h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Matt 28:19
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
John 5:43

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Acts 4:12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Matt 1:21
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

So it is obvious to me that either all three are named JESUS or there is just ONE ONE ONE!

Mark 12:29
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

One Lord one God One savior and HIS NAME IS JESUS. (The Apostolic way.)

I'm not sure if I understand your counter-argument, but you seem to be implying that the Father and Holy Spirit must be called Jesus (and therefore be Jesus). But since when did the phrase 'in someones name' refer to someones literal name? If, in a historical account, you read that a messenger came 'in the kings name', you know it means that he came in the kings behalf, not that he had the same name as the king.

As for Mark 12:29, what is your point? All that points out is that we have one God, as opposed to three. And I wouldn't argue - we have one God, one Son of God, and one Holy Spirit, Gods active force.

Ok, one God, one Son of God, and one Holy Spirit. I dont really understand why you think it's so terrible to call it a trinity. Although what happened to "I and the father are one"? And "the Word was with God and the Word WAS God"? I don't have my bible with me, I wish I did.

Because the trinity teaching causes people to give their worship to Jesus, instead of to his Father, which would be upsetting to both of them - indeed, it is blasphemy.

In John 10, Jesus spoke to the religious leaders, saying things like, "The works that I am doing in the name of my Father," distinguishing himself from his Father. He did, indeed, go on to say, "I and the Father are one." But what did he mean by this? When the religious leaders accused him of 'making himself a god' (note this and in the following scriptures the difference between "God" and "a god", for later), "Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?"
He here reinforces the fact that he and his Father are separate people, and states, for future reference, that there are many 'god's, but refers only to one 'God', and restates that he didn't say, "I am God", but said, "I am God's Son".
To finally clarify what he meant by that statement, he finishes by saying, "If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I am doing them, even though YOU do not believe me, believe the works, in order that YOU may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father.”"
Indeed, it is not difficult to believe that this oneness of purpose is what is meant by "I and the Father are one." For one thing, it is also said that a husband and wife shall "become one" - but that was obviously not meant physically, or literally. Likewise, Jesus told his apostles that they should be one just as he and his father were one - and again it is clear that the apostles were not meant to literally become one person, but that they were to work together. Whenever this phrase is used in reference to people, it is not taken literally. So why should we take it literally when Jesus says he is one with his Father, especially since he had just been referring to his Father as a separate person?

As for "the Word was with God and the Word WAS God", that's a little more complicated, since it is a case, not of misunderstanding the English, but of the English being mistranslated in the first place. The proof of this is a little difficult to understand, of course, but if you use an interlinear translation and concordance (which you can use at www.crosswalk.com), you can find what is really meant, and I'll show you, in this instance, how to find the evidence.

Go to www.crosswalk.com, and on the select, click 'Bible Study Tools'. A menu will come up on the left - select 'Interlinear Bible'. When the search box comes up, enter 'John 1:1'. This will give a common translation of the verse, and, underneath that, the original Greek text (personally, I can't get the greek font to work, so the greek words come up in the english alphabet, but it doesn't matter for this purpose). You will see two Greek words starting, if your Greek font doesn't work, with the letters 'qeo'. The words are slightly different because of Greek grammar, but they are essentially the same word, as you will find if you click on them - you will be taken to a page giving the definition of that Greek word, transliterated 'theos' which is most often translated 'God'.
One of the translations of theos says that it can refer to any member of the trinity, but since the trinity is what we are questioning, they would hopefully have to provide some reason for that assumption before you would accept it as reliable evidence.
Certainly, theos can be translated 'God'. But definition 1 shows that it can also be translated 'a god', and definition 4 shows that it can also be translated 'godlike', 'godly', 'divine', etc. (since any of these adjectives can be applied to 'a god'.) So how can we tell whether theos should, in a particular instance, be translated 'God' or 'a god'?
Go back to the interlinear translation of John 1:1, and click on the word that comes before the first occurrence of theos. The lexicon states that it is transliterated 'ho', and is 'the definite article', that is, it refers to a particular object, and is therefore translated 'this', 'that', 'these', 'the', etc. If the word ho was not included, then you could refer to any object (there is no greek word for 'a')
So if, for example, I was a greek person going to the shops to buy a table, then since the greek for table is 'trapeza', I'd say something like, "I'm going to buy 'trapeza'", since any table will do. If on the other hand, I was stating that the table I'm using is dirty, I would say something like, "'ho trapeza' is dirty". I would use the word 'ho' because I am now referring to a particular, specific table, the one I'm using. So 'trapeza' by itself would mean 'a table', whereas 'ho trapeza' means 'the table', or 'that table'.
So, going back to John 1:1, look around the second instance of the word 'theos', and you will see that it doesn't say 'ho' before it. (You may notice, though, that the word 'logos', translated 'Word' is always preceded by 'ho', which is why it is translated 'the Word' rather than just 'a word')
So the scripture says, translating as much as we know how, "In the beginning was 'ho logos', and 'ho logos' was with 'ho theos', and 'theos' was 'ho logos'." But we have already seen that a greek noun that is not proceeded by 'ho' doesn't mean a particular object or person like 'God', but means an undefined object or person like 'a god'.
It is therefore correctly translated, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and a god was the Word." Or in more common English grammar, 'and the Word was a god.'

But as Jesus pointed out in John 10, which we looked at earlier, there is nothing special about being 'a god', that is, being 'theos'.
If you use the interlinear Bible to look again at John 10:33-36, you can see that Jesus pointing out that the same word, 'theos', was once applied to bad people. Note also that, wishing to support the trinity doctrine, many translators once again mistranslated the word 'theos', saying that Jesus 'made himself God', even though the word 'ho' is not used in that case either.
(I will here use the New World Translation since I have found it is the most accurate, it being one of the few Bibles to correctly translate 'theos'.)
33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself 'theos'.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are 'theos'”’? 35 If he called 'theos' those against whom the word of 'ho theos' came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am the Son of 'ho theos'?

This simple lesson in Greek language is not that difficult to understand. Why, then, if the churches genuinely believe that the Bible teaches the trinity, do the translators feel the need to change the words of the Bible to support the trinity doctrine, as in John 1:1?

John 10:30, ASV: "I and the Father are one."
John 17:22, ASV: "... that they [the disciples] may be one, even as we [Jesus and his father] are one."

The Greek for 'one' is the same in both texts.

Q.E.D.