Father, such as Isaiah 63:16 and Deuteronomy 32:6. These also are eschatological rather than standard doctrine. Those are hardly basis to say God is typically shown as "father" in the OT. Plus, that does not deny the fact that the One described as the Word is not also God in distinction from what we know as the Father. You are trying to correct doctrine but in a fashion contrary to scripture. If hyperliteralism is getting in the way, you just need to trust people who have understood the Trinity. It is sort of like Thomas, who doubted Jesus's resurrection unless he saw the pierced hands.

 

[civic]

This passage always causes the uni to tremble. . shaking the very foundation of their faith causing a 10.0 earthquake turing their doctrine to rubble.

We know from the N.T. that Christ is the One Lord, the Only Lord. We know that Christ is also identifies as the Holy One in the N.T. and our King all titles and descriptions of YHWH in the Isaiah passages.

John 12:41
These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him

Isaiah 6:1-10
In the year of King, Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. 2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called out to another and said,

"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,,

The whole earth is full of His glory."

4 And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. 5 Then I said,

"Woe is me, for I am ruined!,

Because I am a man of unclean lips,

And I live among a people of unclean lips;,

For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."


One need only follow the pronouns and the verbs. Isaiah saw the glory of YHWH. There is only ONE time that Isaiah saw the glory of YHWH; its in Ish 6. John says that Isaiah saw "his" glory, the glory of Jesus. That Isaiah ALSO foretold the suffering and rejection of Christ is true but irrelevant. You are confusing what Isaiah foretold (Christ's suffering and rejection) with what he literally "saw" (the glory of YWHW).

The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in 6;1 is רָאָה ("ra'ah"). In the qal, it refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposed to, for example, מַחֲזֶה "machazeh", which is the act or event of an ecstatic "vision"). In referring to this event, John uses the Greek word εἶδον ("eidon") - also a verb referring to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense.

We know that God the Father is invisible, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Tim 6:16). He is transcendent and lives in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). But the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15). Thus the one whom Isaiah "saw" in the literal sense with his eyes is the one whom he explicitly identified as "YHWH" - the same one whose glory he saw according to John (Jn 12:41). Jesus himself makes this clear at v.45 "And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me."

There is only ONE time when Isaiah saw someone he, speaking by the Holy Spirit identified as "YHWH", and John's spirit-inspired narrative of the interactions of Jesus with the Jews in the 11th and 12th chapter of his gospel, including their rejection of Christ, says that what Isaiah saw was HIS (ie Jesus') glory. This works in perfect harmony with John's whole purpose, given the FACT that John had previously identified the one who became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14) as "God" (Jn 1:1). Nowhere in the context of this narrative (ie Ch 12) does John speak of Christ's "glorification" in his rejection and crucifixion. To claim that this is what John was talking about in referring to what Isaiah SAW with his eyes ignores the grammar and the immediate context, including the clear and unmistakable words of Christ himself in that very context.

hope this helps !!

 

[FreeInChrist]

Of course, the confusion is my own ---- the doctrine makes no sense.
'the Father lays in the bosom of the Father' which doesn't make any sense either.

Try this for understanding:

The only begotten Son, who is Jesus Christ, is said to be in the bosom of the Father. This phrase indicates a close and intimate relationship between Jesus and God the Father, as described in the Gospel of John.

The phase "in the bosom" (κολπον /kolpos) in this context conveys the eternal intimate communion between the Father and Son. Most bibles, even some paraphrases, do not alter the word "bosom". Probably because our English vernacular still uses the word to express the seat of deep affection.

Albert Barnes commentary

I make things complex and difficult to follow??? I am just trying to follow your logic.
I am not the one destroying John's message. I am trying to keep it intact. John never meant his gospel to be understood in the manner in which it is being presented. John included his purpose statement toward the end of his gospel (20:31) and it has nothing to do with believing Jesus is a pre-existent second member of a Trinity:
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Weirder than the concept you are presenting? Nope. Scripture speaks of two types of bodies - one that is natural and one that is spiritual and it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural (1 Cor. 15) ---- you are presenting the spiritual first, then the natural, then the spiritual again.

