Which is right, the original Judeo-Christian authors or philosophical thought Centuries after the original writings were lost?

[My Rock]

The early Judeo-Christian manuscripts, primarily written by the apostles and early Jewish followers of Christ, originated within a strict monotheistic tradition deeply rooted in Jewish thought, expressing an inseparable, undivided view of God’s nature. While these original texts were considered inspired, they were eventually lost to time, mainly due to fragile materials, heavy use, persecution, and the passage of centuries. A few early manuscript fragments exist, but the complete originals did not survive. This loss led to a growing reliance on copied manuscripts and later doctrinal interpretations that increasingly diverged from early Jewish monotheism.

The shift from a strictly monotheistic perspective to a Trinitarian interpretation can be traced to the influence of Greek philosophical thought, especially in the Roman Empire, where the early church gradually distanced itself from its Jewish roots. Greek philosophy, with its concepts of plurality within unity and metaphysical distinctions, became influential, as exemplified by thinkers like Origen of Alexandria (185–253 AD) and Tertullian (160–225 AD), who first used the term Trinitas. This influence accelerated with the Roman Emperor Constantine, who called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This council, convened in Nicaea (modern-day İznik, Turkey), sought to resolve conflicts, particularly with Arianism—a view that saw Jesus as a created being distinct from the Father.

The Nicene Creed, formulated in 325 AD and later expanded in 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople, emphasized the concept of Jesus as “begotten, not made,” co-eternal with the Father, laying the groundwork for the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine established a formalized belief in three co-equal persons within one Godhead, which diverged sharply from the indivisible oneness taught in early Jewish monotheism and the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

Historically, this adoption of Greek-influenced terminology and thought marked a theological departure from the original Judeo-Christian view. Jewish-Christian monotheism emphasized a single, undivided God (Deuteronomy 6:4), while the Trinitarian model suggested a God comprised of multiple persons. For many early Christians, especially those of Jewish origin, this was foreign to the original teachings of Scripture and appeared to introduce division within God’s nature. The adoption of Trinitarian doctrine, influenced by Greek philosophy, has since been a significant source of debate, with Oneness theology advocating for a return to the early, monotheistic understanding of God’s nature as wholly unified and undivided.

In summary, the loss of original texts, combined with the Hellenization of early Christianity, led to doctrinal shifts that reshaped Christianity, moving it away from its strictly monotheistic Jewish origins and into a framework that allowed for an interpretation of God as a Trinity, which diverges from the original apostolic understanding.

 

[Free]

The early Judeo-Christian manuscripts, primarily written by the apostles and early Jewish followers of Christ, originated within a strict monotheistic tradition deeply rooted in Jewish thought, expressing an inseparable, undivided view of God’s nature. While these original texts were considered inspired, they were eventually lost to time, mainly due to fragile materials, heavy use, persecution, and the passage of centuries. A few early manuscript fragments exist, but the complete originals did not survive. This loss led to a growing reliance on copied manuscripts and later doctrinal interpretations that increasingly diverged from early Jewish monotheism.

The shift from a strictly monotheistic perspective to a Trinitarian interpretation can be traced to the influence of Greek philosophical thought, especially in the Roman Empire, where the early church gradually distanced itself from its Jewish roots. Greek philosophy, with its concepts of plurality within unity and metaphysical distinctions, became influential, as exemplified by thinkers like Origen of Alexandria (185–253 AD) and Tertullian (160–225 AD), who first used the term Trinitas. This influence accelerated with the Roman Emperor Constantine, who called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This council, convened in Nicaea (modern-day İznik, Turkey), sought to resolve conflicts, particularly with Arianism—a view that saw Jesus as a created being distinct from the Father.

The Nicene Creed, formulated in 325 AD and later expanded in 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople, emphasized the concept of Jesus as “begotten, not made,” co-eternal with the Father, laying the groundwork for the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine established a formalized belief in three co-equal persons within one Godhead, which diverged sharply from the indivisible oneness taught in early Jewish monotheism and the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

Historically, this adoption of Greek-influenced terminology and thought marked a theological departure from the original Judeo-Christian view. Jewish-Christian monotheism emphasized a single, undivided God (Deuteronomy 6:4), while the Trinitarian model suggested a God comprised of multiple persons. For many early Christians, especially those of Jewish origin, this was foreign to the original teachings of Scripture and appeared to introduce division within God’s nature. The adoption of Trinitarian doctrine, influenced by Greek philosophy, has since been a significant source of debate, with Oneness theology advocating for a return to the early, monotheistic understanding of God’s nature as wholly unified and undivided.

