The Trinity

[JustHisKid]

Acts 19:1-5 KJV
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, [2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this , they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Notice that how they were baptized was an important part of receiving the Holy Spirit. Also, if the way baptized is NOT important, why does the bible say over and over that they are baptized in Jesus Name? Is not the Bible written for our example??

The baptism he is referring to is not water baptism, it is this (below) baptism he is referring to. He didn't dip them in water again. Notice in the passage you posted he asks them if they have received the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 3
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


.

 

[donfish06]

The baptism he is referring to is not water baptism, it is this (below) baptism he is referring to. He didn't dip them in water again. Notice in the passage you posted he asks them if they have received the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 3
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


.

Sister you should look up the meaning of baptized

 

[JustHisKid]

Sister you should look up the meaning of baptized

There are two types of baptism taught in Scripture. I just showed you.

 

[djkms]

If God is not triune, how would that change anything regarding Christian faith?

It changes everything because it would mean the word of God is fallible.

Here is why:

-Savior & One and only God-
Isaiah 43:10-11
"You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
11
I, even I, am the Lord,
And besides Me there is no savior.

Luke 2:11
For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
Acts 13:23
From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus

+ plenty of other references to Christ as our savior.

-Worship-
Exodus 34:14
(for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)

Matthew 2:11
And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
Matthew 14:33
Then those who were in the boat came and[a] worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”

+Plenty of other references of Jesus being worshiped. If Jesus was not God in the flesh then how come he never once stopped anyone from worshiping him?

John
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

14 And the Word became 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.

And the Word was God - then - And the Word became flesh - pretty self explanatory if you ask me...

- I AM -
Exodus 3:14
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Jeremiah 32:27
“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

So If Jesus is not God how can he be before Abraham? An Archangel?, show this to me in scripture. So If God claims to be "I AM" - then Jesus claims to be "I AM" are they not claiming the same thing?

I mean, think about this. God is perfect right? In a humanly Christian sense what is perfection, without sin right? So how could Jesus, who lived a sinless life not be considered perfect? Jesus was perfect. That perfect blood sacrifice on the cross is the only thing which can pay for the sins of all mankind who believe upon him. If Jesus were a mere man then his sacrifice could not have atoned for the sins of the world because he would have only been a man.

There are so many other things I can point to - in the Bible - which prove Jesus Christ's divinity. Really all you have to do is read John's gospel with an open heart and discerning eye to see the whole book is about Christ's divinity.

Sorry - I feel pretty strong about this subject. Denying Christ's divinity is IMO the work of the enemy. The whole purpose of the Bible is for God's creation to know who He is, what He has done for us and for us to honor and worship Him. I really believe not knowing who Christ really is, is not knowing who God is. Don't take my word for it though, don't take any organizations word for it, read your bible and let its truths speak to you.

 

[JustHisKid]

It changes everything because it would mean the word of God is fallible.

Here is why:

-Savior & One and only God-
Isaiah 43:10-11
"You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
11
I, even I, am the Lord,
And besides Me there is no savior.

God is saying here there is no other God before me and no God will be after him and besides him there is no savior.

Luke 2:11
For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
Acts 13:23
From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus

+ plenty of other references to Christ as our savior.

-Worship-
Exodus 34:14
(for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)

Matthew 2:11
And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
Matthew 14:33
Then those who were in the boat came and[a] worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”

+Plenty of other references of Jesus being worshiped. If Jesus was not God in the flesh then how come he never once stopped anyone from worshiping him?

John
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

14 And the Word became 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.

And the Word was God - then - And the Word became flesh - pretty self explanatory if you ask me...

- I AM -
Exodus 3:14
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Jeremiah 32:27
“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

So If Jesus is not God how can he be before Abraham? An Archangel?, show this to me in scripture. So If God claims to be "I AM" - then Jesus claims to be "I AM" are they not claiming the same thing?

I mean, think about this. God is perfect right? In a humanly Christian sense what is perfection, without sin right? So how could Jesus, who lived a sinless life not be considered perfect? Jesus was perfect. That perfect blood sacrifice on the cross is the only thing which can pay for the sins of all mankind who believe upon him. If Jesus were a mere man than his sacrifice could not have atoned for the sins of the world because he would have only been a man.

