Three person God identified in the Bible?

[justbyfaith]

Are you trying to not be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people? It sounds like it, when you say asinine things like that.

Are you a mormon? I think that this may be the reason why you are trying to deflect my statement in this manner.

It is true that mormons believe in a version of the Trinity that is more tritheistic (i.e. the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost) than anything else.

Since Jesus says the words He speaks unto them are not of Himself, then, if (as you claim) Jesus Himself is the Father, what you are making Jesus to say is "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of [the Father]." So, if not of the Father, then of whom would you say Jesus speaks the words that He speaks unto them?

Jesus is speaking from the perspective of His humanity, when He says, "myself" He is not speaking of who He is in His Deity, but of who He is in His humanity; for the Father is who He is in His Deity.

 

[justbyfaith]

What's your point? Notice that Jesus does not say "I am the Father".

When Philip asked Him to shew them the Father, He pointed to Himself, is the point.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Are you a mormon?

No. I'm a Trinitarian.

I think that this may be the reason why you are trying to deflect my statement in this manner.

What do you mean by "deflect my statement"?

It is true that mormons believe in a version of the Trinity

Do Mormons believe Jesus is Jehovah? If not, then they are not Trinitarians.

that is more tritheistic (i.e. the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost) than anything else.

What (if anything) do you mean by your word, "tritheistic"? To say one person is not another person is "tritheistic"? If I say that you are not Pat Sajack, is that "tritheistic"?

Jesus is speaking from the perspective of His humanity, when He says, "myself" He is not speaking of who He is in His Deity, but of who He is in His humanity; for the Father is who He is in His Deity.

That's gobbledygook, what you wrote there.

When Philip asked Him to shew them the Father, He pointed to Himself, is the point.

In other words, you had no point. The text says nothing about Jesus doing any gesticulating there, in the presence of Philip. Also, Jesus never says He is the Father.

 

[justbyfaith]

Paul E. Michael,

I think it is wise for me to not cast things that are valuable in front of those who will not appreciate their value.

 

[Cooper]

justbyfaith, is the Atlantic Ocean the Pacific Ocean? Yes or No?

Only the name and location are different.
.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Paul E. Michael,

I think it is wise for me to not cast things that are valuable in front of those who will not appreciate their value.

Why post that comment, rather than just keep it to yourself?

 

[Free]

So, yes, it is clear that the fact that the one Lord Jesus Christ is the Father is a biblical notion (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18). And therefore the fact that the one God, being the Father, is Jesus, is also a biblical notion (Hebrews 1:8-9).

No. You continue to beg the question by presuming that God is only the Father, which leads to faulty conclusions. Jesus is fully and truly God and Lord, just as the Father is fully and truly God and Lord, but they are, and always have been, eternally distinct.

Again, if they are one and the same, then God's revealing himself as Father and Son is meaningless and communicates nothing to us, because we know that it is nonsense to claim that a father is his own son or a son is his own father.

Actually, I started by reading the kjv in this passage; and the kjv definitely preaches Patripassianism in it; which I read out of the kjv text. I did not look for the idea of Patripassianism in any text and then say "eureka" when I found it in Hebrews 9:16-22. And I also did not say, "I'd better find a different version" when I saw that Patripassianism was taught by the kjv text of Hebrews 9:16-22. That would be doing what was prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3; if I were not already baptized in Jesus' Name.

Most translations render the subject of the sentence as "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" so that He "who was delivered up for our transgressions and raised for our justification", at least as the sentence is structured, is not Jesus our Lord but "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead". I suppose that we should stop reading Bibles that render it in this fashion?

I'm not going to continue to argue with you about a plain reading of Scripture that has nothing to do with the heresy of Patripassianism. This is a dead, erroneous argument. If you want to continue to argue, then at least provide one or more respectable theologians or commentaries that agree with your assertion.

I affirm that there never was a time when He was not three distinct Persons. Misrepresenting someone's position is against the ToS.

No, you don't, as your previous argument proves. So, I'm not misrepresenting you. You're continually conflating two different references in time to suit your own purposes. Your theology is incredibly deceptive.

1) Jesus existed as the Father prior to coming into the world;

Thank you. More evidence that I am not misrepresenting you, as this completely contradicts your previous statement: "I affirm that there never was a time when He was not three distinct Persons."

If " Jesus existed as the Father prior to coming into the world," then it is logically impossible that "there was never a time when [God] was not three distinct Persons."

2) Jesus ascended to exist outside of time; and therefore He also exists as the Son into eternity past (prior to when He came into the world, as time bears it out).

