I'd recommend you study Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ to see what the Bible really says who Jesus is.
Bowman and Komoszewski are top notch scholars.
>In light of Jewish monotheism...
“There are certain passages in the Old Testament that sounded to the ear like the God of Israel was two. There was this two-ness but yet one sort of idea going on. Rabbis took note of this and referred to the idea as Two Powers being in heaven.” - Dr. Heiser
There are also hints of the Trinity in the OT, if you are interested watch this video - Warning: it's 3.5 hours long; I watched it over a few days.
If you have any doubt or questions about if Jesus was God read this book; it looks at the issue from a variety of angles
Godspeed on your journey
> it's an observation on effort.
And you put about zero effort into reading it....
>also doesn't prove understanding of what's being copy-pasted.
Well, you had a chance to discuss verses you wanted but you declined....
>How is trinitarian not polytheism? How are three persons not multiple gods?
Because the Bible clearly affirms that there is but one God. The Scriptures affirm that all three Persons of the Trinity are divine also unequivocally affirm monotheism.
A helpful clarification involves what we mean by the word person. "Person" can be defined as “a center of self-consciousness.” A person has a mind, emotions, and a will, can communicate with others, and is capable of performing actions. When we speak of the concept of person-hood as it relates to the Trinity, we are describing self-distinctions in God. All three Persons of the one triune God possess the complete attributes of deity. All three Persons are truly divine, yet eternally distinct from one another. The divine Persons can and do communicate with each other (John 17:1-26; Hebrews 1:8-9). Essentially, God has three centers of self-consciousness. Yet this one Being (the triune God of Scripture) possesses one indivisible essence. There is only one Being that is God, and this one Being is tri-personal, with each of the three Persons having full possession of the divine nature.
>I'd bet that whatever you answer I can claim the same :)
Well, go ahead....
>I didn't say less was better, I said it was a subset.
How can polytheism be a subset of monotheism?
>You said it wasn't supported biblically, but logically that cannot be true if it's a subset.
Well, then prove that it is a subset? I don't even know what you mean by subset.
>I apologize and retract my "leaps of logic" statement so we can stay on topic.
If you don't think the Trinity is illogical, and the Trinity is certainly supported by the Scriptures then what is the objection?
>Here are some more verses that make a distinction between Jesus and [the true] God:
Well since the Father and Jesus are two difference persons with different roles there are bound to be differences or distinctions.
But you confuse functional subordination [which is what happens vis-a-vis the Trinity] with ontological subordination [which does not].
All members of the Trinity are equal in essence, but they do not have the same roles. It is a heresy (called subordinationism) to affirm that there is an ontological subordination of one member of the Trinity to another, since they are identical in essence . . . ; nonetheless, it is clear that there is a functional subordination; that is, not only does each member have a different function or role, but some functions are also subordinate to others.
The Function of the Father
By His very title of ‘Father’ and His label of ‘the first person of the Trinity,’ it is manifest that His function is superior to that of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father, for example, is presented as the Source, Sender, and Planner of salvation.
The Function of the Son
The Son, on the other hand, is the Means, Sent One, and Achiever of salvation. The Father sent, and the Son came to save us; the Father planned it, but the Son accomplished it on the cross. This is why it is a heresy (called patripassianism) to claim that the Father suffered on the cross—only the Son suffered and died.
Further, the Son is eternally ‘begotten’ or ‘generated’ from the Father, but the Father is never said to be ‘begotten’ or ‘generated’ from anyone.
The Function of the Holy Spirit
According to orthodox theology, both East and West, the Holy Spirit is said to ‘proceed’ from the Father, but the Father never proceeds from the Holy Spirit—that is, the Father sends the Spirit, but the Spirit never sends the Father. . . . Many Eastern Orthodox theologians are willing to say that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father indirectly through the Son, but they deny that the Son has authority to send the Holy Spirit on His own. Be that as it may, all agree that there is a functional subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father.
In brief, the Father is the Planner, the Son is the Accomplisher, and the Holy Spirit is the Applier of salvation to believers. The Father is the Source, the Son is the Means, and the Holy Spirit is the Effector of salvation—it is He who convicts, convinces, and converts.
