Is the Trinity True or Untrue

I received an anonymously written and untitled document sometime back that I entitled “Trinity Untrue”. In it the author made certain statements that he claimed disproved the doctrine of the Trinity of God—the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The treatise allowed me to address the Trinitarian perspective in the form of a rebuttal or polemic, which similarly turns out to be a good study of the Trinity. The author of the document begins thus:

The Three In One is this really what the Bible teaches us or is it church philosophy? Let’s search the scriptures of the Bible carefully and see the words of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

I certainly agree that we must test all doctrines with the light of Scripture. Let us view the listed scripture: 2Ti 2:15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” This tells us to not only correctly understand and teach the word of God, but tells us also to apply ourselves to the work of God so that we may do His work unabashedly and without the shame that comes from not being in God’s will. To “rightly divide” the Word of God, which is truth, means to study it in such a manner that the truth will be evident. It does not mean, as some are wont to advocate, cutting the scriptures into sections, or into dispensations. It means, simply, handling the Word correctly. Still, we must not consider this verse without considering the context.

Since this verse is at the beginning of a thought, or paragraph if you will, the context of the sentence follows but does not precede our verse. The context of the paragraph may be taken from the previous paragraph, which context is our faith. So, our faith is involved in this right division of the Word. We will speak more on that later, for we are concerned here with the context of our verse. The context of this verse is borne out by the following three verses: 2Ti 2:16-18, “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (17) And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; (18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” Quite simply, the context is one of not erring when studying the scriptures. Vain babblings are empty arguments about Biblical truths. Our discourse could sink to that level if we allow it to. Let us not allow it. Verses 17 and 18, tell us what the consequences of incorrectly studying the Scriptures can be.

In summary, we must study the Word correctly. We must do so with faith. And we must not do so in a way that becomes vain or empty. Argument for the sake of argument alone is a vain undertaking. Such a vain undertaking will detract from learning the truth.

I will attempt to rebut the arguments against the Trinity contained in our document in a way that is not vain. I will attempt to explain scripture with other scripture when possible. I undertake this enterprise with all humility and respect for the writer and will attempt to show the love of Christ in my rebuttal.

For my first argument, I will put forth faith as the most important principle in the study of God’s Word. Much of the understanding we have of the Scriptures comes from our faith. If we lack faith that the Bible is the Word of the God of Truth, then our understanding will certainly pale. For an example from life, I will use myself. During my prodigal years, I was a total atheist in my behavior. I behaved like God did not exist and I was aggressive in my disdain for Christians and the Christian message. The Bible was unreadable to me. After I repented and turned my life over to Christ, trusted Him as my Savior, and He became the Lord of my life, things changed. Suddenly the Bible was open to me and I had understanding of it. I attribute that directly to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in my life. It was my faith that enabled the understanding.

In order to truly rightly divide the word of truth, we must first have faith in its Author. We must believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that God dictated that Word to men by inspiration of the Spirit. Until we believe this to be true, then we can never be sure if what the Bible says is true. We will look to men who call themselves scholars for our truth about the Bible. We will seek all sorts of worldly answers to our questions about the Scriptures.

Let us begin. Scriptures are in blue and red.  Indented paragraphs contain quotes from the document “Trinity Untrue,” which are in set in monotype:

First let’s look at the author of the books in the New Testament. The Book of Mark is generally considered to be the oldest of the four Gospels and yet it is believed among Bible scholars that the author Mark was too young to have known Jesus. Mark wrote 8.5 percent of the New Testament. Matthew and Luke relied heavily on the Gospel of Mark. Peter called Mark his “son” possibly because Mark was converted to Christianity under Peter’s ministry (1 Peter 5:13). Mark traveled with Paul (Acts 12:25).

