You are parroting the Roman Catholic view of the Trinity.
I'm quoting it. It's also the Anglo/Pisco view, and I dare say the default theology of many Trinitarian churches. It follows directly from the original 4th century doctrine and is Trinity orthodoxy.
I have described a different view in this thread that you obviously failed to read, or were unable to grasp.
Which church or churches share your view? Can you refer me to a corresponding theological definition on the net?
You are the created whining because you find that the Creator does not fit within the little box of your mind.
The little box in my mind for the Abrahamic god contains the observation that [he] has no definition appropriate to a being with objective existence, so [he]'s imaginary, hence can be anything anyone would like [him] to be. I therefore find it curious that the Trinity version of that god is defined in a manner which the direct heirs of the originator of that doctrine declare is "a mystery in the strict sense", that is, a nonsense.
You make emphatic statements about what the Bible says, yet your supposed facts are simply in error
I know a little about reading ancient texts, and about textual critique of the bible going back to the 18th century. I read it as a set of documents writing at various times by various folk for various purposes between say 1000 BCE and 100 CE representing the selections of various editors. I don't read it as a book of magic.
I also find the evidence very strong that Mark, the first purported biography of Jesus, is not based on an historical Jesus and actual biographical knowledge but on readings from the Tanakh which its author thought were references to Jesus, and shows a Jewish man who did not become the 'son of God' until his baptism, which was necessary because as a human he was a sinner; that Matthew was written to 'correct' Mark's theology, though with no more actual biographical information; that Luke exists to correct the theology of both, and to make Jesus ever more divine and infallible; and that John is a fourth view of those three. If there was an historical Jesus, they knew, and we know, almost nothing about him.
Perhaps he was a small player in the Jerusalem religious industry; perhaps his message was the same as John's, Get ready, the Kingdom is at hand; perhaps he never got on well with his family, particularly his mother; perhaps he left a number of sayings that show influences of Cynic philosophy; and perhaps he was crucified for some reason by the Romans. The odds that we'll ever know look to be very small.
No, it is clearly Biblical.
That's doctrinal nonsense. Jesus states in every gospel, but particularly John, that he's NOT God, that he's God's envoy, that he has no powers apart from those that God lets him have, that he worships God. It's not surprising since the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist till the 4th century CE.
If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then the triune nature of God is the truth.
I don't have to believe that the bible is the word of God and it's overwhelmingly clear that the authors of the gospels didn't think Jesus was God. As Paul put it,
1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ";
Philippians 2:11 "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
and as the gospels say (and this is only a small sample)
Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."
Matthew 24:36 ... “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Luke 18:19 ... “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
And this is before we get to absurdities like Mark's Jesus adopting himself at his baptism or Jesus saying 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?' and since he's the son of God, being his own father, leaving the Father with no better claim to be called the Father than Jesus or the Ghost have.
You believe that these are boundaries placed on God.
Since the evidence seems pretty clear that God exists nowhere but in the mentation of individuals, God can be anything anyone wants. My interest here is defending a set of old documents from Trinitarian accusations of which they're completely innocent.
At the birth of Christ he was called Immanuel, which means God with us.
At least the son of Herr und Frau Kant was actually called Immanuel. Jesus was only called Jesus.
In Titus 2:13-14 Paul say's " our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"
As you're doubtless aware, the majority of scholars think 'Paul's epistle to Titus' is a pseudepigraph. But neither this, nor Thomas' 'My Lord and my God' (John 20:28) seem to me to be capable of overriding the not fewer than 17 occasions where Jesus personally says he's not.
And if they were, the result wouldn't be a Trinitarian god, but the claim that Jesus was Yahweh.
