Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[WalterandDebbie]

Yes. That God exists as three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons is what the doctrine of the Trinity states.

I understand, what you are saying, yet it gets deeper, Sir.

 

[Free]

I understand, what you are saying, yet it gets deeper, Sir.

Yes, it does.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Yes, it does.

Yet I see scriptures on the beliefs of Christians, but there is One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, and what this means to us is unity in Christ, the message that He came with.

 

[Free]

Yet I see scriptures on the beliefs of Christians, but there is One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, and what this means to us is unity in Christ, the message that He came with.

I am unsure what your point is and how it relates to the discussion. Can you clarify what you're meaning?

 

[WalterandDebbie]

I am unsure what your point is and how it relates to the discussion. Can you clarify what you're meaning?

We have misunderstood each other somewhere, The last thing I said was, is it what you do or don't understand? I meant, Ephesians 4:1-6,
I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The Greek word used of the Son is monogenes, and means "unique," "only," "one and only."

You must have "only" and "son" mixed up.
Your definition makes no sense.
If it did, I would be an "only".
But I am a "son".

It is used only nine times in the NT; five of those times it is used of Christ and even then, only by John (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The other four times, the KJV translates it as “only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42), “only child” (Luke 9:38), and “only begotten” (Heb 11:17). It is never translated as “conceived” nor does it refer to “begetting” in the sense of being created or coming into existence at a point in time.

Each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to their children, not their conception or their physical begetting. And, in fact, this is precisely what we see in John 1:18, although, because we already know that the preincarnate Son “was with God and was God,” it can only be speaking of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son. This is also supported by 1:18 itself: “which is in the bosom of the Father.”

 

[Runningman]

I sometimes wonder why trinitarians never discuss the trinity being God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit ?
It is only after the Word takes on flesh that their doctrine seems to apply.

The Bible doesn't explicitly describe or explain the Trinity doctrine as far as I can tell. I mean, I have seen it discussed enough to know why they believe in it, but it is not something intuitive a Bible reader would see when opening the Bible for the first time because it needs to be taught.

They should see that Jesus has a Father and Lord he refers to as his God, repeatedly, with Jesus being the Son of God and Messiah. People would typically read that a Father and Son refers to two distinctly different persons. Therefore, Jesus is not his own Father and Son at the same time because he isn't God. Most people just accept that reasonable conclusion.

Most discussions about Trinitarianism end with saying "It's too great of a mystery to comprehend or explain." It just can't be completely justified using scripture is the problem I see.

 

[Runningman]

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

One God and Father of all. In my view, seems like Paul should have said "One God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of all" if he was promoting Trinitarianism. I think Paul was a Unitarian like Jesus.

John 17
1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I believe that even as we exist in heaven, in our glorified sinless bodies, with it's infinitely enhanced knowledge, we will still,into eternity, never be able to fully know the intimate relationship that exists between Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
The difference then being that in our glorified states we will at least have the enhanced spiritual knowledge to understand that we can never know.
Let alone assuming that we can have full knowledge of it now in our own present sinful states.
We cannot even fully understand the depths that our own sinful spiritual states are capable of descending, never mind claiming to have knowledge of the intimate spiritual details of the Godhead.
Jer 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
The height of arrogance it is .

 

[WalterandDebbie]

One God and Father of all. In my view, seems like Paul should have said "One God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of all" if he was promoting Trinitarianism. I think Paul was a Unitarian like Jesus.

John 17
1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

Hello Runningman, Paul said many things that in my view things of importance.

 

[Free]

I understand your point, but the definition of logos is the one I provided

Logos has several meanings and context determines which meaning. In the case of John 1:1, it could be that several meanings apply. According to Vern Poythress, "logos in Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration" (Logic, p. 70).

and I don't think John minced words either.

I agree. He was very specific. John tells us clearly that the Word was in intimate union and communion with God. That, by definition, is "personhood;" it cannot be merely spoken word or something inanimate.

God created with the spoken word throughout the Bible, beginning in Genesis, where the one doing the creating is referred to as YHWH, a singular masculine noun, God's name. No mention of someone there called the Son or Messiah, Jesus, etc.

There doesn't need to be a name attached in order for the logos to be a "person."

We can look a bit more beyond John 1:1 to get an idea of the context. John 1:9 says the true Light gives light to all men entering the world and John 1:30 says Jesus is a man. It follows, at least to me, that the true Light giving light to all men would not be the man Jesus in John 1:30.

You have the wrong reference with John 1:30.

John 1:14 says he was begotten of the Father. So the picture I am seeing is Jesus didn't exist except for in the logos of God until he was born.

