Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
Does Matthew 28:19, which says, “...in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” teach us that Almighty God is a “TRINITY”?
Those who teach the doctrine of the trinity use verses in the Bible such as Matthew 28:19 and Isaiah 6:3 where patterns of THREE are found or where Almighty God the Father, his Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit are found in the SAME verse to try and support the doctrine of the trinity.
So the question is do these verses clearly and plainly teach us that Almighty God is a “TRINITY”?
Let us begin this study in God's word by reading this verse in question, Matthew 28:19, which is AFTER Jesus was given his new IMMORTAL body of flesh and bone and right before his ASCENSION into heaven.
Here is Matthew 28:16-20.
“Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. (or where Jesus had made an appointment to meet them in a certain place being the mount of Olives where Jesus ascended into heaven in their sight as they watch him being received into the clouds out of sight.)
17. And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted. (Those who teach the doctrine of the trinity and the deity of Jesus use verses like this verse to try and support their teaching that Jesus HIMSELF IS THE one true and only ALMIGHTY God Jehovah, because ONLY God is to be WORSHIPED. Now BEFORE Jesus was GLORIFIED by his Father and HIGHLY EXALTED and GIVEN a NAME above every name Jesus did indeed teach his disciples to worship Almighty God alone. But AFTER Jesus was raised from the dead and GIVEN ETERNAL LIFE by his God and Father in Hebrews 1:6 where we are taught that at the second coming of Jesus all the angels will WORSHIP Jesus the SON OF Almighty God even as they worship Almighty God the Father, then Jesus no longer refused their worship. You see dear child of God we are TAUGHT in the New Testament to honor Jesus, the SON OF Almighty God the Father, EVEN AS we honor the Father. This is the WILL of Almighty God the Father so I myself do not see why WORSHIPING Jesus would in any way prove without fail the Jesus IS THE ALMIGHTY God YAHWEH HIMSELF. To ME if so be that Jesus is THE ALMIGHTY God himself, then that would make Jesus to BE the FATHER HIMSELF. And clearly the whole word of God definitely does NOT teach us that Jesus is the FATHER.)
18. And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is GIVEN UNTO me in heaven and in earth. (In other words, Almighty God the Father GAVE his SON Jesus all power and authority because he pleased his God and Father by becoming OBEDIENT even unto death on the cross to do all his father's WILL. Please read the study “PHILIPPIANS 2:6 - A TRINITARIAN DILEMMA !”)
19. Go you therefore (or for this REASON that Almighty God has GIVEN to me all power and authority go and make disciples in my name.), and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
Now while there are THREE names or titles mention in this verse the actual doctrine of the trinity is not taught. What I mean by this is that if you did not already know the teaching of the doctrine of the trinity you would not come away with the understanding that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God where all are co equal and co eternal from reading Matthew 28:19.
But rather, what we do learn from the context of this verse that all power was GIVEN to Jesus the Son of Almighty God, which CONTRADICTS the CO EQUALITY between Almighty God the Father and his Son Jesus from all eternity past. And even through all power was GIVEN to Jesus BY his God and Father does NOT mean that Jesus was EQUAL to his God and Father. You see dear child of God, the word of truth clearly teaches us that the Father is GREATER than his Son Jesus and that Jesus will always be SUBJECT and UNDER his God and Father the ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God. So the trinity definition of being CO EQUAL to try and prove that Jesus is ALMIGHTY God HIMSELF should be eliminated completely from the doctrine of the trinity. Please read the study "19 THINGS TO PONDER ABOUT JESUS BEING GOD?" and ""IS JESUS ALMIGHTY GOD?" We will get to the error of Jesus being CO ETERNAL with Almighty God the Father further on in this study of God's word.
Also we see in this verse ALONE that Jesus is now giving his disciple AUTHORITY to BAPTIZE in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit, but yet nowhere in the New Testament do we find that the disciples of Jesus ever OBEY their Lord's explicit instructions. Therefore we must ask the question as to WHY? In other words, IF SO BE, Jesus did indeed say these words INSTRUCTING his disciples to BAPTIZE believers in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then WHY do we not see the disciples of Jesus OBEYING these words of the Lord.
Some Bible scholars argue that Matthew 28:19 was ADDED to the original Greek manuscript, while other Bible scholars argue that this verse was OMITTED or rather deleted from some of the Greek manuscripts. What I mean by this is that some Greek manuscripts did indeed in the first three centuries NOT HAVE this verse in those particular manuscripts that were found while other Greek manuscripts that still exist today do have have this verse in the original text. That is to say the original manuscripts that existed in the first three centuries that did NOT have this trinity baptismal formula were either lost or destroyed intentionally or unintentionally. With OTHER manipulations of the New Testament we can NOT rule out the possibility that these earlier manuscripts deliberately destroyed or lost by forbidding them to be read any more.
