The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

slimboyfat

I think the Bible is entirely clear that Jesus was created by God and is distinct from and subject to God. That’s what Christians believed until the fourth century. If you handed the Bible to somebody afresh without any history of dogma attached there is no way they would ever come up with a Trinitarian God of three coequal persons. It’s a peculiar artefact of the particular philosophical and political interactions of fourth century Christianity.
The Bible explicitly says that God is one. (Gal 3.20)
It explicitly says that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1.15)
It explicitly says that Jesus is distinct from and subject to God. (1 Cor 11.3 and dozens of other verses)
There are no verses anywhere that say God consists of three coequal and coeternal persons, nothing even close to it.
Phizzy

" If you handed the Bible to somebody afresh without any history of dogma attached there is no way they would ever come up with............................" Insert any unique J.W Doctrine or Teaching and you will find the same thing.
So much for " Our teachings are based on the Bible" !
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Yes, the Father is unbegotten—but this doesn’t make the Son ontologically inferior. The Father’s property as unbegotten is not a mark of ontological superiority, but a relational distinction. In Trinitarian theology, each divine Person possesses the one divine essence fully, but is distinguished by their relational origin:
As St. Thomas Aquinas puts it:
“The Son receives His being from the Father by eternal generation, but the being He receives is numerically identical with the Father's. Therefore, He is equal in essence, even though His origin is from another.” (ST I, q.42, a.4)
So: to say that the Father is the cause or that the Son receives His being from the Father does not imply that the Son is created or inferior—only that He is eternally generated from the Father.
Eusebius’s early writings show confusion, but he later affirms Nicene orthodoxy, he is not the standard of orthodoxy in Trinitarian theology. In fact, his early writings (like the one quoted) show signs of semi-Arian sympathies. He admired Origen and often leaned toward subordinationist language, especially prior to the Council of Nicaea. But after the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), Eusebius publicly signed the Nicene Creed, which affirms:
“The Son is begotten, not made, consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father.”
He even explained his agreement in his letter to his church at Caesarea, stating that this language affirmed what he always believed: that the Son is eternally from the Father, and not created. So, the quote you’ve cited reflects Eusebius’s earlier, imprecise pre-Nicene thinking. It was corrected by the Nicene definition, which Eusebius explicitly accepted. In short: even if Eusebius once spoke in a way that sounds subordinationist, he eventually submitted to the Church’s judgment and affirmed the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son. Your interpret Eusebius's phrase:
“The Son... received from the Father both His Being and the character of His Being”
…as though it meant the Son didn’t always exist. But this is not a creation ex nihilo, which is what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. Instead, it's a reference to the eternal generation of the Son. St. Augustine explains it this way:
“The Son is from the Father—not made, but begotten. And just as the Father is eternal, so also is the Son eternally begotten.” (De Trinitate, I.15)
Likewise, St. Gregory Nazianzen writes:
“The begetting of God must be honored by silence… it is eternal, incomprehensible, and not in time.” (Oration 29.3)
So, the Son “receiving” His being from the Father means eternal generation, not temporal creation. The Son is not an independent source, but He has the same divine essence, fully received. This is standard Catholic—and Nicene—doctrine. It does not support the JW view that the Son is a creature.
Eusebius and other early Fathers used terms like “second,” “from,” or “subordinate” in functional or relational senses, but they never meant ontological inequality. As St. Basil the Great clarifies:
“The terms ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ apply only to the Son’s mission in time, not to His essence.” (Against Eunomius, II.24)
This distinction is key:
- Economic subordination = The Son obeys the Father in the Incarnation.
- Ontological equality = The Son is fully God, equal in essence.
So when Eusebius calls the Father “first in order,” he is not implying that the Son is a creature, but expressing the monarchia (principle) of the Father as the source of the Son.
While your position seems at first glance to rest on “plain readings” of Scripture, it actually reflects a reductionist and anachronistic hermeneutic—one that flattens the complex, interwoven theological claims of the New Testament into something deceptively simple and ultimately inconsistent with the total witness of Scripture. Let me respond in detail.
