bible verses changed to support trinity

[jessedance]

1. john 1:18 'only begotten son' was changed to 'only begotten god'
2. john 3:13 'who is in heaven' was added to support trinity. it is ommited in B, ALEPH, p66 ,p75, 33, and W manuscripts' it was inserted in manuscrt A and is in the TR.
3. matthew 28:19. i've already covered this one in great detail
4. acts 18;25 was changed but its not clear to me if it was changed to support the diety of christ or not. manuscripts G ,AND TR say 'the things of the Lord' manuscritps B, ALEPH, A, P74m 33m D say 'the things concerning Jesus'
5. acts 20:28 'his own blood', meaning God's blood is in the TR , in manuscriptsB,ALEPH,A, C, 33, D it says , 'the blood of his own' and many scholars suspect a primitive error here and that it probalby said originally 'the blood of his own son' which of course the rest of the bible supportsand says in other places.
6. 1 cor 15:47 was changed from 'from heaven ' to 'the Lord form heaven'. roth, num, , NASB, ASV ,DAR with a footnote,WOR, NIV , AND WUEST translations all omit 'Lord' form this verse, the UBS gives it an A rating as being certain that 'Lord' is not in this verse.
7. col 2:2 there was a lot of tampering with this versekjv says, 'od, and of the father, and of christ' the probable reading was' god, christ', as in the asv version

Colossians 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, of Christ,

other manuscripts say just 'god' or 'god, which is christ' thats in manuscript D and is in a foot note in the NIV, 'God in christ' manuscript 33
and 'god the f ather, christ' which is in aleph ,A,and C.
c
8. 2 thes. 2:2 'the day of the Lord' was changed to 'the day of Christ' the variant reading is only supported by a foot note in manuscritp D and the TR.

9. 1 JOHN 5:7B, 8A ive covered this one in great detail in here.
I got most of this information from my pastor, and I checked much of it out on the internet and found it to be acurate always.

 

[leeuniverse]

Oh indeed, I'm well aware of this also.

And they still think their Doctrines come from the "Bible" ALONE....

 

[jessedance]

lee. if you know another please let me know ill add it to my list.

 

[Emmy]

Is theHoly Trinity biblical?If so where can it be found?Thank you,Emmy.

 

[jessedance]

Is theHoly Trinity biblical?If so where can it be found?Thank you,Emmy.

TRINITY isn't biblcial it is baised on two verses of scripturethat are both spurios (not in the original manuscirpt) matthew 28:19 and 1 john 5:7 are both verses tampered with to have verses to base trinity on.

 

[Svt4Him]

Who tampered with them? And amazing how quick things like this can get agreed upon, no matter if they're true or not. Self-serving bias?

John 1:18No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

"john 3:13 'who is in heaven' was added to support trinity. it is ommited in B, ALEPH, p66 ,p75, 33, and W manuscripts' it was inserted in manuscrt A and is in the TR."

I'm sorry, NU texts omit it, but to imply that that makes them more accurate isn't so.

matthew 28:19. i've already covered this one in great detail- well, if you've already covered it, I guess then it's covered. I'll post the verse though:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

And if a change isn't clear I can't address it. But I do again have to ask who changed it, and I hope the RC church isn't going to get blamed again. A quick study of the amount of manuscripts as well as the locations they were found will show that the RC didn't have access to all manuscripts.

acts 20:28 'his own blood', meaning God's blood is in the TR , in manuscriptsB,ALEPH,A, C, 33, D it says , 'the blood of his own' and many scholars suspect a primitive error here and that it probalby said originally 'the blood of his own son' which of course the rest of the bible supportsand says in other places.- cite of these many scholars please.

Sorry, that's all for now. I still have to wait for this 'proof'. Thanks.

 

[Starcrystal]

Even without all the alleged tampering, omitting, adding, etc, the Scripture still doesn't support a "trinity" of God in 3 PERSONS. I am emphasizing "persons" here, as I have explained in numerous other posts. Using the KJV ("unaltered" version) show me one place it says Holy Spirit is a "person" ~ Or the Father for that matter. Jesus is the only true "person" of the alleged "trinity." The Father is Spirit and as omnipotent Spirit can manifest in physical forms at His will. He has manifested as a pillar of fire, a cloud, a still small voice, tongues of fire and a dove (Holy Spirit) and as "The Angel of the Lord" ~ possibly Melchizedek, and of course Jesus.

