Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Free]

Regarding John 1:2 Albert Barnes says:

The same - The Word, or the λόγος Logos.
Was in the beginning with God - This is a repetition of what was said in the first verse; but it is stated over again to “guard the doctrine,” and to prevent the possibility of a mistake.

Yes, but my whole point was verse one--"the Word was with God" prior to creation, in eternal existence. Therefore, it is logically impossible for only the Word to have existed, as you stated.

Some of God's attributes
God Is Infinite – He is Self-Existing, Without Origin. "And he is before all things, …
God Is Immutable – He Never Changes. “I the Lord do not change. So you, the …
God Is Self-Sufficient – He Has No Needs. “For as the Father has life in …
God is Omnipotent – He Is All Powerful. “By the word of the LORD the heavens …
See full list on biblestudytools.com
.

Okay, but I don't see how that applies to your previous response to my argument.

 

[Cooper]

Yes, but my whole point was verse one--"the Word was with God" prior to creation, in eternal existence. Therefore, it is logically impossible for only the Word to have existed, as you stated.


Okay, but I don't see how that applies to your previous response to my argument.

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

Jesus is the Word, and the Word is God.
.

 

[Free]

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

Jesus is the Word, and the Word is God.
.

Why are you not addressing what I am actually saying and clearly pointing out? We agree, Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. But, "the Word was with God," that is, in intimate relationship. That is absolutely not language we use of an individual, ever. It would be utter nonsense to use that language of a single person.

 

[Rookie]

Unfortunately, verse 7 is a well know forgery which is why scholars can no longer bring themselves to place it in the most modern translations.

Even IF it did belong there you still have not accomplished anything. It says the Father Word and Spirit are one. So what? Christians the Father and Jesus are one. And it also says the Spirit water and blood are one. How are they one? John tells you. They are one united testimony. It would have nothing to do with three persons being one God but three entities having a unified testimony just as the Spirit water and blood.

But as it is, this verse was inserted into the Bible likely by an overzealous scholar. It was never mentioned even once by Augustine even though he wrote a HUGE work on the Trinity completed about 425 A.D. The first place we ever find a verse resembling verse 7 is about 380 A.D. in Latin Spain by a Manichean apostate priest named Priscillian who was executed for sorcery. This error was perpetuated in the western Latin speaking church, especially in Spain and North Africa, from about this time.

There are NO early Greek manuscripts before the 16th century with this verse in the original script. Everyone that does have it before the 16th century is a gloss (a marginal insertion). There are about 8 of these pre-16th century glosses dating from about the 11th century to the 16th. Now do you really thing the Eastern half of the Greek speaking Christian church, from the earliest times until recent times, would have let this verse slip out of their Bibles unnoticed? Think about that carefully.

Now don't you find it just a wee bit strange that if a three person God is the God of the Bible that you have such a hard time finding him mentioned anywhere in the Bible?

Ultimately God is infinite and we are finite, so by definition we will never be able to encapsulate the majesty of God. If we could, then God wouldn't be so infinite?

 

[BPPLEE]

Regarding John 1:2 Albert Barnes says:

The same - The Word, or the λόγος Logos.
Was in the beginning with God - This is a repetition of what was said in the first verse; but it is stated over again to “guard the doctrine,” and to prevent the possibility of a mistake.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some of God's attributes
God Is Infinite – He is Self-Existing, Without Origin. "And he is before all things, …
God Is Immutable – He Never Changes. “I the Lord do not change. So you, the …
God Is Self-Sufficient – He Has No Needs. “For as the Father has life in …
God is Omnipotent – He Is All Powerful. “By the word of the LORD the heavens …
See full list on biblestudytools.com
.

???????

 

[theWind]

Scripture declares just the opposite of what you claim.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

• and these three are one.

If this scripture said this one is three, then you would be correct.


But since it plainly says these three are one, then you are in error.



The three persons of the Godhead are one.

If that's your only proof that God is "three persons", your only Biblical teaching of the concept of the trinity, your case would be dismissed in a court of law in about an hour, if that.

 

[theWind]

No, it is still nonsense. As I stated before, there is a reason why God reveals himself, in part, as a Father and Son in relationship--because we can fully understand what that means; it communicates something to us and has meaning. However, if God actually means that as the Father he is also his own Son, and vice versa, then his use of the Father/Son relationship is meaningless and it communicates nothing to us.

Well, let's explore that with some simple logic, mixed with a very gentle sprinkling of the spiritual.