I have provided the meaning of "begotten" (monogenes) above. We always have to start with what John says in the first verse. The Word had absolute existence, in intimate relationship with God, and was God in nature. Those three things

I see this as the Pharisees attempting to gaslight Jesus since Jesus never claimed to see Abraham. In typical fashion, they were essentially making another false accusation baiting him to commit blasphemy so they could justify stoning him. They seem to have intentionally misunderstood Jesus to be making a claim to deity, but their premise was false.

Yet, Jesus never corrects them. He deliberately contrasts the temporal existence of Abraham with his eternal existence. It's worth noting that the poor translation of the NWT translates this as, "before Abraham came into existence, I have been." Every legitimate translation correctly states, "before Abraham was, I am.” His response makes no sense unless he really was claiming to be the I Am.

The same goes for Thomas's confession:

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (ESV)

Thomas clearly calls Jesus his Lord and his God, yet Jesus doesn't correct him. We also see several other times that Jesus is worshiped by his disciples without correction. Yet, when either men or angels are worshiped, this happens:

Act 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (ESV)

Rev 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (ESV)

Rev 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me,
Rev 22:9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” (ESV)

Jesus never responds that way; he simply accepts it.

I see Abraham "seeing his [Jesus'] day" as a reference to Abraham seeing the prophecy of Jesus in faith, though not literally having it. That isn't unprecedented, there is a good reason to view John 8:58 as a reference to Jesus the man being prophesied about before Abraham.

But that does not at all explain Jesus's response.

Hebrews 11
13All these people died in faith, without having received the things they were promised. However, they saw them and welcomed them from afar. And they acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

I believe they misunderstood Jesus in the same way I pointed out above.

The disciples clearly understood what Jesus said in the very same way the other Jews understood. And they had more reason to understand that Jesus was not merely human:

Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
(It is also very important to also note here the use of "the Son of God" in this context.)

Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
Joh 9:36 He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
Joh 9:37 Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you."
Joh 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
(Note that the context begins with Jesus miraculously healing of a man born blind and then asking the man if he believed "in the Son of Man.)

 

[Free]

Jesus said elsewhere God is greater than himself which lends context and interpretation to John 8:58. If God is greater than Jesus, then they aren't equals, then it wouldn't make sense to say he is God.

“the Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28
“My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all.” – John 10:29

Php 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Php 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! (NIV)

As James White says, "Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature." That is a very important point to keep in mind, especially since that is supported by the above passage. It is significant that every anti-trinitarian quotes John 14:28 as though it proves Jesus isn't God, that the Father is a greater being than Jesus is. But, we need to consider more closely what Jesus says in John 14:28, rather than focusing on just the last clause to understand what that clause means.

Joh 14:28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (ESV)

The question is: why should the disciples be glad that Jesus was going to return to the Father, if the Father was a greater or better type of being? That would go without saying, as that would apply to any and every believer that goes to the Father. Jesus's words become empty if that is the case.

We see in Phil 2:5-8 that Jesus was God in nature. We have already seen that he was with the Father (John 1:1-2, 18). We have also seen that he possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation (John 17:5). Jesus says many times that he came from the Father (John 3:13-17; 5:23; 6:38, 62; 8:23-24; 10:36; 12:44-49; 14:24; 15:21; 16:27-30; 17:3, 8, 21).

The point is the disciples should be happy because Jesus is returning from the place and position he left behind to come to earth. What he says in John 14:28 makes sense if he is returning to the position he had prior to his incarnation, where the Father is positionally greater.

Again, the message is consistent and coherent from the beginning of John to the end. The Word had always existed with the Father in intimate, interpersonal relationship, but then humbled himself and became a man, submitting to the Father for the purpose of salvation and redemption.

The only logical conclusion is that Jesus is truly God in nature but he is not the Father; yet there is only one God.

For a human, yes, but for God it isn't impossible because through scripture that's how He is.

The question is, did God literally know Jeremiah before he was born and did Jeremiah pre-exist? I guess most people would say no and it refers to God's foreknowledge. I apply the same precedent to Jesus.

Jeremiah 1
5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”


I don't believe that would be Jesus literally pre-existing. " Glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed." refers to Jesus being crucified, resurrected, etc. Jesus was not crucified and resurrected before the world began, not in a literal sense, but in God's prophecy, yes absolutely. So Jesus wouldn't have literally had that glory with God before the world existed except in God's foreknowledge, thoughts, the logos.