True, in relation to John 1:18, unitarians do see 'God' as the Father.
And we recognize Jesus Christ, the only son, being in the bosom of the Father.
And that's okay because the consensus is still out as to a non-ambiguous translation of John 1:18.

Didn't you say that Jesus preexisted as God? . . . .

Then Mary is the Mother of God and that is NOT what scripture teaches.

That is a RCC teaching.

I am glad that I read the plain and clear scripture in the manner in which they are meant to be read and if a figurative meaning comes into play --- I recognize it as such.

My confusion lies in trying to understand the Trinitarian reasoning. I don't understand it now and I didn't understand it when I was a Trinitarian which is one of the reasons I am no longer a Trinitarian.

Lets try this explanation.....

The Trinity......
When we say three individuals share the title “God”, we’re not saying there are three separate, independent gods. Instead we say

They are distinct persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They share one divine essence – fully God, fully equal in power, knowledge, and eternal nature, and
The title “God” applies to each because each participates in the same divine nature.

Think of it like this: Water can exist as ice, liquid, or vapor. Each form is distinct but fully water.
Similarly, Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons but fully God.

---

Now, is there a biblical basis for the Three "Gods" as one?

See if these help you to understand.

Father is God: 1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Jesus (Son) is God: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3–4 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Even though each is called God, scripture never says there are three gods. They are co-equal and co-eternal, sharing the same divine nature.

​

You should think of God as a single essence that exists fully and completely in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, so the title ‘God’ fits all three, but they are not three separate gods—they are one God in three persons.”

---

Here is another analogy if that helps you.....

Sun analogy: The sun has the body (the star itself), the light, and the heat. Three things, but all come from the same source.

I know....No analogy is perfect, because God is beyond physical comparisons. But analogies should help to grasp the distinct yet unified nature.

 

[mikesw]

My confusion lies in trying to understand the Trinitarian reasoning. I don't understand it now and I didn't understand it when I was a Trinitarian which is one of the reasons I am no longer a Trinitarian.

I look that passages the unitarians promote and those that they skip. Neither their arguments nor the shared passages make sense in context nor individually toward a unitarian viewpoint. The observation of the unitarian as doing a narrow hyperliteralist view based on a handful of verses is something I came to understand by observation of the unitarians here -- at least the non-JW ones.

 

[amazing grace]

No YHWH is the Son, the Father, the Holy Spirit- YHWH is Plural.

When did Yahweh, aka LORD become plural?

 

[amazing grace]

We are told.... Matt 1: NASB95 (my preference) 34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" 35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. "

How? Who cares.... it happened and that is a fact.
I used KJV which is a horrendous translation IMO but it is the only one that for some reason does not get questioned as much as the others.

This tells us Jesus came.... but as He was a fully formed spirit being.... (let it go , I wont debate that again) he had to have something done to him so the HS was able to implant Him into Mary... cause it was not by sperm.

Yes, Matthew and Luke both show us HOW Jesus came into the world which is exactly what I said in how he came from the Father.

FROM HEAVEN:
I came from the Father and entered the world ---- <snip>-----so he came from God the Father entering the world through conception and birth. ----
<snip>

Jesus was a fully formed spirit being???? Correct, it was not by sperm - NOPE - no, sexual connotations at all in the conception and birth of Jesus. So, your understanding of Matthew and Luke is that the Holy Spirit 'implanted' a fully formed spirit being into Mary???

Just a question -- Why couldn't the power of God, the Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of God just create Jesus in the womb of Mary?

Then he was here a few short years and after his Resurrection He ended up back with the Father... again as a spirit being of sorts.... We will find out when we get there......

And before you wonder about how this could have taken place, add to your wonderment of how God Yahweh was about to form a human being we know as Adam and from his essence breathed life into him.... and then took one of his ribs and made Eve.

Why anyone would question how something like this was done is just silly. It is of great divine wonderments that
it was done .

When did I question any of the above? Did I question the resurrection of our Lord?