So, ... Jesus' father was whom? It wasn't Joseph. He had a mother which was Mary. He must have a father if He is to be called a son. Who is His father. That's right, it is THE Father; God Almighty.

Ok, so we have God Almighty who is Jesus' Father, and we have Jesus as His Son. All makes perfect sense.

And because the Father did not physically procreate with Mary, the dynamic of how Jesus was made, and who Jesus was, is verrrrry different from any other scenario laid forth in Scripture.

Unlike the fallen angels, who had enough power to create physical (enough) bodies for themselves that they were capable of physical intercourse with women, the Father did not use that method of bringing forth Christ.

Unlike Adam, who God created from the dust of the earth, Jesus was totally unique in who He was and how He was created. Because God is a spirit (John 4:24), He cannot create a child like humans do. That takes the traditional human concept of father and son right off the table right there. Because He put His Spirit, which is who and what He is - it is His very essence, into Mary's egg/womb, the only thing that could result from that union was Him, the Father, being born into a flesh human body (perfectly capable of sin and all normal temptations).

And that outcome is exactly what we see the Bible describing in 2 Phil. 5-11 and in all that Jesus did as He was growing up and all that He ever spoke about the Father and His relationship to Him.

It is what it is. Some just can't grasp/accept it.

A son, by definition, cannot be his own father, nor a father his own son, even when it comes to God. As C.S. Lewis said, nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God.

C.S. Lewis was a human author and he was far from infallible.

A human son cannot be his own father. When the Father incarnated into the flesh, He became His own Son as He was the contributing Father to the person of the mother.

It just is what it is. Most people just don't like it. Jack said it best when he said:

I believe what the Bible plainly teaches. Modalsim was rightly condemned as heresy a long time ago.

And you and your cronies here continue to lob that accusation at people while not a single person in this thread has claimed Modalism.

Modalism is not what is being discussed. Modalism doesn't allow for omnipresence and for Jesus' baptism. True Biblical Oneness reveals that God can be everywhere at once generally or in specific bodies in the same location. That is because God's multiplicity is not "modes" of Himself. He is the Father in heaven while simultaneously the Son upon the earth plane.

It is what it is. Only those with deep spiritual understanding can discern these things. Claiming it can't be so is an example of not discerning the spiritual.

 

[Free]

Well, let's explore that with some simple logic, mixed with a very gentle sprinkling of the spiritual.

So, ... Jesus' father was whom? It wasn't Joseph. He had a mother which was Mary. He must have a father if He is to be called a son. Who is His father. That's right, it is THE Father; God Almighty.

Ok, so we have God Almighty who is Jesus' Father, and we have Jesus as His Son. All makes perfect sense.

And because the Father did not physically procreate with Mary, the dynamic of how Jesus was made, and who Jesus was, is verrrrry different from any other scenario laid forth in Scripture.

Agreed.

Unlike the fallen angels, who had enough power to create physical (enough) bodies for themselves that they were capable of physical intercourse with women,

If you want to believe that demons had the same creative power of God, to create DNA that could mix with human DNA to create some sort of hybrid offspring, that is your choice.

the Father did not use that method of bringing forth Christ.

Unlike Adam, who God created from the dust of the earth, Jesus was totally unique in who He was and how He was created. Because God is a spirit (John 4:24), He cannot create a child like humans do. That takes the traditional human concept of father and son right off the table right there. Because He put His Spirit, which is who and what He is - it is His very essence, into Mary's egg/womb, the only thing that could result from that union was Him, the Father, being born into a flesh human body (perfectly capable of sin and all normal temptations).

And that outcome is exactly what we see the Bible describing in 2 Phil. 5-11 and in all that Jesus did as He was growing up and all that He ever spoke about the Father and His relationship to Him.

Except that Phil 2 clearly teaches that it was Jesus, the Son, who "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." This supports my position and the numerous verses I previously gave showing that it was the Son, not the Father, who came from heaven, who entered into time to become the God-man. You ignored all those verses as well. Here they are again:

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.

Joh 5:23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

(Notice that Jesus came from heaven to do the will of him who sent him. This makes no sense if they are one and the same person.)

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.
Joh 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

(Notice the plurality in John 14:23. Irrational if they are one and the same person.)

Joh 15:21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.

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 16:30 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.”

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
...
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

(Here is John 1:1 made more plain--"the glory I had with you before the world existed.")

Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

Notice that God sent his Son into the world. It's hard to send something into the world that didn't exist before (again, this all is based on John 1:1-18, which is rather the whole point of John's prologue).

