Father, Son, and Holy Spirit makes ONE God (Jesus Christ) like Mind, Body, and Spirit makes ONE Man

The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit makes One God, Jesus Christ, not three gods. One body and One Mind and One Spirit makes One Man, not three men. Man was made in The Image of God. Man has a Trinity (Body, Mind, and Spirit), and so does God.


The Mind of The Father sees and knows all things. The Mind of The Father is Wisdom.

The Holy Spirit of God is The Power of God's Love and Mercy.

The Body of Christ is The Son of God, in whom, The Mind of God The Father and The Holy Spirit of God is revealed.

a reply to: lightofgratitude

FFS enough already.

a reply to: lightofgratitude

There is only one God. And that God is God.

a reply to: lightofgratitude

Dude, this is completely convoluted.
God is not this complicated.
God doesn't need us to find a magic f##king key ring encoder to figure it out.
This is ridiculous.

God is everywhere. You don't need to join a stupid club to get it.

a reply to: lightofgratitude

This is precisely why we don’t want religion around our schools and our government.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

God is everywhere. You don't need to join a stupid club to get it.

Yes, God is everywhere, but it is through Faith that God can appear to you as a Person, that you can experience The Love of God personally, as a person.


It isn't complicated, it's simple.


One Man = Mind, Body, Spirit.

One God "Jesus Christ" = Mind of The Father, Body of The Son, and The Holy Spirit.


God made it Simple, by making us in His Image and Likeness. Whoever denies The Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), is denying that Man was made in His Image (Mind, Body, Spirit).

a reply to: lightofgratitude

Here you go...

a reply to: lightofgratitude

1Cor 2:6-8 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

a reply to: lightofgratitude
There is a scriptural base for this comparison which you haven't used;
"For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no-one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians ch2 v11.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes, it is through Jesus that revelation comes. Christ revealed The Mind of God The Father and The Holy Spirit of God. Before, people were trying to understand but were in darkness.


God is Love and those who Love are Born of God and Know God (1 John 4:7-8)

a reply to DISRAELI and ChesterJohn --
In your opinions, based upon the scriptures of both testaments of the Christian bibles, Is the biblical Holy Spirit a seperate independent entity of the Creator ?

a reply to: Seede
That question is answered in the passage I've already quoted;
"For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no-one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians ch2 v11.
Is a man's spirit separate from himself? Hardly. In the same way, the Spirit of God is not separate from God.
Paul makes this point to show that we can rely upon what the Spirit tells us, because it comes direct from source.


P.S. And if the Spirit is not separate from God, how can the Son have the authority to "send" the Spirit (John ch16 v7)? Dear me, that seems to show that the Son can't be separate from God either.

a reply to: DISRAELI

P.S. And if the Spirit is not separate from God, how can the Son have the authority to "send" the Spirit (John ch16 v7)? Dear me, that seems to show that the Son can't be separate from God either.

Well said and I thank you but as my confusion disappears it then reappears.

I understand [in a sense] of what you say but let me ask this in a different perspective. I am being taught by Christian Nazarenes that indeed the Father God begat the Word and also begat the biblical Jesus and that in that sense I can understand the two being one but then I come to Corinthians of which it does confuse me.
1Co 15:24-28
(24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
(25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
(26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
(27) For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
(28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

My question centers on this scripture. I understand that the biblical Jesus perished from this realm and was restored back to His former estate as “The Word of God.” He has been restored in power and authority where He is at this day. I do understand this in that manner but now we come to the very end of all this creation. All of this universe has been destroyed and all that was in this universe has been destroyed.

The Word stands before the Most High and delivers up the kingdom of heaven and His power and authority to the Most High. In verse 28 it says that the Son will then be subject to “The Most High.”

Note that in verse 28 it states that “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

Am I mistaken to understand that here the “Word of God” becomes an independent entity the same as you are an independent entity? Is there a structural change involved in this or am I reading too much in this?

a reply to: Seede
I think we can get a little more light by consulting John.
First, the gospel. "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made" (John ch1 v3). Looking at this statement closely, it necessarily excludes the Word from the category of "things that were made". The channel of creation, as it were, cannot be one of the created things passing through the channel. So it places him very clearly on the "Creator" side of the boundary between "Creator" and "created things".
Then at the end of Revelation, e'g. ch22 v1, we see "God and the Lamb" sitting on the same throne. Tney are a partnership.

