Sorry I messed up your quote......
That's O.K. The tutorial really helped me out (in the Main Discussion Zone) when I started on this forum. It took me about 10 times (posts) before I figured it out.
I relate the trinity to things here on earth as only something to try and attach to for understanding. I believe that clues or reflections of other dimensions are a possibility. It's like a two dimensional creature (if you know the flatlander concept) trying to understand a three dimensional creature. It is impossible to completely understand, but clues or reflections of other dimensions can provide a kind of evidence.
The reason why you can't relate the trinity to things here on earth is because we don't have any "squared circles" here in this "dimension" on earth. The reason why the doctrine of the trinity is impossible to completely understand is because it is contradictory. For instance, if you think Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" (Yahweh) then Jesus is claiming that there is no God besides him (Is. 44:6-8). And then the resurrected Jesus says in John 20:17 that He has a God. This is a contradiction.
It's better, in my opinion, to not relate the trinity to things on earth because we don't have contradictions like this in the "real world". It's better to just throw out the "trump" card and say that the Trinity is a mystery.
Even the titles in the trinity contradict with the definition of the trinity. The title SON implies that he was descended from his FATHER. It would follow then that the Father and Son can't be co-eternal like the definition of the trinity suggests. Another contradiction! If God wanted me to think that the Father and Son were co-eternal with one another, why would he call the second person of the trinity the Son which means "a descendent"? Is God just messing with the minds of people? Or maybe people got the concept of the nature of the Godhead wrong. Or another thought is maybe this God doesn't even exist.
I think that "I AM" is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed. It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God. Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way. Since He announced it.
There is very convincing evidence out there (for an open mind) that Jesus was not claiming the title of "I AM" in John 8:58. There is an excellent book out called, "Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn. I will type out the two pages of his book for you that makes a convincing counter-argument so you don't have to buy the book. He looks into the Greek text and "textually" makes a great case in my opinion. However, I don't want to take the time if you are not interested in the opposing view. Just let me know.
In addition, there is some evidence that a couple of early Church Fathers didn't think Jesus was claiming the title of Yahweh in John 8:58.
Furthermore, the evidence you have to say that Jesus was claiming the divine name ("I am") in John 8:58 is only circumstantial as the Jews picked up stones to stone him. A counter-argument could be that Jesus was obviously not claiming the divine name and the Jews picked up stones to stone him for another reason besides claiming the divine name because Jesus said "I am" in John 8:24 and the Jews responded by saying, "Who are you" in v. 25. Didn't Jesus just tell the Jews he was God? The Jews ask a really dumb question here in John 8:25 unless Jesus wasn't claiming the divine name.
I didn't take the time to look at the original Greek or Hebrew for the words used when calling satan god, or rulers gods.
I did the homework for you. Links:
2 Cor. 4:4 (theos-god): http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/4-4.htm
Psalm 8:5 (me-elohim - god): http://biblehub.com/hebrew/meelohim_430.htm
Psalm 82:6 (elohim - god(s)): http://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/82-6.htm
CONCLUSION: You cannot say the name "God" in the bible just refers to one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit.
It's clear when reading those scriptures in their context that they are gods with a little "g" and not God Himself or equated to God at all.
Clear maybe to you. But you have a presupposition that the bible only reveals a trinity. For example: after reading 2 Cor. 4:4, how could you prove me wrong that this "God" being mentioned here (whoever he/she is) shouldn't be included in the Godhead. For instance, I could actually make an argument that the bible reveals a quadrinity. My argument would be, "Just because this 'God' is only mentioned once should not mean that we should take he/she/it out of the Godhead." Yes, the forth person of the quadrinity is a major jerk for taking away people's free will by "blinding the minds of the unbelieving" but I would say that this is nothing different than the "God" of the old testament "hardening Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 10:27).
Sorry, I take issue when people say the words "clear" and "scripture" in the same sentence. If I was God and inspired a book I would definitely only use the titles for God (Hebrew/Greek or otherwise) to represent myself. I would definitely make humans invent different words to mean gods with a little "g" to avoid confusion. If I did allow gods with a little "g" to share the same name as me then I would consider myself a God of confusion. And then I would consider myself a jerk if I actually allowed gods with a little "g" to share the same name as me to cause confusion and then allow humans to write in my inspired word that I am "not a God of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33).
I think actually that Jesus was not denying what He claimed but actually reiterated it again in John 10:38......I am in the Father and the Father is in me. It certainly made the Jewish leaders angry. - Patrick
I don't by it! If Jesus reiterated the fact that he was making himself out to be God then you are going to have to ask yourself, "Why all the rhetoric from John 10:34 to 10:37. All this only adds to confusion. Jesus should have just said, "Damn right I'm God" in verse 34. I mean, according to your view Jesus already claimed the divine name ("I am") way back in Chapter 8 of John. Why all this confusion? First you should ask yourself why the Jews asked, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10:24). What a stupid question! The Jews already knew that Jesus claimed to be the "I am" in chapter 8 right? Could it be that Jesus was correcting the claim of making himself out to be the one true God in verses 34-37? This verse should give it away: "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself out to be the SON OF GOD" (John 19:7).
In addition, I'm not buying your evidence that Jesus is claiming to be God by saying "the Father is in Me, and I in the Father". The same language is used in Chapter 17 of John:
1.)"...that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in Us..."(v. 21).
2.)"...I in them and You in me..." (v. 23)
3.)"...the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them." (v. 26)
Using your logic and interpreting John 10:38 the way you do, I would have to also believe that Christians can be ONE BEING with God since the same language is used in chapter 17.
Furthermore, you can't definitely say that the Jews were angry in 10:39 because Jesus was claiming to be the one true God. The text doesn't say why the Jews wanted to seize Jesus in v. 39 after he corrected the claim of making himself out to be God. There are many other options. To name a few:
1.) Maybe the Jews misunderstood Jesus' ambiguous language and mistakingly thought Jesus was making himself out to be God.
2.) They wanted to seize Jesus because they were envious (Matt. 27:18)
3.) The Jews thought their nation would perish because this one person could possibly start a revolution and piss off the Romans. (John 11:50)
4.) They wanted to seize Jesus because although he corrected the claim of being the one true God, He admitted to being the Son of God in 10:36 (John 19:7)
5.) They wanted to seize Jesus because they thought Jesus was delusional, smug, and a jerk.
One last thing. The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father. Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel?