Could someone please explain the Trinity?

Question

I never could wrap my mind around the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Is there one God, or are there three? Are Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit all the same person wearing different hats, or do they have personhood seperate from one another? And if they do have seperate personhood, then how is it that they are all God and there is only one God? This paradox has always confused me. Is there Scriptural support for this doctrine? Is it explicitly stated in the Bible, or just implied? When did this become Church dogma, and why is it Heresy to believe otherwise? I mean no disrespect, I'm just trying to understand.

Answer 1

Could someone please explain the Trinity?
I never could wrap my mind around the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Is there one God, or are there three?
Are Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit all the same person wearing different hats, or do they have personhood seperate from one another?
And if they do have seperate personhood, then how is it that they are all God and there is only one God?
This paradox has always confused me.
Is there Scriptural support for this doctrine?
Is it explicitly stated in the Bible, or just implied?


The doctrine of the Trinity refers to the concept
that God is One, but
that Godhead or Deity is composed of three Persons-
-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The term Person indicates a Being with personality, intellect, and will.

Unlike the multiple gods of polytheism,
the three Persons of the Trinity are perfectly united
in nature, character, and purpose
so that despite their individuality,
they are never divided, never in conflict,
and thus constitute not three gods, but One God.

The Trinity doctrine has "additions" to the Scriptural data,
because it cannot be proven from the Bible
- that the Holy Spirit existed as a separate and distinct person
since eternity.

It can be proven that the Holy Spirit existed contemporaneously
from eternity with the Father and the Son, as an innate part of their BEING.


When did this become Church dogma,


The doctrine of the Trinity
has not always been a part of Christian teaching.
In fact,
this doctrine was not formally stated until the fourth century.
It is very interesting to learn about the history of this doctrine,
how the doctrine began to be discussed,
the events that led up to a council regarding it,
and the way in which it was finally accepted.

An Excellent book to read is:
The Two Republics, written by A. T. Jones
and published in 1891
by The Review and Herald Publishing Company

The book can be read for free (no pdf required) at this link:
- http://www.hiscovenantministries.org/mans_law/two_republics/two_republics.htm -

Note: I have NO affiliation with "his covenant ministries". End note.

"Thus came the original Nicene Creed." (Pages 348-350)

The Nicene Creed as it reads today,
has been changed from its original.
Several disputed terms were added to the creed,
and depending upon the definition of those terms,
even some of those of the Arian persuasion
could agree to the creed.
Yet with the terms being added to the creed
all it took was a revision of the definitions of the terms
at a later date to come up with the teachings
which the Catholic Church holds today.

"‘His [Arius’] book, ‘Thalia,’ was burnt on the spot;
and this example was so generally followed,
that it became a very rare work.’—Stanley.
The decree banishing Arius was shortly so modified
as simply to prohibit his returning to Alexandria."
(Page 351)

The Catholic Church exerted all her power
to destroy any records of what Arius believed.
The only records we have are those that either
fell through the hands of the Catholic power,
or those which they have chosen to keep,
whether in their original form or altered by them.
It is interesting that the history of the Arian controversy
has been so well hidden that it is hard to determine
just what Arius believed.
Yet it seems doubtful that all the accusations brought
against Arius and those of like persuasion are accurate.

It had become the general rule to brand all those
who did not subscribe to the Trinity doctrine as Arians.
Since it is commonly thought
that Arians believe that Christ is a created being,
and thus not divine, it has been the continual accusation
that if you deny the Trinity doctrine, you believe
that Christ is a created being, and deny the divinity of Christ.
This accusation,
when applied to those who disagree with
the accepted teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject,
has seldom been accurate.

"In the summer of a.d. 359, more than four hundred bishops
assembled at Rimini, of whom eighty were Arians...
... They drew up a creed ..."