In summary, the loss of original texts, combined with the Hellenization of early Christianity, led to doctrinal shifts that reshaped Christianity, moving it away from its strictly monotheistic Jewish origins and into a framework that allowed for an interpretation of God as a Trinity, which diverges from the original apostolic understanding.

Sorry, but this entire post is one of fallaciously begging the question, which is done several times. You're beginning with the assumption that Jesus's followers, including the apostles, held a unitarian view of God in order to conclude the same. They may have started with that as Jews, but the strength of the biblical evidence is that they believed in a multiplicity within the one God. You're also assuming that the doctrine of the Trinity is not monotheistic, but it absolutely is.

Included in that is your claim that "Jewish-Christian monotheism emphasized a single, undivided God (Deuteronomy 6:4)," But, I have dealt with this before with you. The Shema is a statement of monotheism only--one true God--not the nature of God; there is nothing in it to suggest that God is only one person, or two, or three, or a hundred. The sooner anti-Trinitarians stop conflating monotheism with the nature of God, the better, for their sake.

Then, there is:

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
...
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

These unequivocally show that both the Father and the Son were involved in creation, as was the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2).

 

[My Rock]

If God the Father and God the Son existed eternally and always how come we don't see any interaction whatsoever between them in the OT, which is a schoolmaster to bring us to christ?

A very valid question to raise regarding the Trinitarian understanding of God is why the Old Testament, which serves as a foundation and "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" (Galatians 3:24), does not display ANY explicit interaction between "God the Father" and "God the Son." In the Trinitarian framework, both are understood as co-eternal persons within the Godhead. However, the Old Testament predominantly reveals God as a singular entity, and the absence of clear, interactive distinction between Father and Son raises important theological and historical questions.

The Old Testament consistently emphasizes God’s absolute unity, as seen in Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." This Shema forms the bedrock of Jewish monotheism, affirming that God is indivisibly one. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, God reveals Himself as a singular being who engages directly with His creation, often using terms like "YHWH," "El Shaddai," and other names that imply His singular, undivided nature. Nowhere in the text do we encounter interactions between distinct divine persons; instead, God is depicted as one voice, one presence, and one being, who alone calls, judges, and redeems His people (Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:5-6).

When addressing the appearances of "the Angel of the Lord" or the term "the Word of the Lord" in the Old Testament, which some Trinitarian scholars suggest hint at a pre-incarnate Christ, it is noteworthy that these manifestations do not speak of or to a distinct Son or Father figure. Instead, they are understood within the text as God’s own presence, often interpreted through theological hindsight as “types” or foreshadowings but not explicit persons who interact. For instance, Genesis 22:11-18 presents the Angel of the Lord speaking as God but not to another person within the Godhead. This kind of representation affirms a single, undivided presence rather than distinct persons engaging in dialogue.

Historically, even the earliest followers of Jesus who were steeped in Hebrew Scriptures did not immediately conceive of Jesus as a distinct, eternally co-existing person within a multi-personal Godhead. Rather, they understood Christ as the embodiment of God’s wisdom and purpose (1 Corinthians 1:24, John 1:14), the "Word made flesh," fulfilling and revealing the fullness of God in a new and unique way within history (John 1:1-3). Not until centuries later did the church begin to frame the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of co-equal and co-eternal persons, largely due to the theological developments at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD). Early church figures like Justin Martyr and Tertullian began to explore the Logos concept, yet their views differed from later Nicene orthodoxy and still did not clearly depict ongoing interaction within a multi-personal Godhead in the Old Testament.

Finally, Galatians 3:24 itself suggests that the law, the prophets, and the entire Old Testament are given to prepare us for the revelation of God in Christ—not necessarily to reveal a complex inner structure of God as multi-personal but rather to emphasize the singular, indivisible God who ultimately manifests His salvation plan through Jesus. In John 14:9, Jesus tells Philip, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father," presenting Himself as the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), rather than as one of two distinct divine persons engaged in interaction.

Thus, the Old Testament’s portrayal of God aligns with a view of divine oneness that unfolds fully in Jesus, who is seen as the full revelation and unique expression of the one true God, rather than a separate, eternally interacting person within a internally divided Godhead. This approach is consistent with a biblical theology that underscores God’s absolute oneness throughout Scripture.

 

[Free]

If God the Father and God the Son existed eternally and always how come we don't see any interaction whatsoever between them in the OT, which is a schoolmaster to bring us to christ?

Why do we need to? Do you not believe in progressive revelation?

