Jesus is under subjection to God.

[Unveiled Artist]

I asked my ancesteral veneratives and they said nada. Soorry.

???

 

[nothead]

???

Ain't you Santiera? Glad I'm online. No evil eye, in my vicinity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ain't you Santiera? Glad I'm online. No evil eye, in my vicinity.

Not formally. I thought about it since I have a local show who can do divination to see if I'm called to that path. Unfortunately, I can't afford it right now. Are you a santero(a)?

 

[nothead]

Not formally. I thought about it since I have a local show who can do divination to see if I'm called to that path. Unfortunately, I can't afford it right now. Are you a santero(a)?

Gosh like I like to cook skulls in pots? Am I daft or what?

Adolfo Constanzo, wiki

Constanzo was born in Miami, Florida to a Cuban immigrant mother in 1962. She gave birth to Adolfo at the age of 15, and eventually had three children of different fathers. She moved to San Juan, Puerto Rico, after her first husband died, and she remarried there. Constanzo was baptized Catholic and served as an altar boy, but also accompanied his mother on trips to Haiti to learn about Voodoo.[1] As a teenager, he became apprenticed to a local sorcerer, and began to practice a religion called Palo Mayombe, which involves animal sacrifice. The family returned to Miami in 1972, and his stepfather died soon after leaving the family with some money. His mother soon remarried and his new stepfather was involved in the religion and drug dealing. Constanzo and his mother were arrested numerous times for minor crimes like theft, vandalism, and "farderismo” (shoplifting, concealing goods between their clothing). He graduated from high school but was expelled from prep school. His mother believed he had psychic abilities for supposedly having foretold the attempted assassination of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1981.[citation needed]

When he was an adult, he moved to Mexico City and met the men who were to become his followers: Martin Quintana, Jorge Montes, and Omar Orea. They began to run a profitable business casting spells to bring good luck, which involved expensive ritual sacrifices of chickens, goats, snakes, zebras and even lion cubs.[1] Many of his clients were rich drug dealers and hitmen who enjoyed the violence of Constanzo's "magical" displays. He also attracted other rich members of Mexican society, including several high-ranking corrupt policemen, who introduced him to the city's powerful narcotics cartels.[1]

Constanzo started to raid graveyards for human bones to put in his nganga or cauldron, but before long, he would need live human sacrifices instead of old bones. Over twenty victims, whose mutilated bodies were found in and around Mexico City, are thought to have met their end this way.[1]

Cause of death, suicide.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Adolfo Constanzo???

Gosh like I like to cook skulls in pots? Am I daft or what?

Adolfo Constanzo, wiki

Constanzo was born in Miami, Florida to a Cuban immigrant mother in 1962. She gave birth to Adolfo at the age of 15, and eventually had three children of different fathers. She moved to San Juan, Puerto Rico, after her first husband died, and she remarried there. Constanzo was baptized Catholic and served as an altar boy, but also accompanied his mother on trips to Haiti to learn about Voodoo.[1] As a teenager, he became apprenticed to a local sorcerer, and began to practice a religion called Palo Mayombe, which involves animal sacrifice. The family returned to Miami in 1972, and his stepfather died soon after leaving the family with some money. His mother soon remarried and his new stepfather was involved in the religion and drug dealing. Constanzo and his mother were arrested numerous times for minor crimes like theft, vandalism, and "farderismo” (shoplifting, concealing goods between their clothing). He graduated from high school but was expelled from prep school. His mother believed he had psychic abilities for supposedly having foretold the attempted assassination of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1981.[citation needed]

When he was an adult, he moved to Mexico City and met the men who were to become his followers: Martin Quintana, Jorge Montes, and Omar Orea. They began to run a profitable business casting spells to bring good luck, which involved expensive ritual sacrifices of chickens, goats, snakes, zebras and even lion cubs.[1] Many of his clients were rich drug dealers and hitmen who enjoyed the violence of Constanzo's "magical" displays. He also attracted other rich members of Mexican society, including several high-ranking corrupt policemen, who introduced him to the city's powerful narcotics cartels.[1]

Constanzo started to raid graveyards for human bones to put in his nganga or cauldron, but before long, he would need live human sacrifices instead of old bones. Over twenty victims, whose mutilated bodies were found in and around Mexico City, are thought to have met their end this way.[1]

Cause of death, suicide.

