The Trinity is Bibical

[Rev. Derek Joshua E'Lon]

Is The Trinity Biblical?
From the Christian Research Institute
www.equip.org
The Trinity is a basic doctrine of orthodox Christianity. Yet the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Bible. Is the doctrine of the Trinity really biblical?
The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one All Mighty One (God) who exists eternally as three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I can assure you that the elements of this doctrine are all taken directly from the Bible.
The first plank of the Trinitarian platform is that there is only one All Mighty One (God). The Bible could not be more explicit on this point, which it states explicitly about two dozen times. In Isaiah 44:8 Yahweh (The LORD) says that even He does not know of any other (mighty ones)gods!
Yahshua (Jesus) often spoke of the All Mighty One (God) as His Father, and the apostles frequently spoke of "the Almighty One (God) the Father." But the New Testament also insists that Yahshua (Jesus) is The Almighty One (God). For example, Thomas acknowledged Yahshua (Jesus) as, "My Lord(master) and my Almighty One (God)" (John 20:28), and both Peter and Paul spoke of Yahshua (Jesus) as "our All Mighty One (God) and Savior" (2 Pet. 1:1; Tit. 2:13). Yet the New Testament also makes the distinction between the Father and the Son as two very different persons. In fact they tell us that they love one another, speak to each other, and seek to glorify each other (e.g., John 17: 1-26).
The Old Testament refers often to the Holy Spirit as The Almighty One (God) at work in the world, without distinction from the Father. But Yahshua (Jesus) in John 14 to 16 explained that this Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father at the Messiah’s (Christ's) request. The Holy Spirit would teach and guide the disciples, not speaking on His own initiative, but speaking on the Messiah’s 9Christ's) behalf and glorifying The messiah (Christ). Thus, the Holy Spirit is revealed by The Messiah (Christ) to be a third person distinct from the Father and distinct from the Son.
In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely and totally biblical, and it is essential that all the Followers of the Messiah Yahshua (Christians) give assent to this doctrine.

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

Bottom line The trinity is not biblical.

[Anna]

Watson:
I am not a oneness Pentecostal. Where did you get that impression?

I believe in John 17:1 - 3

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 AND THIS IS ETERNAL LIFE, THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THEE (THE FATHER) THE ONLY TRUE GOD AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM THOU HAS SENT.


4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please respond, based on our Messiah's own words, in whom must we believe to recieve
'ETERNAL LIFE"?

Becareful not to add to His words and become a liar....

[Mufasa Abda Kalil TsidekiYahu]

Shalom Shalom BPN. Here is something that will help out on this matter, that we may put away the traiditions of men.

The Trinities and the G-d of Scripture:

The Rabbi's deep voice echoes through the dusk "Hear O Israel, Yahweh your Elohim is One." What a far cry that is from Yahudah's offspring, Christianity, and her belief in the Trinity.

While the majority of the Christian world agrees with Jaroslav Pelikan’s concept that to be a part of the church in its broadest sense one must believe in the trinity (History of Theology xvi), many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek Philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of Israel, and Yahshua (J-sus), the Redeemer of Israel.

Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show a polytheistic religion, though many scholars believe that earliest man was monotheistic. Alexander Hislop devotes several chapters of his book "The two Babylons" to showing how this original belief in one G-d was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Roman Catholic church dogma. An Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: "Monotheism is . . . a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts," dated between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51), but there is no question that ancient man believed in a "sole and omnipotent Deity who created all things" (Hislop, 14) at one time; and in a multitude of g-ds at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of g-ds was a triad; usually Father, Mother, and Child.

Most of ancient theology is lost under the sands of time. However, recent archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4000 years ago. Though Sumeria was conquered by Assyria, and later Babylon: her g-ds lived on in the cultures of those who conquered. The historian S.H. Hooke tells us in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary g-d of heaven, the father, and the King of Kings. Enlil, the "wind-g-d" was the g-d of the earth. He was also a creator G-d. Enki was the g-d of waters and the lord of wisdom (15-18). This was highest Sumerian trinity. A lesser trinity "was composed of Sin, the moon-g-d, Shamash, the sun-g-d, and. . .Hadad, the storm-g-d." (19). The historian H. W. F. Saggs explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of three g-ds of roughly equal rank. Their "inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures."

Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison: "In the unity of that One, Only G-d of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine

of the trinity they employed...the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romanish Church does at this day." (16)

Egypt’s history is nearly as old as Sumeria’s. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart shows how Egypt also believed in a "transcendental, above creation, and pre-existing" one, the g-d Amun. Amun was really three g-ds in one. Re was his face; Ptah his body; and Amun his hidden identity (24) The well-known historian Will Durant concurs: "In later days Ra [sic], Amon [sic], and Ptah were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (Our Oriental Heritage, 201). A hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC distinguishes the

Egyptian trinity: "All G-ds are three: Amun, Re, Ptah: they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re before [men], and his body is Ptah." (Hornung, 219)

Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? No. However, Durant submits that "from Egypt came the idea of a divine trinity..." (Caesar and Christ, 595). Laing agrees when he says that "it is probable that the worship of the Egyptian triad

Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus helped to familiarize the ancients with the idea of a triune G-d and was not without influence in the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity as set forth in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds." The Encyclopedia of Religions goes even farther when it states that as Christianity "came in contact with the triune gods of Egypt and the Near East, it developed a trinity of its own."

Though famous, these were not the only trinities early Christians were exposed to. Jesse Benedict Carter tells us of the Etruscans; a group that appear to have originated in Babylon. As they slowly passed through Greece and went on to Rome, they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva (16-19). This trinity was a "new idea to the Romans," and yet it became so "typical of Rome [that] it was imitated in the capitolia of Italy. . . (26)." Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No. However, Dr. Gordon Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman G-ds to the comparison of Roman Paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. Pelikan adds to Laing’s work when he states that the early church fathers used and cited the Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that these were called "Sibyllists" by the 2nd century critic Celsus.

There was even a medieval hymn, "Dies irae" which prophesied the coming of the day of wrath on the "dual authority of David and the Sibyl." (Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 64-65). The attitude of the church toward paganism is best summed up in Gregory the Great’s words to a missionary "you must not interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity" (qtd. in Laing 130).

Yahudaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as "Yahweh your Elohim (G-d) is One", "I am Yahweh. . . and my glory I will not give to another", "thou shalt have no other elohim (g-ds) before me". Even though "Word" "Spirit" "Presence" and "Wisdom" are used as personalities of G-d, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament.

We can conclude without much difficulty that the trinity dogma did not come from Israel, or Yahudaism. Nor did Yahshua (J-sus) speak of a trinity. The message of Yahshua (J-sus) was of the coming kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness.

Nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity mentioned. The word "trinity", and the words in the Nicene creed "hypostasis," and "ousis" are not biblical. Pelikan concurs when he adds that one of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the trinity was not an explicit doctrine of the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament but evolved from New Testament times to the fourth century. (History of Theology, 134).

If the Trinity did not originate with the Bible, where did it come from? To find the origins of the trinity in Christianity, we need to take a look at the circumstances in which early Christians found themselves.

Even the Church of the Apostles day was far from unified. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that "the mystery of iniquity does already work." Throughout his book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Walter Bauer effectively proves that many early Christians were influenced by gnosticism. He believes that certain "‘heresies’ [recorded by early Christian writers] origionally had not been such at all, but. . .were simply Christianity (xxii). In considering the trinity Bauer goes even farther, as he proves that early Christians in Odessa appear to have been followers of Marcion’s beliefs, with "orthodox" views being strongly in the minority, to the extent that "Christian" referred to one with Marcion’s beliefs, and "Palutian" referred to one with "orthodox" (by today’s standards) beliefs. (21-38). In his work The Greek Fathers, James Marshall Campbell bears out the great fear of gnosticism prevalent in the early church. With Gnosticism being so prevalent in this early period, it behooves us to learn in what way they viewed G-d, for the early church writers were influenced by their fear of gnosticism.

Jurgen Moltmann writes about the early Syrian traditions of the Gnostics: "in both being and activity the Holy Spirit hides the motherly mystery of G-d. . . ." (xiv) McGiffert interprets the early Christian fathers as believing "the Gnostic systems [are] identical to all intents and purposes with Greek polytheism." It is certain that gnosticism borrowed much of its philosophy and religion from other religions, oriental mysticism, astrology, magic, and Plato. It was a very pessimistic religion that considered matter to be evil and opposed to Deity. It relied heavily on visions, and sought salvation through knowledge.