A very valid question to raise regarding the Trinitarian understanding of God is why the Old Testament, which serves as a foundation and "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" (Galatians 3:24),

Correction, it is not the OT 'which serves as a . . . "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," it is the Law. There is a big difference, given that the Law is generally considered to be only the first five books of the OT (Torah; Pentateuch), but really is only some of the contained in Exodus to Deuteronomy.

Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. (ESV)

does not display ANY explicit interaction between "God the Father" and "God the Son." In the Trinitarian framework, both are understood as co-eternal persons within the Godhead. However, the Old Testament predominantly reveals God as a singular entity, and the absence of clear, interactive distinction between Father and Son raises important theological and historical questions.

The Old Testament consistently emphasizes God’s absolute unity, as seen in Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." This Shema forms the bedrock of Jewish monotheism, affirming that God is indivisibly one. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, God reveals Himself as a singular being who engages directly with His creation, often using terms like "YHWH," "El Shaddai," and other names that imply His singular, undivided nature. Nowhere in the text do we encounter interactions between distinct divine persons; instead, God is depicted as one voice, one presence, and one being, who alone calls, judges, and redeems His people (Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:5-6).

Again, all fallaciously begging the question. I've pointed this out to you before: there are many verses stating that there is only one God, Yahweh, but there is no verse in the entire Bible that clearly or directly states that God is only one person. In fact, the door is always left open for God being more than one person. Every verse you give above is about monotheism only, not God's self-existent nature.

Historically, even the earliest followers of Jesus who were steeped in Hebrew Scriptures did not immediately conceive of Jesus as a distinct, eternally co-existing person within a multi-personal Godhead. Rather, they understood Christ as the embodiment of God’s wisdom and purpose (1 Corinthians 1:24, John 1:14), the "Word made flesh," fulfilling and revealing the fullness of God in a new and unique way within history (John 1:1-3).

Again, fallaciously begging the question. The earliest followers of Jesus also though Jesus would physically vanquish their enemy, the Romans. They didn't understand what the Scriptures said about the Christ, even after his tomb was found empty (Luke 24:21-27). They clearly understood Jesus as the embodiment of God:

Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." (ESV)

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
...
Mat 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. (ESV)

Luk 24:50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.
Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, (ESV)

Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. (ESV)

Joh 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him. (ESV)

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (ESV)

Not until centuries later did the church begin to frame the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of co-equal and co-eternal persons, largely due to the theological developments at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD). Early church figures like Justin Martyr and Tertullian began to explore the Logos concept, yet their views differed from later Nicene orthodoxy and still did not clearly depict ongoing interaction within a multi-personal Godhead in the Old Testament.

Yes, it developed over time, but that in no way means it isn't biblical. It's ultimately fully incomprehensible, so why should we expect anyone from Jesus's followers onward to instantly understand and develop a full Trinitarian theology?

Your statements are also misleading. There are a number of early church fathers and figures from the 2nd century onward that either implied or explicitly stated that Jesus is God, yet keep him distinct from the Father. For example, Ignatius (d. 107 A.D.), believed to be a disciple of John, said "Jesus Christ, our God" and "For our God, Jesus the Christ," in his letter to the Ephesians. In his letter to the Romans he said "Jesus Christ our God" and "For our God Jesus Christ." And in his letter to the Smyrneans, he states, "I glorify Jesus Christ the God, being in the Father."

From the Didache (50-120 A.D.): "7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;"

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

We also have Pliny the Younger's correspondence with emperor Trajan from the early 2nd century, in which he stated regarding Christians, "that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god."

https://earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

The foundations of the Trinity were laid in Scripture, but can be seen outside of the Bible as early as the early 2nd century.

Finally, Galatians 3:24 itself suggests that the law, the prophets, and the entire Old Testament are given to prepare us for the revelation of God in Christ—not necessarily to reveal a complex inner structure of God as multi-personal but rather to emphasize the singular, indivisible God who ultimately manifests His salvation plan through Jesus.

Again, Gal. 3:24 says it was the Law, not the entire OT. And, again, to say that the OT only shows God as singular and indivisible--as meaning an absolute unity--is to fallaciously beg the question.

 

[Free]

In John 14:9, Jesus tells Philip, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father," presenting Himself as the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), rather than as one of two distinct divine persons engaged in interaction.

Jesus said a lot of things, as did the writers of the NT:

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV)

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
…
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (ESV)

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
…
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (ESV)

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, (ESV)

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (ESV)

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” (ESV)

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (ESV)

We should also take Col 1:15 in context:

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

This is in complete agreement with John 1:1-3, 10, 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:5-8, and Heb 1:2, 10-12, among others. Why have you yet to fully engage with 1 Cor 8:6 and Heb 1:2, 10-12?

