First and the Last said:

A recurring pattern appears in these discussions: whenever Oneness believers appeal directly to the apostolic writings—Scripture in its original Greek and Hebrew—the conversation quickly shifts away from the New Testament authors themselves and toward theologians from the 2nd to 5th centuries. This reveals something important: if the Trinity as defined by later orthodoxy were truly self-evident in the apostolic witness, there would be no need to rely so heavily on post-biblical categories to interpret first-century texts.

The claim is often made that the “apostolic witness” supports the Trinity over a Oneness reading. But that claim only stands if the doctrine can be demonstrated from the writings of the apostles themselves—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude. And yet, whenever Oneness believers point to the plain textual evidence that Sonship begins in the incarnation and is tied to conception, flesh, obedience, suffering, death, and resurrection, the reply is not more Scripture—it is appeals to Gregory, Athanasius, Augustine, and Nicene metaphysics.

This is not a denial of Scripture. It is a denial of imported categories that Scripture never uses:
• “eternal Sonship,”
• “eternal generation,”
• “interpersonal divine minds,”
• “face-to-face communion between two divine psyches before Bethlehem,”
• “ontological distinctions inside God,”
• “two wills within the Godhead,”
• and “hypostatic personal properties.”

None of this is apostolic vocabulary. These are later solutions to later controversies, read back into the text with the assumption that what defines orthodoxy in the 4th century must have been intended in the 1st.

Meanwhile, Scripture itself repeatedly grounds Sonship in incarnation, not eternity:
• Luke 1:35 — the Son is called Son because of conception
• Galatians 4:4 — God sends forth His Son by making Him “born of a woman”
• Hebrews 1:5 — “This day have I begotten thee”
• Acts 13:33 — the begetting of the Son tied to resurrection
• Hebrews 2:14 — the Son partook of flesh and blood
• John 1:14 — the Word became flesh (not “the eternal Son became flesh”)

The Word is eternal; the Son is the Word in flesh. Scripture consistently makes this distinction, and a Trinitarian reading collapses it by projecting Sonship backward into eternity where the Bible never places it.

Appealing to post-apostolic theologians does not prove apostolicity. True apostolicity is only established by tracing a doctrine to the apostles themselves—in their own writings. The councils and fathers may be valuable historically, but they are not the standard by which Scripture interprets itself. If the Trinity in its later form were truly the teaching of the apostles, the arguments for eternal generation, hypostatic distinctions, and tri-personal relationships would be plainly taught in Scripture, not assembled from metaphysical language developed centuries later.

The irony is striking: the more heavily the argument leans on post-biblical tradition to defend a doctrine, the more evident it becomes that the apostles did not teach that doctrine in those terms.

If Trinitarians wish to argue their case from Scripture alone, then the task is simple: demonstrate
• an eternal Son in Scripture,
• an eternally begotten Son,
• interpersonal divine consciousness between Father and Son before Bethlehem,
• and a Godhead structured as three co-equal, co-eternal persons.

If these claims cannot be established from the Hebrew and Greek text, then the debate is not about denying Scripture—it is about refusing to elevate later doctrinal formulations to the level of the apostolic witness.

For those of us committed to sola Scriptura, this distinction matters profoundly. The authority of Scripture must be demonstrated from Scripture itself, not from theological constructs added centuries later.

Click to expand...

Gothedral said:

I just think it's weird that the satans rely on people not reading.

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

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the Life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Click to expand...

B-A-C said:

When All Scripture Isn’t Treated Equally—and Why That Matters


I recently learned that some Christian groups create a hierarchy within Scripture: if God the Father said it, that’s top priority; if Jesus said it, that’s next; then the apostles, then the prophets. At first glance, this sounds logical—surely God’s own words matter most? But historically, the church has affirmed that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). When we start ranking verses, we risk fragmenting the Bible’s unified message.


This came to mind when I heard about a group in Moses Lake, Washington, called the “Church of John.” They only read John’s Gospel, his letters, and Revelation. Why John? Maybe because his writings emphasize love and spiritual depth. But limiting Scripture to one author distorts the full picture of God’s story. It’s like reading only the last chapter of a novel—you miss the plot.


Then there’s Gamaliel’s famous advice in Acts 5: “If it’s of God, it will last.” Sounds wise, right? Yet history proves otherwise: many false religions have lasted for centuries. Gamaliel wasn’t a prophet or apostle; his words were practical counsel, not divine law. The Bible records them, but doesn’t endorse them as universal truth. That’s a reminder: not everything quoted from Scripture is God’s voice—Job’s friends gave plenty of speeches that God later called wrong (Job 42:7). Context matters.