There are so many other things I can point to - in the Bible - which prove Jesus Christ's divinity. Really all you have to do is read John's gospel with an open heart and discerning eye to see the whole book is about Christ's divinity.

Sorry - I feel pretty strong about this subject. Denying Christ's divinity is IMO the work of the enemy. The whole purpose of the Bible is for God's creation to know who He is, what He has done for us and for us to honor and worship Him. I really believe not knowing who Christ really is, is not knowing who God is. Don't take my word for it though, don't take any organizations word for it, read your bible and let its truths speak to you.

Awesome. Thank you. What do you say to people who believe in Jesus' divinity but not the trinity? IOW, that God is one, not three.

 

[djkms]

I would agree - God is one, not 3. The problem people have with understanding the Trinity is we are trying to place finite wisdom on an infinite God. You can't say you believe in Jesus' divinity but not the trinity - that would be like saying Jesus is another God. God said there is only one.

I like to use the water analogy - What is water? What is ice? What is vapor? Well, we know they are all water. Its all the same compound, just in different forms right? Why then is it so hard to believe God, the creator of the universe cant be in a different form?

 

[JustHisKid]

I would agree - God is one, not 3. The problem people have with understanding the Trinity is we are trying to place finite wisdom on an infinite God. You can't say you believe in Jesus' divinity but not the trinity - that would be like saying Jesus is another God. God said there is only one.

I like to use the water analogy - What is water? What is ice? What is vapor? Well, we know they are all water. Its all the same compound, just in different forms right? Why then is it so hard to believe God, the creator of the universe cant be in a different form?

I absolutely agree with you. We don't understand the trinity to begin with, so to imagine someone would reject the concept of the trinity in favor of believing God is in fact one, and not three, just doesn't make any sense. God is one.

 

[donfish06]

There are two types of baptism taught in Scripture. I just showed you.

With one scripture? You cannot build a doctrine upon one scripture

 

[donfish06]

I absolutely agree with you. We don't understand the trinity to begin with, so to imagine someone would reject the concept of the trinity in favor of believing God is in fact one, and not three, just doesn't make any sense. God is one.

You don't understand the trinity because it was made up. It isn't real. The Godhead can be understood. I will show you later. Paul even says so:

Romans 1:20 KJV
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[JustHisKid]

With one scripture? You cannot build a doctrine upon one scripture

I haven't built a doctrine, I just know that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is different from the baptism of repentance, as taught in the passage you posted and the passage that I posted. The Holy Spirit abides in me. I know because His spirit testifies to my spirit that I belong to Him. How could I possibly be engaging in pagan worship?

 

[JustHisKid]

You don't understand the trinity because it was made up. It isn't real. The Godhead can be understood. I will show you later. Paul even says so:

Romans 1:20 KJV
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

We don't understand God's nature at all. Our human minds cannot comprehend eternal.

 

[donfish06]

We don't understand God's nature at all. Our human minds cannot comprehend eternal.

Take it up with the Apostle Paul, because he said otherwise...

 

[donfish06]

We don't understand God's nature at all. Our human minds cannot comprehend eternal.

I shouldn't have gotten so ahead of myself. I will explain later. I'm sure you will see it

 

[Albion]

You don't understand the trinity because it was made up. It isn't real.

That's not very convincing, especially because the Bible is quite explicit in describing three persona or somethings as being God, yet also teaches that God is one. What's your explanation?

 

[donfish06]

That's not very convincing, especially because the Bible is quite explicit in describing three persona or somethings as being God, yet also teaches that God is one. What's your explanation?

I will answer after work.

 

[donfish06]

Here is something to ponder while we wait:

All of the sources you read from below are Trinitarians. The thing that is striking to me is that they are being honest about the origins of the Trinity of three persons in one essence. You cannot simply go to the Bible and extract this theological position. The prophets, Jesus and the apostles were all believers that God is one single person. As the church tried to explain the relationship between Jesus Christ and God they began to draw from philosophy to arrive at a proper explanation. However, they failed to stay with the simple truth of Scripture that God is one, he is a Spirit that is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the express image of the invisible God. The fulness of the invisible God was manifested through the Son of God.