 

[JayJayDee]

This is erroneous to me. Why make the distinction between the Deity of Jesus and the father when there is none? It rather proves my point, than refutes it, no?

What is erroneous? The scriptures are quite clear. There is "one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ." They are not one entity, but two distinct individuals. There is no mention of a third. Hence no trinity.

Jesus called his Father "the only true God" without including himself and said he was the one "sent forth" by him. (John 17:3)
Does God send forth a third of himself whilst the other two stay behind? How is that one God? Does one part of God on earth pray to another part of himself in heaven? How is that one God?

I really don't understand your point. the father is worshipped through Jesus, He said that as well. Remember? Jesus said that we could not know the father except through Him. Yikes. Again, the spirit is not worshipped directly, not sure what your point is.

We are not told to worship Jesus; he told us to worship the Father "alone". (Luke 4:8)

Worshipping the Father is something we do directly. It is our prayers that go through Jesus.

Jesus implies otherwise. He states that He is with the father, and we are with Him. We know the father through Him,/Jesus. So we have a ''middleman'' Rabbi in your opinion, or what? What sort of odd middleman setup is this?

Jesus was indeed called "Rabbi" by some, because he was first and foremost a teacher.

Jesus is also called the "one mediator between God and men".....so yes, a middleman of sorts.
If sin is a barrier between God and men, so that we need a mediator in order to communicate with the Father, if Jesus is God, then why is it that we need no mediator between us and Jesus?

Sure seems like a lot of metaphor in the Bible. Jesus being called God, Jesus being called the creator, Jesus being said to have all power in heaven and earth.
If that is all metaphor, what exactly isn't metaphor?

In every one of the verses you cite here, Jesus is ...1) not ever called "God Almighty" but "theos" (god) which simply means "a Mighty One". It is a title that is not used exclusively of the Father. When the Father is intended then the definite article "the" is used to distinguish him.
In John 1:1 Jesus is the Word who was with "ho theos" (THE God) and the Word was simply theos, (god or a mighty one)

2) Jesus is not ever called the Creator, but was used by his Father in Creation. Creation came through him. (Prov 8:30, 31; Col 1:15, 16; John 1:2)

3) The power and authority he had was given to him by his superior Father....his God. (Matt 28:19) One part of God cannot bestow authority on another equal part of himself.

Hmm look at the wording..
Jesus has the description of through whom all things are, and we through Him'. This looks like a Godhead to me.

It will always look like that to those who wear trinitarian glasses. You are programmed to see it.....but it is implied in some texts but not expressly stated in one single verse of scripture. Should we not find at least one direct statement in the Bible that says Jesus is God Almighty? There is not one.

Actually, 'God and Lord mean the same thing. It's a poetic way of equating Jesus to the father.

O dear......there is your problem right there. "God and Lord" do not mean the same thing at all. Both are titles that can be attributed to others...even humans.

There is not a single verse in the Bible that puts Jesus on the same level as his Father. I believe that the trinity is a blasphemous falsehood introduced by the Catholic Church centuries after Jesus was put to death. He did not teach it and neither do the scriptures.

The Jews never believed that their Messiah was going to be God incarnate....in fact they accused him of blasphemy for only claiming to be God's son.

 

[Desert Snake]

What is erroneous? The scriptures are quite clear. There is "one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ." They are not one entity, but two distinct individuals. There is no mention of a third. Hence no trinity.

Jesus called his Father "the only true God" without including himself and said he was the one "sent forth" by him. (John 17:3)
Does God send forth a third of himself whilst the other two stay behind? How is that one God? Does one part of God on earth pray to another part of himself in heaven? How is that one God?

We are not told to worship Jesus; he told us to worship the Father "alone". (Luke 4:8)

Worshipping the Father is something we do directly. It is our prayers that go through Jesus.

If they are separate individuals, then we would not be worshipping the father directly, though..