So the question now becomes was Matthew 28:19 ADDED to some of these manuscripts, OR was this verse DELETED from these other Greek manuscripts by no longer allowing them to be used?
To answer this question we will first look at what the Bible teaches us rather than getting into the argument as to whether or not the trinity baptismal formula was added to the manuscript used today to translate the Bible.
I myself have concluded that IF SO BE verses were ADDED, then do the additions actually CHANGE the true meaning of the context when it is viewed in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of Almighty God? And IF SO BE these verse were DELETED, then do these OMISSIONS take away from the meaning of the context? Please read the study “WHY THE KING JAMES VERSION?”. I myself have always preferred the King James Version over any other translation, because many of the questionable passages of scripture in the King James Version can be interpreted both ways where as other translation can only be understood to be ONE way. And also I myself do agree that I find that some OMISSIONS in OTHER translations of the Bible have indeed affected the meaning of certain verses. What I mean by this is that if the only choice we have is to choose between translations that have ADDED to the word of God and translations that have REMOVED words and even whole verses from the Bible, then WHICH would be better between these two choices? This is why we need to COMPARE different translations and as well take a close look at LITERAL word for word translations. But our first after considering the CONTEXT is to next compare scripture with scripture.
With that being said let us now examine Matthew 28:19 in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. First notice that the word “NAME” is SINGULAR rather than plural or THREE different names. We will come back to this SINGULAR “NAME” after we take a look at HOW the disciples of Jesus BAPTIZED believers in the New Testament. Remember that in Matthew 28:19 Jesus himself specifically states that the disciples are to BAPTIZE in the NAME of the Father, AND of the SON, AND of the Holy Spirit. But in WHAT NAME do the disciples of Jesus ACTUALLY baptize new believers?
Please read Acts 2:29-39, which CLEARLY and PLAINLY teaches us that the disciples and the apostles of Jesus baptized believers in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST and NOT in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit.
30. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God (Almighty God) had sworn with an oath to him, that OF the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, HE (Almighty God the Father) would raise up Christ to sit on HIS throne;
33. Therefore being by the right hand of God EXALTED (You see dear child of God it was only after Jesus became obedient unto death on the cross that his God and Father HIGHLY EXALTED his Son Jesus and gave him a NAME so at the NAME every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord TO the GLORY OF the FATHER. So whenever we HONOR Jesus we HONOR the Father at the same time. See Philippians chapter 2), and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he has shed forth this, which you now see and hear.
34. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he says himself, The LORD (speaking of YHWH or Almighty God the Father) said unto my Lord (prophesying of Jesus coming into existence of being begotten of Almighty God yet in the future from the time this prophesy was written), Sit you on MY right hand,
Here we clearly see that the disciples of Jesus either did not HEAR Jesus teach them to BAPTIZE in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit, or they directly DISOBEYED their Lord's command, OR Jesus never said those words in Matthew 28:19 to baptize believers in this so called "trinity" formula in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Also please read Acts 19:4-6.
“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 (or that is to say that they should believe), on Christ Jesus.
So then, we must ask the QUESTION as to WHY would the very disciples and the apostles of Jesus directly DISOBEY their Lord's instruction as to HOW to baptize believers. This FACT that the disciples and the apostles did NOT BAPTIZE believers in the NAME of the Father, AND of the SON, AND of the Holy Spirit leads me to believe that Matthew 28:19 was ADDED by those who wanted SUPPORT for the doctrine of the trinity, which was heavily opposed throughout the history of the church. But yet even though the doctrine of the trinity was opposed by many Christians who fought against it, those who did support the doctrine of the trinity seemed to have more political influence and thus writings of early believers in Jesus Christ that did not agree exactly with the Roman Catholic church that was beginning to form and grow strong were destroyed by the Roman church. But not ALL of these early church writings were destroyed.
Please consider the early church writing of Eusebius, who quotes Matthew 28:19 quite differently than what we have today. Eusebius writes in the History of the Church the following:
For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
Please notice that this early church writer does NOT quote Matthew 28:19 the way that it is in our Bibles today, but rather clearly states that the rest of the apostles went unto all the nations to preach the gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, WHO had said to them, (and Eusebius QUOTES the words of Jesus as being) “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in MY NAME.” , rather than “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”, OR rather than, "Go and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Eusebius quotes this text in Matthew 28:19 again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, such as in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, and in his famous History of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 in these above early church writings as being: “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”
So this tells me that Esuebius and other Christian believers were reading the gospel of Mathew from a DIFFERENT manuscript than from what we have preserved for us today.