"These 3 are One" Yes, Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one, but are 3 manifestations just as you can be a son, a father and a husband. Or a body, soul and spirit. You are not 3 separate people, you are ONE ~ but you are 3 things as well.

 

[saltoearth]

The doctrine of Trinity is accepted by most of the church because they fear to labeled heretics, apostates and members of a cult.

The bible is simple and straightforeward in regards to the who Jesus is and who God is

Trinitarians would have you believe that since no one can truly explain the trinity it is a "mystery of God" that will never fully be understood until we are on the other side.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

If even non-believer can understand the Godhead, why can't Christians?

How we see the Godhead in creation is this...

Kind after kind

God is the Father
Jesus is the son

Jesus is the Son of God
1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Jesus was begotten of God
1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Jesus was created of God
Proverbs 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Jesus is the image of God
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Jesus inherited a more excellent name than the angels (the name of the father)Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


For the same reason Christains are not Christ, the Son is not the Father.

Christains are transformed into the image of Christ
Colossians 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Christian are one with Christ, because we abide in him and he abides in us.
1 Corinthians 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

The born again NEW MAN is conceived by the WORD, the SEED of Christ. We are brought forth from Christ, just as Christ is brought forth from the father. Christ is the ONLY begotten of the FATHER, yet there are MANY sons of God. HOW? Because we are ONE in CHRIST, not literally, spiritually.

The same way we are one in Christ, the Son is one with the Father.

 

[Ratiocination]

I agree with starcrystal, the verses that are being said to be tampered with say nothing of a trinity, they are a correct and important part of a unitarian/monothesist doctrine used to explain the relationship between God and Christ.

 

[Svt4Him]

Who is the first and the last, the beginning and the end?

 

[Ratiocination]

Who is the first and the last, the beginning and the end?

Depends on which context/verse!

 

[zeontes]

As I am still learning the idiosyncrasies of the posting process I ask for your patience if I blunder a bit. On the issue of the Trinity and the truth concerning who Jesus Christ is and who God is, it is of one of my upmost concerns. I have studied this issue for 27 years and think that you have all done well to look into the textual difficulties as well as the scriptures themselves. Those who doubt that the texts have been tampered with could learn some things from the book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" by Bart D. Ehrman. The scriptures were changed to refudiate the heresies of the time. The problem that they had in the first and second centuries dealt with whether Jesus was a common man or if he were the Son of God.

Who is Jesus' father? This is a simple question for every Christian to answer, God is his father, right? Now when you throw the concept of the Trinity in the mix, who is Jesus' father? God the Father, or God the Holy Ghost? Take a look at the Book, Matthew 1: 18....she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

One of the major problems with the trinity is that it always takes credit away from God, the creator of Heaven and earth. God is holy and He is spirit. So to me, the Holy Spirit "is" God the Father, not to be confused with His gift of "holy spirit". Another major problem is that, as you mentioned before, there isn't anyone that can understand the trinity well enough to explain it to a child.

From a practical point of view, Jesus Christ is our savior and our mediator, everything that we have is because of his sacrifice for us. He is our Lord and through him we have access to God.

It is also as you said, a matter of fear among God's children to be considered as out of the normal range of beliefs. No one wants to be thought bad of, myself included, but I feel that each should examine the Scriptures for themselves to see if their beliefs line up with the truth.

 

[Ratiocination]

No one wants to be thought bad of, myself included, but I feel that each should examine the Scriptures for themselves to see if their beliefs line up with the truth.

Here, Here. If your interested in a good website for some extensive reading on how beliefs can and do affect Bible translations then click the link;

[Edited by moderator. Unauthorized link]

you'll find this site quite refreshing as it takes an honest look at the subject of what the Bible really says regardless of belief.

 

[Der Alte]

bible verses changed to support trinity 1. john 1:18 'only begotten son' was changed to 'only begotten god' and blah, blah, blah.

Repeating the same old garbage over and over again, closing your eyes, like every other false cult, and ignoring all the arguments which have been presented, many by me, does not change falsehood into the truth.

For example, this first scripture, the truth is which you have been clearly shown before the oldest most reliable manuscripts clearly say "only begotten God."

But you just keep on repeating your gossip, half-truths, etc., just like Charles Russell and Joseph Smith, you will convince some people who can't read their Bibles and are looking for something to tickle their ears.

