Yahweh is One.

Post resurrection, Jesus appeared to a doubting Thomas, and after seeing and touching the glorified Messiah himself, he believed and "said unto him, My Lord and my God." (John 20:28) There are two possibilities here. The first one I'll propound would be the most obvious interpretation surface-wise, though not necessarily the most feasible of the two ultimately, since both would make perfectly beautiful sense. Jesus was simply able to bear the title "God" in his role as Chief agent of the Most High and one with more authority over others than anyone else in the world has with the exception of the one who gave it to him. Many are right in saying Jesus was (a mighty) God because he was and still is the most powerful revealer and emissary of God. He is the "greater Moses", who is also called God. (Ex. 7:1. 14) Powerful men representing Yahweh are sometimes called God. If His spirit is upon them then they are "God with us," doing His will and...

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, 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. ("taking on the likeness of humanity" from the Christian Standard Bible is a better less bias translation here) And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8) Traditionally, most Christians have misunderstood these beautiful verses and readily assumed the humiliation in view is God becoming a man, BUT is that the author's context and intent? These inspiring Philippians texts call to mind a few correlating passages that can help us reach a proper interpretation. "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich...

When I hear modern day trinitarian debaters describe their dogma (I accidentally first wrote this word as "fogma", which is really kind of accurate, but I digress) with particular and peculiar language foreign to scripture, I immediately recognize that they're speaking from incessant indoctrination instead of simple and sacred revelation. I wonder how they would have described God and with what terminology were they not handed certain sets of words and philosophies. I would venture to hypothesize that they could not have in their wildest imaginations come up with the proposal, much less the acceptance, that God is a triune homoousios consisting of three coequal and consubstantial persons. How could one imagine such a thing given Jesus's consistent and prevailing declarations of being ignorant about the day and hour, having to grow in knowledge, being utterly reliant upon someone greater, etc.? They've been handed something from men who aren't Jesus, and hence ...

"No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the Epistles of the Apostles." (Intl. Standard Bible Ency.; Vol. 1; p. 396). "The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles preaching as this (preaching) is reported in the N.T." (Ency. Intl.; U. Of Glasgow; 1982 ed.; Vol. 18; p. 226). Jesus taught his loved and valued disciples precisely how they should go out into the world to proclaim the Kingdom good news and what it is they should say. They had the truth because they had Jesus, God's word of truth to mankind, who equipped them sufficiently. They were refreshingly untainted by centuries of extrabiblical, or explicitly nonbiblical, ideals and/or philosophies that crept into Christianity. Their knowledge and doctrines hadn't merged with others who were uninspired. All scripture is inspired and beneficial for teaching and reproof, so if we don't learn how it is we should engage with and what it is we should herald...