Board index ‹ The Trinity

[Comfort]

Hi, Jim, I have a question for you: What is the best way do you think it is to be a servant God: 1) By following the teachings that humans may make up? Or 2) By following the teachings that are found in God's Word The Bible? One of the reasons why I had asked you that question is because you had mentioned some things that you believe that supports the Trinity doctrine.

For example:

1) You had said this: "John 1:1 says Jesus was with God and that Jesus was God."

QUESTIONS: A) Since this scripture said that Jesus was with God, then doesn't that mean that Jesus and the Almighty God are two separate individuals, just like if you are with someone, you are with a different individual from whom you are with?

B) Isn't this scripture totally accurate, by saying that Jesus Christ is a God, due to the fact that in God's Word The Bible it let's us know that there are many that are called gods as brought out 1 Corinthians 8:5?

In fact, even Satan the devil is considered as the God of this world, as brought out in the Bible book of 2 Corinthians 4:4: "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."(New Living Translation).

But when we look at John 1:1, it never says that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, which is a big difference.

2) You had also said this: "In John 10.30, Jesus says that He and the Father are one essence."

QUESTIONS: Don't people who play with teammates act as "one" in order for them to win a game? Don't people who plays in a musical band, has to play as "one", in order for them to be a successful music band? When a man and a woman gets married, isn't the married couple considered as "one"?

As you can see with these real life examples, by Jesus Christ saying that him and his Father are one, it is meant by him and his Father having the same goals and desires to do the same thing, just like what a musical band, teammates, would have the same goals and desires to achieve something, in order for them to succeed together.

But let us first look at the preceding verse in John 10:29: "for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else, so no one can kidnap them from me.""(Living Bible)

QUESTIONS: Didn't Jesus Christ make it clear that he was separate from his Father, because his Father is more powerful than anyone else? If Jesus Christ was the same as the Almighty God, then wouldn't Jesus Christ be guilty of lying by saying that he is more powerful than anyone else, since puny humans was able to kill him?

In fact, Jesus Christ made it clear to the devil that it is only to Jehovah God that must be worship as brought out in Matthew 4:10: "Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”"(New World Translation)."

• If Jesus Christ was the same as God, then why would he tell the devil that it is only to Jehovah God that he must worship and render sacred service to(instead of doing such things to Jesus Christ himself)?

***Jehovah is the name of our Heavenly Father as revealed by his Son Jesus Christ and as revealed in God's Word the Bible.

So since no where in God's Word the Bible does it mentions the Trinity doctrine, and Jesus Christ made it clear that he is an subordinate to Jehovah God, then wouldn't it be reasonable to come to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine is nothing more than a teaching that people has made up, which Jesus Christ had made it clear in Mark 7:8, that he doesn't approve of teachings that are not based on God's Word, when he had said this:

"You have let go of God’s commands. And you are holding on to teachings that people have made up.”"(New International Reader's Version)

Based on this scripture, now do you see why I had asked you that question at the beginning of the discussion?

I hope to get your thoughts on this very serious subject, because as Jesus Christ had brought out in the Bible book of John 17:3, our life depends upon us knowing him and the True God.

[jimwalton]

I'm glad to answer your questions and have a discussion with you, but this may get long as you have asked many deep questions.

The best way to be a servant of God is by following the teachings that are found in God's Word, the Bible. I have no interest in spiritual "truths" that humans make up. That's why I believe in the Trinity: It is a biblical doctrine. But let's talk.

> John 1.1. Since this scripture said that Jesus was with God, then doesn't that mean that Jesus and the Almighty God are two separate individuals?