Thus, the Old Testament’s portrayal of God aligns with a view of divine oneness that unfolds fully in Jesus, who is seen as the full revelation and unique expression of the one true God, rather than a separate, eternally interacting person within a internally divided Godhead. This approach is consistent with a biblical theology that underscores God’s absolute oneness throughout Scripture.

And yet, again, there is no verse in the entire Bible that clearly or directly states that God is one person. There is no verse that says only the Father is Yahweh and no verse that says the Father came in the flesh.

 

[miamited]

Well, Job wrote to us that he knew that his redeemer lives. That is Jesus. God began the creation account referring to the creation agents as 'us'. That was Jesus. Many believe that some of the visitations of people throughout the old covenant was done by Jesus appearing to them.

So, I'm not sure one can honestly say that Jesus isn't mentioned or a part of the old covenant accounting.

 

[My Rock]

Why do we need to? Do you not believe in progressive revelation?

I fully agree with the concept of progressive revelation, with Christ, His teachings, and the inspiration of His Spirit upon the original writers being the ultimate and complete revelation. Given that Jesus is considered one of the persons in the Trinity, if the Trinity were true, He Himself would have explicitly revealed this concept. We would not have needed to wait for later, non-scriptural philosophical formulations to articulate it. Colossians 2:8 warns us, "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." Likewise, 1 Corinthians 3:19 states, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their own craftiness.”

 

[Hopeful 2]

The early Judeo-Christian manuscripts, primarily written by the apostles and early Jewish followers of Christ, originated within a strict monotheistic tradition deeply rooted in Jewish thought, expressing an inseparable, undivided view of God’s nature. While these original texts were considered inspired, they were eventually lost to time, mainly due to fragile materials, heavy use, persecution, and the passage of centuries. A few early manuscript fragments exist, but the complete originals did not survive. This loss led to a growing reliance on copied manuscripts and later doctrinal interpretations that increasingly diverged from early Jewish monotheism.

The shift from a strictly monotheistic perspective to a Trinitarian interpretation can be traced to the influence of Greek philosophical thought, especially in the Roman Empire, where the early church gradually distanced itself from its Jewish roots. Greek philosophy, with its concepts of plurality within unity and metaphysical distinctions, became influential, as exemplified by thinkers like Origen of Alexandria (185–253 AD) and Tertullian (160–225 AD), who first used the term Trinitas. This influence accelerated with the Roman Emperor Constantine, who called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This council, convened in Nicaea (modern-day İznik, Turkey), sought to resolve conflicts, particularly with Arianism—a view that saw Jesus as a created being distinct from the Father.

The Nicene Creed, formulated in 325 AD and later expanded in 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople, emphasized the concept of Jesus as “begotten, not made,” co-eternal with the Father, laying the groundwork for the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine established a formalized belief in three co-equal persons within one Godhead, which diverged sharply from the indivisible oneness taught in early Jewish monotheism and the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

Historically, this adoption of Greek-influenced terminology and thought marked a theological departure from the original Judeo-Christian view. Jewish-Christian monotheism emphasized a single, undivided God (Deuteronomy 6:4), while the Trinitarian model suggested a God comprised of multiple persons. For many early Christians, especially those of Jewish origin, this was foreign to the original teachings of Scripture and appeared to introduce division within God’s nature. The adoption of Trinitarian doctrine, influenced by Greek philosophy, has since been a significant source of debate, with Oneness theology advocating for a return to the early, monotheistic understanding of God’s nature as wholly unified and undivided.

In summary, the loss of original texts, combined with the Hellenization of early Christianity, led to doctrinal shifts that reshaped Christianity, moving it away from its strictly monotheistic Jewish origins and into a framework that allowed for an interpretation of God as a Trinity, which diverges from the original apostolic understanding.

If the originals are lost, how do you know the scriptures we have now are different ?

 

[My Rock]

If the originals are lost, how do you know the scriptures we have now are different ?

To address concerns about the reliability of Scripture given the loss of the original manuscripts, it’s important to clarify that the overwhelming consistency among ancient manuscript copies supports the accuracy and preservation of biblical teachings, including key doctrines about the nature of God. Although we do not possess the autographs (original manuscripts), the thousands of copies we do have—dating back as early as the 2nd century—demonstrate an extraordinary level of consistency and faithful transmission. Textual scholars have repeatedly shown that differences between manuscripts are minor, involving issues like spelling or word order, and do not affect core doctrinal beliefs. This consistency gives us confidence that the theological message conveyed in the Scriptures, particularly on essential doctrines, remains intact.

