Index To All Six Sections
Part I: Definition and Historical Background, Relying On Others To Decide What We Should Believe.
Part I B Plurality in The Godhead, The Deity of Christ & The Deity of The Holy Spirit
You Are Here Part II: Passages That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity.
Part III: The Holy Spirit... a Separate Person, Or The Divine Presence And Power Of The Father Himself
Part IV: The Grammar... Can it legitimately be used to support the idea that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity
Part V: The Cappadocian Fathers.. The doctrine of the trinity, which has remained virtually unchanged to this day, found its roots in paganism not the Bible. This largely due to the part played by three ancient Greek philosophers and mystics. Part VB: The Cappadocian Fathers... Are both the Son and Spirit derived from the Father in "different ways"? Asceticism and Mysticism. The sad legacy of Neoplatonism.
Part VI: Summary and Conclusion
ON THIS PAGE
1 John 5:7
Other Passages That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity
1 John 5:7
1 John 5:7 is often pointed to as proof of the three Persons in Heaven. However it is widely believed that this short clause was a later addition, added no doubt, in order to present unambiguous evidence for the doctrine. The King James version reads (the disputed verse has been underlined)
 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. [1 John 5:5-8 KJV]
This controversial portion of 1 John 5 is known as the Comma Johanneum, which is a comma, or short clause. Because this sentence provides an explicit reference to the doctrine that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, some Christians are resistant to the elimination of the Comma from modern Biblical translations. Nonetheless, most scholars now believe that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the Comma itself was not in John's original Epistle. Both the internal and external evidence speak against the authenticity of the passage.
The Comma Johanneum isn't found in any early Greek manuscripts, nor in early translations. As explained by Wayne Jackson of Christian Courier (Emphasis added)
The passage is found in only four Greek manuscripts (of more than 5,000 available ones), none of which dates before the eleventh century A.D. Even in these manuscripts, it appears that the passage has been rendered from a late edition of the Latin Vulgate....
The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all the ancient versions into which the Greek had been translated, e.g., Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and the Old Latin, and the Vulgate (in their early forms).
The earliest instance of this phraseology is found in a 4th century essay titled, Liber Apologeticus. From thence it found its way into the writings of the Latin Fathers, and into the Old Latin and Vulgate versions (c. 5th and 8th centuries respectively).
So why was it was present in most translations of 1 John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century? The answer is simply because the third edition of the Textus Receptus, or received version, was the sole source for translation. As Wayne Jackson goes on to say
"When Erasmus published the early editions of his Greek New Testament (1516, 1519), he was criticized for not including the spurious sentence. Yielding to pressure, he promised to put it in a later edition if it could be found in only one manuscript. Subsequently, a copy was produced — apparently made to order! — and Erasmus incorporated it into his third edition (1522). From there it made its way into the Textus Receptus (the so-called Received Text) and finally into the King James Version". 
This is widely supported by other Biblical scholars
Most scholars now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the Comma is not an original part of the Epistle of John
The Big Book of Bible Difficulties tells us: "This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts . . . Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it" .
"The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7," explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. "Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate" .
Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, explain the unwarranted addition to the text this way: "This was a late interpolation quite certainly absent from the original text. It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament" .
Verse 4 is omitted in the important, early MSS and by representatives of the versions It is generally understood to be an explanatory gloss, dating probably from the late second century. 
Nearly all recent translations have removed this clause. However, there are still some who cry "foul", to which bible.org says
That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity. 
Several early sources which one might expect to include the Comma Johanneum, have not.
None of the early Church Fathers quoted this part of the passage, in spite of the fact that this verse (especially the latter half which states that these three are one) would have greatly contributed to the strength of their arguments in, for example, their Trinitarian debates with the Arians.
Although Clement of Alexandria's writings around the year 200 place a strong emphasis on the Trinity, his quotation of 1 John 5:8 does not include the Comma.
Why? The simple answer is that this clause simply did not exist at the time.