Again, you're conflating to different points in time. This is a grievous error. You want to have it both ways and end up to twisting the Bible to fit your theology

Where, in the Trinitarian creeds, is it denied?

Does it matter? The Bible itself makes your theology impossible. And the Creeds, being based on the Bible, don't support your position.

I agree.

Except that you don't.

However, if He was eternally begotten, you have a problem.

Nicene Creed: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html

Athanasian Creed:

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Also, it is just the logical conclusion of Jesus being begotten by the Father. Humans beget humans, animals beget after their own kind. So, too, God can only beget God. However, since God cannot beget anything other than himself, the other that is begotten must necessarily also have always existed, and, therefore, is said to be eternally begotten.

Or, we can just simplify it and say that the Bible clearly states the Son was begotten. It also clearly states that there was never a time when the Son did not exist, that is, he is eternal in the very same way the Father is eternal. Therefore, the Son is eternally begotten.

Because God by nature inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15).

And therefore if it was only God the Son (and not the Father) who descended and ascended,

It would be true that God the Son, being Omnipresent outside of time, descended into time and then ascended to be Omnipresent and outside of time.

That is two Persons, defined as the Son, dwelling in eternity.

Therefore, you do not have a Trinity, but a Quadrinity.

See, you are still not understanding the actual, historical doctrine of the Trinity. You are, again, presuming that God is only one person, despite me having repeatedly pointed out that there is no verse that clearly or directly states this to be the case. In this case, though, your presumption has led you to believe that I am saying only the Son existed. According to the historical doctrine of the Trinity, as I've given above in the both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, all three persons of the Trinity have always existed; there was never a time when any of them did not.

I lost you somewhere along the way, so that I don't know what you are talking about here.

I'm not lost. You stated: "Since Jesus is pre-existent as a Person who is Omnipresent and outside of time, your point is moot."

I replied: "No, because, again, you're conflating the two references. My point stands."

I've pointed this out before: you're conflating two different references to time and eternity, for lack of a better way of putting it.

 

[Free]

The Trinity as a doctrine is the doctrine that we have one God who exists in the form of three distinct Persons. My doctrine does not contradict that definition and so falls under the spectrum of what can be defined as the Trinity; whether you like it or not.

That is a far too simple definition of your own making (look at how the Athansian Creed defines it). Besides, you previously stated that God is an absolute unity. That alone contradicts the Trinity.

A succinct definition of the Trinity is: Within the one being that is God, there exists three coqeual, co-eternal, consubstantial persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That agrees and sums up what the Athanasian Creed states on the matter, and your doctrine does not fit that.

Also, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is "three-in-one"...and therefore if you do not see God as an absolute unity you are contradicting the latter part of that statement and, I would say that you have even departed from the true and faithful doctrine of the Trinity.

Three coequal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons in the one God, yes, as stated by historical, orthodox Christianity. The concept of an absolute unity is completely contradictory to that definition of the Trinity, which is that God has always been a compound unity.

You have not been purporting the historical doctrine of the Trinity. Your concept is closer to the mormon idea of God; in that you say "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

No one can seriously make that claim unless they haven't actually studied the historical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

No, you have not.

I have. And I did it again. The problem is that you're doing what JWs and Mormons do in order to be accepted as Christians--you're taking a Christian word and redefining it to be something completely different, so that you can claim affinity with orthodox Christian belief. That is deceptive, don't you think?

There is a misrepresentation here for certain. I wonder if I should report you.

If you want, but I stand by my claim and I can muster all manner of support, not the least of which are your contradictory statements and redefining the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Free]

The Word certainly was not made; since He was the Father.

You just completely ignored everything John wrote in John 1:1-2. John's grammar makes it logically impossible that Jesus was the Father. That is why the entire NT continually and consistently keeps the Father and the Son distinct.

It would make these discussions so much easier if I could just debate that way. But I can't, since I'm interested in the truth.

The Son, on the other hand, was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3 (kjv))

I've already dealt with this. Yes, Jesus is the God-man and so the human side of him was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." That goes without saying. But that has nothing to do with him being the Son of God, since Jesus himself says he existed with the Father before the world even existed; Jesus himself contradicts you.

I would just point out what it says here, and let the word speak for itself:

Isa 44:24, Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Great. I agree. It's a statement of monotheism. Again, you're conflating monotheism with the nature of God.

I do not deny a plurality within the one God, even while emphasizing that He is absolutely One. I wonder how such a thing can be? Maybe there is something to this "Trinity" doctrine?

Not to your Trinity doctrine. Your plurality is not the biblical plurality.