 

[Der Alte]

TRINITY isn't biblcial it is baised on two verses of scripturethat are both spurios (not in the original manuscirpt) matthew 28:19 and 1 john 5:7 are both verses tampered with to have verses to base trinity on.

This is a deliberately false statement which I have proven you wrong on several times before. You don't know what the Trinity is or how Christians teach it. Virtually everything you post about the Trinity is full of false information and half-truths. You as well as most of the people here spitting out bile about the Trinity could not describe the Christian Trinity if their life dpepended on it. In the same way you cannot make a truthful statement about the the verses you listed. For example, so recent scholarship from the NET

New English Translation, translation notes.
John 1:18 45tc The textual problem monogenhV" qeov" (monogenh" qeo", “the only God&#8221 versus oJ monogenhV" uiJov" (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son&#8221 is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read qeov" or uiJov". The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Q Y Ë1,13 Ï lat), read oJ monogenhV" uiJov". Ì75 Í1 33 pc have oJ monogenhV" qeov", while the anarthrous monogenhV" qeov" is found in Ì66 Í* B C* L pc. The articular qeov" is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous qeov", for qeov" without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports monogenhV" qeov". Internally, although uiJov" fits the immediate context more readily, qeov" is much more difficult. As well, qeov" also explains the origin of the other reading (uiJov"), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found uiJov" in the text he was copying would alter it to qeov". Scribes would naturally change the wording to uiJov" however, since monogenhV" uiJov" is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But qeov" as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word qeov" as in apposition to monogenhv", and the participle oJ w[n (Jo wn) as in apposition to qeov", giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, monogenhv" in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, monogenhv" is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: monogenhv" alone, without uiJov", can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, qeov" is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where qeoV" h\n oJ lovgo" (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, oJ w[n occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
John 3:13
tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of monogenhv" (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.
46tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. kovlpo" 1).
47tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
28tn Grk “And no one.”
29sn The verb ascended is a perfect tense in Greek (ajnabevbhken, anabebhken) which seems to look at a past, completed event. (This is not as much of a problem for those who take Jesus’ words to end at v. 12, and these words to be a comment by the author, looking back on Jesus’ ascension.) As a saying of Jesus, these words are a bit harder to explain. Note, however, the lexical similarities with 1:51: “ascending,” “descending,” and “son of man.” Here, though, the ascent and descent is accomplished by the Son himself, not the angels as in 1:51. There is no need to limit this saying to Jesus’ ascent following the resurrection, however; the point of the Jacob story (Gen 28), which seems to be the background for 1:51, is the freedom of communication and relationship between God and men (a major theme of John’s Gospel). This communication comes through the angels in Gen 28 (and John 1:51); but here (most appropriately) it comes directly through the Son of Man. Although Jesus could be referring to a prior ascent, after an appearance as the preincarnate Son of Man, more likely he is simply pointing out that no one from earth has ever gone up to heaven and come down again. The Son, who has come down from heaven, is the only one who has been ‘up’ there. In both Jewish intertestamental literature and later rabbinic accounts, Moses is portrayed as ascending to heaven to receive the Torah and descending to distribute it to men (e.g., Targum Ps 68:19.) In contrast to these Jewish legends, the Son is the only one who has ever made the ascent and descent.