LEAVING AND GOING TO THE FATHER:
now I am leaving the world and going to the Father ---- through death, resurrection and ascension, seated at the right hand of God the Father.
<snip>

I was just responding to John 16:28. I saw no preexistence in the verse so I said:

It's not that I do not understand what the verse is saying - I just don't understand it in the manner that you understand it.

 

[civic]

When did Yahweh, aka LORD become plural?

Always was, always will be since God is eternal without beginning.

 

[amazing grace]

what you wrote is dyslexic rather than what the verse says. You miss the distinctions. That is not any of our fault.

except for possible bad wording on my part, you conflate ideas until you cannot comprehend it. That is a sign of a hyperliteralist. If you are unable to break away from that, it is better to stay out of the discussion.

No --- I ask questions that arise from what is being said. I would take it as a sign of someone being inquisitive.

So you are trying to use a verse toward the end of John to deny everything he has said before even though he shares that Jesus is the Son of God in a way that hardly denies the deity of Christ. That again is a sign of a hyperliteralist.

Just gave John's purpose statement.

Uh. really? You are going to deny Christ on a passage that is speaking not about the essence of Christ in pre-existence but rather of the resurrection of people after him? That is pure confusion of a reading.

I am not denying Christ - I have never denied Christ.

What are you going on about??? 1 Corinthians 15 is talking about the resurrection of Jesus Christ --- you know when he died and was buried and God raised him from the dead? He appeared to the disciples in his resurrected body, aka spiritual body.
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. [1 Cor. 15:44-46]
Christ was sown a natural body and he was raised a spiritual body ---- it is not the spiritual body that is first but the natural body and then the spiritual body ----- so Jesus could not have preexisted as God nor a spirit being with God.

The Greek showing Jesus is God in John 1:18 certainly becomes the tie-breaker. You just work too hard to deny who Christ is.

There are two renderings of John 1:18 which is why it is considered ambiguous because of the textual variants.

the pre-existence of the incarnate Jesus is stated as God. I know that you try to make the words as if saying he had a body before being incarnate. That just shows that you do not even know the widely-available concepts that you wish to reject.

I'm not going to look at the contextual point you are addressing. You should know better than giving some strict meaning of that idea.

if misunderstanding is viewed as understanding the text, you are doing a great job of holding to that. In reality, you are just denying the text.

So you just continue in ignorance. You share no indication that you even looked at the understanding of the scriptures on this.

Thanks.

 

[amazing grace]

Always was, always will be since God is eternal without beginning.

Yahweh, LORD, is a proper singular name for the God of Israel.

 

[amazing grace]

I look that passages the unitarians promote and those that they skip. Neither their arguments nor the shared passages make sense in context nor individually toward a unitarian viewpoint. The observation of the unitarian as doing a narrow hyperliteralist view based on a handful of verses is something I came to understand by observation of the unitarians here -- at least the non-JW ones.

Okay ......

 

[dwight92070]

Evidence is using any data, statement, or observation that can be used to support a claim. For example, if your claim is that God is a trinity and you want to argue your claims that the Trinity is Biblical, you must provide evidence. You need to show some statements about God being three, any observations about God being three, or any data that is in lign with what your claim is.

These sorts of statements about God do not exist in the Bible. So before you start popping off a laundry list of verses about this and that, you need to start at square one. You cannot argue for the existence of something that does not have evidence.

Why is the trinity not established in the Bible?

The Bible never states God as "three persons in one being."

No verse says that "God is three in one."​

The technical terminology ("person," "essence," "substance") came later in the history of the church (e.g., at the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD).​

These key verses are interpretive, not definitive.

John 1:1 states "the Word was God," but equating "Word" with a distinct divine person involves theological assumptions.​

Matthew 28:19 says Father, Son, and Spirit but does not say they are co-equal or one God.​

Some New Testament scriptures seem to contradict Trinitarian thought.

John 17:3 - Jesus speaks of the Father as "the only true God."​

1 Corinthians 8:6 - "One God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ."​

These suggest distinction or hierarchy, not absolute equality.