No, the verse doesn't mean that, because we have to look at the whole verse. Jesus and Almighty God are obviously and clearly portrayed as both distinct and yet sharing a unified essence. At the beginning of the verse, Jesus is shown to be eternal, as God is eternal; He had no beginning. The second phrase of the verse (and the Word was with God) presents Jesus as distinct from the Father, God (YHWH, see Jn. 9.29), but also on a plane of equality and face-to-face relationship. "With" implies an association with another on terms of equality (Mk. 6.3). the 3rd phrase of the verse (and the Word was God) shows us there is more to understanding Jesus than just "two separate individuals." Jesus and the Father YHWH share the same nature and essence. Since we are bound to subscribe to the teachings that are found in God's Word, we must be committed to the ideas that Jesus is distinct from the Father while simultaneously being one in nature and essence with YHWH God.

> 1 Cor.8.5

You have missed a very important part of the translation. In 1 Cor. 8.5, Paul uses a concessive clause "For even if there are so-called gods..." He is allowing the term not because it's true but instead for the sake of continuing the discussion. By his grammar, he is denying the real existence of these entities to whom the false title of "god" is ascribed. The whole pagan mythology is nothing but fable and fiction—the work of a lively imagination. There is no similarity between this text and the claims of Jesus's deity.

> 2 Cor. 4.4

It's indubitably true that Satan is considered a god by many humans. He is given honor and even at times worship. Paul uses it here to give the same idea as Jesus did in Jn. 12.31; 14.30. Satan has been delegated by God to a position of rule on the Earth. Satan claimed to rule over the world in the temptations with Jesus. Taking all the teachings of the NT together, there is no reason to conclude that Satan is considered divine or to share deity with YHWH, as Jesus does.

> But when we look at John 1:1, it never says that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, which is a big difference.

But John 1.1 does indeed say exactly that: "...and the Word WAS GOD." John uses the word θεόν, which was a generic word to indicate deity. Throughout the Gospel, John uses the term generally in the same way. In John 5.18; 6.27; 8.41; et al., he gets more specific, where "God" refers to the Father. In John 9.29 he uses the term to refer to YHWH who spoke to Moses.

> John 10.30 ... Don't people who play with teammates act as "one" in order for them to win a game?

Of course. There are different ways to use the term "one." It can be a cardinal number, a pronoun, a point of agreement, a point of unity, a point of emphasis. It can be a point of distinction (I, for one, disagree with everyone else) or a point of non-distinction (we were all of one mind). The context of the Gospel of John, of chapter 10, and of the section in particular where Jesus used the sentence "I and the Father are one" bears out that Jesus's meaning is that He and the Father YHWH are one in essence or nature. "One" is neuter—"one thing" and not "one person." Identity is not asserted, but essential unity is. He is not saying He and the Father share mutual goals like a band or a sports team, but instead that they share an essential unity of essence.

> John 10.29

By the way, the Living Bible is not an accurate translation but rather a loose paraphrase.

Jesus says the Father is greater than all. "Greatness" is another term that has a wide range of possible meanings: (1) spatially larger (measure: greater height; greater size), (2) larger number (quantity), (3) greater intensity (a great calm, for instance, a great deed), (4) higher rank or dignity, (5) greater power, (6) greater importance, (7) more extraordinary, (8) older. (9) more deserving of honor.

That the Father is superior to Jesus is not a point that Jesus has been making nor a concept He has been developing. He has been clear that the Father has a particular role to play, and the Son, in turn, also has a particular role to play. He has also been clear that He and the Father are one (Jn. 1.1; 10.30; 14.9).

Jesus’s points about the Father have been (1) His love for the world 3.16, (2) He enables people to do good deeds 3.21, (3) He deserves worship and honor 4.23-24; 5.23, 12.28, (4) He is always at work 5.17, 36, (5) raises the dead and gives life 5.21-30; 6. 33 et al., (6) Has sent and approves of the Son 6.27, 45. The main points are that the Father draws people to Himself to give them salvation, He gives people life through the Son, and He sent the Son to reveal Himself.

