Satan was right? Egads!

[Raccoon1010]

Revelation 1:8 identifies “the one who is and who was and who is to came as God Almighty, the Alpha and Omega. Verses 4 and 5 is a greeting from “the one who is and who was and who is to come (Almighty God) AND from Jesus Christ. So Jesus Christ cannot be the “one who is and who was and who is coming.” He cannot be God Almighty, the Alpha and Omega. Does that help?

I should add that I totally believe that Jesus is Lord, the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of God’s Kingdom. I believe he died for our sins that we might have everlasting life and that faith in him is required to please God.

Good point DavidB. It is clear to me that the Father is the Almighty God and Jesus is part of God as the Son of God.

John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Context plus a question mark doesn't count for anything? Plus, wouldn't word, "was" (which you left out of the quote) mean something also? I think most got the point, as bad as it may have been. :)

I think that's called a tease, Lol.

 

[Rich R]

As long as you hold to this position, you should stop identifying yourself as "Christian".

To be born again and be a Christian one must confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9). I did that, so I am a Christian.

And you have already been shown the Scriptures which say that Jesus is God. Why did you ignore them?

If you look, I've quoted many verses that would make the trinity impossible, 1 Cor 8:6 being but one:

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.​

Only the FATHER is God. Why do you ignore that.

Why do you say I've ignored any verse? I've addressed most of the trinity proof verses thrown at me (in this an other posts) and have shown they don't have to be taken in a Trinitarian way and thus contradict the clear deceleration of 1 Cor 8:6.

So I will quote just one verse -- I Timothy 3:16 (only in the KJB) which says this:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God (Theos) was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

What does it mean when it says "God was manifest in the flesh"? Does it not mean that God took human form?

You may want to check the original Greek text on this verse. Most have the word "os" instead of "theos." "hos."
Strong's:
G3739 ὅς hos (hos') p:r.
ἥ he (hee') [feminine]
ὅ ho (ho') [neuter]
the relative pronoun: who, which, what, that.

In the context, I believe "which" is the best translation for this verse. It was the "mystery of godliness" that was manifested. Not the same thing as "God." If we take it that way there is no contradiction with 1 Cor 8:6. Or you could make 1 Cor 8:6 say that the Father is NOT the only true god. But they do have to agree somehow.

And who was this who took human form when "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"? Was it not the Lord Jesus Christ? Jesus of Nazareth, the one who called Himself "I AM"?

The Greek word for "word" in John 1 is "logos." It requires some digging (usually more than given in the Sunday morning sermon) to see exactly what the logos is.

Briefly it is God's plan for redemption. Since God gave man both free will and dominion in Genesis, God had to work with man to rectify the problem caused by another man (Adam). God respects both man's dominion and free will and will not overstep it. Thus He had to come up with plan (logos) that would somehow convince man to do the right thing. Pure genius! Nothing can approach it! To say He simply came down and did the work all by Himself minimizes His true effort.

Also, Jesus, a man tempted just like you and I, had to obey God and do the plan moment by moment for 30+ years. Never once made a mistake. Otherwise he would not have been the require lamb without blemish. He didn't want to be crucified. Asked God three times to do it some other way. Ended up saying, "Not my will, but thine be done." Doesn't the fact he had a different will than God mean anything to you? There are several verses that Jesus said he deferred his own will to that of God's. Clearly two different wills. How could God have such contradictory wills?

Changing the word, "Word" in John to Jesus in one fell stroke both minimizes both the brilliance of God's plan of redemption as well as the incredible heroism of Jesus in carrying out the plan to perfection.

I'm often accused of making Jesus a "mere" man. In reality it's the other way around. I elevate both God and Jesus far higher than Trinitarians. For God to always obey Himself and believe He'd raise Himself from the dead is a rather blah story compared to God working with man's free will in order to convince man to receive and preserve His words for thousands of years so the second Adam (again tempted just like you and I. God can't be tempted) knew what he had to do. And for Jesus to willingly go through everything God needed him to go through is a show of heroism unparalleled in all history. Jesus is far from a "mere" man. Besides, no man is a "mere" man anyway, anywhere.