There are two language points puzzling you, I think. One is the language which implies subordination. But even in Trinitarian theory, the Father has a degree of priority, because he originates the other two. For that reason alone, the Son would be giving way.
The other is the language which applies the word "God" simply to the Father. To me, that is just force of habit (Paul's original education being Jewish), and not consciously following through the logic which makes it legitimate for us to use the word "God" more broadly. His insistence that Christ is "Lord" has the same effect, especially when it is expanded to the Old Testament term "Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians ch2 v8).

Jesus gives the faithful apostles reason not to be troubled over his departure: “In the house of my Father are many dwelling places. . . . If I go my way and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will receive you home to myself, so that where I am you also may be.” The apostles, however, do not grasp that he is speaking about going to heaven. Thomas asks: “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?”​—John 14:2-5.

“I am the way and the truth and the life,” Jesus answers. Only by accepting him and his teachings and imitating his life course can one enter the heavenly house of his Father. Jesus says: “No one comes to the Father except through me.”​—John 14:6.

Philip, listening intently, requests: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Philip seems to want some manifestation of God, like the visions that Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah received. However, the apostles have something better than such visions. Jesus highlights that, replying: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also.” Jesus perfectly reflects the Father’s personality (see also Col 1:15); hence, living with and observing Jesus is like seeing the Father. Of course, the Father is superior to the Son, for Jesus points out: “The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality.” (John 14:7-10) The apostles can see that Jesus is giving all credit for his teachings to his Father. John 7:16:

16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me.

John 8:28

28 Jesus then said: “After you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.

John 12:49

49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak.

Colossians 1:15

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

Revelation 3:14

14 “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God:

Revelation 1:5a

5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” ...

The apostle Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ, according to the Common Bible (the Common Bible is approved by both Catholic and Protestant authorities):

“He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”—Col. 1:15-17.

What did the apostle mean by calling Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? Paul’s further words enlarge on the matter: “He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.”—Col. 1:18, CB.

Here we find that the Greek words for both “first-born” (protótokos) and “beginning” (arkhé) describe Jesus as the first one of a group of class, “the body, the church,” and therefore he has preeminence in this respect. He also has preeminence in being the first one resurrected to endless life from among all the human dead.—1 Cor. 15:22, 23.

The same Greek words occur in the Greek Septuagint translation at Genesis 49:3: “Ruben, thou art my first-born [protótokos], thou my strength, and the first [arkhé, “beginning”] of my children.” (Compare Deuteronomy 21:17, Septuagint.) From such Biblical statements it is reasonable to conclude that the Son of God is the firstborn of all creation in the sense of being the first of God’s creatures. In fact, Jesus refers to himself as “the beginning [arkhé] of God’s creation.” (Rev. 3:14, CB) The New World Translation renders the phrase in this verse: “the beginning of the creation by God.”

There are many who object to the idea of Jesus as being a created person. They argue that since “in him all things were created” (CB)—during his prehuman existence in heaven—Jesus himself could not be a creature. Such individuals believe that Jesus is himself Almighty God, the second person of a “trinity” of three coequal, coeternal persons in one “godhead.”

Individuals of that persuasion interpret the Greek expression (at Revelation 3:14) for “the beginning of God’s creation” as meaning “the origin (or ‘primary source’) of the creation of God.” One who prefers this idea is the noted Greek scholar Henry Alford. Nevertheless, in his work The Greek Testament, Alford concedes: “The mere word arkhé would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being: see Gen. xlix. 3; Deut. xxi. 17; and Prov. viii. 22. And so the Arians here take it, and some who have followed them: e.g. Castalio, ‘chef d’œuvre:’ ‘omnium Dei operum excellentissimum atque primum:’ [meaning “the first and most excellent of all God’s works”] and so Ewald and Züllig.”

According to The Expositor’s Greek Testament, to understand Revelation 3:14 as meaning that Jesus is “the active source” of creation, rather than the first created person, one must interpret arkhé “as in Greek philosophy and [non-Biblical] Jewish wisdom-literature,=aitía or origin.” The inspired Bible writers, however, never borrowed ideas from Greek philosophy.

