> I'm very aware of explanations of the trinity, and I'm well aware of the verses people present which they say supports the idea.

You've already agreed that John 1.1 speaks the theology of the Trinity without vagueness.

> There's another angle I take on this too- scripture aside, trinity is an inherently incoherent concept, all by itself.

It's not, really. I already gave you a perfectly good analogy of me putting myself as a character in my own book. But let's go to science if you think it's incoherent.

All physical reality has a dual nature. Mass and energy are in principle inter-convertible, through nuclear fission or fusion reactions. E = mc^2. We can, therefore, speak of the universe as a "space-light-time" universe. It is significant that this motion of light is famous for its mysterious and paradoxical complementarity. It has the characteristics of both waves and particles, and yet it definitely behaves as a wave motion under some conditions and as a particle motion under others. This duality applies both in radiations of electro-magnetic energy and in the atomic structure of matter, in which the orbiting electron likewise behaves both as a particle and as a wave. The two disciplines of modern physics known as quantum mechanics and wave mechanics have been developed from these two concepts.

There are several principles from quantum mechanics that may show us some analogies. The first is called superposition, where subatomic particles are able to exist in two states simultaneously. The second is that of nonlocality and entanglement. The principle here is that objects in far reaches of the universe seem to “know” about each other’s states, and separate particles can behave as a single entity. These may be possible analogies, if that helps.

For another potential scientific "validation" of such possibilities, in 2017 a group of quantum scientists (University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai) successfully teleported a photon from earth to a satellite in orbit. It's called quantum entanglement. As far as our discussion here, quantum entanglement means that the two quantum objects share a wave function and share the same identity, even when separated. What happens to one happens to the other—wherever it exists. They are more than identical twins, the article said, "the two are one and the same." Apparently, according to the article, when they interact with matter on Earth they lose certain aspects of entanglement, but in the vacuum of space, they can extend infinitely (eternally). It's just interesting.

People say that the Trinity is a contradiction, but this occurred to me the other day: Mathematicians tell us that two parallel lines actually meet at infinity. Somehow we accept that as true, even though it seems self-contradictory. If we accept it in geometry, can we also accept it in theology?

If these quantum observations are not incoherent, then neither is the Trinity.

> If Jesus is fully human, he has human flaws and limitations.

This is a non sequitur. Flaws and limitations are one thing, but deity-denying sin is another. On what basis do you assume that God incarnated must necessarily not be God?

> it requires a Jesus with human limitations who also does not have human limitations

Physical limitations in an incarnated God is not an evidence of non-deity. You'll have to give a better rationale if you want to hold to this position rationally.

> "Well, it's a mystery, it cannot be understood."

I never said that and never do. Putting that in my mouth is a straw man argument.

This won't be fruitful. I'm very aware of explanations of the trinity, and I'm well aware of the verses people present which they say supports the idea.

There's another angle I take on this too- scripture aside, trinity is an inherently incoherent concept, all by itself.

If Jesus is fully human, he has human flaws and limitations. If he is fully God, he cannot have human flaws and limitations. So any explanation involving "fully human and also fully God" is contradictory, because it requires a Jesus with human limitations who also does not have human limitations.

I understand, the standard explanation is to give up and say "Well, it's a mystery, it cannot be understood." But, people tend to only reach for that excuse, after presenting their nonsensical trinity explanation. They should instead have done there instead of landing on trinity first.

> Yes, that verse says "Jesus is God".

Indeed it does. Theology confirmed, and no vagueness about it.

> Other verses present things like Jesus praying to God, which makes little sense, if Jesus IS God.

John 1.1 also says that "the Word was with God." It presents the Son as a separate person from the Father while sharing the same essence.

Possibly this analogy will help. Suppose I write a book, and I put myself in it. The character "me" says what I would say and does what I would do. It's ME in the book. He's exactly as I am. Now, is the character in the book different from the me outside of the book? Of course he is. But is it me? Of course it is. He's all me, but he's all a separate character. I can easily be both the author and a character without compromising either. I could easily also have the character in the book talk to me as the writer (as Winnie the Pooh does to Christopher Robin as author and the author does back to Pooh).

> Or, Jesus saying "not MY will, but thine be done", to God- which makes little sense if they are the same being, because then their wills would be the same.

We are specifically told that Jesus was in extreme agony (Mt. 26.38). He is coming face to face with the full meaning of His submission to the Father. He expresses a very human emotion to avoid the extreme pain coming His way, but simultaneous says with full conviction that He will follow the Father's will that has been in place since before the world was created. Remember, He is facing the reality not only of all the physical torture coming, but also that He will bear all the sins of the world. In essence He was saying, "I'm not looking forward to this, but I'll stick with the plan."

> Yes, you can find verses that, when taken individually, are less vague. And you can find some that are vague, all by themselves.

Of course. Some are vague and others are not. All told, the Bible teaches the Trinity.

> with this vagueness as to the divine nature of Jesus is at the beginning of Phillipians 2. "In the form of God" is not something you'd normally say about a being that IS God, but you might say it about a being that is divine in some sense.

The true problem here is trying to translate a Greek concept into English where there are no parallel English words or concepts. The word often translated "in the form of" is μορφῇ ([i]morphe[/i]). It obviously needs to be interpreted as to what this means. It is often used of external appearance or shape. It is used to statues, of appearances in visions. Since God has no external appearance, it obviously means some else. Since ὑπάρχων is a continuing state of persistent existence, and God has no shape, the word is reasonably taken to mean Christ's preexistence sharing the "shape" (the attributes) of God, existing eternally with respect to God's sovereign power and status (the point of the context).

Marvin Vincent writes, "[i]Morphe[/i] here means that expression of being which is identified with the essential nature and character of God, and which reveals it."

Joseph Hellerman: "Paul’s aim is to inform his readers that Christ enjoyed “equality with God” with respect to power and status."

> Similarly, "in human form" ...

It's no stretch to say that Jesus had God's nature and He took on human nature.

> And also there, after Jesus sacrificed himself, he was exalted and given a high name- this makes little sense if he had already been fully equal to God, in status and authority.

Hebrews tells us that in His incarnation, as a test, He proved beyond theory and speculation that in real life/real time He could live a human life of complete submission and obedience. His exaltation after His resurrection puts Him in a completely unassailable position as being "worthy" as "the lamb who was slain." This is necessarily different than His completely unassailable position before the incarnation.

It was Georg Cantor (I believe) who theorized that some infinities are bigger than others. There are an infinite quantity of numbers between zero and 1, but doesn't it make sense, then, that the infinite quantity of numbers between zero and two are greater than those between zero and one? It's a fascinating mind game. But using that same kind of reasoning, Jesus was God and exalted in a completely unassailable position even more so after the resurrection than before. Just a fun way to look at it.

> In my view, some of these authors probably saw Jesus as an angel that was lifted up to a higher status, due to his amazing obedience, even to the point of death.

There is no evidence of this view. The Gospels saw Him as Messiah. They worshiped Him as God. In the book of Acts they do not preach Him as an angel. Hebrews 1 says he was no angel.

If you have ANY evidence to support this claim, let's look at it.

Yes, that verse says "Jesus is God". Other verses present things like Jesus praying to God, which makes little sense, if Jesus IS God. Or, Jesus saying "not MY will, but thine be done", to God- which makes little sense if they are the same being, because then their wills would be the same.

This is the overall vagueness I am talking about. Yes, you can find verses that, when taken individually, are less vague. And you can find some that are vague, all by themselves.

One of my favorite bits with this vagueness as to the divine nature of Jesus is at the beginning of Phillipians 2. "In the form of God" is not something you'd normally say about a being that IS God, but you might say it about a being that is divine in some sense. Similarly, "in human form" is a weird thing to say about a creature that IS fully human - it seems to suggest a likeness with humans, instead. And also there, after Jesus sacrificed himself, he was exalted and given a high name- this makes little sense if he had already been fully equal to God, in status and authority.

In my view, some of these authors probably saw Jesus as an angel that was lifted up to a higher status, due to his amazing obedience, even to the point of death.

> There are lots of ways for Jesus to be divine, without being equal in status and authority to God. ... but none that express that specific idea.

Then we need to discuss John 1.1. How is it vague? How does it not show Jesus to be equal in status and authority to God? Let's talk about it.