The doctrine of God’s absolute oneness as expressed in the Scriptures, especially through the Old Testament and teachings of Jesus, remains clear and coherent even in these preserved manuscripts. Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29, John 10:30, and Colossians 2:9 consistently emphasize God's oneness without mention of separate divine persons. If we compare these teachings with Trinitarian doctrine, we see that the concept of a tri-personal God does not have explicit support in the earliest biblical texts; rather, it was articulated centuries later through non-scriptural, philosophical debates and councils.

Paul’s warnings in Colossians 2:8 and 1 Corinthians 3:19 against "philosophy and empty deceit" and "the wisdom of this world" further support the idea that doctrinal clarity should be based on Scripture rather than human philosophy. Jesus and the apostles, through whom came these very manuscripts, clearly expressed belief in one indivisible God who became manifest in Christ, not in a tri-personal deity. Thus, the preserved Scriptures we have today offer a solid foundation for the Oneness of God, as they align with the consistent biblical emphasis on God's absolute unity without division or plurality.

 

[Hopeful 2]

To address concerns about the reliability of Scripture given the loss of the original manuscripts, it’s important to clarify that the overwhelming consistency among ancient manuscript copies supports the accuracy and preservation of biblical teachings, including key doctrines about the nature of God. Although we do not possess the autographs (original manuscripts), the thousands of copies we do have—dating back as early as the 2nd century—demonstrate an extraordinary level of consistency and faithful transmission. Textual scholars have repeatedly shown that differences between manuscripts are minor, involving issues like spelling or word order, and do not affect core doctrinal beliefs. This consistency gives us confidence that the theological message conveyed in the Scriptures, particularly on essential doctrines, remains intact.

The doctrine of God’s absolute oneness as expressed in the Scriptures, especially through the Old Testament and teachings of Jesus, remains clear and coherent even in these preserved manuscripts. Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29, John 10:30, and Colossians 2:9 consistently emphasize God's oneness without mention of separate divine persons. If we compare these teachings with Trinitarian doctrine, we see that the concept of a tri-personal God does not have explicit support in the earliest biblical texts; rather, it was articulated centuries later through non-scriptural, philosophical debates and councils.

Paul’s warnings in Colossians 2:8 and 1 Corinthians 3:19 against "philosophy and empty deceit" and "the wisdom of this world" further support the idea that doctrinal clarity should be based on Scripture rather than human philosophy. Jesus and the apostles, through whom came these very manuscripts, clearly expressed belief in one indivisible God who became manifest in Christ, not in a tri-personal deity. Thus, the preserved Scriptures we have today offer a solid foundation for the Oneness of God, as they align with the consistent biblical emphasis on God's absolute unity without division or plurality.

Do you not believe that the Word was with God. from the beginning ?

 

[Who Me]

consistently emphasize God's oneness without mention of separate divine persons

Yet it is Jesus who provides the most graphic evidence of a tribune God.
Isaiah
Isaiah’s Commission
6 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”

4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

John12:40+ 41,
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”

41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

 

[My Rock]

Do you not believe that the Word was with God. from the beginning ?

Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that the Word was with God from the beginning, as John 1:1 affirms: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' In the Biblical understanding, this passage reveals the Word not as a separate person but as God’s own self-expression, His divine plan and purpose, present with Him from eternity. The Word is intrinsic to God, like a thought or intention within the mind, fully a part of Him and not distinct or separate. Genesis 1:3, "And God said, (The Word) Let there be light: and there was light." And yes God is fully capable of loving His own Word, especially because every Word He says is Truth. What is Truth - Jesus Christ (The Word made Flesh, Not always Flesh)

When 'the Word became flesh' in John 1:14, this was God’s own Word—the fullness of His divine nature—manifesting in Jesus Christ to redeem us. Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is 'the express image of [God’s] person,' underscoring that He is the visible expression of the one, undivided God. So, yes, the Word was with God, as His very essence and purpose, and when the time was fulfilled, He brought that Word to us in flesh, not as a separate person but as the incarnation of the one true God we know as Jesus Christ. This reflects the beautiful unity and singularity of God, who has always been both transcendent and near, reaching us through His Word, (Which became Jesus Christ in the Incarnation) fully God Himself.

 

[Tenchi]

The early Judeo-Christian manuscripts, primarily written by the apostles and early Jewish followers of Christ, originated within a strict monotheistic tradition deeply rooted in Jewish thought, expressing an inseparable, undivided view of God’s nature.

??? I thought the thousands of ancient copies of the Bible that exist today contain truth that came from God, not "Jewish thought."