"They forgot that they themselves, many of them at least,
had unanimously approved in Constantine
at the Council of Nice the identical course
which now they condemned in Constantius (Constantine's son)
at the Council of Milan.
In their approval of the action of Constantine
in forcing upon others what they themselves believed,
they robbed themselves of the right to protest
when Constantius or anybody else
should choose to force upon them what somebody else believed.
They ought not to have thought it strange
that they should reap what they had sown."
(Pages 368-378)

We can learn an important lesson from this episode.
Regarding the use force, whether by the government or by
any other means, to persuade others to believe as they do.

In the year 381, a general council was called
to meet at Constantinople:

"The council met in the month of May,
and was composed of one hundred and eighty-six bishops
—one hundred and fifty Catholics,
and thirty-six Macedonians." (Pages 391, 392)

Up until this time the main part of the controversy
was over the relationship of the Father and His Son.
But with this new creed
the addition of the Holy Spirit as a third individual was added.
It was thus
that the actual doctrine of the Trinity
was first presented in a creed.

"No one will blame the evangelicals for recoiling
from the papal view of the Trinity,
when history shows that their views were strong enough
to cause two popes to sign decrees
contrary to the policy of the papacy respecting Nicaea."
(Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, page 93)

The Waldensian Christians,
who held the true gospel throughout the Dark Ages,
did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

"No wonder that the Celtic, the Gothic, the Waldensian,
the Armenian Churches, and the great Church of the East,
as well as other bodies, differed profoundly from the papacy
in its metaphysical conceptions of the Trinity
and consequently in the importance of the Ten Commandments."
(Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, page 94)

Those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity
did so because it affected many other doctrines.

"It [the doctrine of the Trinity] had, however,
such profound effect upon other doctrines
relating to the plan of salvation
and upon outward acts of worship
that a gulf was created between the papacy and
the institutions of the church
which Patrick had founded in Ireland."
(Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, page 92)

To this day, the papacy admits that
the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by her.

"The burning question of the decades succeeding
the Council of Nicaea was how to state the relations
of the Three Persons of the Godhead:
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The council had decided,
and the papacy had appropriated the decision as its own."
(Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, page 91)

"The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine
of the Catholic Faith. Upon it are based all the other
teachings of the Church...The Church studied this mystery
with great care and, after four centuries of clarification,
decided to state the doctrine in this way:
in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons,
—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
(Handbook for Today’s Catholic, page 11)

The Catholic Church did not Acquire
the Doctrine of the Trinity From the Bible,
but Rather Adopted it From the Pagan Religions

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of
older trinities dating back to earlier peoples,
appears to be the rational philosophic trinity
of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases
or divine persons taught by the Christian churches.…
This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.]
conception of the divine trinity…
can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."
(Paris, 1865-1870, Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel,
edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, page 1467)

The testimony of the early church writers
(Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian,
Origen, Novatian, Epiphanius, Patrick, etc...)
makes it clear
that the concept of the Trinity
was foreign to Christianity
until it was adopted at the Council of Nicaea.
Since that time the doctrine has undergone some alterations
until it stands today
as the central doctrine of the Catholic faith.
Protestants claim to be free from Catholic tradition,
yet most Protestant churches
cling to the doctrine of the Trinity, along with
many other Catholic teachings, although they have
no plain biblical evidence to support it.

Many people would like you to believe
that the Trinity doctrine has always been
a part of Christian teaching. However, it is clear
that this teaching was adopted by the Catholic Church
long after the death of Christ and His apostles.
It is also clear
that the early Christians did not hold to this doctrine.

As fundamental errors,
we might class with this trinity concept other errors
which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church,
such as sprinkling for baptism, the counterfeit sabbath,
the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery.
The mass who have held these fundamental errors,
have doubtless done it ignorantly;
but can it be supposed that the church of Christ
will carry along with her these errors
till the judgment scenes burst upon the world?


and why is it Heresy to believe otherwise?


One of the two most serious issues that has or ever will
befall professing Christianity,
is the Godhead issue
or what you believe about God and the Atonement.