What then did Jesus mean by “the Father is greater”? This verse is a re-cap of vv. 1-4: I am going away; I am coming back; you should not be troubled but be glad; I am going to the Father. Then Jesus emphasizes his own uniqueness and his own status: Jesus is the preparer, the way, the truth, the life, the revelation of the Father, the one who is “in” the Father, etc. The Father is the home owner (2), the goal and destination (6), the One at work (10), the sender (16, 25).

What we have is a scene of equality in essence but distinction in activity (in their roles). When Jesus says “the Father is greater than I,” He can mean nothing other than during Jesus’s incarnation, the Father has a role as Sender that outranks Jesus’s role as the One sent.

> Matthew 4.10

By the way, the New World Translation is a notoriously unreliable translation, proven to have skewed and altered many texts.

Yes, God alone is to be worshiped. And yet numerous times in Matthew, such worship is accorded Jesus after miracles, showing that Matthew was dedicated to the idea of showing that and giving evidence throughout his Gospel that Jesus is God.

> So since no where in God's Word the Bible does it mentions the Trinity doctrine

This is not true. The Bible is filled with the Trinity doctrine. There are dozens of texts that show it.

[Comfort]

Hi Jim, thanks for taking out your time from your schedule an giving me your honest thoughts in regards to your beliefs about the Trinity doctrine, when you had said this: ''At the beginning of the verse, Jesus is shown to be eternal, as God is eternal; He had no beginning."

QUESTION: Why was Jesus Christ called the only Begotten son?

One of the reasons why I had asked you that question is because in God's Word The Bible it mentions that Jesus Christ is called God's only Begotten Son. But in order to make sure that we are both are on the same page in regards to what the word "Begotten" means, I would like to share with you one of the definition of the word "Begotten", which means: brought into existence by or as if by a parent (Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begotten

So since the definition of the word "begotten" means to be brought into an existence by a parent, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that Jesus Christ can't be the same as Jehovah God, since Jesus Christ had a beginning? In fact, Jesus Christ made it clear that he had a beginning, when he had said this:

1) In Revelation 3:14: “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God:"(New World Translation).

2) In Proverbs 8:22: "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago."(New World Translation). Didn't Jesus Christ himself made it clear in these scriptures that Jehovah God had created him?

But here is something else that is interesting, and it is found at Revelation 3:12: "I will make everyone who wins the victory a pillar in the temple of my God. They will never leave it again. I will write on them the name of my God, the name of the city of my God (the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from my God), and my new name."(GOD'S WORD Translation).

If Jesus Christ was the same as Jehovah God, then why did Jesus Christ say 4 times "my God"?

But now let's see who did the apostle Paul thought Jesus Christ was. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul let's us know about the headship arraignment when he had said this: "But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ.''(Good News Translation) If Jesus Christ is the same as Jehovah God, than why would Paul say that God is more supreme than Jesus Christ?

So since Jesus Christ made it clear that he had a beginning, and the apostle Paul let's us know that Jesus Christ is a subordinate to God, then where did the Trinity doctrine come from? Let us see what this secular source says: The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. Doesn't this secular source helps us to see that the Trinity doctrine didn't get firmly establish, until the end of the 4th century (which is certainly way pass the time when Jesus and his early disciples had lived)?

So now if Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul didn't acknowledge the Trinity, and the secular source made it clear that the Trinity doctrine didn't get firmly established until the 4th century, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that the Trinity doctrine is based on something that humans had made up?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. I'm glad to discuss this. First of all, Mirriam-Webster defines "begotten" in the common human usage, but we are ignoring biblical teaching to define biblical terms by Mirriam-Webster. The term in John's Gospel is μονογενῆ (and its forms), which can mean "one and only" and "unique" as well as "begotten." Gilbert Bilizekian writes, "God is Father, but He never had a wife. Christ is the eternal Son, but He has no mother. Sons are always born within time, but Christ is without a beginning. Fathers are always older than their sons, but here Father and Son are eternal. Sons normally outlive their fathers, but the Son and the Father are immortal. This term refers to the necessity of the incarnation." The term carries no thought of generation, but that of uniqueness—Son by special relationship. Kittel writes, "In ancient Greek usage, outside of the NT, the word suggests derivation rather than birth. Monogene does not denote the source but the nature of derivation. Hence it means 'of sole descent,' i.e. without brothers or sisters. This gives us the sense of only-begotten. The reference is to the only child of one's parents, primarily in relation to them. But the word can also be used more generally without reference to derivation in the sense of unique, unparalleled, incomparable." So what Mirriam-Webster says irrelevant here. What we have to be concerned with is what the Bible says.