That all the Gospel writers depended on one source for their works is a theory propounded by some in modern scholarship. By modern scholarship, I mean from the eighteenth century to the present. There is no proof of such a document, not in the Bible, not in secular history, not in the most ancient manuscripts extant. Secular Bible scholars refer to this document as “Q” for quelle, which is the German word for source. Q was supposedly a collection of the sayings or supposed sayings of Christ. In other words Q was a supposed collection of myths about what Christ did and said. These scholars claim that Mark took his Gospel from Q and then the other Gospel writers followed Mark’s Gospel and expounded upon it. Q is and always will be just a theory. This sounds quite plausible when seen through the lens of the world. But it belies the truth. To claim that the Gospel writers put forth possibly forged documents that were taken from a collection of myths about Christ, actually means the Bible is not true and that the Gospels are simply stories and not facts. If one does not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then such arguments complement that person’s agenda. But for a person that truly believes in the inerrancy of Scripture this theory is preposterous.

Who said that Matthew and Luke relied heavily on Mark? Again, those scholars who claim that all the Gospels came from the fabled Q. It is not a proven fact that Matthew and Luke relied heavily on Mark’s Gospel; it is just a theory. If it is a fact, then Luke was a liar, for he said about his Gospel, “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,”. Luke researched these things and set them in order. If he merely copied them from Mark, then he lied and his Gospel is worthless because he is a liar. Again, this is absurd. As a believer that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, such thinking is ludicrous to me. If it is indeed inspired and inerrant, then Luke must have been truthful. The fact is, Mark’s Gospel may be the most ancient, but that is not grounds to disannul the other Gospels, or to call into question their legitimacy. This argument, then, that the Gospels all came from the same source document, is erroneous.

As for Mark not knowing Jesus, many scholars and commentators claim that the person discussed in this scripture, Mark 14:51-52, “And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: {52} And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked,” is Mark. If so, Mark was present when they arrested, tried, and executed Jesus.

Paul, who never knew Jesus except in a spiritual sense, wrote more of the New Testament than any other individual, 28.3 percent.

Luke, author of his gospel and also the author of Acts wrote 27.7 percent of the New Testament. And like Paul, Luke apparently did not know Jesus. The writing of Paul and Luke account for over half of the New Testament.

What is the point of these arguments? They are arguments designed to cast aspersions on the Scriptures. They are designed to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of those who read them. They have nothing to do with whether or not the Trinity is the truth or a tradition. Nor do they have anything to do with the veracity of Scripture. However, we will examine them.

To say that Paul only knew Jesus in a Spiritual sense is misleading. To begin with, knowing Jesus spiritually is not a thing to be taken lightly. Knowing Him spiritually is far more intimate than knowing him physically. To make it seem that knowing Jesus spiritually is somehow less than knowing Him physically is another argument designed to cast doubt upon the Scripture. Let us examine this “spiritual” relationship between Paul and Jesus.

Acts 9:3-6 “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: {4} And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? {5} And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. {6} And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.“

Pretty traumatic for a “spiritual” sense isn’t it? Paul saw Jesus, heard His voice, and was physically blinded by His presence. None of the men who knew Jesus when He was a man on the earth was ever blinded by His presence. They saw Him and Heard Him and spoke to Him just as Paul did on the road to Damascus. Yet, they only saw Him in the flesh—in His humanity. Paul saw Him an all His glory. It was that glory, the shekina (from shakan, שׁכנ, to dwell, defined as the visible presence of God) that blinded Paul.

Not only Did Jesus appear to Paul and speak to him, but Jesus also appeared to Ananias in Damascus and talked about this affair in the desert: Acts 9:11-16, “And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, {12} And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. {13} Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: {14} And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. {15} But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: {16} For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. “

We find here that Jesus also told Paul about Ananias and that Ananias would heal Paul’s blindness. This is quite an experience for a merely spiritual experience, is it not? Paul had another encounter with Christ. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. {3} And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) {4} How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.“

Paul was taken to heaven where he learned much. Most of what he learned is unspeakable, that is, He could not put it into words because it was so powerful. I daresay that Paul knew more about Christ that any of the other Apostles.

