WeOrthodox
EN UA
Eastern Orthodoxy Daily He/Who/Is with TimothyNegrete, Disgruntled Docs Instagram

The Trinity as Biblical Doctrine, Not Catholic Invention

The speaker argues that the doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in Scripture rather than being a later Catholic development. The Bible presents one God existing in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This teaching appears in the Old Testament through several foreshadowings.

God speaks in plural language, the angel of the Lord appears as God himself, and the Spirit of God is present from the creation account. These elements indicate a plurality within the one God from the beginning. The speaker maintains that the Trinity represents the apostolic faith, preserved continuously by the church since the start of Christianity.

The argument counters the claim that the Trinity was invented by the Catholic Church, asserting instead that it is the original Christian understanding of God drawn from biblical revelation.

Key moments

  1. The Trinity is not a Catholic invention.
  2. The Bible teaches there is one God and three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  3. The Old Testament foreshadows the Trinity with God speaking in the plural, the angel of the Lord appearing as God, and the Spirit of God present from creation.
  4. The Trinity is the apostolic faith preserved by the church since the beginning of Christianity.
14 opinions in the discussion 7 participants, 11 replies to each other The opinion with the most support "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7 Read the discussion
40 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 14

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#2655

    "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

    • opinion#2657

      That is NOT what that verse says. It actually reads "There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree."

    • opinion#2658

      You're a Mormon. 1 John 5:7 is clear

  • opinion#2656

    ISAIAH 48:16, roughly 800 years BEFORE Christ: "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; FROM THE TIME THAT IT WAS, THERE AM I: and now THE LORD GOD (Father), AND HIS SPIRIT (Holy Spirit), HATH SENT ME (Son/Jesus)."

  • opinion#2654

    Peter never preached the Trinity, he didn't preach three persons, and none of the disciples ever preached that. Paul never preached it either. It's another doctrine. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, he knew exactly who he was, and they never used any of that to preach three persons about who Jesus was. If anyone preaches another gospel, let them be accursed. But on the day of Pentecost, what did Peter preach to people from every nation? Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And right after that Peter went to the temple and literally said in the name of Jesus Christ rise up and walk. That name is the authority, that name is the power, that name is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Quoting Father, Son, Holy Ghost has no power behind it, but the name of Jesus does. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved. God himself became our Savior, manifested as the man Christ Jesus.

    • opinion#2659

      Regarding Revelation 5, if you say the Lamb (between the throne and the four living creatures) is Jesus and the Father (who sits on the throne) is also Jesus, then you get Jesus standing and sitting next to himself at the same time. Modalism is incoherent. Revelation 5:6-12

    • opinion#2660

      Revelation 4:1-3: one throne and one seated on the throne, the Lamb and the glory of God.

    • opinion#2661

      I love how you completely ignored the text and made scripture contradict itself. You have to show harmony in scripture and demonstrate how the text doesn't create problems for your view. You didn't do that, you ran. For example, Rev 4:1-3 actually proves the trinity, because Revelation 3:21, the verse right before your passage, Jesus says "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." Wait a minute, if there's only one throne, why does Jesus distinguish his throne from his Father's? "My throne, sat down WITH MY FATHER ON HIS THRONE." I thought Jesus WAS the Father? Did he forget? This is why you read in context. How does him sitting on the throne make him the Father? That doesn't even follow logically, that would make us Jesus since we'll sit on his throne too. And how is he sitting and standing next to himself at the same time? That would make him two persons. Do you have two fathers? Do you believe in two Jesus's? Mental gymnastics.

    • opinion#2662

      We can go in circles or we can go to what Peter preached. Baptize in the name of Jesus. No baptism saying Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

    • opinion#2663

      No, we don't need to go in circles, we need to go to the text you keep trying to run from, and you need to stop rebelling against what God has PLAINLY SPOKEN. I'm not letting you deflect and hide. If you want to go to other passages later, fine, but only once you A) show you can STAY ON TOPIC and B) deal with the actual text AT HAND. So again: how many Jesus's do you believe in? How many fathers do you have? How can Jesus sit and stand next to himself at the same time, and why does Jesus clearly DISTINGUISH HIS THRONE from his Father's? Let's see if you know your bible.

    • opinion#2664

      In Revelation 5:6-12, from a Oneness perspective, John is seeing a symbolic vision of the one God revealed through Jesus Christ. The Lamb represents the humanity of Jesus, which was slain for our redemption, while the one seated on the throne represents His eternal deity. The Lamb having the seven Spirits of God shows the fullness of God's Spirit in Christ. When the Lamb takes the book from the one on the throne, it symbolizes Christ's redemptive work and authority, not two separate divine persons. The vision shows the distinction between Christ's deity and humanity, not a division within the Godhead.

    • opinion#2665

      Perfect! Now you have a HUGE dilemma! Remember what you just said: the Lamb represents the "humanity of Jesus" while the deity is the "one seated." Big problem: you've just accused the apostles and all of creation of outright blasphemy, because Rev 5:8 says "when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb." So they're worshipping and bowing down to a MERE MAN. You just said the Lamb is his humanity and his deity is elsewhere on the throne. So the oneness hermeneutic falls apart at the seams. You've split Jesus in half and have the apostles worshipping a mere man devoid of deity.

    • opinion#2666

      Being born again is something this denominational world gets wrong, and it's a key thing Christians miss. The term BORN AGAIN: to do something again there has to be a previous form that mirrors it. In John 3 when Jesus talks about being born again, look at the physical birth: when a baby is born the water breaks (born of water), and what does everyone listen for when the baby comes out? A cry. If the baby isn't crying something's wrong, but if you hear crying you know the baby has life, a new life born. So when Jesus says flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, you must be born again, he's saying the spiritual birth is supposed to reflect the physical one. Born of water, baptism in the name of Jesus, and spirit, speaking in tongues for the first time, God speaking through you in the spiritual world. That's BORN AGAIN.

    • opinion#2667

      I'm guessing you responded to the wrong person? That has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and it doesn't fix the fact that the oneness Pentecostal hermeneutic commits itself to blasphemy regarding Rev 5, especially verse 8, which I demonstrated in my last response.