Therefore, in the Gospel of John, "begotten" distinctly does NOT mean "brought into existence by a parent," since John has already established that Christ was never brought into existence. And it therefore is quite reasonable that Jesus can be of the same essence as YHWH God.

> Rev. 3.14

The New World Translation misconstrues the Greek—yet again. The Greek reads, "Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον Τάδε λέγει ὁ Ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ὁ ἀληθινός, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ,": "And write to the angel of the Laodicean church: 'These are the words of the True One, the Witness who is faithful and flawless, the agent of God's creation.' " There is NOTHING in the verse indicating that Christ had a beginning.

> Prov. 8.22

The verse is not talking about Jesus, but instead about wisdom personified. Just as the Gospel of John begins with the statement "In the beginning was the Word," the author(s) of Proverbs makes the claim that wisdom was the first of God's creations, existing alongside God from that point forward. Throughout the creation of everything else in the universe, Wisdom is present.

> Didn't Jesus Christ himself made it clear in these scriptures that Jehovah God had created him?

Not at all. These verses do not say that YHWH created Jesus, and Jesus is not claiming that He was created by God.

> Rev. 3.12

Jesus speaks this way in Mark 15.34 and John 20.17 as well. We are still seeing the thought of Jesus's uniqueness. Notice He speaks of a distant difference between He and humans: "to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." His point is that the disciples will now realize a new element of Jesus's promises to them: "When I go, I will send the Holy Spirit to you…" is being fulfilled and they can look forward to doing greater things than he has done. This is like saying, "The time has finally come. Now I will leave you, and even better things await you." They have a new status. But even though they are brothers, Jesus's relationship with the Father is still unique. Their relationship with God was different from his. He is the eternal Son of the Father; they had become members of the family by receiving Him (cf. John 1.12).

> 1 Cor. 11.3

Again, your translation is corrupted from the meaning. Paul uses the word "head," not "supreme over." As Leon Morris writes, " 'Head' as a person in authority was unknown in antiquity. It often was a reference to the whole person, for life, or for source, but NEVER for leader, let alone "supreme over." The functions of the central nervous system were unknown to them, and the head was not considered to be the controlling factor. 'Source' is the best choice here." Gilbert Bilezikian concurs: "...this statement is better rendered as 'one considered preeminent but acting as servant-provider, or source (of life and growth).' "

> So now if Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul didn't acknowledge the Trinity, and the secular source made it clear that the Trinity doctrine didn't get firmly established until the 4th century, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that the Trinity doctrine is based on something that humans had made up?

So I have to tell you this is completely false and misleading. Jesus acknowledged the Trinity, as did Paul. As far as Encyclopedia Britannica, they are incorrect that the doctrine of the trinity doesn't appear in the NT. It is clear as a bell. The NT writers give adequate proof that the doctrine was understood from the beginning of the Church, and well recognized in the first century. It is not something humans made up but rather is strongly imprinted on the pages of the New Testament.

[Comfort]

Hi Jim, I hope that this week has been working out well for you. Thanks for responding back to me when you had said this to me:

"Christ is the eternal Son, but He has no mother. Sons are always born within time, but Christ is without a beginning. Fathers are always older than their sons, but here Father and Son are eternal. Sons normally outlive their fathers, but the Son and the Father are immortal." Your statements brings up some very important questions, such as:

1) If Jesus Christ had no mother, than who was Mary?