Yes, it is uncertain whether Luke knew Jesus. If he did not, he thoroughly researched Jesus’ life and wrote a history of that life. The argument that Luke wrote over 27% of the New Testament has nothing to do with whether or not the Scriptures are inspired. If Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit, (and I believe he was) then everything he wrote is true. The parts of Scripture he wrote are his Gospel and the Book of Acts. His Gospel was thoroughly researched and it was inspired. The Acts is a historical account of the travels of the Apostles, and especially Paul. Luke was with Paul at least until he arrived in Rome for his trial.

Was John of Revelation the “John” of the fourth Gospel? Was he the same “John” of First, Second and Third John? Authorities differ on the answers to these questions.

What authorities? Again they are those same modern scholars who put forth the Q theory. These are scholars that did not or do not believe in the inspiration of the scriptures, all of which were or are liberal. There are authorities like Burgon, Scrivener, Bruce, Hills, and other conservatives, that had no problem accepting John as the author of the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Revelation. Those men who believe that God has preserved His Word through the ages support John as the author of all four writings. Those who are theological liberals and do not believe in the inspiration or preservation of scripture do not support this fact. Some believed only that the autographs were inspired and that man transmitted the scriptures through the ages in a fallible manner.

If you will examine the writings in the Gospel of John, and the epistles, you will find remarkable similarities in the style. To me, it is obvious that the same man authored John, and First, Second, and Third John. As for Revelation, early authorities attest that John the Apostle wrote this book as well as the other three. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, 170 AD; Eusebius, 180 AD; Clement, 200 AD; Tertullian, 220 AD; Origin, 233 AD; Hippolytus, 240 AD, all attest to the fact that John the Apostle (the Divine) wrote Revelation.

Who wrote for Peter and John, as the scriptures say that they were unlearned and ignorant men (Acts 4:13)?

This is a good place to note that this question has apparently accepted the validity of the Bible where it says that Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant men. This is another question designed solely to throw doubt upon the Bible. The fact that both Peter and John were uneducated and ignorant men, and yet wrote their epistles intelligibly, is proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of God. How could an uneducated man write prose as eloquently as both Peter and John? They could not. But through the inspiration of the Spirit, they became articulate and learned. With God all things are possible (Mark 10:27).

The Bible states, in Acts 4:13, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” In context, these “unlearned and ignorant men” stood before a crowd of thousands and spoke with authority. The witnesses themselves were questioning how “unlearned and ignorant men” could speak with such authority. The fact is, though they were “unlearned and ignorant men,” they did speak with authority. It was a fact established by the thousands of witnesses to the event.

Note also that the Bible does not say that they could not read or write. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 21a, public schools for children 6 and over were provided in every town. The parents of Jewish children, especially boys, desired for them to read and write in order to be able to read the Torah. The public schools addressed that desire. It is simply probable that both Peter and John could read and write. Perhaps not well, but they could do so. Peter made many references to scripture in his speeches in Acts. We can deduce that Peter was conversant with them because he had read them.

Yet, it matters not, for the Holy Spirit could have inspired their literacy through His indwelling. Additionally, even if they could not read or write, they could have dictated their words to a scribe. Paul, who was certainly an educated man (he would qualify for a doctorate today), still dictated much of his writings to a scribe. Timothy wrote for him as did Titus and Mark. Luke, a medical doctor, was also educated and yet he also dictated to a scribe. There were many Christian men of integrity that could be trusted to write exactly what was dictated to them.

The New Testament is an anthology bringing together the stories and recollections of their individual authors.

This is only an opinion, and I completely disagree with it. This is a faith issue. I believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible and that every word in it is true. It is not simply a collection of stories or yarns or myths collated into a coherent form. This is another theory of those men who do not believe in the inspiration of scripture. There are as many conservative scholars who would disagree with this statement as those liberals who would make it. Peter himself, who seems to merit a modicum of legitimacy in the “Trinity Untrue” document, wrote about this very subject. Here is what he had to say:

2 Peter 1:16-18 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. {17} For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. {18} And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Peter said that the things that he, John, and the other Apostles wrote and spoke were not an anthology of stories and recollections, but were first hand eyewitness accounts of the things they saw and heard.

Are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost one? Jesus said, whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him: neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matt 12:32, Mk 3:29, Luke 12:10).

