The Trinity

Conceptually we can understand a 'trinity' in an abstract way, but in practice it is simply not possible at our level of knowledge. Indeed Jesus demonstrated multiple time that he is NOT God, (at least not THE God) but rather an entirely separate entity whose purpose was/is to lead people to God and to act as the ultimate sacrifice. What you do quoting John 10:30-33 is common practice among both Christians and non Christians alike to claim the scriptures say one thing when in context they clearly say something else. It's disingenuous no matter which side presents the quote out of context. If we read further down that very interaction, just two more verses, we see Jesus CLARIFIED what he meant which was quite different than he and God are the same entity (blasphemy punishable by death): John 10-34-36 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are "gods""? 35 If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came"and Scripture cannot be set aside" 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God"s Son"? In verse 34 Jesus is referencing Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' Quite clearly Jesus is NOT claiming to BE God, but rather Gods son. Further even at that, he references scriptures that says we are ALL 'sons of God', hence his words claiming to be the son of God was not blasphemy. He was stating that everyone is considered the children of God regardless of their DNA. Actual Conclusion: You have misread a couple of verses out of context in order to fit your agenda. When put into proper context, they say something entirely different. Jesus did NOT claim to be God, doing so would have been Blasphemy as he understood and quite succinctly explained, if only you read it. Your concession of a sense that Jesus is not equal to the father in all things should, on it's face, end the debate. Unless you hold a very abstract view of what the 'trinity' is, or believe it is actually three separate entities and not a trinity at all, then the entire concept falls apart the second one part of the trinity can be demonstrated to be lesser, or unequal to the other parts. The concept of the trinity demands that all three be exactly equal as they are one in the same. The roles each part of the trinity plays is different, however, being the same entity no one role can be subservient to another. Jesus is CLEARLY subservient to his father throughout the New Testament. He consistently prayed to the father, taught others to do the same, even asked God to spare him: Matthew 26:36-42 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. ... O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. From the cross Jesus asked God why he had forsaken him: Matthew 27:45"46 45 Now from the 1sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the 3ninth hour. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "aEli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Now, I concede that Jesus fully comprehended why he was having to endure what he was enduring and that he was acquiescing to Gods will rather than his own (another show of subservience). However, these words from Matthew clearly indicate an entity separate from God first begging to be spared and then accusatory/dismayed at God's decision. Unless you are accusing God of being schizophrenic, it is not possible to reconcile these words with a trinity in which God and Jesus are one in the same. Luke 23:34 34 And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And they cast lots to divide his garments. Jesus clearly indicates he doesn't have the authority to forgive. That his father alone has that power. Jesus only authority is to tell those who follow his teachings what will happen as he does in Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." Conclusion: Even at the end of his life Jesus CLEARLY demonstrates he is lesser than God, not one in the same. He asks God to spare him. He advocates on behalf of those who are crucifying him. Though clearly cannot offer absolution of his own power. But at the same time he confidently tells a follower dying with him that he is saved. Jesus was the bearer of news and the preacher of God. The way, the truth, and the light. He was the supreme leader in coming to God. However there are very clear distinctions between Jesus and the Father. They are obviously not on the same level. Again, any logical definition of the trinity demands all three parts are equal. Your Obama parallel is ridiculous on it's face. How Does Obama "having authority" over the American people (actually he doesn't, but that's a different debate) have any correlation to the trinity? To accept the trinity, you have to accept that Father and Son are THE SAME ENTITY. Not of 'the same nature', whatever that even means. Your dad is human and as his son you are as well...again, this has nothing to do with the trinity...UNLESS you are also claiming that your dad and you are the same person (entity). The apple may not fall far from the tree, but it does fall, it doesn't remain a part of the tree. By Jesus words quoted above, scripture tells us that we are ALL 'gods' "by nature". That has nothing to do with any trinity. "The son of a human is human. The offspring of an animal is an animal. The Son of God is God." This is not a logical progression. Jesus was the son of a human + God. One can argue whether that by default makes him A God, but it certainly doesn't make him THE God. It does make him human (the entire purpose of his existence to begin with) while God absolutely is NOT human. Hence your progression fails. Further to his point: Is the son of a Doctor automatically a doctor? Is the son of a murderer automatically a murderer? The son of the King is a Prince, not the king. There is a clear distinction. While Pro is correct that Matthew 28:19 is the closest Jesus ever came to describing a 'trinity', read it carefully. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Spirit" Jesus clearly is speaking of three separate entities. Perhaps equal in importance in terms of spiritual growth, but not the same entity as we are taught the trinity is. I found this quote by you curious as it goes to my argument: And I ( the Son) will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever ( John 14:16 NIV)But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you ( John 14:26 NIV). This passage CLEARLY indicates Jesus is describing three very different entities. He speaks of 'asking' his Father to give you an 'advocate' to 'remind you of what I have said'. It couldn't be more clear that Jesus is laying down a definite separation of himself from his father and the holy spirit. Three SEPARATE entities working together, not ONE entity working in different ways. This is akin to your mother, father, and nanny all working together to raise you. They all have the same goal in mind, but play different roles in achieving that goal. Each role is supportive of the other. But they aren't one in the same person (as a 'trinity' is) "Both Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 ( First century reliable documents) show that First Century Christians worships God on the first day of the Week (i.e. Sunday)." Exodus 34:21 21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest. It doesn't get much simpler than that Out of space