There are lots of ways for Jesus to be divine, without being equal in status and authority to God. Many early Christians believed that, and found their beliefs supported by these same texts. There is a reason it took a lot of time and theological innovation to arrive at trinity.

In my view, you can find verses that are at least somewhat compatible with trinity, but none that express that specific idea. I also see many things in the texts that I do not consider compatible with trinity. Jesus is often presented as being subordinate to God.

So, I consider the nature of Jesus’s divinity to be vague, as found in the texts. Trinity got very specific with it, IMO making assumptions that go far beyond the texts.

> Some of these just say that Jesus is divine.

If Jesus is divine, then the verse speaks at least of a "binity," making Jesus equal to God, which means He is God just as the Father is God.

> And some of these just mention God using the holy spirit

If the Holy Spirit is God, and if Jesus is God, and the Father is God, then we truly do have a Trinity.

> Lots of ways for a holy spirit to exist and do things, without trinity.

Of course we are free to imagine what we want, but if we want to know what the Bible says, then the Holy Spirit is God, and that's how He exists and does things.

> So I think these examples are somewhat compatible with trinity, but they do not describe a trinity.

Taken all together, they do describe a Trinity. But if you want to talk about specific texts, we can.

Some of these just say that Jesus is divine. Trinity is much more specific and detailed than that.

And some of these just mention God using the holy spirit- which is not very close to trinity, either. Lots of ways for a holy spirit to exist and do things, without trinity. One could see it as an emanation from God, for example.

So I think these examples are somewhat compatible with trinity, but they do not describe a trinity.

Oh my goodness. This shouldn't be so difficult. I didn't quote any verses, I didn't use any specific translation, nor did I paraphrase. I gave a brief explanation of what the verse was about. For instance, let's take the first one: John 1:1. What I wrote was, "John 1:1 says Jesus was with God and that Jesus was God." You'll notice that is neither a quote, a translation nor a paraphrase. It's a brief explanatory sentence. I didn't use any version to give a brief explanation of what the verse was about. But if you want to go into that, I'd be glad to.

Here's the Greek of John 1:1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Here, for the first time, I will give my dynamic translation of the verse: "From eternity past, the Word existed. The Word existed with God, and the Word existed as God." You can see I've never given this before in any of the posts, where you seem to claim I used a specific translation or paraphrase.

So let's look at some of the published transitions that you seem to want (which you can clearly see I never gave before either):

[list][*] NIV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
[*] ESV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
[*] NASB: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
[*] KJV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
[*] RSV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”[/list]

You can see they all say the same thing. It does't matter what translation you use; you get the same information. And here's how I summarized it by giving the meaning:[b] "John 1:1 says Jesus was with God and that Jesus was God."[/b] You see now? I didn't give a translation or a paraphrase, but rather a summary of its meaning.

Then I can explain what it means. John 1.1 alludes to the creation account of Genesis 1.1.
Here's some explanation and exegesis of the verse. (There's lots more.)

"In the beginning" is definite. The Word was before else; pre-existent—eternal. He is at the root of history and precedes all history.

"was": Imperfect active indicative, meaning continuing action in past time. The word conveys no idea of origin, but rather of continued existence in the past. It yields the meaning of eternity.

"The Word" is a philosophical term denoting the generative principle that controls the universe. He is the collective mind that has always existed.

"was with God": another imperfect tense expressing continuing action and status. He was with God; face-to-face." The verse shows personality, equality, and intimacy between the Word and God.

"And the Word was God:" Imperfect tense again of continuing existence. The Word, which verse 14 tells us is Jesus, is God. the Word is eternally existence, personal, and divine. He shared the same nature of God.

Now, we can discuss any of the verses I listed with their brief explanations as I've just discussed above with John 1:1. We can also discuss John 1:1 more. I'm glad to talk about any of it.

They want to know what translation you’re using.
ESV, CSB, KJV, etc…

Is English your first language? I’m not trying to be mean but I genuinely don’t understand how you didn’t use any specific translation, nor did you paraphrase what the passage was about.

Paraphrase: A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.

Also, a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.

If you didn’t quote it and you didn’t use any translation and you didn’t paraphrase it then what did you do?