Yes, however, the Son was not eternally begotten; but in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

Again, Jesus himself says otherwise. As does Col 1:16-17, which happen to agree with John 1:3.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is a far too simple definition of your own making (look at how the Athansian Creed defines it). Besides, you previously stated that God is an absolute unity. That alone contradicts the Trinity.

That God is an absolute unity does not contradict the Trinity; for there is a way to understand God as being an absolute unity and also being a compound unity (three distinct members within the Godhead). And I have also revealed it to you.

However, I think that you simply have religion; and therefore you are being adamant about a dogma as you understand it and, instead of asking the Lord to show you the truth, you keep doubling down and arguing against it.

I think that if you were to humble yourself and ask the Lord about what I am declaring to you, He might even show you.

Jer 33:3, Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

Because I humbled myself this very day and have asked the Lord to show me if my understanding is incorrect and to give me a correct understanding of theology as He wants me to understand it; especially as concerning the concept of the Trinity.

So, if you will do the same, perhaps this conversation will end with one of us being converted to the idea of the other.

A succinct definition of the Trinity is: Within the one being that is God, there exists three coqeual, co-eternal, consubstantial persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That agrees and sums up what the Athanasian Creed states on the matter, and your doctrine does not fit that.

Actually, I think it does.

Three coequal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons in the one God, yes, as stated by historical, orthodox Christianity. The concept of an absolute unity is completely contradictory to that definition of the Trinity, which is that God has always been a compound unity.

Yes, God is a compound unity; He is also an absolute unity. See Isaiah 55:8-9 and Luke 1:37 to discover how He can be both.

No one can seriously make that claim unless they haven't actually studied the historical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

I'm sorry, but the idea that "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost", is closer to the tritheistic mormon theology than the true doctrine of the Trinity.

I have. And I did it again. The problem is that you're doing what JWs and Mormons do in order to be accepted as Christians--you're taking a Christian word and redefining it to be something completely different, so that you can claim affinity with orthodox Christian belief. That is deceptive, don't you think?

I have spent a lot of time reading the Bible with the doctrine of the Trinity on the backburner of my thinking; and the doctrine that I developed is the result of that reading. Nothing in my doctrine contradicts the Bible view of the Trinity, as far as I know.

So, I am not being deceptive in relating to you what I discovered over years of reading with the doctrine of the Trinity on the backburner of my thinking.

You just completely ignored everything John wrote in John 1:1-2. John's grammar makes it logically impossible that Jesus was the Father.

I don't think so.

I've already dealt with this. Yes, Jesus is the God-man and so the human side of him was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." That goes without saying. But that has nothing to do with him being the Son of God, since Jesus himself says he existed with the Father before the world even existed; Jesus himself contradicts you.

Jesus is the Son in that He is come in the flesh; and He was in fact the Word prior to His incarnation.

Your plurality is not the biblical plurality.

It is a plurality and I would contend that it is the biblical plurality.

Again, Jesus himself says otherwise. As does Col 1:16-17, which happen to agree with John 1:3.

How do these passages deny that Jesus was begotten in the incarnation? Expound, please.

 

[Rookie]

Yes, there is. In the context of this discussion on the Trinity, by the nature of God, I am referring to whether or not he is three coequal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons. It is the nature of his self-existence—how he existed before creation of space and time.

There is a lot of conflating monotheism with the specific aspect of the nature of God as I have defined above.

Not that we shouldn't study to show ourselves approved but denying the Trinitarian theological standpoint of God causes many ideological problems as I pointed out to another user,

"
Colossians 2:9 says, "9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"
John 1:1-4 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. "

These two verses confirm that Jesus Christ is God, and 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "“There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus.” Which confirms that Jesus is God AND His own self who is the reconciler between God & humanity. He is both God & his own entity, like a triangle is one but each side is it's own side.

Genesis 1:2 says, "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
And to confirm the Spirit is God, John 4:24, "For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Matthew 3:16-17 "16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

This passage confirms the individuality of all 3 sides of the triangle but it's still on triangle."

If God isn't 3 in one, then he is a liar when he says he is "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God...." Isaiah 45:5.

It's almost steering into a Jehovah's Witness ideology (which is incredibly erroneous to the original translation of the greek language).

Additionally as I said "We cannot encapsulate infinity into finity. We cannot comprehend the divine into mortal understanding. His ways are higher than ours, we by definition & nature cannot understand it. So it's doing God a non-favor when we down him to understand Him rather than accept that He is the Impossible & being the 3in1,1in3 Being is one of His characteristics.