It is not heresy to question doctrines that are not contained directly in Scripture. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate persons that exist eternally side by side next to each other in fellowship. This is tri-theism not the biblical one true God. Father, Son and Spirit are three different manifestations of the one God. The Father is the source, the invisible one, the creator and the sustainer of all things. The Son is the visible expression and manifestation of the Father. The Son is the visible of the Father. All that the Father is is displayed through the Son. The Holy Spirit is what God is, God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and is the very presence, nature and power of God working in his people. Father, Son and Spirit are not three persons, but three manifestations of the one true and living God. Of course there is much more detail to the doctrine than this, but this is the most basic premise. Read for yourself what the various sources state about the Trinity.

James Hastings: “It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice to the Words of Christ in Matthew 28:19, but the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into’ the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, without any reference to the Father or the Spirit” (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 88).

Scribners: “The original form of words were into the Name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. Baptism into Trinity was a later development” (Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 241).

Canney Encyclopaedia: “The early church always baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity; afterward they were baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” (p. 53).

American Encyclopaedia, International Edition: “The term Trinity was used by Theophilus of Antioch in AD 180? (Vol. 27, p. 116).

Encyclopaedia Britannica: “The triune and Trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman church. Now the formula of Rome is, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost” (11th Ed., Vol. 3, p. 365-366).

Encyclopedia of Religions: “Persons were baptized at first in the Name of Jesus Christ, or ‘in the Name of the Lord Jesus.’ Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (p. 53).

New International Encyclopaedia: “The Trinity doctrine. The Catholic faith is this: ‘We worship one in Trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. The glory equal—the majesty co-eternal.’ The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination” (Vol. 22, p. 476).

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion: “Christian baptism was administered by using the words ‘in the Name of Jesus.’ The use of a Trinity formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used” (Vol. 2, p. 377-378, 389. )

“NAME was an ancient synonym for “Person.” Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ Name became His personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.” (Acts 1:15; Revelation 3:4; I Corinthians 3:23).

LIFE Magazine: “The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary in an article by Graham Green: ‘Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in the Scripture but the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogma as the Trinity for which there exists no such authority in the Gospels’” (October 30, 1950, Vol. 29, Number 18, p. 51).

Catholic Encyclopaedia: “The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman church. Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the church performs, is not true baptism” (Vol. 2, p. 259).

New Catholic Encyclopedia: “With regard to the form used for Baptism in the early church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew (28:19) speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) speak only of Baptism ‘in the Name of Jesus.’ Baptism in titles cannot be found in the first centuries. . .” (McGraw Hill Publishing, p. 59).

William Phillips Hall: “In this very ancient version (Syriac Peschito Version) which is believed by good authorities (Gwilliam, Boners, and others) to represent a text much older that of the Greek manuscript from which our English Old Testament was largely derived, ‘The Name of the Lord Jesus Messiah or Christ’ appears in all four readings given (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5)” (A Remarkable Discovery, p. 70).

International Encyclopaedia: “The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the Apostles’ preachings, as this is reported in the New Testament” (First Edition, Vol. 18, p. 226).

New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “The term ‘Trinity’ was originated by . . . Tertulian, a Roman Catholic church father. No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the Apostles. . . At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination” (Vol. 1, p. 396).

“Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.” “Trinity,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 782.

“The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma; the Trinity is true, since the Church — the universal Church speaking by its Bishops — says so, though the Bible does not! We have a formula, but what does that formula contain? No child of the Church dare seek to answer.” “Dogma, Dogmatic Theology,” in Encyclopedia

 

[JustHisKid]

Take it up with the Apostle Paul, because he said otherwise...

Paul understands eternal? I don't think so . We know what it is, but we cannot comprehend it.

 

[djkms]

You don't understand the trinity because it was made up. It isn't real. The Godhead can be understood. I will show you later. Paul even says so:

Romans 1:20 KJV
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

If the trinity is made up please explain your reasoning with scripture. By your logic the verses I quoted in my previous post contradict each other. Can the Bible contradict itself?

If you can't back up your statement with scripture than your reasoning holds no water because you are putting mans knowledge above Gods word.