Jesus was indeed called "Rabbi" by some, because he was first and foremost a teacher.

So you say.

Jesus is also called the "one mediator between God and men".....so yes, a middleman of sorts.
If sin is a barrier between God and men, so that we need a mediator in order to communicate with the Father, if Jesus is God, then why is it that we need no mediator between us and Jesus?

In every one of the verses you cite here, Jesus is ...1) not ever called "God Almighty" but "theos" (god) which simply means "a Mighty One". It is a title that is not used exclusively of the Father. When the Father is intended then the definite article "the" is used to distinguish him.
In John 1:1 Jesus is the Word who was with "ho theos" (THE God) and the Word was simply theos, (god or a mighty one)

2) Jesus is not ever called the Creator, but was used by his Father in Creation. Creation came through him. (Prov 8:30, 31; Col 1:15, 16; John 1:2)

3) The power and authority he had was given to him by his superior Father....his God. (Matt 28:19) One part of God cannot bestow authority on another equal part of himself.



It will always look like that to those who wear trinitarian glasses. You are programmed to see it.....but it is implied in some texts but not expressly stated in one single verse of scripture. Should we not find at least one direct statement in the Bible that says Jesus is God Almighty? There is not one.


O dear......there is your problem right there. "God and Lord" do not mean the same thing at all. Both are titles that can be attributed to others...even humans.

There is not a single verse in the Bible that puts Jesus on the same level as his Father. I believe that the trinity is a blasphemous falsehood introduced by the Catholic Church centuries after Jesus was put to death. He did not teach it ad neither do the scriptures.

The Jews never believed that their Messiah was going to be God incarnate....in fact they accused him of blasphemy for only claiming to be God's son.

So the ones who accused Jesus of blasphemy are the benchmark by which we are to determine the nature of Jesus? Were they correct? Was Jesus lying? Is this relevant? Is the opinion of Christs accusers and disbelievers the final say on how I should view Jesus? Wouldn't that be sort of odd for a Christian to judge Jesus by the words of His enemies?

 

[JayJayDee]

If they are separate individuals, then we would not be worshipping the father directly, though..

What???? If there is "one God" who was also worshipped by Jesus, then Jesus is not that "one God". Even when he returned to heaven, Jesus still called his Father "my God". (Rev 3:12) How can that be?

So you say.

No.....so the scriptures say.

In the Bible the term “Rabbi” is used only in the Christian Greek Scriptures. It is employed 12 times in connection with Jesus, in the de facto sense of “Teacher”: twice by Peter (Mr 9:5; 11:21), once by two disciples of John (Joh 1:38), once by Nathanael (Joh 1:49), once by Nicodemus (Joh 3:2), three times by disciples of Jesus whose names are not specified (Joh 4:31; 9:2; 11:8), once by the crowds (Joh 6:25), and two times by Judas (one instance is repeated) (Mt 26:25, 49; Mr 14:45). Jesus is addressed by Mary Magdalene as “Rabboni” (My Teacher).

So the ones who accused Jesus of blasphemy are the benchmark by which we are to determine the nature of Jesus? Were they correct? Was Jesus lying? Is this relevant? Is the opinion of Christs accusers and disbelievers the final say on how I should view Jesus? Wouldn't that be sort of odd for a Christian to judge Jesus by the words of His enemies?

"Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 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 sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:32-36)

It was not Jesus who claimed to be God. The Jews accused him of that when all he ever said regarding his place in God's arrangement, was that he was "God's son".

You do not appear to now scripture well.

 

[Desert Snake]

What???? If there is "one God" who was also worshipped by Jesus, then Jesus is not that "one God". Even when he returned to heaven, Jesus till called his Father "my God". (Rev 3:2) How can that be?



No.....so the scriptures say.