Let us continue to search the evidence. The truth of the matter is that NO manuscript that predates the fourth century contains any words beyond Matthew 26:52. In other words, it can neither be proved nor disproved by looking at just the manuscripts that remain to this day which are dated BEFORE the fourth century, because they do NOT contain chapter 28 of Matthew.
So then, the question arises. Were these original manuscripts deliberate destroyed? That is to say was the last part of Matthew deliberately torn out and destroyed in order to ensure that this new Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity be not questioned when the baptismal trinity formula was added to Matthew 28:19.
Now again from JUST the early church writings in can not be proven either way where this verse was added by some or omitted by others, because other early church writers in the first three century do indeed quote the baptismal formula that we have today in Matthew 28:19.
So all we know for sure is that Eusebius and others did indeed read from a DIFFERENT manuscript that did not contain the trinity formula for baptism.
So then, the next thing to do is to examine both texts in the context and do some other tests to see which text fits the best.
TEST #1. The Test of Context.
“And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is GIVEN UNTO ME in heaven and in earth. (In other words, Almighty God the Father GAVE his SON Jesus all power and authority because he pleased his God and Father by becoming OBEDIENT even unto death on the cross to do all his father's WILL. Again please read the study “PHILIPPIANS 2:6 - A TRINITARIN DILEMMA !”)
19. Go you therefore (or for this REASON of God GIVING me all power and authority go and make disciples in my name.), and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
In many of today's translations we see that all power is given unto ME speaking of Jesus being a single person teaching baptism in THREE with the SINGULAR use of the Greek word translated as NAME and then Jesus goes on to give more instruction in the SINGULAR. In other words, the translations we have today SWITCH back and forth from SINGULAR to plural and back again to SINGULAR, which again raises the question, was this so called trinity baptismal formula ADDED to the text in order to try and prove that God is a "TRINITY".
But in the translation or the manuscript that was used by Eusebius the text is SINGULAR all the way through.
“All power is given unto ME, go ye therefore and make disciples in MY name, teaching them whatsoever I have commanded thee: and lo I am with ye always.”
TEST #2, The Test of Frequency.
Ask yourself the question, Is the phrase “...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” used at any other time in the Bible? The answer is a NO, not even one other time is this so called baptismal formula used any where in the Bible.
Now ask yourself the question, Is the phrase “...in my name” used anywhere else in God's word? The answer is YES! This phrase speaking of Jesus is found 17 times referring to 10 different things done in the AUTHORITY of the NAME of Jesus; Matthew 18:5 / Matthew 18:20 / Matthew 24:5 / Mark 9:39 / Mark 9:41 / Mark 16:17 / John 14:13,14 / John 14:26 / John 15:16 / John 16:23,24,26.
TEST #3. The Test of Doctrine.
What I mean by this is what does the Bible teach us as to WHO was crucified for us? In other words, where there THREE that were crucified for our sins, as in, was Almighty God the Father crucified, AND the Son crucified, AND the Holy Spirit crucified?
Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 1:13 that Jesus Christ is NOT divided.
This teaches us that Jesus Christ was crucified for us and that the disciples of Jesus baptized believers in the NAME of Jesus. Baptism by submersion in water is symbolic to our old man being buried with Jesus Christ in death and then rising again out of death to be a new creation to walk in NEWNESS of LIFE. The Father did not die for us. Nor did the Holy Spirit die for us. But rather it was Jesus, the SON OF Almighty God who died for our sins. Please read Romans 6:3-11, which says,
4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death (referring to the death of the OLD CORRUPTED man of the flesh that has learned to love sin): that (or so that) like as Christ was raised up from the dead BY the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in NEWNESS of LIFE.
11. Likewise reckon you also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord (who died to make us FREE from SIN).”
Almighty God the Father gave us his SON to die for us. That Father wants us to believe in his SON, to HONOR his SON so much so that there is ONLY ONE NAME under heaven given among men whereby we MUST be saved. So whatever we do in the NAME of Jesus, the SON OF Almighty God we do to the GLORY of the FATHER, who IS SPIRIT. Please read Acts 4:10-12.