While these original texts were considered inspired, they were eventually lost to time, mainly due to fragile materials, heavy use, persecution, and the passage of centuries. A few early manuscript fragments exist, but the complete originals did not survive. This loss led to a growing reliance on copied manuscripts and later doctrinal interpretations that increasingly diverged from early Jewish monotheism.

Well, merely asserting this doesn't make it so. The estimated 25,000 ancient sources of the text of the NT (Greek manuscript copies, lectionaries, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian manuscript copies, etc.) serve to provide to modern versions of the NT an enormously high degree of accuracy rather than corruption.

The shift from a strictly monotheistic perspective to a Trinitarian interpretation can be traced to the influence of Greek philosophical thought, especially in the Roman Empire, where the early church gradually distanced itself from its Jewish roots.

??? No, the Trinity is plainly indicated in the Bible which is why it is a basic doctrine concerning the nature of God.

And what do you mean by the Early Church "gradually distancing itself from its Jewish roots"? Given the contents of the Bible, how would such a "distancing" occur, exactly? Did the Early Church deny Christ's Jewishness (he was of the line of David, born to Jewish parents, prophesied by ancient Jewish prophets, etc.)? Did the Early Church cast off the OT that is entirely occupied with the Israelite nation? As a Christian, I know more about first century and OT Jewish culture and religious practices - by far - than any other ancient culture. It's very hard for me to see, then, that distancing from the Jewish nation has happened within the Church.

Greek philosophy, with its concepts of plurality within unity and metaphysical distinctions, became influential, as exemplified by thinkers like Origen of Alexandria (185–253 AD) and Tertullian (160–225 AD), who first used the term Trinitas. This influence accelerated with the Roman Emperor Constantine, who called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This council, convened in Nicaea (modern-day İznik, Turkey), sought to resolve conflicts, particularly with Arianism—a view that saw Jesus as a created being distinct from the Father.

You make many assertions here but provide no supporting evidence. Why, then, should anyone accept what you put forward?

The Nicene Creed, formulated in 325 AD and later expanded in 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople, emphasized the concept of Jesus as “begotten, not made,” co-eternal with the Father, laying the groundwork for the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine established a formalized belief in three co-equal persons within one Godhead, which diverged sharply from the indivisible oneness taught in early Jewish monotheism and the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

Again, this is all raw assertion, given with a distinct slant. Really, as you've given it here, it's just a conspiracy theory. In point of fact, the Trinity persists as a millennia-old orthodox doctrine of the Christian faith because it is plainly evident in God's word.

Historically, this adoption of Greek-influenced terminology and thought marked a theological departure from the original Judeo-Christian view. Jewish-Christian monotheism emphasized a single, undivided God (Deuteronomy 6:4), while the Trinitarian model suggested a God comprised of multiple persons.

Here, you Strawman the doctrine of the Trinity, which, as far as I'm concerned, seriously weakens you as a source of trustworthy information on the matter about which you're attempting to speak.

 

[My Rock]

??? I thought the thousands of ancient copies of the Bible that exist today contain truth that came from God, not "Jewish thought."

Well, merely asserting this doesn't make it so. The estimated 25,000 ancient sources of the text of the NT (Greek manuscript copies, lectionaries, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian manuscript copies, etc.) serve to provide to modern versions of the NT an enormously high degree of accuracy rather than corruption.

??? No, the Trinity is plainly indicated in the Bible which is why it is a basic doctrine concerning the nature of God.

And what do you mean by the Early Church "gradually distancing itself from its Jewish roots"? Given the contents of the Bible, how would such a "distancing" occur, exactly? Did the Early Church deny Christ's Jewishness (he was of the line of David, born to Jewish parents, prophesied by ancient Jewish prophets, etc.)? Did the Early Church cast off the OT that is entirely occupied with the Israelite nation? As a Christian, I know more about first century and OT Jewish culture and religious practices - by far - than any other ancient culture. It's very hard for me to see, then, that distancing from the Jewish nation has happened within the Church.

You make many assertions here but provide no supporting evidence. Why, then, should anyone accept what you put forward?

Again, this is all raw assertion, given with a distinct slant. Really, as you've given it here, it's just a conspiracy theory. In point of fact, the Trinity persists as a millennia-old orthodox doctrine of the Christian faith because it is plainly evident in God's word.

Here, you Strawman the doctrine of the Trinity, which, as far as I'm concerned, seriously weakens you as a source of trustworthy information on the matter about which you're attempting to speak.