In the Bible the term “Rabbi” is used only in the Christian Greek Scriptures. It is employed 12 times in connection with Jesus, in the de facto sense of “Teacher”: twice by Peter (Mr 9:5; 11:21), once by two disciples of John (Joh 1:38), once by Nathanael (Joh 1:49), once by Nicodemus (Joh 3:2), three times by disciples of Jesus whose names are not specified (Joh 4:31; 9:2; 11:8), once by the crowds (Joh 6:25), and two times by Judas (one instance is repeated) (Mt 26:25, 49; Mr 14:45). Jesus is addressed by Mary Magdalene as “Rabboni” (My Teacher).



"Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 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 sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:32-36)

It was not Jesus who claimed to be God. The Jews accused him of that when all he ever said regarding his place in God's arrangement, was that he was "God's son".

So what was your point in referencing them as a valid source of how Jesus is to be viewed? Why would we trust their ''opinion'' on Jesus? They're probably wrong..

You do not appear to now scripture well.

I know it well enough to know how the Deific titles are used. That's the main issue/argument. I don't view the titles as completely vague, really to the point of being arbitrary. I mean, even capitalizing the titles in later Bibles is not preferable imo, but to take it even further and say that 'God', etc, are not even meaningful as descriptions of Deity is just ridiculous.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Through Him; Image of Him; Within Him. greater than Him does not make the Father Him (Jesus).

Also with denotes more than one person or thing even if they are twins and have the same nature. Us is also more than one person. are is plural (except for you are; English is funny like that)

For Example:

1. My ancestral spirits speak through me as I am a medium to them. Likewise, the Father speaks through Christ as He is the medium between you and the Father.

2. My ancestral spirits are within me. They speak within me. They are born within me. I will die within them.
The Father is within Jesus. He speaks within Jesus. Jesus is born within His Father. Jesus dies within His Father (He returns to the Father as a Spirit).

3. My ancestral spirits are with me. Notice the separation between the Spirits and me even though we are linked together? That is the same as Christ and His Father.

These words within scripture are showing the relationship (more than one, can't have a relationship with yourself) between two people. It is like a marriage. The husband and wife are one. (They are Not each other) Same as Jesus, Jesus and the Father are One (they are married) they are Not each other.

This doesn't belittle Jesus' divinity. It is just saying the Father gave Him the authority to speak on His (the Father's) behalf. The Father also made Jesus perfect and blessed because He not God will be the sacrifice to die on the Cross for Christian's sins.

I know it is nice to think God is dying for a Christian. I mean, it makes sense that a Christian would want a powerful God to be on their level so they can identify with Him more as the Creator.

They key is, Jesus can do that without being the Father. The Father "gave Him permission" to speak on His behalf. Hence why Jesus is in the image of the Father, not the Father Himself.

I really don't understand your point. the father is worshiped through Jesus, He said that as well. Remember? Jesus said that we could not know the father except through Him. Yikes. Again, the spirit is not worshiped directly, not sure what your point is.

Jesus implies otherwise. He states that He is with the father, and we are with Him. We know the father through Him,/Jesus. So we have a ''middleman'' Rabbi in your opinion, or what? What sort of odd middleman setup is this?

Actually, 'God and Lord mean the same thing. It's a poetic way of equating Jesus to the father.
--
Actually, Lord is a title. There is Lord Buddha. Buddha is not a God. He is a person who shared His Wisdom of how a person can be enlightened on His own. There is Lord Vishnu. There is the Lord King Author. It is not a religious word. Also, God has no name. He is just I AM. There are many Gods. Hence why God sent Jesus not as Himself but as an image of Himself. *got to know the difference between twins. Two people, same nature, same blood.

For example:

"In the time of the Lord Buddha Vipassi the life-span was eighty-thousand years; in the time of the Lord Buddha Sikhi seventy thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Vessabhu sixty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Kakusandha forty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Konagamana thirty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Kassapa it was twenty thousand. In my time the lifespan is short, limited, and quick to pass: it is seldom that anybody lives to be one hundred.​

Then there's Lord Vishnu

"Once upon a time, long ago, all the Munis and Rishis approached Lord Vishnu to tell him that even though He (incarnated as Lord Dhanvanthari) had given them the means to cure illnesses through Ayurveda, people still fell ill. They also wanted to know what to do when people got sick."​

Also, Lord King Author is proven by history. That, and Lady Diana is just a female version of Lord.

Buddhist: Buddhist Sutra - Mahapadana Sutta
Hindu: Section 1 – Brahma Sutras – Chapter 1: Samanvaya Adhyaya
--
It's basic English grammar. "Through, with, image of, we and greater than". Some are saying one is a part of another (two separate people a part of each other) we is saying more than one person or thing as with the word us.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well said. These quotes stood out.

We are not told to worship Jesus; he told us to worship the Father "alone". (Luke 4:8)

Luke 4:8: 8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

If sin is a barrier between God and men, so that we need a mediator in order to communicate with the Father, if Jesus is God, then why is it that we need no mediator between us and Jesus?

3) The power and authority he had was given to him by his superior Father....his God. (Matt 28:19) One part of God cannot bestow authority on another equal part of himself.

The Jews never believed that their Messiah was going to be God incarnate....in fact they accused him of blasphemy for only claiming to be God's son.

 

[Muffled]

Ah, sorry if I didn't make myself clearer. I never said the physical body of Jesus pre-existed His stay on earth, I just meant that He as a person, or as you say His spirit, did. Although, I still see Jesus, God the Son, as distinct from God the Father.

Would you agree that Jesus' physical body, however, is still present now, after His resurrection in glorified form?

I believe the Spirit of God and the Spirit in Jesus are one spirit so there is not a separate spirit person. The Father does not have a body so He can't be a separate physical person.

I believe the distinctions are the physical body of Jesus and the name Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

God is greater than Jesus, because God in his essence is the "one and the many" Jesus was one person, God is one but also many, so there is no way that Jesus can possibly be God. If you had only one string holding up a large diamond, there's a possibility that the string can break. If there are many strings holding up the diamond, then the possibility of the diamond falling is greatly diminished. The Lord thy God is One

I believe there is nothing in Abrahamic scripture to support this view. I believe God can appear to be many by the fact that He is omnipresent but He is one.

I believe that your premise is false so your conclusion is also.

 

[Muffled]

God is one God in three Persons.

I believe this is only true by ecclesiastical definition of the word "person" which is circular reasoning because the word is defined to fit the belief. THe common understanding of the definitions of the word "person" do not fit the Trinity.

 

[Desert Snake]

Christian tradition, in other words, Jesus as G-d, follows the original, direct reading of the Bible. Jesus is a manifestation of the father, in essence. 'Separating' them creates more problems than it solves, and is a later configuring from belief, not Scripture.

 

[Kolibri]

'Lord' was translated as 'JHVH' elsewhere in the Bible. And 'God', in greek, as 'Elohim'. So the Bible being presented as refutation to my arguments does not hold up. The later addition of capital letters used for the father, and lower case letters used for Jesus //'Lord, and LORD, was done simply out of ''inference'' based on belief. Technically Jesus was called the same titles as the father. In fact, we could say that 'Lord' for Jesus is really quite specifically naming Him as JHVH; not even the 'G-d' name erroneously presented in these debates as a 'vague' title. Not that that, in reality, would even matter.

lord and god are titles that were used by more than Jehovah or Jesus within the framework of the Bible.

'Lord' also was affixed to one of the elder's seen by John in vision, (Re 7:13,14) angels, (Ge 19:1,2; Da 12:8) men, (1 Sam 25:24; Acts 16:16,19,30), and false deities. (1 Cor 8:5)

So we can not say Jesus is Jehovah because they carry the same title 'lord'.

 

[Desert Snake]

lord and god are titles that were used by more than Jehovah or Jesus within the framework of the Bible.

'Lord' also was affixed to one of the elder's seen by John in vision, (Re 7:13,14) angels, (Ge 19:1,2; Da 12:8) men, (1 Sam 25:24; Acts 16:16,19,30), and false deities. (1 Cor 8:5)

So we can not say Jesus is Jehovah because they carry the same title 'lord'.

So you are saying that the titles are vague. This presents problems in bothe the OT and NT, it does not really help your arguments...

 

[Kolibri]

So you are saying that the titles are vague. This presents problems in bothe the OT and NT, it does not really help your arguments...