In any case, the addition says nothing about the nature of the Father, Word and Holy Spirit, but merely lists all three as witnesses in heaven. Note that verse 8 lists three witness on earth (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood), two of which are inanimate objects. .
Other Passages That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity
A number of Biblical texts that mention Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one place are often pointed to as 'proof texts' for the Trinity. For example, Kenneth Samples, research scholar at Reasons To Believe, says Father, Son and Spirit "are frequently listed together in a triadic pattern of unity and equality" , which is a classic case of reading far more into the verses than the text actually says. There isn't a single verse in the New Testament that says anything about unity and/or equality, much less about the nature of the Holy Sprit, or the nature of Jesus Himself. In fact, the Oxford Companion to the Bible says
While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do. 
Since Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equally involved in the process of human salvation, it is little wonder that they are mentioned together in some contexts but, unless we read our own ideas into the these verses, none of them, in any way, substantiate the orthodox view of the Trinity as God in three Persons. If we stick to exactly what the text says, and abstain from going beyond the actual words, we will find that none of the verses usually cited say anything about the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. None of them describe a triune Godhead, or even imply that there are three coequal Persons in one Divine Being.
Incidentally, asking a person to read the actual text, and not allow anyone to tell them what they think the text means, seems to be quite a novel concept in Christianity.
Are we just so used to having the Bible interpreted for us that we are too lazy, or too gullible to go look for ourselves? Or have we been so indoctrinated that when we read the verses in question, we read into them what we have been led to believe they say / have always been told what their meaning is. Or do we, as a matter of course, just believe the man behind the pulpit, the one with a string of letters behind his name, or the one who's words happened to find themselves in print (After all, he must know what he is talking about).
It is not surprising that, over and over again, Jesus called us sheep.
Read without prejudice, or preconceived ideas, the following "proof texts" merely state that Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist. All are very important, and all are, in some way, involved in whatever aspect of the Christian spiritual life is being described or discussed. None of them can be used to prove the three-in-one theory. Much to the contrary, every single verse holds true if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father Himself.
A perfect example of this is...
Matthew 3:16-17: After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." [NASB]
This verse is generally supposed to indicate three co-equal member of the Godhead. However, anyone who doesn't read meaning into the text, but simply reads the text itself, will realize that all this verse tells us is what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit did on this occasion... Jesus was baptized, the Spirit descended on Him, and the Father spoke from Heaven. There is not even the slightest hint that the Spirit is a person, much less that there are three Persons in one being, as Orthodox doctrine would have us believe.
Perhaps, this can be better understood by an analogy, which is in no way intended to be disrespectful, but just serves to illustrate a point.
Unless you happen to know who exactly I was speaking about, you would not be any the wiser were I to tell you that Father, Sam and Charlie are on the porch. While you might assume I am referring to my father, is Sam referring to Samuel the next door neighbor, Samantha my cousin, or someone else? And you couldn't possibly know whether Charlie is human, my Labrador, or pet canary.
The point being that just as you needed prior, or independent, knowledge to know who is on the porch, you need independent knowledge to know who Matthew is referring to. We know who the Father and Son are because the Bible tells us the "Father" is God Himself and The Son is Jesus Christ.. His only begotten Son. However, we also have to examine the rest of the Bible to know who, or what the Holy Spirit is. We cannot assume from this one verse that, just because the Holy Spirit is listed along with Father and Son, Matthew had to be speaking about a third Divine Person, when many, many, other Scriptural verses do not support this theory, which I will come to shortly.
Additionally, to assume that each of the three has to be an individual member of the Godhead just because each functions separately, is to apply a very human perspective to the scene.
Lets see if I can explain this.
From where we stand, any three beings/persons that perform different actions simultaneously, must mean each of the three has to be independent of each other.
Therefore, considering we are forced to reconcile our understanding of three independent Beings with the fact that God says He is one, the only solution we could come up with is some totally incomprehensible jargon about God being three in Person, but "one in essence", which allows us the luxury of thinking that our doctrine in no way contradicts the famous Shema Yisrael, when Moses said "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one (Heb. echâd)! [Deuteronomy 6:4]
Nice, tidy solution! Problem solved! Case closed!