Ps 8:4-5,

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5 For thou hast made him but little lower than God, and crownest him with glory and honour.​

Perhaps a minor point, but it's not a good idea to accuse non-trinitarians of making Jesus a "mere" man. It really doesn't fly.

Now if you reject this verse and continue with your heretical nonsense, then the Bible says that you are an "antichrist" and Christians should have no fellowship with you.

Sounds Pharisee like to me. They said stuff like that to Jesus quite often. Of course, they offered little, if any, scripture to back their claims. I might point out that Jesus had very little fellowship with believers at the end. The crowds were screaming for his death, much like the church did with those who believed like myself. Didn't really stop until a few hundred years ago. That's the side you want to be on? I don't mean to be snide or anything, but history is history.

 

[Behold]

I know there are several verses that could be taken in a Trinitarian way.

Prior to being Virgin born.....Jesus was in heaven, not as a man, and as He said...>"i am from ABOVE, and you are from below".

So, what and who was this pre-incarnate Christ, who was in heaven before He became : "i am the living bread who came down from heaven".

Rich R, Do you need another clue?
Let me give you another one..
"let us make man in OUR image".

 

[APAK]

I like you, @APAK. But I can in no wise call the identity of Christ a reckless cause and I am saddened that you reject what is clearly stated in scripture about Jesus Christ and His identity. I suppose you don't believe in the virgin birth?

The virgin birth AJ is not any issue here. I was referring reckless to if you placed folks on ignore status because they do not believe as you, and especially when they are not threatening or too pushy. I think it's great to share scripture and its meaning and application in our lives. It does tax the brain at times, it does me anyway.

Hope and trust in our Lord, our savior, as the lamb of God for our salvation. I guess we at least agree in this statement..

 

[ScottA]

Sorry for causing any bad feelings. I should have been more charitable. I can do that if I choose (I really am born again :)), but I chose to cause contention instead. So I ended up learning a lot from these threads. Forgive me my indiscretion. I'm comforted that Jesus, sitting at the right had of the Father, has. Grace, grace, grace!

God bless you brothers and sisters.

Care to explain the title?

 

[Rich R]

Prior to being Virgin born.....Jesus was in heaven, not as a man, and as He said...>"i am from ABOVE, and you are from below".

So, what and who was this pre-incarnate Christ, who was in heaven before He became : "i am the living bread who came down from heaven".

What exactly does, "coming down from heaven" mean? Specifically, what did it mean to the ancient Jewish people? It's not the same as we in the modern West think.

Rich R, Do you need another clue?

No. But, I'll look at it anyway. :)

Let me give you another one..
"let us make man in OUR image".

Check out "the host of heaven." Basically, God created many angels and other spirit beings. That' who He addressed and consulted with in the creation of the world.

There are several other sections in the scripture where God met with His council to discuss a course of action. Contrary to popular thought, God is not a bully dictator. He is much bigger than that. He is genius enough to find ways to convince free will people to do His will. This is a much higher way to view God's true character. We think might makes right, but it's a low view of Him and it''s just not how God works. Of course, He always had the final say, but He was open to the input of others before making His decision. Check out "God of the Possible" by Gregory Boyd. It's on Amazon.

Besides, in the next verse it says God did the creating. The verb "created" is singular.

 

[amigo de christo]

Your "simple solution" is rank heresy.

Exactly my friend . The diety of Christ is under attack , in large , for one reason . Those in power
desire a one world religion which shall serve their agenda . THUS JESUS must no longer be seen
as anything but a prophet , a man at most . Just like the other false prophets of the other religoins .
Not all may be of that mindset . BUT THIS IS the reason this has grown so fast and specially as of late .
JESUS is no more GOD than we are , YEAH RIGHT .
WHEN peoples tried to kneel before peter , HE said GET UP i am but a man myself .
Paul and barnabas said the same things .
Even in revelation JOHN was told not to kneel before the angel but to WORSHIP GOD .
SO , how come when thomas fell to his knees and said MY LORD and MY GOD , JESUS DID NOT CORRECT HIM .
NOR did the JESUS in revalation bother to correct JOHN who fell at His feet as though dead . EXACTLY .
Exactly . Folks dont want to believe the gospel of JOHN . Which states as it does IN THE BEGINNING .
Rather odd the language in ISSIAH calls HIM everlasting Father , God and etc . ISNT IT .
SURE we call HIM the SON OF GOD . But let no man deny the DIETY OF CHRIST .