And this functional subordination in the Godhead is not just temporal; it is essential and eternal. For example, the Son is an eternal Son. He did not become God’s Son; He always was related to God the Father as a Son and always will be. His submission to the Father was not just for time but will be for all eternity. Paul wrote: ‘Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom of God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power … When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:24, 28)’
> 1 Tim 2:5; Acts 10:38; John 20:17; Psalms 45:6; Acts 3:13; John 8:42
Yup, these show that Jesus is functionally subordinate to the Father; they do not show that Jesus is ontologically subordinate.
Jesus has all the attributes of God the Father: Unchangeable: Heb. 1:10-12, 13:8; Eternal: John 1:1-3; 8:56-59; 17:5; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12; 7:3 Omnipresent: Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 1:47-49; Col. 3:11 Omniscient: Matt. 9:4; 11:21-23; 12:25; Mark 2:6-8; 8:31-32; Luke 6:8; 10:13-15; 21:20-24; John 2:23-24; 4:16-18; 11:11-15; 13:10-11, 21-29, 36-38 par.; 16:30-31; 21:17; Acts 1:24; 1 Cor. 4:5; Rev. 2:23; cf. Mark 13:30-32; Luke 7:1-10 Omnipotent: John 2:19-22; 10:17-18; 1 Cor. 1:23-24; Eph. 1:19-21; Col. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:22 Loving (in a preeminent, unlimited way): John 13:34; 15:9, 12-13; Rom. 8:35-39; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3:19; 5:2.
Jesus is “equal with God”
John 5:18: Although John is relating what the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming, the context shows they were basically right: In v. 17 Jesus claimed to be exempt from the Sabbath along with His Father, and in 5:19-29 he claimed to do all of the works of the Father and to deserve the same honor as the Father.
Phil. 2:6: Jesus did not attempt to seize recognition by the world as being equal with God, but attained that recognition by humbling himself and being exalted by the Father (vv. 7-11).
Jesus holds God’s position
Jesus sits on God’s throne, occupying the highest position possible: Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; 25:31; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; Luke 20:42-43; 22:69; Acts 2:33-35; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 1:20; 2:6; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21; 7:17; 22:1, 3
Jesus rules over all things: John 16:15; Acts 10:36; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 2:10; 3:21; Heb. 1:2; 2:8; Rev. 5:13
Jesus shares the same Honors, Attributes, Names, Deeds, and Seat that God the Father does.
>To bring focus back to my main point: the claim that Jesus retained his divine superpowers after the incarnation is an inference with no scriptural support. The whole NT talks about Jesus being anointed with power BY the Father.
Incorrect as shown by the above.
>Jesus was "the angel [messenger] of YHWH" in the OT. He was in the form of God, living outside the Creation, mediating between the Father and Man. However, he became flesh at the incarnation and dwelt among us (John 1:14).
No, Jesus is God, as shown above.
>He didn't "put on" flesh. He didn't "add flesh to his nature". He became flesh, emptying himself so that he could die (Php 2:7-8). "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are [all things in like manner], yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15).
But you ignore the Scriptures that say the Jesus was, is, and always will be fully God.
>Divinity cannot die. Divinity cannot be tempted to sin (James 1:13). If Jesus retained his divinity, then he did not fully die. If Jesus retained his divinity, then we cannot follow his steps, and he is no longer an example for us mere mortals to follow (1 Peter 2:21).
Again, you conflate Jesus' Divine and human natures.
>Jesus is no co-equal in power with the Father. All power and authority comes from the Father.
Again, you ignore the Scriptures that say the opposite.
I predict that this discussion will devolve into nothing unless we discuss the validity of the Scriptural evidence for the Trinity. If we don't then we'll just talk past each other.
>With that said, Jesus is still our God, because "God" is a relational term. The thought that "being God must mean being divine" is not biblical, but is rooted in ancient greek philosophy.
Can you please provide the proof the God is a "relational" term.
>The thought that "being God must mean being divine" is not biblical, but is rooted in ancient greek philosophy.
Can you please provide proof that the Jews didn't believe that God was divine - and perhaps define what you mean by divine?
Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ shows that throughout the entire NT, even the synoptics, Jesus is God.
Jesus Specifically Said, “I am God”
For a much more detailed answer read Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ
> I don't think it says that he's God at all, only godly,
And where does it say this?
You may want to peruse Putting Jesus in His Place a book worth its weight in gold on the subject.
>Why make the Spirit its own distinct entity?
> There are only a few very ambiguous Scripture verses that are used to support the Trinity
Except that Putting Jesus in His Place shows that the verses are not few nor ambiguous; however the few verses that do go against it are very ambiguous.