Knowledge was also the desire of the Greek philosophers. We owe a lot to these sages of old. J. N. D. Kelly states that "[the concepts of philosophy] provided thinkers. . .with an intellectual framework for expressing their ideas. . . [it] was the deeper religion of most intelligent people. . . ." (9). The great theologian Alolf Harnack considered Greek philosophy and culture to be factors in the formation of the "ecclesiastical mode of thought." (127) According to McGiffert, the concepts of philosophy prevalent during the time of the early church were Stoicism, which was "ethical in its interests and monistic in its ontology" and Platonism, which was "dualistic and predominately religious." (46).

That these philosophies affected Christianity is a historical fact. What did these philosophers teach about G-d? In Plato’s Timaeus "the Supreme Reality appears in the trinitarian form of Good, the Intelligence, and the World-Soul." (qtd. in Laing 129). Laing continues "The Neoplatonists had elaborated trinitarian theories. . . . That Neoplatonism was one of the operative factors in the development of Christian theology seems certain." (129) Durant ties in philosophy with Christianity when he states that the 2nd century Alexandrian Church from which both Clement and Origin came from "wedded Christianity to Greek philosophy." (Caesar and Christ, 613).

World conditions were hardly conducive to the foundation of a new and different religion. Pagan g-ds were still the g-ds of the state, and the Roman government was very superstitious. Whether it rained too much or not enough, all was considered the displeasure of the g-ds. When the dissolute Roman government began to crumble, it was not seen as a result of corruption within, but as the anger of the g-ds. If g-ds are angry they must be placated – and who better to sacrifice than the worshipers of a new g-d – a g-d who was totally foreign to their g-ds, and thus there were strong persecutions against Christians.

In such a time was Christianity born. On one side were persecutions; on the other the seduction of logic and philosophy. To remain faithful to the belief of Jesus Christ meant hardship and ridicule. It was only for the simple poor – and the rich in faith.

With this background, let’s look at the growth and evolution of the Trinity. As previous stated, Scripture does not mention the trinity. Harnack affirms that the early church view of Yahshua (J-sus) was as Messiah. After his resurrection he was "raised to the right hand of G-d" – but not considered as G-d. (78) Lonergan concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in one, supreme G-d. (119). As for the Holy Spirit, McGiffert tells us that "They [early Christians] thought of [the Holy Spirit] not as an individual being or person but simply as the divine power of Yahweh (G-d) working in the world and particularly in the Church." (111) Durant summarizes Apostolic Christianity thus: "In Christ and Peter Christianity was "Israelitish"; in Paul it became half Greek; in Catholicism it became half Roman." (Caesar and Christ 579).

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church’s expansion. The writers of these "Apologies" are known to us now as "Apologists". Pelikan states that "it was at least partly in response to pagan criticism of the stories in the Bible that the Christian apologists... took over and adapted the methods and even vocabulary of pagan allegorism." (Emergence of Catholic Tradition, 30).

Campbell agrees when he states that "the Apologists borrowed heavily, and at times inappropriately, from the pagan resources at hand." (23) They began the ‘process of accommodation’ between Christianity and the common philosophy, and used reason to try to "justify Christianity to the pagan world" (22-23).

The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166 AD). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek Philosophy were related. According to McGiffert, "Justin insisted that Christ came from G-d; he did not identify him with G-d. . . [He] conceiv[ed] of G-d as a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things." (107)

Not only was the Church divided by Gnosticism, enticed by philosophy, and set upon by paganism, but there was a geographic division as well. The East (centered in Alexandria) and the West (centered in Rome) grew along two different lines. Kelly shows how the East was intellectually adventurous and speculative (4); a reflection of the Greek culture surrounding. The theological development of the East is best represented in Clement and Origin.

Clement of Alexandria (c.150-220) was from the "Catechetical School" of Alexandria which wedded Christianity to philosophy. His views bordered on Gnostic, and McGiffert informs us that Clement "insists that philosophy came from G-d and was given to the Greeks as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ as the law was a schoolmaster for the Hebrews." (183). McGiffert further states that "[Clement] distinguish[ed] G-d the Father revealed in the Old Testament from the Son of G-d incarnate in Christ and [identified] the Logos with the latter. . ." (206). Clement did not complete his work "Didascalos" and his most important work was carried on through his pupil, Origen.

Origen AD185-253
Tertullian AD160-230
Hippolytus AD160-220
We can trace the evolution of the trinity through Clement of Alexandria, and his pupil Origen in the East, and through Tertullian in the West. Athanasius was the final link on the chain which drew the G-d of the Yahudi Christ through paganism and Greek philosophy unto the final evolution of the trinity.