 

[Rich R]

Care to explain the title?

One that caused a s...storm! :)

What's there now is not at all what I originally posted. Basically, it was about Jesus not being God. Although I believe he is the son of God, and therefor not God Himself, I don't want to cause offense to those who think differently about that. I understand it to be a major sore point and I don't want to rub it in anybody's face. I would have removed it altogether, but couldn't find out how to do that.

 

[Rich R]

Exactly my friend . The diety of Christ is under attack, in large, for one reason .

I never doubted the deity of Christ any more than I deny the deity of all born again believers.

2 Pet 1:4,

Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
​

According to Genesis 1, seed always produces an offspring with the same nature as the parent. Jesus is obviously the son of God (God created seed in Mary's womb) so he would have a divine nature. But are we not also born again of incorruptible seed?

1 Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
​

Therefore, Peter said we also have the same nature as our parent, i.e. a divine nature.

What I do deny is that, though an offspring always has the same nature as the parent, the offspring is in no way actually the parent.

 

[JohnPaul]

I never doubted the deity of Christ any more than I deny the deity of all born again believers.

2 Pet 1:4,

Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
​

According to Genesis 1, seed always produces an offspring with the same nature as the parent. Jesus is obviously the son of God (God created seed in Mary's womb) so he would have a divine nature. But are we not also born again of incorruptible seed?

1 Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
​

Therefore, Peter said we also have the same nature as our parent, i.e. a divine nature.

What I do deny is that, though an offspring always has the same nature as the parent, the offspring is in no way actually the parent.

Exactly.

 

[Rich R]

Exactly my friend . The diety of Christ is under attack , in large , for one reason . Those in power
desire a one world religion which shall serve their agenda . THUS JESUS must no longer be seen
as anything but a prophet , a man at most . Just like the other false prophets of the other religoins .
Not all may be of that mindset . BUT THIS IS the reason this has grown so fast and specially as of late .
JESUS is no more GOD than we are , YEAH RIGHT .
WHEN peoples tried to kneel before peter , HE said GET UP i am but a man myself .
Paul and barnabas said the same things .
Even in revelation JOHN was told not to kneel before the angel but to WORSHIP GOD .
SO , how come when thomas fell to his knees and said MY LORD and MY GOD , JESUS DID NOT CORRECT HIM .
NOR did the JESUS in revalation bother to correct JOHN who fell at His feet as though dead . EXACTLY .
Exactly . Folks dont want to believe the gospel of JOHN . Which states as it does IN THE BEGINNING .
Rather odd the language in ISSIAH calls HIM everlasting Father , God and etc . ISNT IT .
SURE we call HIM the SON OF GOD . But let no man deny the DIETY OF CHRIST .

Who is Jesus to a "rank heretic?"