But how could Jesus be a creature if “in him all things were created”? At times the Bible uses the word “all” in a way that allows for exceptions. For example, we read at 1 Corinthians 15:27 (CB): “But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him [Jesus Christ],’ it is plain that he [God] is excepted who put all things under him.” As a further illustration the Bible states that “through one man,” Adam, “death spread to all men.” (Rom. 5:12, CB) Though Adam was not part of the “all men” to whom death “spread” (since previous to Adam there was no human who could have spread death to him), he was nonetheless a man. Similarly, though Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God. The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,” as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.) Hence, the New World Translation reads: “by means of him all other things were created . . . he is before all other things.”—Col. 1:16, 17.

Jesus’ being the firstborn of all creation involves the law of primogeniture, the right of the one born or produced first. From earliest times the real firstborn son enjoyed special privileges that included succeeding to headship of the household and inheriting a double portion of the father’s property. (Deut. 21:15-17) Kingship and priesthood, too, were inherited by the firstborn son of a king or high priest in ancient Israel.—See 2 Chronicles 21:3.

Since Jesus as the firstborn of all creation is a created person, he cannot be Almighty God. The Scriptures repeatedly portray him as in a position subordinate to God.

a reply to: whereislogic

Jesus says that He and The Father are ONE (John 10:30), NOT TWO. He says that The Father dwells in Him (John 14:10) and that no man comes to The Father but through Him and if you have known Him then you have seen and known The Father (John 14:6-7).


The Jews knew that He called Himself God, that's why they wanted to kill Him.


The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." - John 10:33

a reply to: lightofgratitude
The point of my comment was explaining the text used in the OP to support the Pagan* Trinitarian philosophy you ascribe to it, without the Trinitarian glasses on. *: derived from Pagan ideas of Triune Gods, or Triads and the Platonic trinity.

The main point is summarized in the sentence right after discussing the context:

Jesus perfectly reflects the Father’s personality (see also Col 1:15); hence, living with and observing Jesus is like seeing the Father.

Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity, this understanding fits with the rest of the Bible. What's the point in just repeating that text about seeing the Father again in response to my comment? It's not going to make the Trinity any more of a biblibal doctrine than it was. There's also not much point in switching to other Bible texts that Trinitarians appeal to or twist to make it appear it supports their teachings or their beliefs (eisegesis, reading their philosophies derived from Pagan philosophies into the text), as a supposed response to my comment that is. It doesn't seem you're interested in anything I have to say about it or the Bible texts I'm quoting in support of my argumentation or actually responding to any of it (you 'talk' as if you didn't even see it, or registered it, your response is not a response to what already was a response to you bringing up those texts from John 14). Now... I could respond to the other 3 texts you used now, but there's little point if you're as stubborn as these people about it, Isaiah 65:1,2:

“I have let myself be searched for by those who did not ask for me;

I have let myself be found by those who did not look for me.

I said, ‘Here I am, here I am!’ to a nation that was not calling on my name.

2 I have spread out my hands all day long to a stubborn people,

To those walking in the way that is not good,

Following their own thoughts;

Regarding the way I phrased a few things at the start of this comment:

Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts​—even twisting them—​to find support for their teaching. But none of that behaviour (or demonstrating the effects of being indoctrinated with it) makes the Trinity any more a biblical doctrine than it was.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

What evidence points to the identity of Babylon the Great, referred to in Revelation? Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide:

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40)

The Bible tells of many gods and goddesses that people worshiped, including Ashtoreth, Milcom, Chemosh, and Molech. (1 Kings 11:1, 2, 5, 7) Even many people in the ancient nation of Israel once believed that Baal was the true God. So Jehovah’s prophet Elijah presented the challenge: “If Jehovah is the true God, go following him; but if Baal is, go following him.”​—1 Kings 18:21.

The worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was also common before Jesus was born. In the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.”

Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed in The Story of Civilization: Part III, page 595: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.”

In An Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilius Ferm, 1964, on pages 793 and 794, under the word “triad,” are listed the trinities of the Babylonian, Buddhist, Hindu, Norse, Taoist, and other religions, as well as those of Christendom. As an example, it notes that in India, “the great Triad include Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Preserver and Shiva, the Destroyer. These represent the cycle of existence, just as the Babylonian triad of Anu, Enlil and Ea represent the materials of existence, air, water, earth.”

And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”

In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

a reply to: whereislogic

Jesus says that only He reveals The Father (Matthew 11:27). He says The Father is in Him and they are ONE, not two.