In Luke 1: 31-32, it says this "And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father,"(New World Translation).

Doesn't these Bible verses helps us to see that an angel had let Mary know that she will become the mother of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Most High Jehovah God?

Also, if Jesus Christ is eternal, than that means Jesus Christ had never died on the torture state for our sins. So since that is the case then, wouldn't we still be under the Mosaic law?

In 1 Timothy 2:5-6, it says this: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."(King James Version).

You had also said this: "since John has already established that Christ was never brought into existence."

Can you please share with me the exact Bible verses(along with their translation), where John had stated that Jesus Christ was never brought into existence?

To sum up your last message to me, you don't believe that Jesus had ever been born, which means that you don't believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus, as outlined in the Bible.

And you also believe that Jesus is eternal, which means that you don't believe in Jesus Christ's ransom sacrifice that is spoken about in John 3:16-17.

So the question that I have to asked you is this: What scriptures do you base your beliefs on that Jesus Christ had never died, and was never born from Mary?

[jimwalton]

> then who was Mary?

Mary was Jesus's biological human mother, but Jesus had pre-existence before His earthly existence, and He had no ultimate mother. Mary was His incarnation mother, but He didn't have (and didn't need) a woman to bring Him into ultimate existence. Jesus has always existed, from eternity past.

> if Jesus Christ is eternal, than that means Jesus Christ had never died on the torture stake for our sins.

This is a non sequitur. Death, according to the Bible, is not a cessation but a transition. Humans don't cease to exist when they die. Instead, they pass from one form of existence to another. When Jesus died, it didn't void His eternality.

> Can you please share with me the exact Bible verses(along with their translation), where John had stated that Jesus Christ was never brought into existence?

Sure: John 1.1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." My dynamic translation of the verse: “From eternity past, the Word existed. The Word existed with God, and the Word existed as God."

> you don't believe that Jesus had ever been born, which means that you don't believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus, as outlined in the Bible.

This is not an accurate rendering of my beliefs. Jesus existed from eternity, but He was incarnated as a human, conceived by the Holy Spirit from a human mother, Mary, at a particular time in history.

> And you also believe that Jesus is eternal, which means that you don't believe in Jesus Christ's ransom sacrifice that is spoken about in John 3:16-17.

This is not true, either. Jesus is eternal, but He died (his human body was killed) to save us from our sins.

> What scriptures do you base your beliefs on that Jesus Christ had never died, and was never born from Mary?

No scriptures. This is not true. Jesus's human body was born from Mary and died on the cross.

[Comfort]

Now I see why you are having a hard time believing that Jehovah God and Jesus Christ are different individuals, based on when you had said this to me: "This is a non sequitur. Death, according to the Bible, is not a cessation but a transition. Humans don't cease to exist when they die. Instead, they pass from one form of existence to another. When Jesus died, it didn't void His eternality." Many people have the same beliefs like you do when it comes to death. But do you know that God's Word The Bible tells us something different?

For example: 1) In regards to Hell, do you know that in God's Word The Bible it let's us know that Hell is nothing more but mankind's common grave, where such ones who are dead are not conscious of anything at all, as brought out in the Bible book of Ecclesiastes 9:5 & 10: "For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten. 10 Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening."(Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition) 2) In Psalms 146:4, it says this: "When they die, they return to the ground. On that day their plans come to nothing."(New International Reader's Version). QUESTION: If death is not a cessation, than how come this scripture says that the plans of the dead comes to nothing? 3) What about when Jehovah God told Adam and Eve this(after they had sin), as brought out in Genesis 3:19: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”"(New King James Version). QUESTION: If death is not a cessation, then how come Jehovah God told Adam and Eve that they will return to the dust(due to them sinning)?