I suppose the point of this question is that because Jesus delineated between the Father, Son, and Spirit, then the Trinity cannot be true. We will tackle this issue in depth with each point made from this point onward.

First John (5:7) reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This means that if you blasphemy (sic) one you would blasphemy (sic) all three and therefore could not be forgiven. Jesus referred to himself as the son of man (Mat 8:20, Mk 20:1O; Lk 5:24, John 3:13) according to the scripture as the “son of man” Jesus could not be God “God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent (Number 23:19).

We must dissect this is in order to comment on it. Let us take the first part, First John (5:7) reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.“¹ Look at it. This is considered by many to be one of the great proof texts in the Bible of the trinity. It states, straight up, that the Father, the Son, and Spirit are one.

The second part states, “This means that if you blasphemy (sic) one you would blasphemy (sic) all three and therefore could not be forgiven.” If this is that case, then the Bible is wrong in places where the three persons of the Godhead (as Paul refers to the Trinity) act independently and separately of each other. Using the logic indicated here, we must also state that when Jesus the Son was baptized, then so were the Father and the Spirit. We must also assert that all Three were crucified at Calvary, and that all Three were born to Mary. We cannot state this and have it in concert with the Bible.

Let me take my first example. After John baptized the Son, and when He came up out of the water, the Spirit came upon Him in the appearance of a dove and His Father’s voice spoke from heaven. Here the Father is in Heaven, the Spirit is flying in the air, and Jesus is standing wet upon the ground. They are shown here as Three separate Persons.

I will explain the seeming difficulty. The Bible tells us that a person must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. It also tells us that no man can come to the Father except through Christ John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The scripture further explains that a man in his flesh cannot come to the Son and believe of his own accord. The Father must draw men to Him: John 6:44 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Spirit does the drawing: Romans 8:7-14 “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {8} So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. {9} But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. {10} And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. {11} But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. {12} Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. {13} For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. {14} For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.“

In these verses, we see the Three Persons of the Godhead. The Son is the way to the Father and the Father must draw men unto Christ. Yet, the Spirit does the actual drawing. Without the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing us to the Christ, then the work of the Father and the Son is in vain. For if the Spirit does not do His work, then the Father cannot draw us, and the Son cannot save us. It is the Holy Spirit, then, that is the most important person in the work of salvation, because without Him, we would never know about the other two.

So if we say a word against the Father and the Son before we truly know them, then that makes no difference to our salvation. However, if we speak against, or reject, the leading of the Holy Spirit, then we will never know the Father or come to the Son for salvation, and that cannot be forgiven us. We must not speak against or reject the Holy Spirit because that will prevent us from knowing the Father and being saved by the Son. If we are not saved, we are eternally unforgiven and will perish in the Lake of Fire.

Finally, let us examine the clause, “Jesus referred to himself as the son of man (Mat 8:20, Mk 20:1O; Lk 5:24, John 3:13) according to the scripture as the “son of man” Jesus could not be God “God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent (Number 23:19) (sic).” Of course, logic does not work in this way. You cannot logically make the connection that if He called Himself the “son of man” He cannot be God. He could logically be both. Jesus was both God and Man. He was born of a Woman and of the Seed of God. He is a hybrid, a God-Man. The scripture refers to Jesus in both Testaments as Immanuel, which means “God with us”. John says that Jesus was both with God in the beginning and He was God.

In Numbers 23:19, taken in context, Yehovah is making the case (through the mouth of Balaam) that since He is not a man, nor was he born of woman, then He was God and since He was God, He could not lie or turn back on His word (repent). At the end of the treatise, I will further discuss Jesus as God.

In John (14:28) Jesus says “my Father is greater than I.” In Matthew (20:23), Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father when he says “to sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give, but it is prepared of my Father”. (John 5:30, 7:16, 28). In the Gospel of John, Jesus indicates he is to be distinguished from God: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman” (John 15:1). Also Paul, in his epistle makes the point that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:28; 8:11; 1O:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15; 2 Cor 4:14). Logic indicates God and Jesus were not the same in Paul’s view since he proclaimed God raised Jesus from the dead.