The early church did not originally believe in later-defined Trinity; the teaching evolved over numerous centuries in response to debates (Arius vs. Athanasius, etc.).

There is no reference to the Trinity in the Bible, but only interpretations.​

​

There aren't any clear or definitive statement of the Trinity in the Bible.​

Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is a faith conclusion and not a belief based on evident biblical facts.

Even AI sees the concept of the Trinity in the New Testament. Not the word, but the concept. But false teachers can look straight at the truth and still deny it. Their false teaching is burned into their brain and their arrogance won't allow them to humble themselves and acknowledge the truth.

 

[civic]

Yahweh, LORD, is a proper singular name for the God of Israel.

and the Son in many places is called YHWH.

 

[civic]

Even AI sees the concept of the Trinity in the New Testament. Not the word, but the concept. But false teachers can look straight at the truth and still deny it. Their false teaching is burned into their brain and their arrogance won't allow them to humble themselves and acknowledge the truth.

yes the exact word fallacy is the typical uni strawman that backfires on their own beliefs as well and cuts like a double edged sword against them.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Yes, Matthew and Luke both show us HOW Jesus came into the world which is exactly what I said in how he came from the Father.


Jesus was a fully formed spirit being???? Correct, it was not by sperm - NOPE - no, sexual connotations at all in the conception and birth of Jesus. So, your understanding of Matthew and Luke is that the Holy Spirit 'implanted' a fully formed spirit being into Mary???

Dont be silly. Everyone knows it was a watermelon seed.

Just a question -- Why couldn't the power of God, the Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of God just create Jesus in the womb of Mary?

They could... but you are forgetting it was the Word who became flesh. John 1:14... Dont know how.... just know they did.

When did I question any of the above? Did I question the resurrection of our Lord?

I was just responding to John 16:28. I saw no preexistence in the verse so I said:

 

[amazing grace]

Try this for understanding:
The only begotten Son, who is Jesus Christ, is said to be in the bosom of the Father. This phrase indicates a close and intimate relationship between Jesus and God the Father, as described in the Gospel of John.

The phase "in the bosom" (κολπον /kolpos) in this context conveys the eternal intimate communion between the Father and Son. Most bibles, even some paraphrases, do not alter the word "bosom". Probably because our English vernacular still uses the word to express the seat of deep affection.

Albert Barnes commentary

Yes, but we are arguing the point of John 1:18 in relation to the translation that reads - 'only begotten God' instead of 'only begotten Son'. I understand the only begotten Son being in the bosom of the Father but NOT the 'only begotten God' nor the 'only God' being in the bosom of the Father. That is what was being discussed.

That is a RCC teaching.

I hate to tell you but if you think Jesus was God and Mary gave birth to Jesus, aka God then you also believe Mary is the Mother of God - you might not admit it but there's no two ways around it.

Lets try this explanation.....

The Trinity......
When we say three individuals share the title “God”, we’re not saying there are three separate, independent gods. Instead we say

They are distinct persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They share one divine essence – fully God, fully equal in power, knowledge, and eternal nature, and
The title “God” applies to each because each participates in the same divine nature.

Think of it like this: Water can exist as ice, liquid, or vapor. Each form is distinct but fully water.
Similarly, Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons but fully God.

Oh, no not a teaching on what the Trinity is or what it means!!!! Been there done that.

Now, is there a biblical basis for the Three "Gods" as one?

See if these help you to understand.

Father is God: 1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Got no problem with the Father being God - the one true God.

Jesus (Son) is God: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Been over this millions of times ---- this verse is not saying Jesus nor the Son is God. THE WORD was GOD ---- 'God' here is a predicate nominative case therefore it is being used in a descriptive manner, as an adjective. If it was in the vocative case then it would be a direct address and would mean 'the Word was God' aka THE GOD.

The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3–4 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Even though each is called God, scripture never says there are three gods. They are co-equal and co-eternal, sharing the same divine nature.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is God - God is Spirit. (John 4:24) Holy Spirit is another name for God.
True enough, scripture never says God is three gods - doesn't even say that God is Triune.
Scripture never talks about God the Father and His Son being co-equal or co-eternal.
Jesus had a beginning and he had an end ---- He was GIVEN eternal life when God raised him from the dead.