(P.S. I believe God is the Trinity God and is One and Three at the exact same time and it functions in harmony)

 

[justbyfaith]

Your theology is incredibly deceptive.

2Co 6:8, By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;

I'm in good company with Jesus at your accusation.

Mat 27:63, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

Thank you. More evidence that I am not misrepresenting you, as this completely contradicts your previous statement: "I affirm that there never was a time when He was not three distinct Persons."

If " Jesus existed as the Father prior to coming into the world," then it is logically impossible that "there was never a time when [God] was not three distinct Persons."

This only shows that you haven't been listening. Jesus ascended to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10); that is, to exist outside of time; and therefore His existence extends into eternity past. Therefore, there was never a "time" in which the Son didn't exist.

Does it matter? The Bible itself makes your theology impossible.

Nope. Try to open your mind and listen to what I'm saying for a change.

And the Creeds, being based on the Bible, don't support your position.

When the fathers formulated the creeds, I think that they missed a few important Bible truths; such as what is written in Romans 1:3 and Luke 1:35.

But where the creeds agree with the Bible, I agree with them.

Except that you don't.

I agreed wholeheartedly with the statement in question.

Nicene Creed: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html

Athanasian Creed:

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

I would point out #18 on that list as it is a problem for your theology.

I contend that there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5);

the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18),

the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3),

and the Holy Ghost (2 Corinthians 3:17).

So, too, God can only beget God.

That is interesting. Do you believe that each one of us is God in light of 1 Peter 1:3 (kjv)?

1Pe 1:3, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

However, since God cannot beget anything other than himself, the other that is begotten must necessarily also have always existed, and, therefore, is said to be eternally begotten.

Since we are begotten and it is not necessary that we have always existed, your point is moot.

Or, we can just simplify it and say that the Bible clearly states the Son was begotten.

in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

Do you have a verse that says that Jesus wasn't begotten in the incarnation?

I don't think that you do.

It also clearly states that there was never a time when the Son did not exist, that is, he is eternal in the very same way the Father is eternal.

Yes, I'm in agreement with that. However, the Son, as He exists in flesh, had His beginning in the incarnation (Luke 1:35). Prior to His incarnation, He was the Father and therefore eternal. After He ascended, He is also eternal since He ascended to exist outside of time (Ephesians 4:10). For time is a created thing.

Therefore, the Son is eternally begotten.

Okay...then I guess, according to that definition, I agree that the Son is eternally begotten.

However, His existence as the Son (dwelling in flesh) began at the juncture of Luke 1:35.

You are, again, presuming that God is only one person, despite me having repeatedly pointed out that there is no verse that clearly or directly states this to be the case.

You deny that the verse in question directly states it. But Mark 12:29 does directly state it.

I'm not lost. You stated: "Since Jesus is pre-existent as a Person who is Omnipresent and outside of time, your point is moot."

I replied: "No, because, again, you're conflating the two references. My point stands."

I've pointed this out before: you're conflating two different references to time and eternity, for lack of a better way of putting it.

I still don't see what you're trying to say.

 

[justbyfaith]

Why post that comment, rather than just keep it to yourself?

Because it defines how I will be dealing with you in the future.

 

[justbyfaith]

John 1:1
Consider the following.

1Co 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Eph 4:6, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jas 3:9, Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Keeping these verses in mind; and using an algebraic method of studying the scriptures, we can come to the logical conclusion that:

Jhn 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with <the Father>, and the Word was <the Father>.

 

[justbyfaith]

1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[GodsGrace]

mormonism.

The image Paul E. Michael has posted is the proper representation of the Trinity.

You're confusing readers with your statements.

Please read the SOF.
You should be here if you want to learn about the Christian Trinity, not to disperse incorrect doctrine.

More later, on a phone right now.

 

[GodsGrace]

John 1:1
Consider the following.

1Co 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Eph 4:6, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jas 3:9, Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Keeping these verses in mind; and using an algebraic method of studying the scriptures, we can come to the logical conclusion that:

Jhn 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with <the Father>, and the Word was <the Father>.

The father was with himself?!

Wow. That's deep!

 

[justbyfaith]

The image @Paul E. Michael has posted is the proper representation of the Trinity.

No; it is closer to the mormon concept of the Trinity than anything that can be found in sound doctrine.

 

[GodsGrace]

1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Trinity must be spiritually discerned.
Reading verses won't do it.

 

[GodsGrace]

No; it is closer to the mormon concept of the Trinity than anything that can be found in sound doctrine.

Stop J,
Stop making up your very own Christian doctrine.
That's already been done by minds greater than ours.