These statements are all true and they are not contradictory to the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine, based on scriptures exactly like these mentioned here, states that there are Three Persons of the Godhead, and they are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If they are Three distinct Persons, then the alleged problems with these statements of Jesus disappear. Another point to understand is that Jesus was both man and God. When He walked the Earth, He was in the flesh, a man just like you and I. As a man, the Father was Greater than He. As a man, the Father had to raise him from the dead. As distinct persons of the Godhead, there is no problem with the Father being the farmer and the Son being the vine. There is also no problem with the Father determining who may sit at the right hand of the Son.

It is not Paul’s view that Jesus was not God. Paul said in Colossians 2:8-9 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {9} For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.“

Here is Paul’s statement of the Trinity: 1 Timothy 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Here we see God manifest (visible, apparent, obvious, evident, etc.) in the flesh. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. This statement of Paul explains that Jesus was God in the flesh and that Spirit was necessarily and justly in Him.

Paul states emphatically that Jesus is God: Philippians 2:5-8 “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: {6} Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: {7} But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: {8} And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.“

Further, Jesus did not ascend after his resurrection to blend back into the Godhead. Had he been God on earth the ascension would have been back to his position as God. Jesus distinct from the Father now is sitting on the right hand of God (Mark 16:19). In Acts 7:55 Jesus is standing on the right hand of God.

No, He went back to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father and make intercession for our sins. Romans 8:34 “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” He was already God before He ascended therefore there was no need for him to blend (see Philippians 2:5-8 above).

“Had he been God on earth the ascension would have been back to his position as God.” Why? If the Godhead is Three Persons, then He ascended back to His position as second Person of the Trinity, which he always had and still has. There is a fallacy in this logic. The supposed proof that the Godhead is untrue is based on the assumption that the Godhead is untrue. This is circular reasoning.

Yes, Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity is at the right hand of God. Based upon all of our scriptural proof given until this point, there is no problem with Jesus sitting or standing at the right hand of God the Father. We may apply this same logic to the remaining arguments:

When the book of life is opened Jesus will act as an intercessor in our behalf (1 John 2:1; Rom 8:34′ Heb 7:25). There is one God Paul said, “And one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim 2:5).

After the kingdom of God has been perfected through the efforts of Christ it is written “then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).

And last we rely on the words of Jesus which show his distinctness beyond reasonable doubt: “Why callest thou me good?” he said, “None is good save one, that is, God” (Luk 18:19).

If the Trinity is true, and we have seen scriptural proofs of its truth, then these statement all pale when seen in the light of Scripture. There is no problem with any one of these statements in the light of the Trinity. These scriptures lead precisely to the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet they are being heralded here as contradicting the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity overturns these objections.

We have one other possibility: If Jesus was God then, Mary was the mother of God. Since Mary had other children, they would be half-brothers and sisters to God whose descendants may be living among us today.

Mary was the mother of Jesus, the Christ, the God-Man. She was mother of the humanity of God. But since God is eternal, then He has no mother. Again, Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity made Himself of no reputation and took on the likeness of a man. It was this man to whom Mary gave birth.

The Bible is very clear that all who believe on Jesus Christ are His brethren. If you like, we are brothers with God, for Jesus is God. Our belief in Christ makes us sons of God. As sons, we are brethren.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

1 John 3:1-2 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. {2} Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Clearly the New Testament depicting the unity and disunity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is most contradictory; the confusion concerning the Trinity is understandable. The choice remains with the individual and their relationship with God.

Clearly not. The unity and disunity of the Three Persons of the Trinity is not contradictory, nor is it confusing. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are all of the Godhead, then their unity as God is not contradictory. In addition, if the Father, Son, and Spirit are all distinct Persons of the Godhead, then their disunity is not confusing. The Three are both God and at the same time Three distinct Persons.

There is a shining example of this in the Old Testament. It is the story of Joseph:

Genesis 41:39-44 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art: {40} Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. {41} And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. {42} And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; {43} And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. {44} And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.

Pharaoh was ruler over all Egypt. He made Joseph ruler over all Egypt. Joseph was equal to Pharaoh except in the throne. Pharaoh still sat upon the throne, and yet Joseph was ruler. Pharaoh did not give up his throne or his rule; he was still in charge. Joseph was still equal to Pharaoh in his rule. Even though he was Pharaoh, Joseph had all of his authority and power. Two persons, one rule.

Consider the hen’s egg. It is one item. Yet it is also the eggshell, the egg white, and an egg yolk. It consists of three distinct parts, but it is one item. Separate the parts and it is no longer a whole egg. It is then a separate eggshell, a separate egg white, and a separate egg yolk. It is still an egg, but in three parts.

To prove the Divinity of Christ, I will discuss a few scriptures.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It is a distinct fact that John is referring to Christ when he refers to the Word or the divine λογος (logos). Read my study entitled “The Memra” for proof of this. John said that Jesus existed at the beginning (Genesis 1:1). This implies eternal existence; He was not created, He existed. John also tells us that Jesus was with God in the beginning. And finally, he tells us that Jesus was God.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

In the Greek we have εαν γαρ μη πιστευσητε οτι εγω ειμι αποθανεισθε εν ταις αμαρτιαις υμων (ean gar me pisteusete hoti ego eimi apothaneisthe en tais hamartiais humon), which reads, literally, “for as not you believe that I Am you will die in the sins yours”. I wrote the Greek to note that the word “he” in the KJV (which is italicized) is not in the original Greek. It simply says “for if ye believe not that I Am, ye shall die in your sins.”

Now, “I Am” is the exact phrase God used for His own Name when He spoke to Moses from the burning Bush: Exodus 3:13-14 “And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? {14} And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” Both the modern Greek Bible (Vamvas) and the the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), translate the Hebrew words אהיה אשׁר, (heyah asher), meaning I Am, as εγο ειμι, ego eimi, also meaning I Am.

It is mentioned again in Isaiah 43:10 “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Here we note that the word “am” is italicized. But the Hebrew is emphatic: אני הוא, (ani-hua), meaning “I Am.” The Septuagint translates this phrase, ani-hua, as εγω ειμι, ego eimi, “I Am”.

The same is true of the next several verses. All quote Jesus as saying, I Am. The context in each case shows that the Jews considered it blasphemous when Jesus said “I Am.” They understood that He was claiming equality with God and considered that blasphemy.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

John 18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

John 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:

In every case above, the Bible quotes Jesus claiming the Name of God for Himself. This really comes down to faith. It is ultimately your faith (or lack of) that determines whether you believe what the Bible says or not. If you believe, as many liberal theologians do, that the Bible is just a collection of stories, myths and recollections, then you will not accept what I have written here. Even if you believe that God inspired the original writers but do not believe that God has preserved His words down through the ages up until this day, then you may not accept what I have written.

But, if, like millions of Bible believers have down through the ages, you believe that God not only inspired His words, but that He also preserved His words, then you will accept what the Bible says about the Deity of Christ and about the Trinity. You will understand that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and plenary (complete) Word of God.

I am a believer and I believe in the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and plenary Word of God. Therefore, I see all of those scriptures here intended to disprove the Trinity as proof of the Trinity. The choice is yours.

Do you believe in the Word of God or not? If you are a believer in Christ, and you base your eternal life on what the Bible says about salvation, then how can you not believe that the entire Bible is true. In other words, if the parts about salvation are true, why is not the whole Bible true? Conversely, if you do not believe that the entire Bible is true, but that only parts of are true, then which part is true and which is not? Moreover, how do you tell the difference? How do you know that the part that teaches how to be saved is true? What if it is wrong?

I personally have faith that the Bible is the true Word of God and is without error. When I find a seeming contradiction, my faith allows me to not worry about it. If God does not show me the truth about the offending passage at that moment, my faith tells me that He may show me the truth about it in the future. Furthermore, if He never shows me, then my faith allows me to be unconcerned about it, for I know there is no contradiction even though there seems to be one. God’s Words are true and He has preserved them. Therefore, I need not worry.

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.