“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the NAME of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
12. Neither is there salvation in ANY OTHER: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we MUST be saved.”
Now be honest, if so be, that the Greek manuscript that Eusebius used was still present today and there were modern translations of Matthew 28:19 that read the same way as Eusebius and others quoted in the first three centuries of the early church, then it would be easy to understand WHY the disciples baptized believers in the name of Jesus as OPPOSED to the way the Roman Catholic church and other mainstream Protestant church that branch off from the Roman Catholic church baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Now I myself was baptized in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit by submersion in water. And around six months later I was baptized in the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands of and elder brother in the Lord who had the fullness of the Holy Spirit in him with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. So I am not dogmatically teaching that we should be RE baptized or baptized AGAIN in the name of Jesus ONLY in order to be saved, as in, if you were NOT baptized in the name of Jesus ONLY, then you are NOT saved. Some Christians like the Pentecostal Oneness do indeed dogmatically demand that if you are NOT baptized the the name of Jesus ONLY, then you are NOT saved. Now I myself do NOT teach this extreme false doctrine for I KNOW that I am saved having been baptized in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I KNOW that I was saved back when I USED to believe in the doctrine of the trinity and I still yet KNOW that I am saved today after coming to the knowledge of the truth that God is NOT a so called "TRINITY" as some falsely teach. So do NOT be JUDGE by those who say that you are NOT saved when you know that you have repented of your sin and you confess Jesus as the SON OF God who did for your sins.
I personally believe that God looks upon our heart and God knows those who are his and who truly believe that his Son Jesus died for them. So what is important to ME is that we obey the word of God to be baptized in water once we become a believer despite whether or not a believer is baptized in the name of Jesus ONLY or a believer is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the SON, and of the Holy Spirit, because either way you are still baptized in the NAME of the Son, Jesus Christ.
Even the popes in the fourth century were arguing that those who were baptized in the name of Jesus ONLY were genuinely baptized into the body of Jesus Christ, which teaches us that having TWO DIFFERENT translations created unforeseen PROBLEMS that were not anticipated when the original text was ALTERED. Now which way the text was ALTERED is left up to YOU the reader, and seeker of the truth to decide after you have honestly and openly truly considered the WHOLE matter. Was there an ADDITION to the text or was there an OMISSION to the text? Keep reading.
TEST #4. The Test of Comparing the Gospels.
In other words, what do the other gospels say?
Please read Luke 42:44-47.
“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luke teaches us to preach the remission of sins in the NAME of Jesus. Now let us see what the gospel of Mark says. Please read Mark 16:15-18.
Now when Mark and Luke are compare with the writing that Eusebius quoted from we find more harmony in the gospels than with the translation that is used today containing the trinity baptismal formula. But what does Paul teach us? Please read Romans 1:3-5.
“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4. And declared to be the Son of God with POWER, (this agrees with Matthew 28:18, which says, “ALL POWER is GIVEN unto ME” speaking of the SON Jesus being GIVEN all power by his God and Father the one true and only ALMIGHTY God) according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship (this agrees with the great commission to GO YOU into all the world and PREACH the gospel), for obedience to the faith (this agrees with teaching them to OBSERVE all things whatsoever I have commanded you.) among all nations (Agrees with and teach all nations or and make disciples of all nations), for his name:”
But the last phrase that Paul uses ONLY AGREES with the LOST or partially DESTROYED manuscript from which Eusebius and some other early church writers quoted that did NOT have the trinitarian baptismal formula to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Once again Eusebius and some other early church writers quoted Matthew 28:19 as being:
“Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”
This early translation that has now been lost or deliberately destroyed to ME, better harmonizes with the rest of God's word.
Now some of you may not agree and will argue that I am just trying to change the text to fit my own personal interpretation of the scriptures. Some may say that I am suggesting false accusations against the Roman Catholic church for destroying early writings of Christians.
But the evidence is out there if one chooses to look for it and be open to receive it.
Therefore since the evidence speaks for itself it is interesting to NOTE that St Jerome an early church writer canonized by the Roman Catholic church to be a Saint wrote the following:
Matthew, who is also Levi...composed a gospel...in the Hebrew language and characters...Furthermore, the Hebrew ITSELF is preserved to this day in the library at Caesurae which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.
Jerome was born A.D. 331 and died in 420. He wrote many exegetical and controversial treatises and letters, as well as the renowned Latin Vulgate translation of the Scriptures. Also Jerome was very much a believer and teacher of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity, which was still yet developing to what it has become today.
Now Eusebius of Caesurae, who lived between 260 to 340 A.D. inherited from that Pamphilus that famous Library. This library or early church writings was commenced or began to be collected by Origen who lived from 185 to 254 A.D. Please note that the wording of that statement by Jerome apparently meant that the ORIGINAL Hebrew Manuscript of Matthew was still to be seen in the Library at Caesurae at the time of his writing. It could have meant that an early copy of Matthew’s Hebrew writing was there, but the phraseology of Jerome appeared to indicate that it was the actual original Hebrew Manuscript itself that was written by Matthew himself was still yet fully preserved as late as the fourth century, which Eusebius quoted from in his writings.