You should think of God as a single essence that exists fully and completely in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, so the title ‘God’ fits all three, but they are not three separate gods—they are one God in three persons.”
Here is another analogy if that helps you.....

Sun analogy: The sun has the body (the star itself), the light, and the heat. Three things, but all come from the same source.

I know....No analogy is perfect, because God is beyond physical comparisons. But analogies should help to grasp the distinct yet unified nature.

As I said - I used to be a Trinitarian and never could understand or make it fit when I was reading scripture which is why I am no longer a Trinitarian.

definition of distinct - recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type (Oxford languages)
1) distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate; 2) different in nature or quality (first two definitions from Dictionary.com)
#1 as in different; being not of the same kind (Webster's)

so it seems 'distinct yet unified nature' is an oxymoron - a contradiction of terms.

I do thank you for taking the time of giving me a definition and explanation of the Trinity.

 

[amazing grace]

Dont be silly. Everyone knows it was a watermelon seed.

They could... but you are forgetting it was the Word who became flesh. John 1:14... Dont know how.... just know they did.

Yes, the word became flesh in John 1:14 and we circle right back around to the conception and birth of Jesus Christ - 'HOW' the word became flesh.

 

[dwight92070]

Evidence is using any data, statement, or observation that can be used to support a claim. For example, if your claim is that God is a trinity and you want to argue your claims that the Trinity is Biblical, you must provide evidence. You need to show some statements about God being three, any observations about God being three, or any data that is in lign with what your claim is.

These sorts of statements about God do not exist in the Bible. So before you start popping off a laundry list of verses about this and that, you need to start at square one. You cannot argue for the existence of something that does not have evidence.

Why is the trinity not established in the Bible?

The Bible never states God as "three persons in one being."

No verse says that "God is three in one."​

The technical terminology ("person," "essence," "substance") came later in the history of the church (e.g., at the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD).​

These key verses are interpretive, not definitive.

John 1:1 states "the Word was God," but equating "Word" with a distinct divine person involves theological assumptions.​

Matthew 28:19 says Father, Son, and Spirit but does not say they are co-equal or one God.​

Some New Testament scriptures seem to contradict Trinitarian thought.

John 17:3 - Jesus speaks of the Father as "the only true God."​

1 Corinthians 8:6 - "One God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ."​

These suggest distinction or hierarchy, not absolute equality.

The early church did not originally believe in later-defined Trinity; the teaching evolved over numerous centuries in response to debates (Arius vs. Athanasius, etc.).

There is no reference to the Trinity in the Bible, but only interpretations.​

​

There aren't any clear or definitive statement of the Trinity in the Bible.​

Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is a faith conclusion and not a belief based on evident biblical facts.

Grok AI: Was the concept of the Trinity believed by the apostles and the early church, even though the word was not used?



The concept of the Trinity—God as one essence existing eternally in three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)—is not explicitly named or fully formulated in the New Testament writings of the apostles, as the term itself emerged later in the second century. However, substantial historical and theological evidence indicates that the apostles and the early church (roughly the first to third centuries) held beliefs aligning with key elements of this concept, drawing from scriptural passages that imply a triadic understanding of God, even if the doctrine was refined over time in response to heresies and debates.en.wikipedia.org

Biblical Foundations in Apostolic Writings​

The New Testament, authored primarily by apostles or their close associates, contains passages that suggest a foundational Trinitarian framework without using the term. For instance:

• In Matthew 28:19, Jesus instructs the apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," presenting the three as unified in authority yet distinct.catholic.com
• 2 Corinthians 13:14 (written by Paul) invokes "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit," treating them in parallel as divine agents.catholic.com
• Other texts, such as 1 Corinthians 12:4–6 and 1 Peter 1:2, similarly group the Father, Son, and Spirit in contexts of divine work, implying their co-divinity and unity.thegospelcoalition.orgen.wikipedia.org