“If you handed the Bible to someone fresh…”
This is a popular rhetorical move but not a valid theological methodology. Yes, if we handed the Bible to someone without the guidance of tradition, linguistic understanding, or doctrinal formation, they would likely also struggle to affirm:
- The canon of Scripture (How do they know which books are inspired?)
- The hypostatic union (that Jesus is both fully God and fully man)
- The Incarnation and virgin birth
- That Jesus is the Messiah in fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures
Scripture is not a standalone codebook. It was written within the Church, preserved by the Church, and requires interpretation within the context of the Church. The Bereans were praised (Acts 17:11) not for private interpretation, but for examining the Scriptures in light of the apostolic preaching.
“Christians believed this until the 4th century”
This is historically false. The belief that Jesus was divine, pre-existent, and one with the Father was proclaimed from the beginning, and it is well attested before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). Some clear examples:
- Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh.” (Letter to the Ephesians 7)
- Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD): “The Word, being the first-begotten of God, is even God.” (Dialogue with Trypho 61)
- Tertullian (c. 200 AD): “The Son is derived from the substance of the Father, and is therefore God and true God.” (Against Praxeas 9)
These are pre-Nicene fathers who explicitly affirm the divinity of Christ and a form of Trinitarian belief. What the Council of Nicaea did was define and defend what had already been believed in substance, in response to the novelty of Arianism, which claimed Jesus was a creature.
“The Bible explicitly says God is one” – Galatians 3:20
Yes! Absolutely, and this asserts precisely monotheism, not unitarianism. Monotheism is the bedrock of Christian theology:
“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deut. 6:4)
But monotheism does not exclude Trinitarianism. The Trinity is not three gods. It is one God in three persons (hypostaseis), not three beings. The Christian claim is not that “Jesus is another God,” but that the one being of God exists eternally in three persons. This preserves monotheism while making sense of the full witness of Scripture, which attributes divine glory, honor, and worship to the Son and the Spirit.
“Jesus is the firstborn of all creation” – Colossians 1:15
This is a classic misreading. The Greek word prototokos does not mean “first created” (which would be protoktistos). Rather, prototokos means:
- Preeminent heir (cf. Ps 89:27: “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”)
- Supreme over creation, not a part of it
Paul explains this in the very next verse:
“For by him all things were created…” (Col 1:16)
If all things were created by Him, then He cannot be a creature. Unless you want to say He created Himself, which is absurd. This passage affirms that the Son is the agent of creation, which means He pre-existed creation and is not part of it.
“Jesus is subject to God” – 1 Cor 11:3
Yes, and classical Trinitarian theology agrees.
- The Son is eternally from the Father (ex Patre), but not inferior to the Father.
- This is an eternal relation of origin, not a difference in essence or divinity.
The analogy used by Paul—man is the head of woman—does not imply ontological inferiority, but relational order. Similarly, the Son's submission to the Father is not because He is a creature, but because He is the Son. Even in the Incarnation, Jesus takes a human nature, and thus says: “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) — because the Son humbled Himself in assuming flesh (Phil 2:6–7). But this is a difference of role, not essence.
“There are no verses that say God is three coequal persons”
You're right — the word Trinity and that exact phrasing are not in the Bible. But neither is the word “Bible”, “incarnation”, or “omniscience.” What matters is whether the concept is there. And it absolutely is:
- Matthew 28:19: Jesus commands baptism “in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
- 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
- John 1:1: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
- Acts 5:3–4: Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.
- Phil 2:6–11: Jesus shares in God’s name (kyrios) and is worshiped by all creation.
- Hebrews 1:3: The Son is “the exact imprint of God’s nature” and is “worshipped” by angels (Heb 1:6).
There is a triadic structure to revelation. The Trinity is the only framework that coherently accounts for all this data.
To deny the Trinity is to:
- Make God’s love dependent on creation (if God is not eternally love in Himself, whom did He love before creation?)
- Make Christ a creature, though Scripture says all things were created through Him
- Ignore that the Church has universally affirmed Trinitarian belief from its earliest centuries
- Contradict the worship of Jesus by the apostles (Matt 28:17, John 20:28, Rev 5)
The Trinity is not a “philosophical construct.” It is the only explanation that accounts for all of Scripture without contradiction: God is one in being, three in persons. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, but all are fully and equally God.