This issue will continue to swell as A MAJOR ISSUE
in the whole Christian world.
Why?
Because it is intrinsically contingent with
the Lord's supper and the Transubstantiation belief
by the Catholics that the wafer partaken of
in the Mass service is the actual body of Jesus Christ.

What does this have to do with the Trinity and the Godhead issue?

Everything!
All who do not believe in the trinity doctrine
as taught by Catholicism are anathema to Catholics.

Just as little children died by being drowned
right in front of their parents (during the dark/middle ages) for denying
that the wafer partaken of in the Mass
is the actual body of Christ,
but rather a symbol of His broken body,
professing Christians will someday
have to die for their belief that the trinity doctrine is false.

The Tie-in Between the Trinity Doctrine and Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation is the Catholic doctrine
that the wafer partaken of in the Mass
is the actual body of Christ,
rather than a symbol of that body.

What is the tie-in with that belief and the erroneous trinity doctrine?

Just this friend:
The Sanctuary Service teaches
that the Lamb offered in sacrifice was to be perfect
and without broken bone.

In fulfillment of that prophecy,
not a bone of Christ's body was broken on the cross.
His body was not broken in any wise.
It was pierced,
but not broken asunder in any way.

The breaking of Christ's body so that it could be shared with us,
occurred in the heavenly sanctuary at the Incarnation,
where
Christ died and laid aside His First Estate Being
as a gift to be given (broken and shed abroad)
in the sense of being shared with all of us
in the form of His Holy Spirit as a regenerating agency.

The Testator of the Everlasting Covenant,
which covenant appropriated
what was to be exacted by that covenant,
prescribed the death of the Testator.

The Testator, the Son,
was PURELY DIVINE when He negotiated the Everlasting Covenant
that pertained to how sin would be dealt with.

That means that a PURELY DIVINE BEING,
namely the Son, (at His Incarnation) would have to die
to something eternally.

Since The Bible says that Divinity cannot die,
we must interpret the Son's death in some other way
that is tantamount to death.

At His Incarnation, the Son laid aside
His PURELY DIVINE life
as it was before the Incarnation (He died an eternal death
to His pre-incarnation existance as pure divinity),
and bequeathed it to us as His "crowning gift" to mankind.
This gift
enabled mankind to partake of His (Christ's) purely divine nature,
as the Bible solicits.

This laying aside of His Royal Robes and Scepter,
constituted a certain FOREVER, ETERNAL death
to that state of the Son's Being or existence for eternity.

He did this when He commended His Spirit to His Father.
He could have
taken back that existence until He again
commended His Spirit to His Father
just before dying on the cross.

How could He have so commended His Spirit twice?
Because it was given back to Him
as it descended in the form of a dove at His Baptism by John.
Also,
in Acts 10:38, we are told that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Ghost (the Ghost person of His former existence
before Incarnation) and power.

After He again commended His Spirit to the Father,
just before dying on the cross,
He could never again return to his former pre-incarnation Being.
Thus,
Christ died an eternal death
to that former existence as pure divinity.

This satisfied the terms of the Everlasting Covenant
requiring the death of the Testator.

This is what constituted payment as eternal death
for the wages of our sin.

After His Incarnation, He became admixed with humanity forever.

He was not then "just purely divine only".
He was then fully divine and fully human.

Christ could have returned to that fully divine state of being
at any time before His death on the Cross.
However, when He said:
"Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried
with a loud voice, he said, Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus,
he gave up the ghost,"

He could not thereafter return to
the original pure state of Divinity ONLY.

He then "died" to that original state of Being Forever.
He thus died an eternal death for our sins.

What is/was the wages of sin?
Eternal death, and the Son paid that price.

Did He die an eternal death on the cross
--even from His human nature?
Absolutely not!
He arose three days after His human death on the cross.

But what most professing Christians do not realise is
that when Christ died on the Cross,
He died eternally to His former (pre-Incarnation) life,
giving that life to us
in the form of His Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit,
as a regenerating agency.