No, titles have specific meanings. They bring understanding about a role that a person with the title fills. But titles are like hats. They can be worn by more than one person.

Lord can mean "Sir" or "Owner" or "Master". Many many people can use that title. However certain variations are limited to specific people.
Such as "Lord of heaven and earth" (Mt 11:25; Re 4:11) only applies to Jehovah.
Likewise "Sovereign Lord" is specific to Jehovah. (Ge 15:2; Re 6:10)

("Sovereign Lord" is how the NWT translates 'Adhon-nai' when it appears w/o any additional suffix....and this invariably refers to Jehovah whether he is named or not.)
1E “Sovereign Lord”—Heb., ʼAdho·nai′ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The title God and Lord doesn't belittle the position with whom these titles belong to (If I'm understanding you correctly). It's just saying that 1. By using English grammar, with, greater than, us, and so forth always refer to more than one person. Even if they are twins and share the same blood, they are two different people. 2. The word Lord is not a biblical only word. Many people refer to people they worship and/or revere as Lord, God, Messiah, and so forth. Even just in history, people have referred kings and queens as Lord and Lady.

Other than that, I don't understand the correlation to your description and my comment.

'Lord' was is translated as 'JHVH' elsewhere in the Bible. And 'God', in greek, as 'Elohim'. So the Bible being presented as refutation to my arguments does not hold up. The later addition of capital letters used for the father, and lower case letters used for Jesus //'Lord, and LORD, was done simply out of ''inference'' based on belief. Technically Jesus was called the same titles as the father. In fact, we could say that 'Lord' for Jesus is really quite specifically naming Him as JHVH; not even the 'G-d' name erroneously presented in these debates as a 'vague' title. Not that that, in reality, would even matter.

 

[Unification]

What is erroneous? The scriptures are quite clear. There is "one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ." They are not one entity, but two distinct individuals. There is no mention of a third. Hence no trinity.

Jesus called his Father "the only true God" without including himself and said he was the one "sent forth" by him. (John 17:3)
Does God send forth a third of himself whilst the other two stay behind? How is that one God? Does one part of God on earth pray to another part of himself in heaven? How is that one God?



We are not told to worship Jesus; he told us to worship the Father "alone". (Luke 4:8)

Worshipping the Father is something we do directly. It is our prayers that go through Jesus.



Jesus was indeed called "Rabbi" by some, because he was first and foremost a teacher.

Jesus is also called the "one mediator between God and men".....so yes, a middleman of sorts.
If sin is a barrier between God and men, so that we need a mediator in order to communicate with the Father, if Jesus is God, then why is it that we need no mediator between us and Jesus?



In every one of the verses you cite here, Jesus is ...1) not ever called "God Almighty" but "theos" (god) which simply means "a Mighty One". It is a title that is not used exclusively of the Father. When the Father is intended then the definite article "the" is used to distinguish him.
In John 1:1 Jesus is the Word who was with "ho theos" (THE God) and the Word was simply theos, (god or a mighty one)

2) Jesus is not ever called the Creator, but was used by his Father in Creation. Creation came through him. (Prov 8:30, 31; Col 1:15, 16; John 1:2)

3) The power and authority he had was given to him by his superior Father....his God. (Matt 28:19) One part of God cannot bestow authority on another equal part of himself.



It will always look like that to those who wear trinitarian glasses. You are programmed to see it.....but it is implied in some texts but not expressly stated in one single verse of scripture. Should we not find at least one direct statement in the Bible that says Jesus is God Almighty? There is not one.


O dear......there is your problem right there. "God and Lord" do not mean the same thing at all. Both are titles that can be attributed to others...even humans.

There is not a single verse in the Bible that puts Jesus on the same level as his Father. I believe that the trinity is a blasphemous falsehood introduced by the Catholic Church centuries after Jesus was put to death. He did not teach it and neither do the scriptures.

The Jews never believed that their Messiah was going to be God incarnate....in fact they accused him of blasphemy for only claiming to be God's son.

Say hello to Jesus/God... It's the spirit and physical human body you reside in.
You are a mighty one yourself.