“This is the faith of the apostles, the faith of the Church, the faith that gives us eternal life.”
To deny the Trinity is to misunderstand Christ. To misunderstand Christ is to miss salvation itself.
slimboyfat

Some JW teachings that’s no doubt true, Phizzy. However the view of Jesus as distinct and subordinate to God is so clear I think it’s the straightforward reading. How anyone can read passages like 1 Tim 2.5 and still conclude God is a trinity is the true mystery.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus
Halcon

touchofgrey-instead of in a confusing manner that has had and still having people debating if he is a single god with a created son or three persons in one where they are all equal.Both versions can't be right but they can both be wrong.
We are not questioning the existence of God. As long as we do as John stated in his letter we are confident in our future.
But discussing the Trinity is an attempt to more fully understand our God. Can full understanding of Him be achieved? Very likely not. We are only human.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
You reference 1 Timothy 2:5 and claim that this verse proves that Jesus cannot be God. The claim ignores the fact that mediation requires the Mediator to be both divine and human—which is exactly the point of 1 Tim 2:5. Aquinas (ST III, q. 26, a. 1) teaches:
“Christ is called a Mediator, inasmuch as He joins together two parties: God and man. Now to unite these two, He must partake of both. Therefore, it was necessary that He should be both God and man.”
So the verse presupposes—not denies—Christ’s divinity. He is Mediator as man, not only man. He mediates because as God He possesses infinite merit, and as man, He shares in our nature. The phrase “the man Christ Jesus” emphasizes His role as incarnate mediator, not that He is merely a man. The same Paul who wrote 1 Tim 2:5 also says in Titus 2:13:
“Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
And in Romans 9:5:
“Christ... who is God over all, blessed forever.”
St. Augustine explains this apparent duality in The City of God, Book X, ch. 29:
“As man, He is Mediator; but as the Word, He is equal to God, and God with God.”
Thus, Paul’s statement is not unitarian or subordinationist—it’s incarnational and soteriological.
The notion that “no first-century Christian believed in the Trinity” is contradicted by the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the structure of New Testament texts.
“There is one Physician... both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true Life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible—Jesus Christ our Lord.”
- Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 107 AD), Epistle to the Ephesians 7.
This is less than a decade after the apostolic era. He clearly confesses a Christ who is God and man, eternal and temporal—not a mere creature.
1 Corinthians 8:6 is another oft-cited verse by Arians:
“One God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
Yet “Lord” (Kyrios) was the Greek translation of YHWH in the Septuagint. The passage consciously echoes the Shema (Deut 6:4), now reinterpreted Christologically, distributing divine prerogatives between Father and Son without dividing the essence. As Richard Bauckham points out: this is not a denial of Christ’s divinity, but an inclusion of Jesus within the divine identity (cf. Jesus and the God of Israel, 2008).
Multiple Church Fathers—including Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian, and Augustine—interpret 1 Tim 2:5 in line with the Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy:
- Tertullian (Against Praxeas, ch. 27): Christ is one person in two natures, not a mere human being.
- Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V.17): Christ is both the Word through whom Adam received the command and the One who forgives sin—clearly divine.
- Augustine (Confessions, XLI.18): Christ is mediator as man, but equal to God as Word.
Aquinas distinguishes between the ontological Trinity (equality of nature) and the economic missions (order in operation). Christ is “subordinate” in function—not in being.
“In the Trinity, there is order of origin, not of time or nature.” (ST I, q.42, a.4)
Thus, the Son’s mediation reflects His mission, not His essence.
Your reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 as denying Christ’s divinity is flawed. The verse affirms the incarnation and mediatorship of the God-man, not His creatureliness. The text fits perfectly within the Trinitarian framework, developed not by paganism or council politics, but from a careful exegesis of the full counsel of Scripture, and attested from the earliest Fathers.