Thus, we can say:
"He (Christ) suffered the death which was ours,
that we might receive the life which WAS His."
1 Cor. 11:24-265, John 6:53,54, Titus 3:5,6.

When Christ gave up the "Ghost" as stated above,
He gave up His Holy Spirit FOREVER, as a gift to us.

He gave it up in heaven at His Incarnation.
It returned at His baptism in the form of a dove.
It was again commended to the Father for the last time
just before Christ died on the Cross.

Thereafter,
there was no turning back to His former life Being
as a purely Divine personage.
Henceforth,
He would be purely divine and purely human forever.

What death was ours?
Was it three days in a Tomb and then eternal life?
Absolutely not!
The death of the sinner was eternal death.
The wages of sin is eternal death,
not three days in the Tomb and then eternal life.
Only Christ had eternal life.

Christ did not die the everlasting death of the sinner,
from which there is no hope of a resurrection,
and then take back
His eternal life in the same way that He had it before.

He gave His life to His people.
When and where
did the Son of God die the eternal death of the sinner?
At the Incarnation and on the Cross.

He gave His eternal life to His people at His Incarnation,
when He then commended His Spirit to His Father
and bequeathed it as a regenerating gift to us
in order that we might be regenerated into the image of God.

Christ commended His Holy Spirit to His Father again
on the Cross, just before He died.
At that point,
He died an eternal death
to His former (pre-Incarnation) existence.

That was the death that satisfied the Testator Covenant
between the Father and the Son,
which covenant demanded the ETERNAL death of the Testator,
not
"three days in a Tomb, and then all returned to normal
as it had been before the Incarnation".

Christ's body was FIRST broken apart (laid aside)
from His original PURE DIVINE BEING,
when He was Incarnated in heaven.

He then willingly volunteered
to lay down His life for two purposes:

1. As a regenerating gift to us.
2. To satisfy the eternal death requirement
of the Everlasting Covenant that was designed to deal with sin,
the wages of which is death, eternal death.

The "breaking" of His body,
was His separation from His original Being
prior to His Incarnation--which was eternal,
as well as
His "sharing" that Divine Nature BODY AND MIND
with all who would accept it.

Another In-Depth Similitude on the Breaking of the Son's Body

Christ became the head of the body.
The rest of the body is His people.

Christ does not get back His fully body until
He receives His bride, the 144,000.
Thus,
Christ is part (the Head) of the body that was broken
until He gets His full body back in the form of
those who make up the rest of His body.

That is another concept to the broken body of Christ,
and even when He receives those who comprise the rest of His body
(besides Himself the Head),
His body will still not be the same PURELY DIVINE ONLY body
that He had before the Incarnation,
because we will never be purely divine.

The Great Trinity Error That Does Total Despite to the Atonement

The Trinity doctrine denies everything I have just enumerated.
That abominable, from the pits of hell, Satanic doctrine,
teaches
that Divinity could not die, and if some form of eternal death
of the Testator's pure Divinity did not die eternally,
then there was no Atonement for sin.

If the Son had not died an eternal death to His former life
in satisfaction of the Testator Covenant agreement,
His sacrifice on the cross would have been of no avail,
because
that sacrifice did not involve
any semblance of eternal death to anything
as far as the death of the Testator was and is concerned:

Hbr 9:16 For where a testament [is], there must also
of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hbr 9:17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead:
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The Son Died an Eternal Death
in the Heavenly Sanctuary and on the Cross

Remember, yes, Christ died on the Cross!
But did He
die the eternal death of the sinner on the Cross?
Not if He was resurrected in three days!

But the wry twist is
that He did die the eternal death of the sinner
at His Incarnation and on the cross when He
(both times) commended
His Holy Spirit to His Father as a gift for us.

When Christ did that, it meant
eternal death to His experiencing His former existence
as pure divinity only,
and meant that He would henceforth always be
fully human as well as fully divine.

That was an eternal death as far as
His former first estate Being was concerned.