It is absolutely clear that it was not the Father who came to earth, but the Son, who existed with the Father before creation, that is, in eternity past.

It is what it is. Some just can't grasp/accept it.

It's not what you said it is.

C.S. Lewis was a human author and he was far from infallible.

I never said he was.

A human son cannot be his own father. When the Father incarnated into the flesh, He became His own Son as He was the contributing Father to the person of the mother.

Again, there is a reason why God reveals himself, in part, as a Father and Son in relationship--because we can fully understand what that means; it communicates something to us and has meaning. However, if God actually means that as the Father he is also his own Son, and vice versa, then his use of the Father/Son relationship is meaningless and it communicates nothing to us.

It just is what it is. Most people just don't like it. Jack said it best when he said:

And that is likely why you've ignored all the harder arguments I've put forward.

And you and your cronies here continue to lob that accusation at people while not a single person in this thread has claimed Modalism.

Modalism is not what is being discussed. Modalism doesn't allow for omnipresence and for Jesus' baptism. True Biblical Oneness reveals that God can be everywhere at once generally or in specific bodies in the same location. That is because God's multiplicity is not "modes" of Himself. He is the Father in heaven while simultaneously the Son upon the earth plane.

It is just a modern form of Modalism that seems to be trying to distance itself from the ancient heresy by appearing more Trinitarian. The irony is, if you're going to go that far and say all three "modes" can exist at the same time, you may as well just believe in the Trinity. It is much more rational.

It is what it is. Only those with deep spiritual understanding can discern these things. Claiming it can't be so is an example of not discerning the spiritual.

These sorts of statements are pointless, as they do nothing to advance the discussion since both sides can claim the same.

 

[Cooper]

Agreed.


If you want to believe that demons had the same creative power of God, to create DNA that could mix with human DNA to create some sort of hybrid offspring, that is your choice.


Except that Phil 2 clearly teaches that it was Jesus, the Son, who "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." This supports my position and the numerous verses I previously gave showing that it was the Son, not the Father, who came from heaven, who entered into time to become the God-man. You ignored all those verses as well. Here they are again:

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.

Joh 5:23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

(Notice that Jesus came from heaven to do the will of him who sent him. This makes no sense if they are one and the same person.)

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.
Joh 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

(Notice the plurality in John 14:23. Irrational if they are one and the same person.)

Joh 15:21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.

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 16:30 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.”

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
...
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

(Here is John 1:1 made more plain--"the glory I had with you before the world existed.")

Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

Notice that God sent his Son into the world. It's hard to send something into the world that didn't exist before (again, this all is based on John 1:1-18, which is rather the whole point of John's prologue).

It is absolutely clear that it was not the Father who came to earth, but the Son, who existed with the Father before creation, that is, in eternity past.


It's not what you said it is.


I never said he was.


Again, there is a reason why God reveals himself, in part, as a Father and Son in relationship--because we can fully understand what that means; it communicates something to us and has meaning. However, if God actually means that as the Father he is also his own Son, and vice versa, then his use of the Father/Son relationship is meaningless and it communicates nothing to us.


And that is likely why you've ignored all the harder arguments I've put forward.


It is just a modern form of Modalism that seems to be trying to distance itself from the ancient heresy by appearing more Trinitarian. The irony is, if you're going to go that far and say all three "modes" can exist at the same time, you may as well just believe in the Trinity. It is much more rational.


These sorts of statements are pointless, as they do nothing to advance the discussion since both sides can claim the same.

You should be able to see from the scriptures you posted the dual nature of Jesus. Sometimes he spoke as a man, and other times he spoke as God. Evidence of Christ's divine nature are his miracles.
.

 

[JLB]

The difference is that unlike Jesus we are not born of the Holy Spirit.

Please speak for yourself, because I am born of the Holy Spirit.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6


The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” John 3:8





If you are not born of the Spirit then you are not saved.





JLB

 

[JLB]

We are three. We are body, soul and spirit, but are One person, the same as Jesus in whose image we are. The difference is that unlike Jesus we are not born of the Holy Spirit. "The Father is in me" Jesus said. I have a human father and unlike Jesus, my father is not deity. Jesus said it is not me who does these things, but the Father in me.
.

Again, you will need to address the scripture I quoted, if you want your perspective to be considered valid.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

• and these three are one.

If this scripture said this one is three, then you would be correct.


But since it plainly says these three are one, then you are in error.



The three persons of the Godhead are one.




