My problem with the idea of the trinity

[Wesrock]

I don’t know if PluniaZ and I are now 100% on the same page, but I would still like to offer my thanks for his argument with me, as it helped us delve more specifically into what can and cannot be said about the Trinity, and provided an opportunity to speak to any gaps in my prior posts and misunderstandings that could result from them due to lack of thoroughnese or of care in my word choices.

 

[pacloc]

I guess I just resign to not being capable of understanding the trinity. I believe in it, but Its hard to ignore some bible verses.

You cannot just read the Bible without the understanding of the Church. It was not dropped from the sky, but written by Christ’s Body, the Church. So along with the inspired Scripture, is the inspired Interpretation. It has long been understood that the Word of God, begotten of the Father eternally, took on humanity to raise us up to Divinity. Like a doctor who descends into the life of an ailing person to heal them. He is not afraid or ashamed or any less of himself for lowering himself into the realm of the diseased, but he does in fact get his hands dirty to apply the treatment. Likewise, the Word of God lowered himself in this sense, never ceasing to be God, but took on humanity. He was made “sin” meaning he took on normal human nature that has a mortal body. He only did this to conquer death in the flesh. He did this by His death, that could not be permanent because of his sinlessness. His rising and ascending into Heaven is purely for the humanity that He took on, His divinity is unchangeable. And we being the Body of the Head share in this. If you pay attention Christ did not become man to stay like we us in this world, he came down purely for the purpose of raising up humanity to Divinity.

With all this being said, anytime you see Christ speaking as one of us, He is doing this precisely because He did in fact become human in addition to Divine, and is demonstrating what we should imitate. St. John Chrysostom says that it is admirable to speak lowly of yourself if you are deserving of reputation, but it is shameful to elevate yourself if you are lowly. So when Christ claims equality to the Father, we must believe Him, and when He seems lower, we must believe He is not speaking of His own Divinity, but His humanity.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I guess I just resign to not being capable of understanding the trinity. I believe in it, but Its hard to ignore some bible verses.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Trinity is really beyond human comprehension tbh. Our words do not do it any justice imo.

But over time, if you keep studying and praying i believe it will fall into place for you.

Kind regards

 

[PluniaZ]

I don’t know if PluniaZ and I are now 100% on the same page, but I would still like to offer my thanks for his argument with me, as it helped us delve more specifically into what can and cannot be said about the Trinity, and provided an opportunity to speak to any gaps in my prior posts and misunderstandings that could result from them due to lack of thoroughnese or of care in my word choices.

Yes, I absolutely appreciate our discussion and love you, for Aquinas says to love the one who disagrees with you, for you have both labored and assisted each other in the search for truth.

:hug3:

Nevertheless, we need to be absolutely clear and use perfectly precise language when discussing the Most Holy Trinity. And it must be adamantly stated that there is no “inferiority”, “superiority” or “subordination” in any respect between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Athanasian Creed says:

"In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another."

And, speaking of the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ, it says:

"He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity."

And it needs to be clearly stated that there is no distinction in the Divine Persons apart from their manner of existence, as Saint John of Damascus says:

"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference."

newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

And you cannot say that there is subordination in the relationships of the Divine Persons, for Aquinas says:

"But in God the relations themselves are the persons subsisting in one nature. So, neither on the part of the nature, nor on the part the relations, can one person be prior to another, not even in the order of nature and reason." And also: **“As, therefore, the same essence, which in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation, so the same dignity which, in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation.” **

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm#article4>I:42:4 and <a href=

In fact, we cannot even distinguish between essence and relation in God, for Aquinas says they are one and the same:

"Thus it is clear that in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same."

newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm#article2

As for Jimmy Akin, I think his article is wrong and he needs to read the above cited passages from Aquinas.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

Present? Or speaking? There’s a difference. More to the point, the presence of the Father in the OT doesn’t imply the lack of the Trinity.

I see your point.

I should have used the word presence. The son was not revealed in the OT, but was obviously present as Jesus is eternal and God.

However can we agree The Father was the only one who spoke to the prophets and others in the OT since the son had not been revealed by the Father?

Here’s the thing: if the Father and the Logos are consubstantial – that is, of the same substance – and the Father is God, then the Logos is also God. Moreover, he cannot be “less” God without God Himself being “less God”. After all, God’s nature is “simple”, not “composite”, and therefore, He doesn’t have parts (let alone have parts that are rankable as ‘greater’ or ‘less’). Therefore, the conclusion is manifest: if Trinity, then God is co-equal in all His Persons.

But the Son (Jesus) came down to Earth. He was fully human and divine, and while on earth he acknowledged the superiority of his heavenly father? ** He came down because the father sent him, not on his own accord**. Is that correct?

A hint: you can’t use the term ‘person’ here, since ‘person’ is a term of art in this context. It means something distinct in a theological sense. Do you mean that Jesus and the Father are distinct beings? By asking “is he the same person”, what are you asking? (Perhaps you’re asking a question about the Incarnation?)

I did not use correct terminology, however I think you understood my point.

I think the bible proves that the Father (who spoke in the OT) and the son are 2 distinct beings with distinct “personalities”(Not sure what word to use, but thats the best one) and roles.

“Inferior” in what sense?