That eternal death satisfied the terms of
the Testator's agreement as regards The Everlasting Covenant.

If the disciples were alive today,
they would not accept the trinity doctrine.
They were most astute in the study of the Word.
They had the gift of prophecy in their midst.
They knew and taught that the trinity error
did total despite to the Atonement, and how it did so.


I mean no disrespect, I'm just trying to understand.


Let us forsake the fundamental error of the Trinity,
which can be traced no further back than the fourth century
(unless you look to the pagan religions).
I pray that you will stand with the few, with the faithful,
who reject this unscriptural doctrine;
not because I wish
to stand at variance with the Catholic Church on this doctrine,
but because this doctrine has negative results
upon the atonement and many other aspects of our Christian faith.

May God bless your study of this eternal subject,
-jaymes

ps-
If you have any questions, and/or would like more in-depth study on this topic (among others), feel free to contact me. However I request that you send NO "attachments".

Answer 2

The Bible shows very clearly that there is only one God, and yet that there are three personal distinctions in His complex nature, traditionally referred to as "three Persons in the Godhead"—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each is distinct from the others but never acts independently. They are one in nature and purpose. This mystery is called the doctrine of the Trinity, though that term is not used in the Bible. The teaching, however, is present in seed form in the Old Testament and is revealed explicitly in the New Testament. Note passages such as Matthew 28:19; John 10:30, 14:26; 2 Corinthians 13:14.

Our finite minds cannot understand or explain this mystery of God, which is nevertheless a fact. We must accept the truths found in the Word of God by faith even though we ourselves cannot comprehend them fully; read Hebrews 11:1,3,6 and 1 Corinthians 2:5-10;14; 13:12. It is really not surprising that the infinite God should be complex in His nature beyond the ability of finite humans to comprehend! This doctrine is absolutely essential to New Testament Christianity. Theologians have pointed out that if it were not true, the Bible would be unreliable, Christ would not be divine, and His death on the cross would not atone for our sins, being merely the death of a martyr.

Answer 3

Think of an apple, when you look at it, it's a fruit, but when you look closer you see the peel of an apple, think of God as the peel, He holds everything together, The flesh of the apple is Jesus, He came in flesh form, and the seed is the Holy Spirit, Once It's in you, you will grow.

Now, in the OT the "spirit of the Lord" is mentioned throughout. Judges 6:34, 11:29,13:25, 14:6 and so on.

In the NT, there are many passages that Jesus says to prove that He is what He is. John 14:1 "Believe me when I say that I am the Father and the Father is in me" Isaiah 44:6 "The Lord, who rules and protects Israel, the Lord Almighty has this to say "I am the first, the last, the only God" Flip to Rev where Jesus makes the same statement Rev 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell down at his fet like a dead man. He placed his right hand on me and said "Don't be afraid! I am the first and the last, I am the living one!""

I hope that this will help.

Answer 4

I believe in the trinity of God, but to really explain it is difficult. God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit is all ONE God. For well formulate theological answer, you should acctually speak to a pastor. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not have separated characteristics, it is all the same. The God from the Old Testament, reveals the same characteristic as Jesus. After Jesus rose up to heaven, after his resurrection, He send His Holy Spirit to live within us. If God was just one person, how can he be love? He is a relationship God, a perfect God in relationship with Himself. That fact that His a triune God, is the reason why He created humans, to have a relationship with.

The fact that God is a Trinity is not explicitly stated in the Bible, but it is very clear that Jesus put Himself on equal level to the Father. There are many passage where Jesus say that. He said that you can only know the Father if you know Me. Read Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. Jesus was worshiped as God during His life as human as well as directly after He was resurrected again after His death on the cross.

Hope that helps.

Answer 5

I see some other people have already answered your question so I'm just gonna throw this in there.

There is another religion that has the concept of a trinity. If you believe that we are all physical manifestations of divine thought (created by god) and you believe that god is trying to teach us in this life, through this world, then you will notice in all life a male and female energy, equals and opposites, and balance.