1. In Genesis he is the promised seed of the woman.
2. In Exodus he is the Passover lamb.
3. In Leviticus he is the High Priest.
4. In Numbers he is the star to rise out of Jacob.
5. In Deuteronomy he is the two laws: Love God and love your neighbor.
6. In Joshua he is the captain of the Lord of Hosts.
7. In Judges he is the covenant angel named Wonderful.
8. In Ruth he is the kinsman redeemer.
9. In Samuel he is the root and offspring of David.
10. In Kings he is the greater than the Temple.
11. In Chronicles he is the King's son.
12. In Ezra & Nehemiah he is the rebuilder.
13. In Esther he is the savior of God's people.
14. In Job he is the daysman.
15. In Psalms he is the song.
16. In Proverbs he is the wisdom of God.
17. In Ecclesiastes he is the one among a thousand.
18. In The Song of Solomon he is the bridegroom of the bride.
19. In Isaiah he is Jacob's branch.
20. In Jeremiah he is our righteousness.
21. In Lamentations he is the unbelievers' judgement.
22. In Ezekiel he is the true shepherd.
23. In Daniel he is the stone that became the head of the corner.
24. In Hosea he is the latter rain.
25. In Joel he is God's dwelling in Zion.
26. In Amos he is the raiser of David's tabernacle.
27. In Obadiah he is the deliverer on Mount Zion.
28. In Jonah he is our salvation.
29. In Micah he is the Lord of kings.
30. In Nahum he is the stronghold in the time of trouble.
31. In Habakkuk he is our joy and confidence.
32. In Zephaniah he is our mighty Lord.
33. In Haggai he is the desire of the nations.
34. In Zechariah he is our servant The Branch.
35. In Malachi he is the son of Righteousness.
36. In Matthew he is Jehovah's Messiah.
37. In Mark he is Jehovah's servant.
38. In Luke he is Jehovah's man.
39. In John he is Jehovah's Son.
40. In Acts he is the gift of holy spirit.
41. In Romans he is the believers' justification.
42. In Corinthians he is the believers' sanctification.
43. In Galatians he is the believers' righteousness.
44. In Ephesians he is the believers' heavenly standing.
45. In Philippians he is the believers' self adequacy.
46. In Colossians he is the believers' completeness.
47. In Thessalonians he is the believers' soon glorification.
48. In Timothy he is the faithful men.
49. In Titus he is the fellow-laborer.
50. In Philemon he is the love of a believer.
51. In Hebrews he is the High Priest for sin.
52. In James he is the royal law.
53. In Peter he is the pastor.
54. In John he is as we are.
55. In Jude he is the beloved.
56. In Revelation he is the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

I think this is a much higher view than simply thinking God always somehow managed to obey Himself, and also went so far as to believe Himself that He'd raise Himself from the dead. God is much bigger than that.

God managed to come up with a plan (the actual logos of John 1) so that a man with free will, tempted in all points as us, could believe enough to follow that plan to perfection. God was a genius for coning up with the plan and Jesus was a hero of heroes for carrying out the plan despite the grave consequences he had to experience.

Making Jesus God simply minimizes the greatness of both God and His son. God became little more than a bully who did whatever He wanted to do despite man's free will, That would be a perfect description of all the other Ancient Near East gods, but it's an insult to the greatness of our God, YHWH.

 

[ScottA]

One that caused a s...storm! :)

What's there now is not at all what I originally posted. Basically, it was about Jesus not being God. Although I believe he is the son of God, and therefor not God Himself, I don't want to cause offense to those who think differently about that. I understand it to be a major sore point and I don't want to rub it in anybody's face. I would have removed it altogether, but couldn't find out how to do that.

If I may offer a rationale:

The confusion and differing ideas come from the way that God has revealed Himself over time. It's not meant to be a doctrinal issue, but a teaching method of first-things-first...ie.: "In the beginning God..." vs. "In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God." Those two different scriptural revelations about the identity of God are two different lessons from God about 4,000 years apart--because, just as Jesus told His disciples, "I have many more things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now", God is revealing the most complex person (Himself) that one could ever come to know--and He is speaking to children.

Now we know that God goes by many names and has many attributes that could be individually considered, even separately, but only three have come in the form of what can best be described in limited human terms as "persons"...hence the problem: We are limited in our ability, causing confusion. Nonetheless, what has also been said, and is the same...is that "God is One."

Meanwhile, the Son was not even introduced until God (presumably "Father" God, because of the language used) introduced Him as His "Son." Then--again--in the fulness of time, when God figured we could bear it...the Son then introduces the Holy Spirit--again in the form of another "person", calling Him "He." Which again...should be so because of our limitations in understanding, rather than the confusion over persons, etc. Just imagine teaching children, about Mr. Smith, and Mr. Jones, in one lesson, before moving on to the "Butcher" the "Baker" and the "Candlestick Maker"...one of whom might actually be Mr. Smith...which may not be understood by children for some time--not because Mr. Smith cannot also be a Baker...but because children are slow to learn.