So how do we navigate this? By embracing the whole counsel of God, not cherry-picking verses or elevating some voices above others. Yes, the New Testament fulfills the Old, and some practices changed (circumcision, sacrifices), but that’s progressive revelation—not a hierarchy of importance. And when we test truth, we don’t rely on longevity like Gamaliel suggested; we look for fruit, sound doctrine, and the Spirit’s witness (Matthew 7:16; Galatians 1:8; 1 John 4:1).


In the end, following Christ isn’t about selective listening—it’s about hearing His voice and obeying (John 10:27). Like the childhood game “Follow the Leader,” if we claim to follow Jesus but refuse to move where He leads, are we really His followers? Scripture calls us to humility, unity, and discernment. That means avoiding factions and quarrels (Galatians 5:19–21), resisting pride (Mark 9:33–35), and letting God’s Word—not our preferences—shape our faith.

Click to expand...

YeshuaFan said:

The concept of the trinity was taught right from the Apostles themselves,...

Click to expand...

Gothedral said:

I sincerely hope you mean the Apostles taught the Trinity (Holy Father, Holy Son, and Holy Spirit ["Holy, Holy, Holy is His name']) as testified of in the "Old Testament".

There are many entire chapters, From Genesis through to Malachi, testifying of GOD's nature. One that makes Satan wail and gnash his damned teeth is Isaiah 45 that defines these aspects of GOD as Father, Son, and Spirit.

Click to expand...

Show, from Scripture alone—without using creeds, councils, tradition, Greek metaphysics, or post-apostolic categories—where the apostles taught:​

1. An eternal Son (not the eternal Word, but an eternal Son as a distinct divine person).
2. Eternal generation (the Son being eternally begotten).
3. Three divine “persons” as three self-aware centers of consciousness.
4. Interpersonal divine communication between Father and Son before the incarnation.
5. Three co-equal, co-eternal divine persons within the Godhead.
6. Ontological distinctions inside God (“hypostatic properties,” “personal relations of origin,” etc.).
7. Two divine wills within the Godhead.

Saying “the early church believed it” is not proof.​

So the question stands—very plainly:​

First and the Last said:

If someone wants to assert that “the Trinity was taught by the apostles,” then the question becomes extremely simple:


Where is the textual proof—using only the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, in their first-century context—without appealing to post-biblical creeds, confessions, metaphysics, or later doctrinal development?


Appealing to what the “earliest Christians” supposedly believed, or claiming that later creeds merely “standardized apostolic doctrine,” is not evidence. It’s a statement that still has to be proven from the apostolic writings themselves.


And that is precisely the problem: the Scriptural data does not contain the categories required by Nicene Trinitarianism.


If the apostles taught a co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal Godhead, then that should be demonstrable directly from the text—without reaching into the 2nd–5th centuries.


So the request remains:

Show, from Scripture alone—without using creeds, councils, tradition, Greek metaphysics, or post-apostolic categories—where the apostles taught:​

1. An eternal Son (not the eternal Word, but an eternal Son as a distinct divine person).
2. Eternal generation (the Son being eternally begotten).
3. Three divine “persons” as three self-aware centers of consciousness.
4. Interpersonal divine communication between Father and Son before the incarnation.
5. Three co-equal, co-eternal divine persons within the Godhead.
6. Ontological distinctions inside God (“hypostatic properties,” “personal relations of origin,” etc.).
7. Two divine wills within the Godhead.

None of these are apostolic terms. None are first-century Jewish categories. None appear in the Greek text. None are taught explicitly—or even implicitly—by the apostles unless one imports later philosophical and metaphysical definitions into the text.

Saying “the early church believed it” is not proof.​

Saying “the creeds standardized what the apostles taught” is not proof.
Saying “it was handed down from the Holy Spirit” is not proof.
Proof requires Scripture itself.


If the claim is that the Trinity was taught by the apostles, then the evidence must come from the writings of the apostles. Anything else is simply an assertion.

So the question stands—very plainly:​

Where is the Scriptural evidence for these doctrines, stated in first-century language, without borrowing terminology or concepts from 2nd–5th century theological systems?


If that cannot be produced, then the Trinitarian claim collapses—not because of “Oneness presuppositions,” but because the apostles simply did not teach what later theology assumes they did.


No appeal to creeds, confessions, or “what the early fathers believed” changes the fact that:


Doctrine must be proven from Scripture.
If it cannot be proven from Scripture, it is not apostolic.

Click to expand...