But here is something else to think about, if death is nothing more than a transition, then why would Jesus Christ make a future promise that many people will be brought back to life, as brought out in John 5: 28-29? As we can see(with the scriptures that I had shared with you) that with God's Word The Bible, it does make it clear that death does leads to the end of consciousness. So since the Bible makes it clear that death is a cessation, then Jesus Christ's death means that he had to be brought back to life by someone who was alive, in order for Jesus Christ to live again.

Interestingly, in all four of the Gospels, they mentioned that Jesus Christ was brought back to life. So since Jesus Christ had to be brought back to life, then it's quite clear that it would be impossible for Jesus Christ to have live for an eternity. The only one that God's Word The Bible mentions is the King of Eternity is none other than Jehovah God, as sung by the Heavenly creatures, as brought out in Revelation 15:3: "They were singing the song of Moses the slave of God and the song of the Lamb, saying: “Great and wonderful are your works, Jehovah God, the Almighty. Righteous and true are your ways, King of eternity."(New World Translation) Now that you have seen what the scriptures says about death, now do you get a better understanding why it would be impossible for Jesus Christ to be the same as Jehovah God(due to the fact that Jesus Christ had to be brought back to life)?

[jimwalton]

> In regards to Hell, do you know that in God's Word The Bible it let's us know that Hell is nothing more but mankind's common grave, where such ones who are dead are not conscious of anything at all

Again, this is not true. First of all, Ecclesiastes is no place to get information about Hell. The OT authors had no vision of an afterlife except as a common grave; they used the term "Sheol" to express it. Jesus is the one who gives us almost all of our information about Hell, and in NT doctrine Hell is clearly not merely a common grave. If you think Ecclesiastes and Psalms give the whole picture about Hell, as you have implied, you are ignoring dozens of NT texts about "where the worm never dies," "everlasting torment," and "eternal fire."

As fas as Ecclesiastes 9.5 & 10 is concerned, as Leupold writes: "We have no right to consider the verse as the definite opinion of the author about the state of the dead in the other world; he is only expressing the relation of the dead to this world."

Psalm 146.4 is no different. The text is about the futility of human hubris and power, not telling us about the state of the dead in the next world (or even implying there IS no "next world").

Therefore, This ("Now that you have seen what the scriptures says about death...") is patently inaccurate and deceptively misleading.

Genesis 3.14: The phrase "and to dust you shall return" is telling us that death awaits us all. All will succumb. It's your nature as a human to be mortal and die. It's not telling us anything about the nature of death.

> if death is nothing more than a transition, then why would Jesus Christ make a future promise that many people will be brought back to life, as brought out in John 5:28-29?

Because death is not a cessation, but rather a transition into a different form of life. Our bodies will be resurrected and changed in form. Those who are in Christ will rise to life, and those who rejected Jesus will rise to a state of condemnation. It tells us very clearly that death is not the end.

> So since Jesus Christ had to be brought back to life, then it's quite clear that it would be impossible for Jesus Christ to have live for an eternity.

This doesn't make sense. Jesus died physically, but His essence was still quite alive: always was and always will be.

> Rev. 15.3

Your point might possibly have some weight if this were the only text in the Bible. When we discern doctrine, however, we take the total of all of what the Bible is saying. We would especially take all of what the book of Revelation is teaching, which is certainly not that "the only king of eternity is none other than Jehovah God." It is false interpretation to cherry pick the one verse that says what you want and ignore what every other verse on the subject is saying.

In addition, once again the New World Translation has distorted the text. The text does NOT say, "Jehovah God." It says κύριε, ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ: "Lord, God, the Almighty."

> Now that you have seen what the scriptures says about death, now do you get a better understanding why it would be impossible for Jesus Christ to be the same as Jehovah God(due to the fact that Jesus Christ had to be brought back to life)?

Again, a non sequitur, a false conclusion, and wrong thinking. What the Scriptures say about death is that human death is not final. What it says about Jesus is that He shares an essence with God (John 1.1 and others) though He is a separate person, and in Him is life (John 1.4; 14.6).