30tc Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A[*] Q Y 050 Ë1,13 Ï latt syc,p,h), have at the end of this verse “the one who is in heaven” (oJ w]n ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, Jo wn en tw ouranw). A few others have variations on this phrase, such as “who was in heaven” (e syc), or “the one who is from heaven” (0141 pc sys). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (Ì66,75 Í B L T Ws 083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading oJ w]n ejn tw'/ oujranw'/ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,” “the one who is from heaven,” and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator’s comments rather than Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem. And if v. 13 was viewed in early times as the evangelist’s statement, “the one who is in heaven” could have crept into the text through a marginal note. Other internal evidence suggests that this saying may be authentic. The adjectival participle, oJ w[n, is used in the Fourth Gospel more than any other NT book (though the Apocalypse comes in a close second), and frequently with reference to Jesus (1:18; 6:46; 8:47). It may be looking back to the LXX of Exod 3:14 (ejgwv eijmi oJ w[n). Especially since this exact construction is not necessary to communicate the location of the Son of Man, its presence in many witnesses here may suggest authenticity. Further, John uses the singular of oujranov" (ourano", “heaven&#8221 in all 18 instances of the word in this Gospel, and all but twice with the article (only 1:32 and 6:58 are anarthrous, and even in the latter there is significant testimony to the article). At the same time, the witnesses that lack this clause are very weighty and must not be discounted. Generally speaking, if other factors are equal, the reading of such mss should be preferred. And internally, it could be argued that oJ w[n is the most concise way to speak of the Son of Man in heaven at that time (without the participle the point would be more ambiguous). Further, the articular singular oujranov" is already used twice in this verse, thus sufficiently prompting scribes to add the same in the longer reading. This combination of factors suggests that oJ w]n ejn tw'/ oujranw'/ is not a genuine Johannism. Further intrinsic evidence against the longer reading relates to the evangelist’s purposes: If he intended v. 13 to be his own comments rather than Jesus’ statement, his switch back to Jesus’ words in v. 14 (for the lifting up of the Son of Man is still seen as in the future) seems inexplicable. The reading “who is in heaven” thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission. For an argument in favor of the longer reading, see David Alan Black, “The Text of John 3:13,” GTJ 6 (1985): 49-66.
sn See the note on the title Son of Man in 1:51
Matt 28:19
27tn “Go…baptize…teach” are participles modifying the imperative verb “make disciples.” According to ExSyn 645 the first participle (poreuqevnte", poreuqentes, “Go&#8221 fits the typical structural pattern for the attendant circumstance participle (aorist participle preceding aorist main verb, with the mood of the main verb usually imperative or indicative) and thus picks up the mood (imperative in this case) from the main verb (maqhteuvsate, maqhteusate, “make disciples&#8221. This means that semantically the action of “going” is commanded, just as “making disciples” is. As for the two participles that follow the main verb (baptivzonte", baptizontes, “baptizing”; and didavskonte", didaskontes, “teaching&#8221, these do not fit the normal pattern for attendant circumstance participles, since they are present participles and follow the aorist main verb. However, some interpreters do see them as carrying additional imperative force in context. Others regard them as means, manner, or even result.

28tc Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19,” ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that excises this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163-64, 167-75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27-29.​

​

 

[Der Alte]

Even without all the alleged tampering, omitting, adding, etc, the Scripture still doesn't support a "trinity" of God in 3 PERSONS. I am emphasizing "persons" here, as I have explained in numerous other posts.

And as I have pointed out several times and you have quite evidently ignored you are confusing the word "person" with the term "human being." They are not synonymous. Ignoring everything that contradicts you doesn't make your argument true.

Using the KJV ("unaltered" version) show me one place it says Holy Spirit is a "person" ~ Or the Father for that matter.

Show me one place the Bible says Jesus was a person. Or Peter, or Paul or any other "person" named in the Bible. OBTW while you are at it show me where the word Bible is in the scriptures. Or here is a good one show me where the scripture say God or the Holy Spirit "manifested."

I have shown where Jesus said that God was a man. He said that the testimony of "two men is true" He is one that bears witness of Himself and the Father bears witness. But if you were interested in the truth you would not be making inane comments like this, you would have read that when I posted it or you could really surprise me, do something unusual, and actually read your Bible and find the scripture I referred to. I won't hold my breath. Just like all the others you will just look up your handful of "proof texts" which seem to support your presuppositions.

 

[jessedance]

Who tampered with them?




.

some tampering was necessary for copiests when coping manuscripts would sometimes comeupon a verse they knew to be error and would put in the correct wording. sometimes they put in a reading that was spurious. sometimes they did it intentionally and sometimes out of ignorance. I don't know the names of the copiests they lived a long time ago and didnt leave us their names. over 12,000 bible manuscripts have been found including 4,600 greek manuscripts, 800 heb manuscritps and 6,600 fragments. . there are 181,600 variants in the 12,00 manuscripts , most of the variants are in late date manuscripts and most of these variants are minor such as puncuation word order spelling capitalization, etc. only about 400 materiallly affect the text and only about 50 affect doctrine . about 90 percent of the variants have so little ancient support that very few sholars would serioulsy conssider them as rival readings. i found all this info in a book called 'A CRITICAL APPARATUS of the 50 most important greek new testament variants.

"john 3:13 'who is in heaven' was added to support trinity. it is ommited in B, ALEPH, p66 ,p75, 33, and W manuscripts' it was inserted in manuscrt A and is in the TR."

I'm sorry, NU texts omit it, but to imply that that makes them more accurate isn't so.