“There is one God…” Yes—and the one God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
“…and one mediator…” Yes—and only one is qualified to stand between God and man: the One who is both.
slimboyfat

Well there’s still no Trinity in the Bible but now you’ve shown a couple of complicated diagrams that totally makes it true. 🤔
On 1 Tim 2.5 you treat Godness and humanness as like two sticky substances and Jesus somehow needs to be dipped in both to be a mediator who partakes in both. In reality that’s later philosophy talking, nothing to do with what the Bible says. What the Bible says is that there is one God and one mediator between God and humans, that is the man Jesus Christ. Notice it doesn’t say the God-man Jesus, and notice it doesn’t say between divinity and humanity. It says one man between the one God and humans. Jesus is neither the one God nor is he a sinful human. He is the one perfect human who can act as the bridge or mediator between God and sinful humans. Trinitarians claim that Jesus, on the basis of a philosophical notion of essences, must be part of both sides. In reality a mediator acts “between” two parties and is not part of either, as Paul points out in Gal 3.20
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
You reject the idea of Christ being both God and man on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:5, arguing that Paul presents Jesus solely as a man, not as the God-man. You also object to the use of what you see as philosophical categories (like “essence” or “nature”) as later “inventions.” But this critique fails on multiple levels—exegetical, historical, and theological. Let’s start with the text itself:
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5)
You assert: “Notice it doesn’t say the God-man Jesus.” – which is nothing more than an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). True—but that does not mean Paul is denying Christ’s divinity. In fact, the context of this verse, and Paul’s own writings elsewhere, demand that we read this incarnationally, not unitarianly. Paul is emphasizing Christ’s role as mediator in His humanity, not defining His entire ontological being. To say “the man Christ Jesus” is to refer to the mode of His mediatorial work—not the totality of His identity. The very fact that Jesus is man does not exclude that He is also God. If anything, this reflects the Pauline pattern of affirming both aspects of Christ. Take Philippians 2:6–7:
“Though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”
The Son, who is in the form of God, becomes man. This is incarnation. The same is echoed in Romans 1:3-4, where Paul says that Christ “was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power...by his resurrection from the dead.”
Now to 1 Tim 2:5. Paul is saying that the one mediator is the man Christ Jesus because that is the nature through which He mediates. But the assumption is that He must also fully possess the divine nature—because only God can bridge the infinite moral and ontological chasm between sinful man and perfect God. The verse does not preclude Christ's deity; it presupposes it. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas says (ST III, q. 26, a. 1):
“The office of a mediator belongs to him who unites those between whom he mediates...Now to unite men to God perfectly, it was necessary that there should be one who was true God and true man, so that He might bring men to God, partaking of both.”
Your analogy of a mediator being outside both parties is mistaken. In biblical thought—and in Roman legal practice—a mediator must represent both parties, not stand as a third, unrelated party. Moses was a mediator as man; but Christ is greater, because He shares in the divine nature (Hebrews 3:1–6). The whole point of the New Covenant is that the Mediator is God Himself (cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15).
You wrote: “Paul points out in Gal 3:20 that a mediator is not of one.” But let’s read the verse in context:
“Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.” (Gal 3:20, NASB)
Paul is contrasting the Mosaic covenant (mediated by angels and Moses) with the Abrahamic promise. His point is that God’s covenant with Abraham was unilateral—God alone made the promise—whereas the Law was bilateral and required mediation. But this verse is not a definition of what a “mediator” must be ontologically, nor does it suggest that Christ, as Mediator, must be neither God nor man. That is eisegesis. Galatians 3:20 isn’t speaking about Christ at all.
You suggest that the idea of Christ being both God and man is the result of later philosophy. That’s simply incorrect. As early as Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD), we have the confession of Christ as:
“God in man...both of Mary and of God.” (Eph. 7)
This is not Platonism or Greek metaphysics. It is doctrinal exegesis drawn from John 1:14, Col 2:9, Phil 2, and Hebrews 1. It’s also not the result of a Council—Ignatius wrote this before Nicaea.
Further, the terms “ousia,” “physis,” “hypostasis,” and “prosopon” were not imposed on the Bible; they were refinements to protect biblical truths from heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism. Councils like Chalcedon (451 AD) merely articulated the truth already present in Scripture: that the one person (hypostasis) of the Son possesses two natures—divine and human—without confusion, change, division, or separation.