Anyway, not to worry, it will are shake out just fine!

 

[Rich R]

If I may offer a rationale:

The confusion and differing ideas come from the way that God has revealed Himself over time. It's not meant to be a doctrinal issue, but a teaching method of first-things-first...ie.: "In the beginning God..." vs. "In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God." Those two different scriptural revelations about the identity of God are two different lessons from God about 4,000 years apart--because, just as Jesus told His disciples, "I have many more things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now", God is revealing the most complex person (Himself) that one could ever come to know--and He is speaking to children.

Now we know that God goes by many names and has many attributes that could be individually considered, even separately, but only three have come in the form of what can best be described in limited human terms as "persons"...hence the problem: We are limited in our ability, causing confusion. Nonetheless, what has also been said, and is the same...is that "God is One."

Meanwhile, the Son was not even introduced until God (presumably "Father" God, because of the language used) introduced Him as His "Son." Then--again--in the fulness of time, when God figured we could bear it...the Son then introduces the Holy Spirit--again in the form of another "person", calling Him "He." Which again...should be so because of our limitations in understanding, rather than the confusion over persons, etc. Just imagine teaching children, about Mr. Smith, and Mr. Jones, in one lesson, before moving on to the "Butcher" the "Baker" and the "Candlestick Maker"...one of whom might actually be Mr. Smith...which may not be understood by children for some time--not because Mr. Smith cannot also be a Baker...but because children are slow to learn.

Anyway, not to worry, it will are shake out just fine!

I appreciate you kind words. It will indeed shake out in the end.

As you also appeared to say, I think the trinity is confusing indeed, whereas a son not being his own father is a very simple, easily grasped, concept. We do it all the time without thought.

Regarding Mr Smith; I'm not sure that helps understand the trinity. Occupations are one thing, but identities are another think altogether. A person can have many occupations, but it in no wise makes that person other than who they are, i.e. one person.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. :)

 

[ScottA]

I appreciate you kind words. It will indeed shake out in the end.

As you also appeared to say, I think the trinity is confusing indeed, whereas a son not being his own father is a very simple, easily grasped, concept. We do it all the time without thought.

Regarding Mr Smith; I'm not sure that helps understand the trinity. Occupations are one thing, but identities are another think altogether. A person can have many occupations, but it in no wise makes that person other than who they are, i.e. one person.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. :)

I explain the Trinity as the Me-Myself-and-I of God...in which case all those would-be person and profession identities occur in one's own life, and therefore why not God's? I mean if a student called their teacher "Mom", it might be true or might not be. But if she goes home and her actual child calls her "Mom" it is correct, but "Mrs. Smith would be confusing, but also true; and then in walks Mr. Smith and calls Mom the Teacher, Sarah adding Honey for endearment. It's enough to make a simple persons head spin--or quite simple really, depending. Anyway, it all makes sense if we consider it that way, rather than by doctrine. Which makes doctrine an issue of one or more of Gods own children acting too big for their britches--all covered in Proverbs, I'm sure.

 

[TLHKAJ]

I see your point and it certainly can't be ignored. On the other hand, neither can 1 Cor 8:6 be ignored. It says that only the Father is God. The question becomes one of squaring the two apparently contradictory statements.

I know there are several verses that could be taken in a Trinitarian way. I also know many verses that would appear to preclude a trinity. I've looked carefully at both sides (I used to be Trinitarian) and concluded that the verses that preclude a trinity are both more numerous and definite. But if someone approaches the question with an already made up mind, whether for or against, it's unlikely any change will occur.

Nothing in scripture is contradictory. You simply need to receive ALL scripture as a whole. Don't throw out the hundreds of places in scripture that say Jesus is God. If it seems contradictory, just ask Him to give you understanding. The scripture you referenced above doesn't move me at all from knowing Jesus is God. Ask Him. He'll give you understanding without having to dismiss parts of His Word.