Apostles like Paul affirmed Jesus' divinity (e.g., Philippians 2:6–11, where Christ is "in very nature God") and the Holy Spirit's personhood and divinity (e.g., Acts 5:3–4, equating lying to the Spirit with lying to God). These elements form an implicit "proto-Trinitarianism," where the apostles worshiped one God while recognizing the distinct roles and divinity of the Son and Spirit, though without the later philosophical precision on essence and persons.thegospelcoalition.orgreddit.com

Evidence from the Early Church Fathers​

Post-apostolic writings from the late first to third centuries demonstrate continuity with these biblical ideas, often explicitly articulating a triune God in worship, baptism, and anti-heretical defenses. Key examples include:

• The Didache (c. 70 AD, a early Christian manual possibly contemporaneous with some apostles) mandates baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," mirroring Matthew 28:19 and indicating early liturgical recognition of the three.catholic.comen.wikipedia.org
• Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) urged obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit," treating them as interconnected divine realities, and described Jesus as "our God."catholic.com
• Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) described Christians worshiping "God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," affirming their "power in union and distinction in order."thegospelcoalition.orgcatholic.com
• Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 AD) was the first to use the Greek word for "Trinity" (trias), referring to "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" as a unified trio involved in creation.christianity.stackexchange.comen.wikipedia.org
• Irenaeus (c. 189 AD) professed faith "in one God, the Father Almighty... and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit," countering Gnostic heresies by emphasizing their unity in salvation.catholic.comthegospelcoalition.org
• Tertullian (c. 216 AD) explicitly defined the Trinity as three "coherent persons... distinct one from another" but "one essence," using the Latin trinitas and defending it against modalism (the idea that the three are mere modes of one person).catholic.com

These fathers drew directly from apostolic scriptures and traditions, viewing the Trinity as essential to Christian monotheism, baptism, and the "rule of faith" passed down from the apostles. While some early views included subordinationist elements (e.g., the Son as begotten from the Father), they consistently affirmed the divinity and unity of all three.thegospelcoalition.orgchristianity.stackexchange.com

Historical Development and Formalization​

The concept evolved amid theological challenges, such as Arianism (which denied the Son's full divinity) and modalism. It was formally defined at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which affirmed the Son as "of the same substance" (homoousios) as the Father, and expanded at Constantinople (381 AD) to include the Holy Spirit's full divinity. This process clarified what many scholars see as already implicit in apostolic and early patristic beliefs, rather than inventing it anew.en.wikipedia.org

Counterarguments and Alternative Views​

Some perspectives argue that the apostles did not teach the Trinity explicitly, pointing to omissions in apostolic greetings (e.g., Paul's letters often mention only the Father and Son, like Romans 1:7) and viewing the Holy Spirit as God's power rather than a distinct person. Critics also note that passages like 1 John 5:7–8 ("three that bear witness in heaven") are later interpolations not found in early manuscripts, suggesting Trinitarian bias in textual transmission. Non-Trinitarian groups (e.g., Unitarians or some modern scholars) contend the doctrine was a post-apostolic development influenced by Greek philosophy or Roman politics under Constantine, and that first-century Christians held more varied or henotheistic views. However, these claims are contested by evidence from early baptismal practices and patristic writings, which show widespread acceptance of triadic formulas predating formal councils.lifehopeandtruth.com

In summary, while the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity was articulated centuries after the apostles, the core concept—divine unity in three persons—was evidently believed and practiced by them and the early church through scriptural implications, baptismal rites, and early theological defenses.


8.5s

21 sources

Even AI acknowledges the truth, but false teachers, rejecting the truth that even the concept of the Trinity existed among the 12 apostles, are left with nothing but lies. The concept has existed since the time of Christ.

When John the Baptist says that Jesus existed before he did, even though John was born 6 months earlier than Jesus, what are the 12 disciples to conclude from that?

When Jesus Himself prays to the Father, saying, "Now, Father,glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.", John 17:5, what went through their mind?