The Roman empire began to crumble. Constantine came to power and wished to unify the empire, and chose Christianity to do so. Constantine was in for a surprise. Christianity was far from unified. Constantine invited the bishops from East and West to join him in the small seaside village of Nicaea for a council to unify the church.

Three main groups were present at this council Eusebius of Nicomedia presenting the Arian version of the trinity, Alexander of Alexandria presenting the Athanasian version of the trinity, and Eusebius of Caesarea presenting an in-between version.

The order of procedure at the Nicene Council was: Arians presented theirs first. It was perceived that they questioned the deity of Yahshua (J-sus). Eusebius was shocked and presented the Caesarian baptismal creed. Alexander was wise and only suggested a few changes. Had he presented his own it would have been rejected.

There was still not unity. Eusebius did not like the wording of the creed. He thought it smacked of Sabellianism, though he signed the creed, he was opposed to it enough that he wrote the following explanation to his home church in Caesarea: Eusebius was not the only person unhappy with the Nicene Creed. Many of the people -- even of the bishops --maintained Arian views.

Constantine stayed in close contact with Arius, and had his son Constantius raised by an Arian. The day before his death Constantine had Eusebius of Nicomodia, an Arian, baptize him. Constantius was an Arian.

The evolution of the trinity can be well seen in the words of the Apostles Creed (first two centuries AD), Nicene Creed (originated in 325 AD, revised in 381), and the Athanasian Creed (formulated in 5.. and still used today). As each of the creeds becomes more wordy and convoluted, the simple, pure faith of the Apostolic church become lost in the haze. Even more interesting is the fact that as the creeds became more specific (and less scriptural) the adherence to them became stricter. While there are no threats in the Apostles Creed, there is the threat of being kicked out of the Church in the Nicene, and of eternal torment in the Athanasian.

Did these creeds with there strict rules for adherence help the Church become closer to Yahshua (J-sus) and the Bible? Did they bring increasing light, as commanded by Yahshua (J-sus) in "ye are the light of the world. . .so let your light shine before men." Quite the reverse. The acceptance of the Athanasian creed stood at the gateway to the dark ages of Medieval ignorance and spiritual poverty.

In summary, we have seen how the common culture of the day was one filled with triune g-ds. From ancient Sumeria's Anu, Enlil, and Enki to Egypt's Amun-Re-Ptah and Isis, Osiris, and Horus and Rome's Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva the whole concept of paganism revolved around the magic number of three. In Greek philosophy we have seen how the number three was used as an unidentified trinity of Intelligence, mind, and reason.

In stark contrast is the simple oneness of the Hebrew Mighty One (G-d). Even when the word "Echad" is used (a plural word), the Hebrew scholars -- both ancient and modern -- apply this to a grammatical "pluralism of majesty" -- not more than one. (Note: Russian and French still use this concept today. When one addresses a person to be respected, the polite form is the plural you form). Yahshua (J-sus) was a Yahudi.

"Christianity did not destroy paganism, it adopted it." (Durant Caesar and Christ 595). The concept of the trinity finds its roots in Pagan theology and Greek philosophy. It is a stranger to the Yahudi Yahshua (J-sus) and the Hebrew people from which he sprang.

Shalom Shalom
"Zaquaine" Mufasa Abda Kalil TsidekiYahu

[Mufasa Abda Kalil TsidekiYahu]

Scripture does NOT teach:

That the word G-d is a proper name of the Creator Father Yahweh.
That the Creator Father of all things, had a beginning.
That the name J-sus is the proper name of Yahshua, the son of the Creator Father Spirit Yahweh.
That the Son of Yahweh, existed co-eternal as spirit, with the Creator Father Spirit Yahweh.
That Yahweh created the globe and all things in the Universe in 7 literal 24-hour days.
That the physical sciences, (i.e. age of the Universe) is not in harmony with Scripture.
That the Creator Father Spirit Yahweh would violate His laws of the physical sciences.
That Adam and Eve were the first people on the globe.
That Adam and Eve are the parents of all the various races on the globe.
That the being in the garden that tempted and spoke to Adam-Eve, was a snake.
That angels (celestial beings) had intercourse with daughters of men resulting in giants.
That Noah's flood covered the entire globe and the highest mountains.
That all-breathing life on the globe died during Noah's flood.
That Scripture is the history and record of all the various races on the globe.
That the laws of Yahweh, given only to Israel, are applicable to all the various races.
That Yahweh (G-d) is at the same time, three persons in one (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
That Messiah's (Christ's) nature was immaculate, or sinless, that he was unable to sin.
That all men, of all the various races need to be redeemed from sin under the law, for salvation.
That the Holy Spirit is the third person of a three person G-dhead.
That every word in the KJV of the Bible, or any English translation, are inspired by Yahweh.
That the KJV of the Bible, or other translations do not contain errors.
That the wicked will suffer eternal torture or torment in an ever-burning hell fire.
That there is a place of eternal hell fire, for the wicked, for sinner, or unbelievers.
That the Devil, Satan, Lucifer, serpent, or dragon is a super-natural person type being.
That the globe is under the rule of this Devil, Satan, Lucifer, serpent being, or dragon.
That Satan, Devils and Demons can possess and enter into the mind of a man or woman.
That celestial messengers (angels) of Yahweh can sin and challenge Him, who is Creator.
That there was a war in heaven, featuring rebellious angels fighting good angels.
That it is possible for Yahweh (G-d) to die on the cross of Calvary.
That physical (terrestrial) men can see the Father Creator Yahweh.
That the Kingdom of G-d, or of heaven, is coming in the future.
That the Kingdom of G-d, or of heaven is "the church."
That Yahshua the Messiah was crucified on a pole with a horizontal cross member.
That a cross-shaped object, like the letter "T" is a proper Christian symbol.
That the Gospel is merely the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
That there will be a so-called Second Coming, to begin the earthly reign of Yahshua.
That there will be a literal thousand-year reign by Yahshua on earth.
That there will be a future "rapture" of the saints out of the world.
That the resurrection is confined only to the faithful believers.
That the book of Revelation deals with future prophecy.
That the book of Revelation dates after AD 70.
That the Book of Ester belongs in Scripture.
That the Scriptures are limited to the current 66 books we now have in the Christian cannon.
That the observance of Sunday (the 1st day of the week) is equal to the (seventh day) Sabbath.
That baby sprinkling as a type of Baptism, is a Scriptural doctrine.
That sprinkling is a proper method of Baptism.
That Baptism is done using the phrase "in the name of Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit."
That without the Gospel message, or faith in Messiah, there can be no salvation.
That Joseph was the physical father of Yahshua (J-sus).
That Yahshua the Messiah was not a physical descendant of King David
That the earth will be destroyed with fire.
That heaven is a physical place for believers after death.
That homosexuality is permitted in Scripture.
That marriage with an unbeliever, or miscegenation is Scriptural.
That the Jews are related to the historical Scriptural Israelites.
That the Jewish people are Yahweh's chosen people
That the modern state of Israel is in future prophecy.
That the Creator Father Yahweh can dwell in a Temple or building made with hands.

[newview]

What is your religion? What would be it's proper name?
Are you sorta like Hebrew Israelites? Afro-Essenes? Makuyan?

[Rest Of God Ministries]

Hello Mufasa, When I look at the things you say here I am totally shocked. This is the exact reason why I am so caution when you want to post a blog on my site. You claim that you are not as religious as Christians but you are indeed more religious than most.

[Anna]

Bro TsidekiYahu:

Your message above, IF THEY WILL READ IT, will give the trinitarians the light then need to get out of the darkness of the Roman Catholic Church and her daughters which adopted her spiritual errors which includes the Trinity.

I'm having the same discussion with a gentleman locally. It is the same as in Yahshua's day, they have eyes and they see not, ears and they hear not. It is a shame some of these "clergy" have years in the Pulpit, and supposedly have degrees from seminaries, yet they continue to promote the European Christianity that the slave masters gave their ancestors, rather than to study and prove all things holding fast to that which is good.
Manmade religious doctrines, commandments and holidays are what most of the churches are based upon and our Messiah Himself called the worship containing those things VAIN!

[Anna]

Bro Derick:
Please state again what scripture you use to support this statement you made:

"In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely and totally biblical, and it is essential that all the Followers of the Messiah Yahshua (Christians) give assent to this doctrine"

What scripture do you use to support this statement. Please give us book, chapter and verse. I cannot find even ONE....