Except, as detailed earlier, the problem did not exist in the first place, simply because the Hebrew echâd can also be a number of persons or things considered as a collective unit.
Matthew 28:19 is often assumed to be a proof text for the orthodox view of one God in three persons, ie. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In it Jesus tells His disciples
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." [Matthew 28:19-20 NASB
However, if we abstain from going beyond what is written, ie. reading our own ideas into the actual words, the text itself is not a description of the nature of God. It does not, by itself, even tell us who they are much less what their exact relationship is. In fact, think about it for a moment... the words would not have to change one iota in order to make them support a number of different ideas like...
Tritheism which is the teaching that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate Gods.
Modalism which teaches that God, a single Being has, at different times, worn different hats. In other words, He has revealed Himself in different forms ...the Father in Old Testament times, the Son who walked the earth for thirty odd years and, the Holy Spirit after the resurrection. However, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never exist at the same time, only one after another.
To claim that Matthew 28:19 establishes one God in three persons goes far beyond the actual words of the verse. Jesus did not specify, or even hint, that three divine Persons make up the Trinity.
So why did Jesus instruct His disciples to baptize converts in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if not to show a Triune God? As a start, there was a distinct difference between John's baptism and the one initiated by Jesus. John the Baptist did not baptize with the Spirit, which had not yet been given. His baptism for repentance was with water only and, as he said, "... He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [Matthew 3:11 NASB].
While there is no record of Jesus personally baptizing anyone, the disciples did so in His name. However, they did not start baptizing until after Pentecost which is when the Spirit came down on men. At baptism we enter into a covenant relationship with God the Father, only made possible through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. However, receiving the Spirit is an integral and indispensable part of becoming a Christian.
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. [Acts 19:1-6 NASB]
The Spirit was given us as a pledge [2 Corinthians 1:22], and "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" [Romans 8:9].
For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, [Romans 8:14-16 NASB]
Melinda Penner (cited earlier) says [Emphasis Added]
Admission to the church was connected with belief in the doctrine of the Trinity as evidenced by the early baptismal formula that was used in accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19. The doctrine of the Trinity was essential from the beginning of the Christian Church. 
Because if Jesus' command was that this verbal formula be used on every occasion, Peter really messed up when, on Pentecost, he told the Jews ... [Emphasis Added]
"Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Acts 2:38 NASB]
Did Peter forget the words the Lord had told him to use?
Did he forget about the Holy Spirit?
Or did he simply understand, as we seem not to, that the very act of baptism involves Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
In other words, when Jesus told His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it was an acknowledgment that all three are involved in the process, and not intended to be a precise formula used as admission to the church, nor support for the orthodox version of the Trinity
There are other verses used to support belief in a Trinity however, none of them do anything but show that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all exist and are all necessary to both become, and remain, a Christian. None of them speak of, or even hint at, a triune God. And, even more strongly, none of them present the Spirit as a separate being. Once again, read what the text says, not what you have been told the text means.
2 Corinthians 13:14: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. [NASB]
This is the only place in Paul's writings that he mentions the Holy Spirit in the same verse as the Father and Son. However, Paul is not making a theological statement about the nature of God, but merely says God's spirit is the unifying agent that bring us together, presumably with the Father and Son, and with each other. What is to be particularly taken note of is the fact that God's Spirit is not spoken of as a person, nor does Paul say our fellowship is with the Holy Spirit.
In fact, in his epistles, John speaks about fellowship with the Father, the Son, and with each other, but leaves the Holy Spirit out of this fellowship.
"what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. [1 John 1:3 NASB]
So what did Paul mean when he talked about the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. The Greek word translated fellowship is koinonia, which Paul also used in His letter to the Philippians.
Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship (Gk. koinonia) of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. [Philippians 2:1-2 NASB]
Over and over Paul stressed the unity of believers. He exhorts them to be "like minded" [2 Corinthians 13:11], walk in love [Ephesians 5:2], stand firm in one spirit, and with one mind strive together for the faith of the gospel [Philippians 1:27]. This was all accomplished because they all have the same unifying Spirit dwelling within them.
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. [Ephesians 4:4–6 NASB]
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. [1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB]
Paul was simply concluding his epistle with an exhortation of unity through the Holy Spirit. This is almost exactly the same concept expressed in...
Ephesians 2:18: for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, [NASB]
Many Christians believe that the trinitarian implications of this verse are obvious. I am afraid that if one were not influenced by a pre-bias, it is not obvious at all.
Just as Paul exhorted the Corinthians to unity through the Holy Spirit (above), he told the Ephesians that "There is one body and one Spirit" [4:4–6] and through Christ we have access to the Father through this one Spirit. The verse says nothing of the Spirit being a Person.
Romans 15:30: I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ. Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me. [NASB]
The "love of the Spirit" is the love of God that is put in our hearts through the Holy Spirit [Romans 5:5]. In other words, the Spirit of God produces love and sympathy in our hearts. Paul asks the Galatians to manifest that love by praying earnestly for him. There is absolutely nothing in this verse that says, or even implies, that the Spirit is a person.
Again, Romans 15:30 simply shows that Jesus, the Spirit and God the Father exist, not that they form a triune being.
1 Peter 1:2: according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. [NASB]
In context this verse says the Holy Spirit sanctifies us to obey Christ. However, it does not say, nor imply, that the Holy Spirit is a separate being. In any case the work of sanctification is not limited to the Sprit alone...
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Thessalonians 5:23 NASB]
Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. [Hebrews 13:12 NASB]
Continue Reading... Part III
The Holy Spirit... a Separate Person, Or The Divine Presence And Power Of The Father Himself
Not only does the Bible makes it very clear that there is only one Spirit, but there is a huge mountain of evidence that suggests that the Spirit of God the Father, the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same Spirit. This becomes even more apparent if you consider how the New Testament authors consistently ignored the "third person of the Godhead". Jesus told the Jews that He and the Father "were one" [John 10:30], but not once did He make a similar statement about Himself and the Holy Spirit. Paul consistently, and repeatedly, tied the Father and Son together with no mention of the Holy Spirit. The third person of a supposedly triune God is missing from the opening salutation of most of the New Testament books, from the approximately eighteen doxologies found in these books, and curiously absent from Daniel's, Stephen's and John's visions of heaven. Besides which, ascribing activity or other human characteristics to the Holy Spirit does mean the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, since the Bible often attributes emotions and action to inanimate objects that obviously have none. Additionally, the Holy Spirit is spoken of in many ways that do not support the idea that a person, divine or otherwise, is being spoken about. For example, you cannot rekindle, or "stir up" a Divine being, unless of course this being, like the Genie on a bottle, is asleep and needs shaking awake. People cannot drink/partake of a person, or be filled with a person etc. etc.
 Wayne Jackson. Defending the Faith with a Broken Sword – Part 3.
 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties. Baker Books (June 1, 2008), Pgs. 540-541
 Dr. Neil Lightfoot. How We Got the Bible, Baker Books; 3 edition (June 1, 2010, Pgs. 100-101
 Anthony and Richard Hanson. Reasonable Belief A Survey of the Christian Faith. Oxford University Press (January 25, 1990), Pg. 171
 The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Volume 9) - John and Acts. by Frank E. Gaebelein (Author), Merrill C. Tenney (Contributor), Richard N. Longenecker (Contributor) Zondervan (May 27, 1984) Pg 63
 Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8. https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8
 Kenneth Samples. The Trinity’s Biblical Basis. http://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/the-trinity’s-biblical-basis/
 The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Editors Bruce M. Metzger and Michael David Coogan. Oxford University Press, USA; First Edition edition (October 14, 1993 Pg 782
 Melinda Penner. The Doctrine of the Trinity at Nicaea and Chalcedon.