 

[JohnPaul]

I explain the Trinity as the Me-Myself-and-I of God...in which case all those would-be person and profession identities occur in one's own life, and therefore why not God's? I mean if a student called their teacher "Mom", it might be true or might not be. But if she goes home and her actual child calls her "Mom" it is correct, but "Mrs. Smith would be confusing, but also true; and then in walks Mr. Smith and calls Mom the Teacher, Sarah adding Honey for endearment. It's enough to make a simple persons head spin--or quite simple really, depending. Anyway, it all makes sense if we consider it that way, rather than by doctrine. Which makes doctrine an issue of one or more of Gods own children acting too big for their britches--all covered in Proverbs, I'm sure.

There is only one God and one Son, not a Godhead of three, that was never in the original scriptures, and Father and Son cannot be one and the same person, then my son would be me, and that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Rich R]

Nothing in scripture is contradictory. You simply need to receive ALL scripture as a whole. Don't throw out the hundreds of places in scripture that say Jesus is God. If it seems contradictory, just ask Him to give you understanding. The scripture you referenced above doesn't move me at all from knowing Jesus is God. Ask Him. He'll give you understanding without having to dismiss parts of His Word.

I totally agree with you that we can't ignore any scripture. They must all be included and agree.

What I don't see is how 1 Cor 8:6 doesn't say that only the Father is God, thus eliminating the son as being God. I understand you don't see it that way. How does it not say that only the Father is God?

Then there's this:

1 Cor 15:28,

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
​

One part of God subject to another part? Aren't they all supposed to be equal.

In general, there are hundreds of verses just like these two that make a clear distinction between God and His son, Jesus. For example, who is Jesus talking to every time he asks God for something? Himself? Why does he make several statements that say his will is different than his Father's will? Jesus was tempted whereas God can not be tempted. Like I said, there are hundreds of verses just like these. I certainly appreciate your steadfastness in faith, but how do you handle them?

 

[Scott Downey]

I searched for the phrase "Jesus is God" in my Bible program. Tried several versions. Nothing came up. Which version do you see the phrase, "Jesus is God?"

The apostle Thomas calls the resurrected Christ that.

John 20:27-29
New King James Version

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Jesus says blessed are those who believe what exactly?
That Christ is their Lord and their God.

 

[Rich R]

The apostle Thomas calls the resurrected Christ that.

John 20:27-29
New King James Version

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Jesus says blessed are those who believe what exactly?
That Christ is their Lord and their God.

Not all gods are Yahweh.

G2316 θεός theos (the-os') n.
1. (properly, in Greek) a god or deity. a supernatural, powerful entity (real or imagined).

To the ancient Jews (including the early Christians who were pretty much all Jewish) the word "god" had a different meaning than we tend to have in the modern West. When we hear the word "god" we think that it has to refer to Yahweh, the creator of heaven and earth. We don't realize that there are in fact many gods (1 Cor 8:5-6) besides Yahweh.

Here's Strong's Concordance:

G2316 θεός theos (the-os') n.

1. (properly, in Greek) a god or deity. a supernatural, powerful entity (real or imagined).
​

That is how the Jews thought of the word God. Again, while there are many gods (1 Cor 8:5-6), there is only one Yahweh. While Jesus certainly could be considered supernatural (he did rise from the dead, something not natural) as well as powerful, it's no surprise that Thomas acknowledged this. Nonetheless, Jesus is not Yahweh. He is the son of Yahweh.

Jewish thinking dominated the early church. That's why the early church didn't believe in a trinity. It was only when Gentiles, steeped in Greek and Pagan philosophy, began to increase in numbers within the church that the idea of a trinity began to become part of church doctrine.

Plato believed in a form of the trinity (good, logos, & the spirit) and that is basically where the trinity came from. Virtually all the church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd century where quite enamored with Plato, so they thought it'd be great to include it in their Christian doctrine.