Hi MUSTAFAA, Those that believe in the trinity fail to give thoughtful consideration to a number of other Scriptures or just dismisses them. These accept what they have been taught by the religious leaders. During his ministry, Jesus clearly noted that the "common people" were bogged down with the "teachings of the Pharisees and Sadduces".(Matt 16:12) However, Jesus said, at Matthew 4:4, that " It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."(King James Bible) And the apostle Paul wrote, at 2 Timothy 3:16, that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"(King James Bible) Thus, to come to an accurate understanding of the Bible, all the Bible must be given careful study. The ancient Boreans did just this, for it was written of them that "they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so."(Acts 17:11) Yes, they wanted to know if what they were being taught "were so" or the "truth".As you have reasoned on several Scriptures, questions came up that those who support this doctrine are unable to satisfactorily explain. If Pope Paul and Cardinal John O'Connor saw this doctrine as a "mystery", then can one to expect that the "flock" would be able explain it ? Many turn to John 1:1 as their favorite Scripture when speaking of the Trinity, in which the King James Bible says that "the Word was God". However, here is something to consider: In digging deeper into the original Greek, it was found that John 1:1,2 does not say that "the Word was God", as so many Bibles have rendered it. The original Greek says: "En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros tonTheon, kai theos en ho Logos." This literally means "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and god was the Word". The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, the interlinear reading says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word". Thus, this interlinear reading says that the "Word" was "a god". This was written in Koine Greek and the first mention of "god" in this verse is preceeded by the Greek definite article ton, which literally means "the". Koine, or common Greek, had no indefinite article,(corresponding to “a” or “an”). However, in the second occurrence of "god", there is no definite article. Why did John use "the" before the first occurrence of God (theos), but not before the second occurrence of it, and yet again in the third occurrence ? Is there a difference between asking for "the" black suit and "a" black suit ? Yes, there is. Likewise with the apostle John using the Greek definite article of "ton" (the) before the first use of God. He intentionally used it to separate who is meant by "god". How else would one distinguish between two individuals, except by saying "the man", as opposed to "a man" ? By use of "the"(Greek ton), John is speaking of a specific person - God, whereas in using "god" without a definite article, he was identifying the "Word" as being godlike, or having a godly quality, thus describing the nature of the Word. Therefore, Philip B. Harner, in his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate (without definiteness ) preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” Thus, five German Bible translators likewise use the term “a god” in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as “of divine kind” or “godlike kind.” For example, "In the beginning the Word [Greek, Lo´gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” The Complete Bible-An American Translation (1939), A New Translation of the Bible (1935); or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.”(John 1:1,2) The apostle John, in using the Greek article "ton" (the) before the first occurrence of God at John 1:1, 2 but not in the second occurrence, and yet in the third, was thereby pointing toward the Word, Jesus Christ, as having the quality of godlike ones, but not the person of God. If John had said ton theos en ho logos, (the God is the Word), instead of kai theos en ho Logos, (and god is the Word) in verse 1, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos [the Word] with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos in it's second occurrence at John 1:1, it becomes a description, more of an adjective than a noun. Thus a logical question arises - If Jesus were God, then why did John twice say that the "Word" was with God ? This would have been unnecessary, for how can you be with someone and at the same time be that person ? Even Pontius Pilate identified Jesus as a specific person, by saying: "Look! The man!" (John 19:5) He did not say ' Look! A man '. Here is another thought for many to consider: If Jesus had been God, could the apostle John have said that ""no man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god (monogenes theos - "only-begotten god", not "God only-begotten" ) who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him" ?(John 1:18; 1 John 4:12) Thousands of people saw Jesus during the course of his ministry, including John, so how could John say this, not once, but twice, if Jesus were God and not be lying ? How is this to be explained ? Too, how could Jesus or the Word be in the "bosom of the Father"(King James Bible) and at the same time be God ? These questions have caused many to reconsider the teaching of the trinity.Another example that some may use, according to the King James Bible at 1 Timothy 3:16, which reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Why does the King James Bible, along with some other Bibles, continue to read that "God was manifest in the flesh", since it is now known that this Scripture had been tampered with ? Through the efforts of Konstantin Von Tischendorf, who upon textual comparison with the Sinaitic Manuscript of the fourth century and John James Wetstein(1693-1754), in comparing this Scripture with the Alexandrine Manuscript of the fifth century, found that the Greek word for "He" had been changed to the abbreviation for "God". Thus, many Bibles today read: "He who" instead of "God".(American Standard Version, Williams New Testament, The New English Bible) Thus, it was revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine. This was also true of 1 John 5:7, in which the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one” was added. In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of Trinitarianism evidently included these words as if these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage was put right into the text of a Latin Bible manuscript. Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”-A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.(Revised Standard Version, The New English Bible,The New American Bible, (1970), Catholic Biblical Association of America)Because some Bible translators have let theological interest cloud their thinking rather than a real desire for the "truth", these have tampered with or tainted some of the Bibles. There are many more Scriptures that show that Jesus is indeed God's "only-begotten Son". I have touched on just a few and hope to add another reply to further clarify Jesus role.