Post #7 Restated and added to in reply:

Christ, His teachings, and the inspiration of His Spirit upon the original writers is the ultimate and complete revelation. Given that Jesus is considered one of the persons in the Trinity, if the Trinity were true, He Himself would have explicitly revealed and spelled out this concept in His teachings or through the Inspired Word. We would not have needed to wait for later, non-scriptural philosophical formulations to articulate it. Colossians 2:8 warns us, "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." Likewise, 1 Corinthians 3:19 states, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their own craftiness.”

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that the Word was with God from the beginning, as John 1:1 affirms: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' In the Biblical understanding, this passage reveals the Word not as a separate person but as God’s own self-expression, His divine plan and purpose, present with Him from eternity. The Word is intrinsic to God, like a thought or intention within the mind, fully a part of Him and not distinct or separate. Genesis 1:3, "And God said, (The Word) Let there be light: and there was light." And yes God is fully capable of loving His own Word, especially because every Word He says is Truth. What is Truth - Jesus Christ (The Word made Flesh, Not always Flesh)

You just blended the spoken "word" with The Word.
They are different things.

When 'the Word became flesh' in John 1:14, this was God’s own Word—the fullness of His divine nature—manifesting in Jesus Christ to redeem us. Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is 'the express image of [God’s] person,' underscoring that He is the visible expression of the one, undivided God. So, yes, the Word was with God, as His very essence and purpose, and when the time was fulfilled, He brought that Word to us in flesh, not as a separate person but as the incarnation of the one true God we know as Jesus Christ. This reflects the beautiful unity and singularity of God, who has always been both transcendent and near, reaching us through His Word, (Which became Jesus Christ in the Incarnation) fully God Himself.

 

[My Rock]

You just blended the spoken "word" with The Word.
They are different things.

How about if I word it this way:

It’s essential to understand that the "Word" (Logos) in John 1:1 and the spoken word in instances like "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3 are not separate entities but expressions of the same divine reality. The Word in John 1:1 represents God’s eternal mind, thought, or self-expression, which is inseparable from His being. When God spoke in creation, that was an expression of His Logos, manifesting in action as the spoken word. The Logos is God's own self-revelation—His purpose, wisdom, and nature—which, when expressed in creation or in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, is not divided into distinct "persons" but remains unified with God Himself.

From a logical standpoint, "the Word" is the eternal plan or intent within God, which comes into specific forms of action when spoken or manifested. When John says "the Word was with God, and the Word was God," it clarifies that this divine Logos is inherently and eternally part of God, not a separate being. The culmination of this divine expression is seen in Jesus Christ, whom John describes as "the Word made flesh" (John 1:14), embodying God's fullness in human form. In short, the Word as God’s eternal thought becomes the spoken word when activated in creation and, ultimately, the incarnate Word in Jesus, uniting all these expressions within the same indivisible, singular God.

 

[Hopeful 2]

How about if I word it this way:

It’s essential to understand that the "Word" (Logos) in John 1:1 and the spoken word in instances like "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3 are not separate entities but expressions of the same divine reality.

I disagree.

The Word in John 1:1 represents God’s eternal mind, thought, or self-expression, which is inseparable from His being.

I disagree.

When God spoke in creation, that was an expression of His Logos, manifesting in action as the spoken word. The Logos is God's own self-revelation—His purpose, wisdom, and nature—which, when expressed in creation or in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, is not divided into distinct "persons" but remains unified with God Himself.

From a logical standpoint, "the Word" is the eternal plan or intent within God, which comes into specific forms of action when spoken or manifested. When John says "the Word was with God, and the Word was God," it clarifies that this divine Logos is inherently and eternally part of God, not a separate being. The culmination of this divine expression is seen in Jesus Christ, whom John describes as "the Word made flesh" (John 1:14), embodying God's fullness in human form. In short, the Word as God’s eternal thought becomes the spoken word when activated in creation and, ultimately, the incarnate Word in Jesus, uniting all these expressions within the same indivisible, singular God.

 

[My Rock]

From the Didache (50-120 A.D.): "7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;"

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This command to baptize in a singular "name" is significant, as it points to the understanding that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not separate names or persons but rather distinct Titles or expressions of the one true God. This singular name encompasses Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as revealed through and in Jesus.

The disciples, who were present when Jesus gave this command, carried out baptism exclusively in the name of Jesus in the book of Acts. For example, in Acts 8:16 and Acts 10:48, believers were baptized explicitly in the name of Jesus. The apostles understood Jesus to be the fulfillment of the singular name Jesus referred to in Matthew 28:19.