But Jesus was crucified long after the world came into existence, yet he was claiming to have possessed the glory of the Father prior to the existence of the world (prior to creation). So, this simply cannot actually be referring to "God's foreknowledge, thoughts, the logos." Jesus is essentially claiming to have actually existed, which is precisely what John says of the preincarnate Word in John 1:1. Those are plain readings of the texts. There is no need to read additional things into those texts, such as that it is "God's prophecy."

Furthermore, John 17:3 and John 5:44 say there is only one God, the Father. I believe that explicitly rules Jesus out as being that one and only true God.

It actually doesn't rule out Jesus as being God. He should rightly point to the Father, so as not to be seen as teaching against monotheism. And within the context of 17:3 is 17:5, where, again, Jesus claims he possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation. It wasn't an idea or prophecy that possessed God's glory, as that doesn't make sense; it was the person of the Son, the Word that possessed it.

I guess we see it differently, but yes thanks for sharing your perspective. It's always nice to read about what others believe.

We sure do see it differently.

 

[Free]

We have misunderstood each other somewhere, The last thing I said was, is it what you do or don't understand? I meant, Ephesians 4:1-6,
I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Free]

You must have "only" and "son" mixed up.
Your definition makes no sense.
If it did, I would be an "only".
But I am a "son".

I have no idea what you're getting at. How must it be that have I gotten "only" and "son" mixed up?

I am talking about the Greek word monogenes, often translated as "only begotten," which was the point you were addressing.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

Sir, I understand you well enough about your speaking of on page 2, posts 38 and 39, I don't see where there is 3 persons, but I do see The Comforter from The Father, in which we both see, I only see The Father and His Son, in agreement, is Two Persons.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I believe that even as we exist in heaven, in our glorified sinless bodies, with it's infinitely enhanced knowledge, we will still, into eternity, never be able to fully know the intimate relationship that exists between Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
The difference then being that in our glorified states we will at least have the enhanced spiritual knowledge to understand that we can never know.
Let alone assuming that we can have full knowledge of it now in our own present sinful states.
We cannot even fully understand the depths that our own sinful spiritual states are capable of descending, never mind claiming to have knowledge of the intimate spiritual details of the Godhead.
Jer 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
The height of arrogance it is .

Does this mean I am more a Trinitarian , Non-Trinitarian or none of the abpve

 

[WalterandDebbie]

9-29-23

Hello Consecrated, How are you? It is my understanding that we are a new creature.

 

[Free]

Sir, I understand you well enough about your speaking of on page 2, posts 38 and 39, I don't see where there is 3 persons, but I do see The Comforter from The Father, in which we both see, I only see The Father and His Son, in agreement, is Two Persons.

So far I have only been speaking about the Son, as it is absolutely central that we see that he is truly God, like the Father. There is much less in the NT about the Holy Spirit, but that is because one of the main purposes of the Holy Spirit is to bring glory to Jesus. The Son is the central person in all of Scripture--much of the OT points to him and his sacrifice; in his name alone we have salvation. So it makes sense that we read less of the Holy Spirit.

Having said that, there is enough that we can see that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from both the Father and the Son, yet is also truly God. For example:

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (ESV)

Joh 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (ESV)

First, the Holy Spirit is "another," that is, one who is similar to Jesus but distinct. That speaks of personhood. Second, "Helper" clearly speaks to personhood, especially since it also means "advocate." An advocate can only be a person. Here is how parakletos is defined:

NAS Word Usage - Total: 5

1. summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
   1. one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
   2. one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor
      1. of Christ in his exaltation at God's right hand, pleading with God the Father for the pardon of our sins
   3. in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant
      1. of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/parakletos.html

John uses the same word here, for "advocate":

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (ESV)

Notice that Jesus is said, by John, to be an advocate. It is not insignificant, then, that he records Jesus saying that he will send "another parakletos."

Additionally, we see these acts of personal agency attributed to the Holy Spirit:

Acts: Matt 4:1; Acts 8:39, 16:7
Listens: John 16:13
Speaks: John 16:13-15; Acts 1:16, 10:19, 11:12, 11:28, 13:2, 15:28; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7
Can be lied to: Acts 5:3, which is the same as lying to God (5:9)
Bears witness: Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15; 1 John 5:6
Helps, intercedes, and searches: John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7; Rom 8:26-27; 1 Cor 2:10
Teaches: Luke 12:12; John 16:13; 1 Cor 2:13
Gives gifts: 1 Cor 12:11; Heb 2:4
Leads: John 16:13; Gal 5:18, Heb 9:8
Can be grieved: Eph 4:30
Can be outraged: Heb 10:29
Can be blasphemed: Matt 12:31-32
Convicts: John 16:8-11

And on it goes.