Still you claim that they are two, that they are separate. If they are two then Jesus is not The Only Way to The Father even though He said that He was (John 14:6) because if they are separate then The Father is a separate person that you can try to reach even if you don't regard Jesus.



Again, Jesus says seeing Him is seeing The Father, that they are One, that The Father is in Him and that He is The Only Way to The Father.

originally posted by: whereislogic
“I am the way and the truth and the life,” Jesus answers. Only by accepting him and his teachings and imitating his life course can one enter the heavenly house of his Father. Jesus says: “No one comes to the Father except through me.”​—John 14:6.

And without the Trinitarian glasses on that's the teaching one takes away from what Jesus is explaining there (also considering the context that I quoted before). In no way does it support any Trinitarian dogma. Anyway, since you seem to be on your own path and being a bit repetitive, I'll continue where I left off with my previous comment...

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.”

The trinity teaching was firmly entrenched among peoples whose religions were based on mythology. The Hindus, even down to this day, worship a trinity made up of the three-headed Trimurti of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.

London’s British Museum contains artifacts that show ancient trinities, such as Egypt’s Isis, Harpokratēs, and Nephthys. A publication of the museum’s Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities notes the following that was inscribed on ancient jewelry: “Obverse [side], the Egyptian gods Horus-Baït (hawk-headed), Buto-Akori (the snake), and Hathor (frog-headed). Reverse [side], the Greek verse ‘One Baït, one Hathor, one Akori; the power of these is one. Hail, father of the world, hail, three-formed god!’ The gods are thus identified as three manifestations of one power, probably the sun-god.”

Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge calls the Trinity a “very marked” feature in the Hindu religion and “discernible” in the ancient [pre-Christian] religions of Persia, Egypt, Rome, Japan, India, and Greece. According to Professor E. W. Hopkins, a Neoplatonic philosopher named Plotinus (205-270 C.E.) “evolved” a form of trinity similar to the orthodox Buddhist and Brahmanic trinity. Professor Hopkins said of Plotinus: “His theology which was called ‘Platonic,’ had no little influence upon the leaders of Christian opinion.”

Did this philosopher influence Christendom’s leaders more than Jesus himself did? Professor Hopkins answers: “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate, they say nothing about it.”​—Origin and Evolution of Religion.

The Trinity concept stems from ancient Babylon, where the sun-god Shamash, the moon god Sin, and the star god Ishtar were worshipped as a triad. Egypt followed the same pattern, worshipping Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Assyria’s chief god, Asshur, is portrayed as having three heads. Following the same pattern, images are to be found in Catholic churches depicting God as having three heads. An Assyrian seal, now displayed in the British Museum in London, shows their national god Asshur with three heads.

Coming back to Plato and his influence, he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature.

That's why the French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence (as quoted in my previous comment): “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.”

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”

By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.”

The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.”

In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”

Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7

Why, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”? (quotations from Trinitarians that I couldn't fit in 1 comment)

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

‘Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.’—The Encyclopedia Americana

a reply to: lightofgratitude
Col. 2:8

8 Look out that no one takes you captive* [Or “carries you off as his prey.”] by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

1 Peter 5:8

Keep your senses, be watchful! Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone.* [Or “looking for someone to devour.”]

You ought to watch out for Plato's and Bishop Berkeley's* philosophies in particular. *: the philosophy of immaterialism as promoted in the movie The Matrix for example. Watch out for this one as well, it's a doozy:

Some people apply that way of thinking or a similar way of thinking to what they call "the mystery of faith" (referring to the Trinity) as well when they use that phrase or when they talk about believing it without understanding it. Isaac Newton, who also discovered the Pagan origins of the doctrine of the Trinity from his study of the Scriptures in comparison with available historical information on the development of the Trinity, once said:
"A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding."

“There is no wisdom, nor any discernment, nor any counsel in opposition to Jehovah.” (Pr 21:30; compare Isa 29:13, 14; Jer 23:20; 30:24.)
“Knowledge of the Most Holy One is what understanding is,” and this includes understanding “righteousness and judgment and uprightness, the entire course of what is good.” (Pr 9:10; 2:6-9; 16:20)

The person who turns to transgression begins to discount God as a factor to be considered when making decisions and plans. (Job 34:27) Such a person allows his heart to blind him to the wrongness of his ways and he loses insight. (Ps 36:1-4) Even if claiming to worship God, he puts men’s precepts above God’s; he prefers them. (Isa 29:13, 14)