Before we go on with that, you forgot to tell me how in your view the Trinity actually works. How, exactly?
Quite. And not three.
The bible God is the Jewish God, and [he]'s not a Trinity. If you have any doubt about that,
(a) recall that the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist till the 4th century CE, and that the authors of the bible including the NT had never heard of such a thing, and
(b) check with anyone you know of the Jewish faith. In bible matters [he]'s unambiguously their God.
So how do you say it should read to make it clear it was NOT referring to a Trinitarian version?
All of which is directly contradicted, and wholly unsupported, by the words of the bible.
You are of course entitled to believe as you please. What we're debating is what the bible, particularly the NT says on the topic.
So the Father has his own Will, and Jesus has his own will and the Ghost has his own will ─ that is, God has three wills, not one, you say. How then do they resolve disputes? One vote each?
Because he has to, or because he wants to? Doesn't that make the Father God for all intents and purposes? You don't need a Jesus or a Ghost because they don't do anything, you say?
You keep pretending the Trinity doctrine existed in biblical times, when in fact it came into existence centuries later.
Please lay the relevant quotes on me. Remember that though in the NT the Father, Son and Ghost appear in the one sentence on (from memory) two occasions, that has no more significance Trinitywise than any mention of God and his two envoys. It implies no god-status to anyone but the Father ─ and the Father is the God of the Jews throughout.
The Holy Spirit appears to be modeled on the Jewish ruach ('breath' of God), who on my understanding is regarded in Judaism as a manifestation of God, not a separate person. The Ghost in the NT is generally read as being an envoy, messenger, office boy, of God.
That's like John Sullivan telling Putin that Putin has offended Biden. or offended the US.
The only one I can think of is Thomas in John 20:28, speaking to the post-mortal Jesus. The trouble is, there are six versions of the resurrection in the NT, none is by an eye-witness, none is contemporary within 20 years, and none is independent. Worse, each of the six contradicts the other five on major points. In other words, it's a forensic trainwreck, not credible from any angle.
"and, 'A stone that will make men stumble / a rock that will make them fall,'" Ahm, Isa 8:14 is talking about God as "a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem". So Jesus is a stumbling block, a trap and a snare, you say? Weird.
"And, 'Thou,Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning / and the heavens are the work of thy hands'. But of course the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John each did that, in the role as the gnostic demiurge, servant, not peer, of God.
So we haven't come very far. It's still the case that all five versions of Jesus expressly deny that they're God, as I showed you, and none of them ever claims to be God, and instead four of those versions pray to God and two of them wonder why God has forsaken them, and neither they or their authors or anyone else around at the time had ever heard of the Trinity doctrine.