Now it would not surprise me that a copy at least of the original manuscript written by Matthew still exists even today hidden away in the vast library of the Vatican in Rome. But even if it does not still exist today there is enough evidence for me that clearly shows that it did indeed exist until the mid to late fourth century.
But some still want to argue that Eusebius of Caesurae signed the document at the council of Nicaea accepting the doctrine of the trinity.
However what they do not tell you is that he did so under great pressure and not willingly. Please consider the three sources below:
1. At the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) Eusebius took a leading part...He occupied the first seat to the emperor’s right, and delivered the opening address to Constantine when he took his seat in the council chamber...Eusebius himself has left us an account of his doings with regard to the main object of the council in a letter of explanation to his church at Caesurae...This letter...is written to the Caesareans to explain that he would resist to the last any vital change in the traditional creed of his church, but had subscribed to these alterations, when assured of their innocence, to avoid appearing contentious. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature; Eusebius
2. Our concern here is only with Nicaea as it affected Eusebius...his own account of the matter is transmitted to us...in the letter he addressed to his diocese an explanation of his actions at the Council, for with some misgiving he had signed the document bearing the revised text of the creed he had presented...But being satisfied that the creed did not imply the opposite Sabellian pitfall ...he signed the document. Wallace Hadrill, in ‘Eusebius of Caesurae,’ (1960)
3. The Nicene Council followed, in the summer of A.D. 325. Eusebius, of course, attended and was profoundly impressed by the sight of that majestic gathering...He occupied a distinguished position in the Council; he was its spokesman in welcoming the Emperor...On the next day, as if yielding to those representations, and moved by the express opinion of Constantine, he signed the Creed, and even accepted the anathematism appended to it; but did so, as we gather from his own statement, by dint of evasive glosses which he certainly could not have announced at that time. While then he verbally capitulated in the doctrinal decisions of the Nicene Council...he did so reluctantly, under pressure, and in senses of his own...He knew that he would be thought to have compromised his convictions, and therefore wrote his account of the transaction to the people of his diocese, and, as Athanasius expresses it ‘excluded himself in his own way’. William Bright in his Preface to Burton’s ‘Text of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History’
It may be that Eusebius later became a Roman Catholic to escape being killed.if he were to DENY the doctrine of the trinity and many other believer who were indeed martyred for their DENIAL of the doctrine of the trinity. I do not know. The only thing that we know for SURE is that some of the early church believer read and quoted from a DIFFERENT manuscript than what we have today, because their writings make it clear that the phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” was NOT in the original manuscript from which they read and quoted.
Now it is ALSO very interesting to NOTE that another text in the King James version was without question either ADDED by the Textus Recpetus manuscript or OMITTED by other manuscripts. Please read the study called “1 JOHN 5:7 - AND THESE THREE ARE ONE”.
As always I leave it to YOU the reader and seeker of the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God to decide what you yourself desire to believe. I am here just to present you with the evidence that I myself have found and the conclusion that I have drawn. Please keep in mind that this ONE study is NOT the WHOLE matter concerning the doctrine of the trinity. I encourage you to read ALL the studies on this subject before you make any final conclusions. Below are some other verses used to try and support the doctrine of the trinity. I also highly suggest read the study “WHO IS JESUS” and the list of studies that I have grouped together as being related to this study on the doctrine of the trinity.
Thanks for reading. May God bless you richly as you continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. Below are some other verses that are used to try and support the doctrine of the trinity and the deity of Jesus. There may be other verses which you may be having trouble seeing any other way than what you were dogmatically taught over and over for so long, but I assure you that each and every verse used by those who teach the doctrine of the trinity does indeed have a different meaning that does NOT CONTRADICT any other part of God's word. If there is a verse that I have not listed please do not hesitate to write and let me know. Some verse are included in others studies and they may not appear as an individual study. If there is a verse or verses that you seem to struggle with only being able to see the doctrine of the trinity when you read that particular verse, or passage of scripture, then I implore you to please search out the truth be listening to the other side of the controversy by hearing the WHOLE matter. No one can arrive at the truth by hearing only ONE side of the controversy. I only present you with ALL the evidence that I myself have found and leave it to you to decide what you want to believe.
However, as for ME, I myself can no longer believe in the man made doctrine of the trinity that literally took centuries to be formed and was made or forced to be accepted under the threat of death by the Roman Catholic church.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
RETURN TO HOMEPAGE
Verses used to try and support the doctrine of the trinity.
Thanks for reading. May God bless you richly as you continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus the CHRIST.
RETURN TO HOME PAGE