Your rejection of “essence” or “nature” is itself a philosophical stance—just an anti-metaphysical one. But language about “one God,” “Son,” “image,” “form,” “likeness,” etc., in the Bible requires ontological reflection. Theology is faith seeking understanding—not blind citation.
You say “there’s still no Trinity in the Bible.” True—the word “Trinity” isn’t there. But neither is the word “Bible.” What matters is whether the doctrine is taught. And it is. The baptismal formula (Matt 28:19), the benediction (2 Cor 13:14), and the Christological hymns (Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20; Heb 1:1–3) all demand a Trinitarian reading. The early Church recognized this not by invention, but by necessity.
Finally: “The diagrams don’t prove anything.” Of course they don’t. They’re visual aids to help clarify complex but biblically warranted truths. Christianity is not grounded in diagrams—it is grounded in Christ, and the reality of who He is demands careful articulation. That articulation led the Church to confess, not invent, the Trinity.
To sum up, you misread 1 Tim 2:5 by isolating it from Paul’s broader Christology. You interpret “man” as meaning “merely man,” when Paul teaches elsewhere that the Son is “God over all” (Rom 9:5). Your appeal to Gal 3:20 is out of context. Your claim that essence-language is foreign to Scripture ignores the metaphysical implications of biblical terms. And your denial of the Trinity reflects not biblical fidelity, but a flattening of the biblical witness. Yes, there is one God. But the one God has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—not in contradiction to His unity, but as its eternal and living fullness. To deny this is not to uphold Scripture, but to reduce it.
And Christ—who is God and man—is the only possible mediator between the two.
slimboyfat

I don’t know how any of that refutes what 1 Tim 2.5 plainly says: there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ. Jesus is therefore distinguished from the one God. This is totally incompatible with the Trinity. I know in many discussions there is merit on both sides and reasonable argument can be had. But I don’t think this is such as case. If it wasn’t for centuries of dogma, the prestige of the church, and the stigmatisation of JW theology as heretical, I don’t think the discussion would even get off the ground. The Bible tells us dozens of times that Jesus is separate from and distinguished from God. Dealing with the inventive ways Trinitarians come up with discounting each and every one is simply a waste of time.
Good video on some of the places Jesus said he wasn’t God here.
https://youtu.be/hzpw1b5WxHM?si=43EJyJBDE2jap578
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
You claim that 1 Timothy 2:5 proves Jesus “cannot” be God because Paul says “the man Christ Jesus,” and you argue this makes Christ “separate” from “the one God.” But this interpretation commits multiple fallacies, especially when one isolates the verse from its theological and literary context. Based on your own logic, Christ couldn’t be human either, since he is mentioned here “separately” from mankind. Yes, Paul says here “the man Christ Jesus”, but nowhere does he say “Christ is only a man.” To assert that "man" excludes divinity is to impose a false dichotomy on the text. The whole point of Christ being a mediator is precisely because He is both God and man. If Jesus were only a man, He could not mediate between God and men—He’d be part of the problem, not the solution. Aquinas rightly observed: “To mediate between two parties, one must share the nature of both. Christ mediates between God and man because He is God and man.” (ST III, q. 26, a.1) This verse presupposes, rather than contradicts, Trinitarian theology:
- "One God" — the Father, source of divinity.
- "One mediator" — the Son in His incarnate role.
- The Spirit is implied throughout Pauline theology as the one who unites believers to Christ (cf. Rom 8:9–11).
Even Paul distinguishes roles within the Godhead without undermining unity of essence (cf. 1 Cor 12:4–6; Eph 4:4–6). Your video three key passages (and several “honorable mentions”) where Jesus allegedly “denied being God.” Let’s examine and refute them one by one:
You say in Mark 10:17-18 (“Why do you call me good?”) Jesus denied divinity because He said “No one is good but God alone.” But this is a misreading. Jesus is not denying His goodness or divinity—He is challenging the young man’s understanding. If the man calls Jesus “good,” and only God is good, then logically he should recognize Jesus as God. This is a rhetorical question, meant to provoke deeper reflection. Moreover:
- Jesus claims sinlessness elsewhere (cf. John 8:46).