Of course, we also have the Great Commission:

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV)

Notice that "name" is singular. This is what M. R. Vincent says in his Word Studies in the New Testament regarding this verse:

"The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter."

I would also add that since we know the Father and the Son are distinct persons yet both truly God, it necessarily follows that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person that is also truly God. And since know there is only God, the Trinity is the best explanation.

 

[Runningman]

Logos has several meanings and context determines which meaning. In the case of John 1:1, it could be that several meanings apply. According to Vern Poythress, "logos in Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration" (Logic, p. 70).


I agree. He was very specific. John tells us clearly that the Word was in intimate union and communion with God. That, by definition, is "personhood;" it cannot be merely spoken word or something inanimate.


There doesn't need to be a name attached in order for the logos to be a "person."

The logos could be understood as things God knows, i.e., His thoughts, words, reasoning, etc. These are things in the mind of God. The way the logos is God or godly is that the Word is the mind of God. Only God's spirit knows the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:11) so the question for me is does the Son know everything the Father knows? If not, then that's enough for me to know the Son is not the Word of God.

Matt 24:36 is one of many examples of Jesus not knowing what God knows.

You have the wrong reference with John 1:30.

All of the versions/translations I have seen for John 1:30 say Jesus is a man.

30This is He of whom I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’

My point was that a man being God doesn't make sense in this context.

I have provided the meaning of "begotten" (monogenes) above. We always have to start with what John says in the first verse. The Word had absolute existence, in intimate relationship with God, and was God in nature. Those three things

Seems in this case, as far as I can tell, Jesus being a begotten Son refers to his beginning point.

Yet, Jesus never corrects them. He deliberately contrasts the temporal existence of Abraham with his eternal existence. It's worth noting that the poor translation of the NWT translates this as, "before Abraham came into existence, I have been." Every legitimate translation correctly states, "before Abraham was, I am.” His response makes no sense unless he really was claiming to be the I Am.

Then there is a severe contradiction with Exodus 3 where God said He is the I AM and referred to Himself as YHWH being the name He would be remembered forever. The simplest solution that makes sense for me to remove the contradiction is that Jesus isn't himself God. It would seem the "I am" verse of John 8:58 works better with Jesus being [the man] prophesied about.

Exodus 3
14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD,[YHWH] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

The same goes for Thomas's confession:

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (ESV)

Thomas clearly calls Jesus his Lord and his God, yet Jesus doesn't correct him. We also see several other times that Jesus is worshiped by his disciples without correction. Yet, when either men or angels are worshiped, this happens:

Jesus didn't say he was correct, but rather responded with criticism regarding his doubting attitude and not being blessed for requiring material proof of his resurrection.

Just was worshipped as the "son of God" in all contexts.

Act 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (ESV)

Rev 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (ESV)

Rev 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me,
Rev 22:9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” (ESV)

Jesus never responds that way; he simply accepts it.

Jesus accepts worship in context of being the son of God, but not as God. Worship, or a bowing down, to people of high rank and status is a thing in Biblical culture. It doesn't mean someone has become your God. God the Father never sanctioned nor commanded Christians to worship Jesus, but Jesus directed worship to God the Father (John 4:23,24)

But that does not at all explain Jesus's response.


The disciples clearly understood what Jesus said in the very same way the other Jews understood. And they had more reason to understand that Jesus was not merely human:

Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
(It is also very important to also note here the use of "the Son of God" in this context.)

Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
Joh 9:36 He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
Joh 9:37 Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you."
Joh 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
(Note that the context begins with Jesus miraculously healing of a man born blind and then asking the man if he believed "in the Son of Man.)

Any worship of Jesus in heaven and/or earth is just in context of respect as Lord of the church, but the glory goes to God the Father only.

Philippians 2
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The Bible doesn't explicitly describe or explain the Trinity doctrine as far as I can tell. I mean, I have seen it discussed enough to know why they believe in it, but it is not something intuitive a Bible reader would see when opening the Bible for the first time because it needs to be taught.

They should see that Jesus has a Father and Lord he refers to as his God, repeatedly, with Jesus being the Son of God and Messiah. People would typically read that a Father and Son refers to two distinctly different persons. Therefore, Jesus is not his own Father and Son at the same time because he isn't God. Most people just accept that reasonable conclusion.

Most discussions about Trinitarianism end with saying "It's too great of a mystery to comprehend or explain." It just can't be completely justified using scripture is the problem I see.

Why not just worship and obey them one at a time, or all together at once ?
I think it was the catholics that came up with the term "trinity", so that sours me on the entire subject.
Their doctrines don't warrant in-depth study.