Even when you go back to the beginning of life on earth, if you believe in evolution, there was single-celled plants and animals. Plants because of their properties, would represent the female energy and animals would represent the male energy. Even back 3 billion years ago the male and female energies relied on each other for existence, because of the nature of their energy system, breathing either O2 or CO2.

So, if you find all of these things that I have said to be true, you would be lead to the logical conclusion that god is trying to express that life cannot be created by 1, or exist as 1 life form.

Therefore, god is neither male nor female, it was the union of the god and the goddess that created life, just like man and woman create children. That is the trinity.

This logic is much older than the jewish, christian, or muslim beliefs. In Europe, it was the common belief, before the roman empire began forcing christianity on people. People believed these things when we were still living in caves and many, many people still believe these things today. Because christians are not allowed to torture people to death for these ideas anymore, these ideas are becoming more popular each day.

Anybody wanna learn more? Hit me up at [e-mail]

Answer 6

There are questions which no one has addressed that I will post that show the nonsense of the trinity dogma.
=======
Christendom believes that the fundamental doctrine of her teachings is the Trinity. By Trinity she means a triune or three-in-one God. That means a God in three Persons, namely, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." Since this is said to be, not three Gods, but merely "one God in three Persons," then the term God must mean the Trinity; and the Trinity and God must be interchangeable terms. On this basis let us quote John 1:1, 2 and use the equivalent term for God, and let us see how it reads:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word was the Trinity. The same was in the beginning with the Trinity." But how could such a thing be? If the Word was himself a Person and he was with the Trinity, then there would be four Persons. But the Word is said by the trinitarians to be the Second Person of the Trinity, namely, "God the Son." But even then, how could John say that the Word, as God the Son, was the Trinity made up of three Persons? How could one Person be three?
However, let the trinitarians say that in John 1:1 God means just the First Person of the Trinity, namely "God the Father," and so the Word was with God the Father in the beginning. On the basis of this definition of God, how could it be said that the Word, who they say is "God the Son," is "God the Father"? And where does their "God the Holy Ghost" enter into the picture? If God is a Trinity, was not the Word with "God the Holy Ghost" as well as with "God the Father" in the beginning?
Suppose, now, they say that, in John 1:1, 2, God means the other two Persons of the Trinity, so that in the beginning the Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. In this case we come to this difficulty, namely, that, by being God, the Word was God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, the other two Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Word, or "God the Son," the Second Person of the Trinity, is said to be also the First Person and the Third Person of the Trinity. It does not solve the difficulty to say that the Word was the same as God the Father and was equal to God the Father but still was not God the Father. If this were so, it must follow that the Word was the same as God the Holy Ghost and was equal to God the Holy Ghost but still was not God the Holy Ghost.
And yet the trinitarians teach that the God of John 1:1, 2 is only one God, not three Gods! So is the Word only one-third of God?
Since we cannot scientifically calculate that 1 God (the Father) + 1 God (the Son) + 1 God (the Holy Ghost) = 1 God, then we must calculate that 1/3 God (the Father) + 1/3 God (the Son) + 1/3 God (the Holy Ghost) = 3/3 God, or 1 God. Furthermore, we would have to conclude that the term "God" in John 1:1, 2 changes its personality, or that "God" changes his personality in one sentence. Does he?
Are readers of this booklet now confused? Doubtlessly so! Any trying to reason out the Trinity teaching leads to confusion of mind. So the Trinity teaching confuses the meaning of John 1:1, 2; it does not simplify it or make it clear or easily understandable.
Certainly the matter was not confused in the mind of the apostle John when he wrote those words in the common Greek of nineteen centuries ago for international Christian readers. As John opened up his life account of Jesus Christ he was in no confusion of mind as to who the Word or Logos was and as to who God was.
We must therefore let the apostle John himself identify to us who the Word was and explain who God was. This is what John does in the rest of his life account of Jesus Christ and also in his other inspired writings.