- He forgives sins (Mark 2:5–10).
- He claims to give eternal life (John 10:28).
- He is called “the Holy One of God” (John 6:69)—the same Greek word for good (agathos and hagios) often overlap in Hebrew and Aramaic semantics.
Thus, this verse affirms His divinity once properly understood.
You claim that John 5:19 (“The Son can do nothing of Himself…”) shows Jesus is not equal to God. But this again ignores the context. John 5:18 says the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because He was making Himself equal to God. If this was a misunderstanding, Jesus had every opportunity to clarify. Instead, He reinforces the claim:
- Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise (v. 19) — this is a claim to omnipotence.
- The Son gives life as the Father does (v. 21) — divine prerogative.
- All are to honor the Son just as they honor the Father (v. 23) — blasphemous unless the Son is divine.
This is not a denial, but a full affirmation of equality in nature, even amid functional subordination. In Trinitarian theology, roles differ (economic Trinity), but essence is shared (ontological Trinity).
You argue Jesus in John 10:30–36 (“I and the Father are one”) is only claiming unity in purpose, and when accused of blasphemy, He retreats from the charge by quoting Psalm 82. But this misses two key points:
- Jesus says “I and the Father are one” (hen, neuter)—one in essence, not just in mission. He doesn’t say “we are united” but “we are one.” The Jews’ reaction—attempting to stone Him—is based on correct understanding of what He implied: ontological equality.
- When He quotes Psalm 82, He does not deny divinity. Rather, He uses a lesser-to-greater argument: “If even unjust rulers were called ‘gods’ in Scripture, how much more appropriate is it for the consecrated and sent Son to be called God?”
As theologian D.A. Carson writes: “The quotation from Psalm 82 is not a denial of divinity, but a challenge to their narrow assumptions.” Jesus then says (v. 38): “The Father is in me, and I am in the Father” — a mutual indwelling (perichoresis), which again points to the Trinitarian mystery.
John 17:3 speaks of the Father as “the only true God”—but that does not exclude the Son from that identity. The Father is the source of the Godhead; the Son proceeds eternally from Him. Trinitarians affirm monotheism: there is one God, and Jesus shares that divine essence. In fact, the same John who wrote 17:3 also wrote:
- “The Word was God” (Jn 1:1).
- “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20:28).
- “The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father” (Jn 1:18, majority reading).
So if your interpretation of John 17:3 contradicts these, then your interpretation is flawed.
You cite Jesus referring to “My God” in Revelation 3:12 as proof He is not God. But again, you conflate economic roles with ontological nature. Jesus, in His human nature, continues to relate to the Father as “His God.” That’s why He could say even on the Cross, “My God, My God…” (Mt 27:46) quoting Psalm 22 as the suffering Messiah. In His incarnate, mediatorial role, He is subordinate. But this does not negate His divine nature. Scripture affirms both that He is “God over all” (Rom 9:5), and He has a God (John 20:17) as man. You dismiss the Trinity as a pagan borrowing. But this is historically and theologically untenable.
1. Jewish Monotheism is not violated by the Trinity. Early Jewish Christians re-read the Shema in light of Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation (1 Cor 8:6). They confessed one God in three persons, not three gods.
2. Trinitarian Formulas in the New Testament predate Nicaea:
3. Pagan triads (Egyptian, Babylonian) are polytheistic gods in competition or hierarchy. The Trinity is not a triad of gods but one God in three co-equal persons. Completely different category.
Your claim that “Son of God” excludes divinity collapses under basic Jewish theology. In Hebrew thought. “Son of…” can indicate nature, not just origin (e.g., “sons of disobedience” = disobedient). The “Son of God” is uniquely “begotten,” not made (Jn 1:18). Jesus is not an adopted son—He is of the same essence as the Father (homoousios). Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) wrote:
“There is one Physician… God in man… Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Eph. 7)
This is not Nicene innovation. It is the apostolic faith.

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

Share this