JLB

 

[JLB]

If that's your only proof that God is "three persons", your only Biblical teaching of the concept of the trinity, your case would be dismissed in a court of law in about an hour, if that.

Sorry but denial of what the scriptures plainly teach only proves you are in error.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

• and these three are one.

If this scripture said this one is three, then you would be correct.


“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!
Deuteronomy 6:4


God = Strong's H430 - 'ĕlōhîm



As we see Elohim is plural.







JLB

 

[Free]

You should be able to see from the scriptures you posted the dual nature of Jesus. Sometimes he spoke as a man, and other times he spoke as God. Evidence of Christ's divine nature are his miracles.
.

Yes, the two natures of Jesus are very much a part of the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Cooper]

Yes, the two natures of Jesus are very much a part of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Thank you.
.

 

[theWind]

I believe what the Bible plainly teaches. Modalsim was rightly condemned as heresy a long time ago.

For the record, modalism is just as heretical as trinitarianism.

In fact, they are very similar in their heretical stance.

They both claim that God is/does something that the Bible declares nowhere.

They are both unsound heretical doctrines.

 

[Cooper]

Sorry but denial of what the scriptures plainly teach only proves you are in error.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

• and these three are one.

If this scripture said this one is three, then you would be correct.


“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!
Deuteronomy 6:4


God = Strong's H430 - 'ĕlōhîm
View attachment 15021


As we see Elohim is plural.







JLB

I would like to run this past you if I may, and it is about Deuteronomy 6:4.

We know there is one God, and we know God came among us in the image and likeness of man, as promised in Isaiah and fulfilled in the Gospels. What troubles me is when people make a hierarchy by saying the Son is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc, and really Jesus is no different from any prophet.

We know God humbled himself for a season, and those 33 years were but a blink of an eye to God. But to demote Jesus to the level of man is to do the creator a terrible disservice. At the same time, it provides the cults with the ammunition they need to deny Jesus, and furthermore to claim that Christians worship three gods. The denial of Jesus is seen everywhere across the forums. The opposer must love it, but we assist them in their efforts to reduce Jesus to our level by stating that Jesus is not the Father, and is not the Holy Spirit. So, who is Jesus if he is not the Father and is not the Holy Spirit? The kindest answer I have seen over the years is that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. So, my question is this, do you think that to divide the One God into three parts is the right thing to do?
.

 

[theWind]

If you want to believe that demons had the same creative power of God, to create DNA that could mix with human DNA to create some sort of hybrid offspring, that is your choice.

This is your problem. And it is a big problem.

If you don't believe what the Bible plainly teaches in Genesis 6, you won't believe any Biblical Truth at all.

See, you are stuck believing in a version of the Bible that doesn't exist. A version that God's Word doesn't support at all. As long as you stubbornly choose to embrace only what the churches teach, and nothing they do not, there is nothing I, or anybody else, can do to help you see the Light.

It is a soul-threatening miscalculation on the part of so many professed Christians today and God addresses it directly in the Bible.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee ... I will also forget thy children. ... the people that do not understand shall fall."
Hosea 4:6, 14

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved."
2 Thess. 2:10

"Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit, through deceit they refuse to know Me, saith the Lord."
Jer. 9:6

"... they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord: ... therefore shall they eat the fruit of their own way and be filled with deception ..."
Prov. 1:29, 31

It's been nice speaking with you.

God bless.

 

[theWind]

Sorry but denial of what the scriptures plainly teach only proves you are in error.

Oh!

Do the Scriptures plainly teach that God is three persons now?

Do tell.

Please present that plain teaching for all of us who have been mislead. That will clear things up quickly and put this 2,000 year old debate to rest right now.

 

[theWind]

I would like to run this past you if I may, and it is about Deuteronomy 6:4.

We know there is one God, and we know God came among us in the image and likeness of man, as promised in Isaiah and fulfilled in the Gospels. What troubles me is when people make a hierarchy by saying the Son is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc, and really Jesus is no different from any prophet.

We know God humbled himself for a season, and those 33 years were but a blink of an eye to God. But to demote Jesus to the level of man is to do the creator a terrible disservice. At the same time, it provides the cults with the ammunition they need to deny Jesus, and furthermore to claim that Christians worship three gods. The denial of Jesus is seen everywhere across the forums. The opposer must love it, but we assist them in their efforts to reduce Jesus to our level by stating that Jesus is not the Father, and is not the Holy Spirit. So, who is Jesus if he is not the Father and is not the Holy Spirit? The kindest answer I have seen over the years is that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. So, my question is this, do you think that to divide the One God into three parts is the right thing to do?
.