When John says that "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being"., isn't it obvious what John and the other disciples believed about Jesus? John 1

To deny that, is not just a different opinion - it is either insanity or it is EVIL. Just like looking at a blue sky and saying that it is not blue. Or looking at a camel and saying it is a frog. Or looking at an elephant and saying it is a Jeep. That is either denying reality, which is insanity, or that is evil, calling something a different thing than it is - thus lying about the truth.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Yes, but we are arguing the point of John 1:18 in relation to the translation that reads - 'only begotten God' instead of 'only begotten Son'. I understand the only begotten Son being in the bosom of the Father but NOT the 'only begotten God' nor the 'only God' being in the bosom of the Father. That is what was being discussed.

Take it up with the Roman Catholic Church because they say that all the time.... Mother of God.... Not we protestants.

I hate to tell you but if you think Jesus was God and Mary gave birth to Jesus, aka God then you also believe Mary is the Mother of God - you might not admit it but there's no two ways around it.

Well, since the Word was God.... And the Word became Flesh/Jesus... You must be right....
I appoint you in charge to notiffy all translations of the Holy Bible and tell them to put in a footnote.

Oh, no not a teaching on what the Trinity is or what it means!!!! Been there done that.

Got no problem with the Father being God - the one true God.

ChatGPT
Short answer: No—there is no Protestant Bible translation that directly calls Mary “the Mother of God” in the biblical text.


Here’s the important nuance

What Protestant Bibles​

All Protestant translations include Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth says:

“And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
(KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc.)

The phrase “mother of my Lord” is universally present across Protestant and Catholic Bibles alike.

Why they don’t say “Mother of God”​

Protestant translators generally avoid theological titles not explicitly stated in Scripture, even if the concept is implied.
“Mother of God” (Greek Theotokos) is a Christological conclusion, not a direct biblical phrase.


So Protestant Bibles:

• Translate what the text says
• Leave theological interpretation to teaching and doctrine
• Avoid language closely associated with later church councils or Marian devotion

Important clarification​

While Protestant Bibles don’t say “Mother of God,” many Protestants historically accepted the idea in a limited sense, meaning:

Mary is the mother of Jesus,
Jesus is fully God,
therefore she is the mother of the person who is God
(not the origin of God, and not superior to God).

This was the original intent of the term at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD)—to protect the doctrine that Jesus is one Person, fully God and fully man, not to exalt Mary.

Summary​

• No Protestant Bible uses the phrase “Mother of God”
• All Protestant Bibles affirm “mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43)
• “Mother of God” is a theological conclusion, not a translation choice
• Protestants typically avoid the term to prevent misunderstanding or Marian excess

Been over this millions of times ---- this verse is not saying Jesus nor the Son is God. THE WORD was GOD ----

Well do it a million and one.... Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God

JN 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

JN 1:14 NASB95 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

'God' here is a predicate nominative case therefore it is being used in a descriptive manner, as an adjective. If it was in the vocative case then it would be a direct address and would mean 'the Word was God' aka THE GOD.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is God - God is Spirit. (John 4:24) Holy Spirit is another name for God.
True enough, scripture never says God is three gods - doesn't even say that God is Triune.
Scripture never talks about God the Father and His Son being co-equal or co-eternal.
Jesus had a beginning and he had an end ---- He was GIVEN eternal life when God raised him from the dead.

As I said - I used to be a Trinitarian and never could understand or make it fit when I was reading scripture which is why I am no longer a Trinitarian.

and that most likely is because no one gives a flying fig what is or is not a a predicate nominative case.
Are you by any chance related to Dorothy Bryson?

In every single translation I could post for you in JN 1:1 the Word was God.... except the NWT that says the Word
was a god.

In every single translation I can post for you it says in Jn 1:14 It says and the Word became flesh, was made flesh
and ,NLT say was made human.

If you cannot see that the Word was Jesus.... just forget it because you never will....

definition of distinct - recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type (Oxford languages)
1) distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate; 2) different in nature or quality (first two definitions from Dictionary.com)
#1 as in different; being not of the same kind (Webster's)

so it seems 'distinct yet unified nature' is an oxymoron - a contradiction of terms.

I do thank you for taking the time of giving me a definition and explanation of the Trinity.

Viva la difference....