 

[JustHisKid]

Here is something to ponder while we wait:

All of the sources you read from below are Trinitarians. The thing that is striking to me is that they are being honest about the origins of the Trinity of three persons in one essence. You cannot simply go to the Bible and extract this theological position. The prophets, Jesus and the apostles were all believers that God is one single person. As the church tried to explain the relationship between Jesus Christ and God they began to draw from philosophy to arrive at a proper explanation. However, they failed to stay with the simple truth of Scripture that God is one, he is a Spirit that is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the express image of the invisible God. The fulness of the invisible God was manifested through the Son of God.

It is not heresy to question doctrines that are not contained directly in Scripture. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate persons that exist eternally side by side next to each other in fellowship. This is tri-theism not the biblical one true God. Father, Son and Spirit are three different manifestations of the one God. The Father is the source, the invisible one, the creator and the sustainer of all things. The Son is the visible expression and manifestation of the Father. The Son is the visible of the Father. All that the Father is is displayed through the Son. The Holy Spirit is what God is, God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and is the very presence, nature and power of God working in his people. Father, Son and Spirit are not three persons, but three manifestations of the one true and living God. Of course there is much more detail to the doctrine than this, but this is the most basic premise. Read for yourself what the various sources state about the Trinity.

James Hastings: “It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice to the Words of Christ in Matthew 28:19, but the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into’ the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, without any reference to the Father or the Spirit” (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 88).

Scribners: “The original form of words were into the Name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. Baptism into Trinity was a later development” (Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 241).

Canney Encyclopaedia: “The early church always baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity; afterward they were baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” (p. 53).

American Encyclopaedia, International Edition: “The term Trinity was used by Theophilus of Antioch in AD 180? (Vol. 27, p. 116).

Encyclopaedia Britannica: “The triune and Trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman church. Now the formula of Rome is, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost” (11th Ed., Vol. 3, p. 365-366).

Encyclopedia of Religions: “Persons were baptized at first in the Name of Jesus Christ, or ‘in the Name of the Lord Jesus.’ Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (p. 53).

New International Encyclopaedia: “The Trinity doctrine. The Catholic faith is this: ‘We worship one in Trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. The glory equal—the majesty co-eternal.’ The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination” (Vol. 22, p. 476).

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion: “Christian baptism was administered by using the words ‘in the Name of Jesus.’ The use of a Trinity formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used” (Vol. 2, p. 377-378, 389. )

“NAME was an ancient synonym for “Person.” Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ Name became His personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.” (Acts 1:15; Revelation 3:4; I Corinthians 3:23).

LIFE Magazine: “The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary in an article by Graham Green: ‘Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in the Scripture but the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogma as the Trinity for which there exists no such authority in the Gospels’” (October 30, 1950, Vol. 29, Number 18, p. 51).

Catholic Encyclopaedia: “The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman church. Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the church performs, is not true baptism” (Vol. 2, p. 259).

New Catholic Encyclopedia: “With regard to the form used for Baptism in the early church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew (28:19) speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) speak only of Baptism ‘in the Name of Jesus.’ Baptism in titles cannot be found in the first centuries. . .” (McGraw Hill Publishing, p. 59).

William Phillips Hall: “In this very ancient version (Syriac Peschito Version) which is believed by good authorities (Gwilliam, Boners, and others) to represent a text much older that of the Greek manuscript from which our English Old Testament was largely derived, ‘The Name of the Lord Jesus Messiah or Christ’ appears in all four readings given (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5)” (A Remarkable Discovery, p. 70).

International Encyclopaedia: “The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the Apostles’ preachings, as this is reported in the New Testament” (First Edition, Vol. 18, p. 226).

New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “The term ‘Trinity’ was originated by . . . Tertulian, a Roman Catholic church father. No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the Apostles. . . At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination” (Vol. 1, p. 396).

“Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.” “Trinity,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 782.

“The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma; the Trinity is true, since the Church — the universal Church speaking by its Bishops — says so, though the Bible does not! We have a formula, but what does that formula contain? No child of the Church dare seek to answer.” “Dogma, Dogmatic Theology,” in Encyclopedia

I agree that God is not three separate beings standing side by side. God is one. I have no argument with you. This is my understanding of the trinity.

 

[donfish06]

I agree that God is not three separate beings standing side by side. God is one. I have no argument with you. This is my understanding of the trinity.

Please read the whole article, as it shows historically the even the term trinity was not used until the 2-3rd centuries. Neither was any Christian baptized in titles