[Pastor Rodrick Sweet,ThM]

I have one it is the BIBLE, but try this if you can read it?
τοτε παραγινεται ο ιησους απο της γαλιλαιας επι τον ιορδανην προς τον ιωαννην του βαπτισθηναι υπ αυτου

ο δε ιωαννης διεκωλυεν αυτον λεγων εγω χρειαν εχω υπο σου βαπτισθηναι και συ ερχη προς με

αποκριθεις δε ο ιησους ειπεν προς αυτον αφες αρτι ουτως γαρ πρεπον εστιν ημιν πληρωσαι πασαν δικαιοσυνην τοτε αφιησιν αυτον

βαπτισθεις δε ο ιησους ευθυς ανεβη απο του υδατος και ιδου ηνεωχθησαν [αυτω] οι ουρανοι και ειδεν [το] πνευμα [του] θεου καταβαινον ωσει περιστεραν [και] ερχομενον επ αυτον

και ιδου φωνη εκ των ουρανων λεγουσα ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα

Here is the trinity right in that passage. Tell me what you think? Also study these: (Matt. 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 1:1–3; Rev. 1:4–6).

[Anna]

Bro Rodrick:
I hope you are not trying to impress someone by copying and pasting in Greek. The text that you are referring to is in Matt. 3 and has been addressed before.

No one is denying the Father YHWH or the Son, Yahshua or the Holy Spirit (which has no name nor any seat in Heaven).
Your Trinitarian doctrine uses the phrase "God the Holy Spirit". Nowhere in the Bible can you find that phease being used. In Matt. 3 as in other texts the term "Spirit of God" is uses in the same manner as the "spirit of Elijah" in 2 Kings 2:15 - "spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha." & Lyke 1:17 "Luke.1:17 - "And he shall go before him in the spirit and....of Elias," regarding John the Baptist.

You see, there is a spirit in all men, but that spirit is not another "person" within us.

The Savior's mother spoke of her spirit:
Luke.1
[47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Steven spoke of his spirit:
Acts.7
[59] And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Paul spoke of his spirit:
Rom 1
[9] For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers

Our Heavenly Father made us like Him, His Spirit proceeds from Him but is not a separate being.

None of your other texts indicate a Trinity either. So try to come up with some better texts...

I addressed Matt. 28:19 - 23 earlier, with an article containing an admission of the Roman Catholic church that they inserted the Trinitarian formula in that text in the 2nd Century. May bible encyclopedias were listed that confirmed that assertion

Don't you know that you do not have ANY EXAMPLE of a baptism in the bible using the Trinitarian formula? Were the disciples disobedient in not using it, or was the Trinitarian formula a forgery as has been admitted?

Come out of your slave religion, given to your ancestors by the slave masters.

Our Messiah did not set up a Protestant church, He was Jewish/Hebraic, born, lived and died and was resurrected as one, in actuality as a Rabbi, His disciples call Him Rabbi do you? He never called Himself nor any of His disciples Christians.

Texts where our Messiah is called Rabbi in the KJV: (in other older versions the term Rabbi is used more frequently):

John.1
[38] Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
[49] Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

John.3
[2] The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John.6
[25] And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Our Messiah did not set up a Protestant church, He was Jewish/Hebraic, born, lived and died and was resurrected as one, in actuality as a Rabbi, His disciples call Him Rabbi do you? He never called Himself nor any of His disciples Christians.

That was about is simple a statement as I have seen on this subject. The fact of the matter is this:

-yes, we call Him Rabbi, but not from the Hebrew tongue. No we call Him the English equivilent: Teacher/Mater
-No He didn't call them Christian, nor was He a Christian. To say that He was Christian would be STUPID because He is the CHRIST! Christian meant "Christ-like", so how can He bee Christian?? The disciples were called such by the Gentiles, and the Apostles and Elders kept the name. It was not created by the Protestant Church, or even the Roman Catholics (that people are so quick to accuse of just about anything)! If you have a problem with that, then take it up with the Apostles, and deem them false!

* Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
* Acts 26:28, "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
* 1 Peter 4:16, "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God."

[Pastor Rodrick Sweet,ThM]

Man, you says "impress someone " the only thing that I'm tyring to impress on you is the Trinity. By the way I don't have to cut and past I read and write in both lagnuages. You have taken verses out of their context to try to prove a point that you can not. The most difficult thing about trying to help one understand the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it to a person that does not want to learn. But alast I will try!

God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.
The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun אֱלֹהִים Elohim is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word אֱלֹהִים Elohim and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for God, אֱלֹהִים Elohim, definitely allows for the Trinity. Got that no I write some the later!