Spot on.

And of course they don't believe it's right.

The vast majority of those who argue passionately for the trinity know good and well it is absolutely not taught anywhere in the Bible.

Many of the big name pastors on television begin their sermons on the trinity with that very statement.

"We know that the trinity is taught nowhere in the Bible, BUT .... "

And they proceed to make many creative analogies and use pop-psychology and New Age references, etc. to make their case. Many of the analogies are false too as they say things like "See, water is in three forms as well: a gas, a solid and a liquid." Or you'll often get "Man is in three forms: body, soul and spirit. There are multiple examples of this fallacy as it doesn't align with the official definition of the trinity as being "three distinct persons". Water in three forms is closer to Modalism as they are all three still water.

In other words, you can't use this model for any of their examples:

This doesn't work because water IS ice, water IS liquid, water IS a gas.

Man is not distinct from his spirit, his soul or his body.

None of the trinity explanations work and it is astonishing to me that they didn't figure all this out before foisting such an illogical false doctrine onto Christendom so long ago. Millions of Christians were tortured and killed throughout the dark ages for admitting it was nonsense and did not align with Scripture in the least. These people will not let this lie go. It is a demonic spirit, an idol, that they are protecting to the very end.

 

[Free]

For the record, modalism is just as heretical as trinitarianism.

In fact, they are very similar in their heretical stance.

They both claim that God is/does something that the Bible declares nowhere.

They are both unsound heretical doctrines.

So you claim about Trinitarianism, yet you have not provided one single verse or sound argument to prove otherwise. It has stood the test of time because it is true, or at least is the best explanation of all the biblical revelation.

This is your problem. And it is a big problem.

If you don't believe what the Bible plainly teaches in Genesis 6, you won't believe any Biblical Truth at all.

See, you are stuck believing in a version of the Bible that doesn't exist. A version that God's Word doesn't support at all. As long as you stubbornly choose to embrace only what the churches teach, and nothing they do not, there is nothing I, or anybody else, can do to help you see the Light.

It is a soul-threatening miscalculation on the part of so many professed Christians today and God addresses it directly in the Bible.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee ... I will also forget thy children. ... the people that do not understand shall fall."
Hosea 4:6, 14

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved."
2 Thess. 2:10

"Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit, through deceit they refuse to know Me, saith the Lord."
Jer. 9:6

"... they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord: ... therefore shall they eat the fruit of their own way and be filled with deception ..."
Prov. 1:29, 31

It's been nice speaking with you.

God bless.

Why am I not surprised that you ignored all the Trinitarian arguments and focused on the one irrelevant thing? You still haven't addressed all those other posts and arguments that I pointed out. I guess I'm not surprised at that either, as every discussion about the Trinity ends up this way--the anti-trinitarians pretty much completely ignoring the most difficult arguments and just repeating the same old arguments and claims that have been dealt with.

The vast majority of those who argue passionately for the trinity know good and well it is absolutely not taught anywhere in the Bible.

Many of the big name pastors on television begin their sermons on the trinity with that very statement.

"We know that the trinity is taught nowhere in the Bible, BUT .... "

As with Scripture, you're probably taking their comments out of context. The word "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible and there is no single verse with a complete formulation of it, but all the foundations are taught. When all the evidence is put together, the doctrine of the Trinity clearly emerges.

And they proceed to make many creative analogies and use pop-psychology and New Age references, etc. to make their case. Many of the analogies are false too as they say things like "See, water is in three forms as well: a gas, a solid and a liquid." Or you'll often get "Man is in three forms: body, soul and spirit. There are multiple examples of this fallacy as it doesn't align with the official definition of the trinity as being "three distinct persons".

All of the analogies fail at some point, but why should that be surprising? How can analogies from the finite fully explain the infinite?

Water in three forms is closer to Modalism as they are all three still water.

In other words, you can't use this model for any of their examples:

This doesn't work because water IS ice, water IS liquid, water IS a gas.

Well, no, water is the term used for liquid H2O. H2O can be solid, liquid, or gas, and under the right conditions, can simultaneously exist in all three states.

Millions of Christians were tortured and killed throughout the dark ages for admitting it was nonsense and did not align with Scripture in the least.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

These people will not let this lie go. It is a demonic spirit, an idol, that they are protecting to the very end.

Be careful, this is a violation of the ToS.