Well im not sure what you mean by 'NU texts' (no texts?).well , I'm saying the weight of manuscript evidence is for the omission of 'who is in heaven' and i listed the most ancient manuscritps that don't have it and the one ancient manuscripy that does have it, TR doesn't really count in my estimation.

On Authority of Professor C. Tischendorf's notes on the readings of the two oldest Greek manuscripts: The Sinaitic and the Vatican.
The following words, found in our Common Version (King James Version) are not found in the Oldest Manuscripts, and are evidently no part of the Divine Word. Let each Berean go through his Bible, pencil in hand, and mark out these words: then read the passages affected and note the improvement. This list comprises all the important interpolations discovered to
John 3:13 which is in heaven
1 John 5:7 in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one .http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/tischendorf.htm

You seem to be saying that because older manuscripts don't have 'who is in heaven' that the reason they don't have them is they just forgot to put it in and newer manuscripts remembered to put it in. this , if it is what you are saying , i find to be very strange.

matthew 28:19. i've already covered this one in great detail- well, if you've already covered it, I guess then it's covered. I'll post the verse though:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

According to Conybeare:

"Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:

​

‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’​

http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html#Evidence%20of%20Eusebius
It should be noted that eusebius had accesss to bibles that predate any of the oldest manuscripts that we had. so if the bible eusebius had read math. 28:19 without the triatic formula that would have to mean it was added after eusebius or durring his day. which it was .
​

as to the question on who the many scholars are, in regards to john 3:13 who suspect the primative error of leaving out son. i can't go back and list every source where i have come upon that. In my "emphasised bible" by Joesph rotherham , he says in a foot note that wescott and hort suspect a primative error and that son was in it originaly.

Acts 20:28.......the assembly of God which he hath acquired through means of the blood of his own

rotherham.

 

[jessedance]

I agree with starcrystal, the verses that are being said to be tampered with say nothing of a trinity, they are a correct and important part of a unitarian/monothesist doctrine used to explain the relationship between God and Christ.

they weren't tampered with to insert the word trinty but to add support to the trinity, and the divinity of christ. which is the same thing. you have to say jesus is god to suupport trinity therefore you have to have scritpures that say that so viola, the 8 scritpures that were tampered with to that purpose.

 

[rnmomof7]

Even without all the alleged tampering, omitting, adding, etc, the Scripture still doesn't support a "trinity" of God in 3 PERSONS. I am emphasizing "persons" here, as I have explained in numerous other posts. Using the KJV ("unaltered" version) show me one place it says Holy Spirit is a "person" ~ Or the Father for that matter. Jesus is the only true "person" of the alleged "trinity." The Father is Spirit and as omnipotent Spirit can manifest in physical forms at His will. He has manifested as a pillar of fire, a cloud, a still small voice, tongues of fire and a dove (Holy Spirit) and as "The Angel of the Lord" ~ possibly Melchizedek, and of course Jesus.

"These 3 are One" Yes, Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one, but are 3 manifestations just as you can be a son, a father and a husband. Or a body, soul and spirit. You are not 3 separate people, you are ONE ~ but you are 3 things as well.

Would you say that this describes what you believe?

God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times.* At the incarnation, the mode was the Son.* After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit.**These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous.* In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Rather like I am wife , mom and nurse?

Should baptism be in the name of The Father , the son and the Holy Spirit or only Jesus ?

 

[jessedance]

If even non-believer can understand the Godhead, why can't Christians?

How we see the Godhead in creation is this...

Kind after kind

God is the Father
Jesus is the son

no greek word in the new testament means godhead. the greek word translated godhead in col. 2:9 is theotes which means god essence or divinity. godhead is not a biblical word.it is a vague word just like person of god that has no real definite meaning. the greek word for head is kapa and kapa isnt ever with theos theos kapa isnt in the b ible.

as to kind after kind, god created a sperm to fertilze marys egg and thus she concieved, thats what conceiving means . it means a male sperm impregnates a female egg. and thats whatgen 1 means

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

it's called her seed cause god created it in her womb. thus the male seed originated inside mary and in that sense it could be said that it was herseed. women don't have seed men do.
also,

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

the new thing the LORD , or yahweh, created was a male sperm and that is how a woman, Mary, was able to compass or go around a man to get 'her seed'. god created adam out of the dust of the earth and god created the second or new adam out of a new sperm he created and used to cause mary to conceive.
my experience with the godhead or trinity is that most unbelievers find it to be very confusing . I don't see unbelievers understanding the godhead or trinity.