This aligns with Jesus’ declaration in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name,” showing that the name of the Father is expressed in Him. Additionally, Jesus told His followers that the Holy Spirit would come “in [His] name” (John 14:26). The singular name of God, fully revealed in the New Testament, encapsulates Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one, and that name is Jesus. Thus, baptizing in Jesus’ name fulfills the command of Matthew 28:19 by recognizing and calling upon the full identity of God revealed in Christ.

Again, Gal. 3:24 says it was the Law, not the entire OT. And, again, to say that the OT only shows God as singular and indivisible--as meaning an absolute unity--is to fallaciously beg the question.

In response to the assertion that "the Old Testament only shows God as singular and indivisible" is question-begging:

The Old Testament (OT) explicitly emphasizes the indivisible, absolute oneness of God in ways that point directly to a singular divine identity rather than a composite or multi-personal being. The central verse of Deut. 6:4, recited daily by devout Jews and affirmed by Jesus Himself (Mark 12:29), provides a clear statement of absolute monotheism that does not imply any internal division within God. The OT consistently refers to God in singular terms, with pronouns like “I,” “Me,” "Alone," "By Myself," None Beside Me," and “He,” underscoring that God reveals Himself as a single, unified being, not as a multi-personal entity.

In addition, passages in the Prophets further reinforce this point. Isaiah 43:10–11 asserts, “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.” Jesus Christ can't come on the scene and be the Savior without being God the Father in Flesh or it violates and contradicts this Scripture. The repeated assertion that there is no other God beside Him indicates not only that there is no competing deity but also that within Himself, God remains an indivisible, unified entity. If the OT were to imply a multi-personal or complex nature within God, we would expect language accommodating such plurality, but instead, we see emphatic statements about God’s uniqueness and oneness, terms that imply unity without division or multiplicity.

So, rather than “begging the question,” the understanding of God’s absolute unity is drawn directly from OT texts and affirmed through the progressive revelation in the New Testament (NT). The NT does not redefine God's nature; (God changes Not) it reveals the previously veiled truth that God was fully manifest in the man Christ Jesus, reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). This understanding respects the consistent biblical portrayal of God as singular, unified, and ultimately indivisible, as both the OT and NT describe.

 

[My Rock]

Why have you yet to fully engage with 1 Cor 8:6 and Heb 1:2, 10-12?

To engage with 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2, 10-12, it’s important to emphasize that these passages reveal God’s work and identity through Jesus Christ as the human image of the one, indivisible God.

1 Corinthians 8:6 states, “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” This verse emphasizes the essential oneness of God, affirming that “there is but one God, the Father.” This does not imply a distinction of persons but rather a relational aspect of God who is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. The phrase “one Lord, Jesus Christ” reveals Jesus as the incarnate manifestation of that one God, through whom (The Word - the divine self-expression, the mind, wisdom, and purpose of God) creation (The spoken "Word" - "Let there be light" - God’s authoritative speech, bringing His purpose into reality) and redemption were accomplished. When we affirm “one Lord” in Jesus, we acknowledge Him as the full manifestation of the one God, who took on human nature to bring salvation to humanity (Colossians 2:9). Thus, Paul’s language here aligns with a monotheistic understanding, where “one God” is not divided but revealed through Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1:2, 10-12 adds depth to this by declaring the Son as the one “through whom also he made the worlds” and in whom God speaks to us in these last days. Here, “Son” is a title that reflects God’s redemptive manifestation in time, in His plan to bring salvation through His fully human and fully divine Self as Savior. [Isaiah 43:10–11, “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.”] Hebrews 1:10-12 attributes to Jesus the creative work of God Himself, quoting Psalm 102, which praises Yahweh as the Creator of heaven and earth. This is consistent with John 1:3, which says that all things were made through the Word, who is identified in time (not eternity - the humanity of the Son wasn't Always) John 1:14 as Jesus Christ. Jesus is not a separate being from God but is God Himself incarnate, the Word (which is God) made flesh (John 1:1, 14). We understand that Jesus fully embodies Yahweh's eternal identity, carrying the creative, sustaining, and eternal aspects of God because He is God manifest in the flesh.

In this light, both passages affirm the unique identity of Jesus as God’s self-revelation, fulfilling His redemptive purpose without introducing divisions within His nature. Rather, they showcase the depth of God’s love, as He chose to dwell among us, creating and redeeming through Jesus Christ, the singular expression of the one, true God.

All Scriptures that refer to Jesus or The Son before the foundation of the world or in by whom creation was made were penned before John received his revelation of "The Word".

 

[My Rock]

I disagree.

I disagree.

You have every right to disagree, but our right to disagree doesn't change Truth. My nephew says "God is fake" that doesn't make it true, Truth is Truth no matter what!