What was John's conclusion? Jesus was God the Son? NO! Let's read John's words:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." -- John 20:30, 31, KJV.

Answer 7

The Trinity is a construct depending in part on the Gospel of John, financial disaster a million, about "the word (trademarks)". "...And the word became with God, and the word became God, ... (and) in the starting up with God... And the word became made flesh, and dwelt between us". that's a mystical connection with Jesus Christ that has been interpreted by using the Christian Church as which signifies that he became element of God, and is now believed to be the 2d individual of God. the first individual is God the daddy. in addition they examine with the tale of Christ’s baptism at the same time as a dove looks above Jesus’ head, and a voice is heard asserting “it really is my loved son in whom i'm nicely delighted” (Matthew 3:17 and Luke 3:22). there are multiple references to the Holy Spirit in the recent testomony, and lower back this has been interpreted by using the Christian Church because the third individual. some theologians have tried to sq. the circle by using explaining that the Son topics from the daddy, from eternity, and the affection between the daddy and Son is itself someone, the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity became followed in many circumstances in the Council of Nicaea in 325CE. that is tempting to imagine that that is inspired by using different pagan beliefs. Theologians attempt to make it sound technical by using concerning the Triune God - One God, with 3 persons. A e book on Theology I’ve were given from time to time takes a better modern-day idea or construct and reads it lower back into before scriptures. so that they could then interpret before scriptures as concerning more recent doctrines that the author never meant. So in Genesis a million, at the same time as it refers to God asserting "enable us ...", they then re-interpret that because the Trinity chatting with itself; the author had probably envisaged the Canaanite pantheon (Elohim, sons of the most extreme God El Elyon).

Answer 8

"You alone, Jehovah, are the God above all other gods in supreme charge of all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

In a nutshell, the trinity is nowhere to be found in God's Word. For the details, I recommend reading:

Is the Trinity Clearly a Bible Teaching?
- "Trinity" in the Bible?
- Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures
- Testimony of the Greek Scriptures
- Taught by Early Christians?
- What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught
http://watchtower.org/library/ti/article_03.htm

What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?
- God Is One, Not Three
- Not a Plural God
- Jesus is a Seperate Creation
- How Could God Be Tempted?
- How Much Was the Ransom ...?
- How the "Only-Begotten Son"?
- Was Jesus Considered to Be God?
http://watchtower.org/library/ti/article_05.htm

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
- Constantine's Role at Nicaea
- Further Development
- The Athanasian Creed
- Apostasy Foretold
- What Influenced the Teaching
- Platonism - Why Did God's Prophets Not Teach It?
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/article_04.htm

"Should You Believe the Trinity?" is a 9-part online brochure full of Scripture links for ease of comparing your Bible with the publisher's translation.
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=start.htm

Answer 9

I'll give it a shot.
It's like the egg man. With the yolk and stuff and it got a shell and white goodness all inside. Not one of those caramel eggs or a Cadbury's creme egg but a chicken or ostrich egg. One of the stuff is Jesus and one is God, but Jesus is God and the holy spirit, just like the white is the yolk but it isn't the yolk but both are part of the egg.

Once you wrap your head around this simple concept it will all make sense.

Answer 10

I'd recommend you stick with scripture on this one. The metaphor in scripture works. Jesus was the Word or Logos (John 1:1). He did his Father's will and taught people to pray to his Father. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. The Holy Spirit is the Counsellor or Comforter that Jesus requested his Father send to us after he left the earth.

Answer 11

The "Trinity" is strictly a Catholic belief.
Doesn't that tell you something in itself?
God said I am the alpha and the omega or the beginning and the end.
He also gave the command not to worship other Gods.
In recent years the Catholic bible was altered scripturaly to make it look like the Trinity has a basis for belief.
These scriptures do not appear in other bibles.
There is no disrespect intended here, it's just a statement of facts.
Look in this website for more answers to this problem.