Inferior in the sense that Jesus Acknowledges the Father as the creator, the one who gave him the powers he has on earth, the one who spoke to the prophets, and the one who sent him?

The nature of the Father-Son relationship is that the Son is obedient to the father.

Let me know what you think.

Peace.

 

[PluniaZ]

I see your point.

I should have used the word presence. The son was not revealed in the OT, but was obviously present as Jesus is eternal and God.

However can we agree The Father was the only one who spoke to the prophets and others in the OT since the son had not been revealed by the Father?

But the Son (Jesus) came down to Earth. He was fully human and divine, and while on earth he acknowledged the superiority of his heavenly father? ** He came down because the father sent him, not on his own accord**. Is that correct?

I did not use correct terminology, however I think you understood my point.

I think the bible proves that the Father (who spoke in the OT) and the son are 2 distinct beings with distinct “personalities”(Not sure what word to use, but thats the best one) and roles.

Inferior in the sense that Jesus Acknowledges the Father as the creator, the one who gave him the powers he has on earth, the one who spoke to the prophets, and the one who sent him?

The nature of the Father-Son relationship is that the Son is obedient to the father.

Let me know what you think.

Peace.

The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, equal in every respect, except that the Father is not begotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

All the works of the Trinity toward creation are the single indivisible work of all three persons: opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt

The below link contains a short essay by Saint Augustine that explains the Trinity in simple terms. I think you should read this and then come back to us with any questions:

standingonshoulders.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/augustine-sermon-52.pdf

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, equal in every respect, except that the Father is not begotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

All the works of the Trinity toward creation are the single indivisible work of all three persons: opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt

The below link contains a short essay by Saint Augustine that explains the Trinity in simple terms. I think you should read this and then come back to us with any questions:

standingonshoulders.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/augustine-sermon-52.pdf

Ok. Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

However can we agree The Father was the only one who spoke to the prophets and others in the OT since the son had not been revealed by the Father?

And yet, along with Augustine, we’d say that “the New [Testament] lies hidden in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is opened up in the New.” So, even if we can’t say “the Logos is speaking in this passage” in the OT… he’s nevertheless there.

But the Son (Jesus) came down to Earth. ** He came down because the father sent him, not on his own accord**. Is that correct?

One can be sent without being inferior, can’t he? If your wife sends you out for groceries, and you agree to the trip, are you affirming her superiority to you? By the same token, Jesus could be sent without being inferior in any way.

I think the bible proves that the Father (who spoke in the OT) and the son are 2 distinct beings

“The Father and I are one.”
“He who has seen me, has seen the Father.”
“I AM.”

The Bible states that Jesus and the Father aren’t two distinct beings. The issue, then, is how to bring the statements into harmony, don’t you think?

with distinct “personalities”(Not sure what word to use, but thats the best one) and roles.

From a theological perspective, we’d say that they are one being (i.e., ‘God’) with three Persons.

Inferior in the sense that Jesus Acknowledges the Father as the creator

And Jesus is the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier. Why would we assert that one is inferior to another?

the one who gave him the powers he has on earth

Look at John chapter 17. In the midst of all that “Father, you gave me” and “Father, you sent me” talk, Jesus says this: “glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began”. In other words, Jesus already had that glory. He already was co-equal with God… and then He gave it up in order to perform His ministry on earth. So, this is where I’d say we find the harmony in all these statements: Jesus possesses equality with God; He’s had it from the beginning. When He assents to something that looks like “inferiority” to the Father, in the Gospels, what He’s really doing is alluding to the mystery of the Incarnation: He gave it up during His ministry on earth in order to become human and save us.

The nature of the Father-Son relationship is that the Son is obedient to the father.

Agreed. But obedience only speaks of authority when it’s imperfect. Perfect obedience – in which the two are united in mind and action – is not a relationship of a superior to an inferior. Here on earth, in our human relationships, we’re used to a parent-child relationship looking like that. That doesn’t mean that this is what the relationship is only capable of being. The relationship – when perfect – is the relationship we see evidenced by the Father and Jesus.

 

[Karen107]

“Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6b-7Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

“[T]he Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

I am making one assumption: That The Father is the Person that was present in the old testament.

The two verses that your article cited do not prove That Jesus and The father are equal. I am not denying that Jesus is** a God**, but is he the same person as the old testament God? Their is numerous evidence in scripture that expressly says Jesus is not the same person! Jesus Called God his Father does not prove The father and The son are equal or the same. It proves jesus is divine, but it actually suggests that Jesus is inferior to the Father due to the Father-Son relationship.

Jesus is not ‘a God’, Jesus IS God… God in Flesh spent 33 years on earth doing miracles and showing us that He was indeed God in the Flesh!! You’re just confused because you cant pull the three persons of God into One… Well that’s at the heart of our Faith! God is Universal and we need to get pulled into that Union with God… (Communion) that was lost from the sin of Adam and Restored by the New Adam(Jesus)… Jesus is God! The Second Person of the Trinity! He said that He was going to the Father (who was greater than he) because the Son of Man Jesus was human and in that context He was speaking to the disciples but He IS also the Son of God… and unless He died He wouldn’t be the Sacrifice for our Sins (Our Savior)… That’s what He told His disciples who would miss Him when He left… Could you imagine yourself being a friend and disciple of Jesus and to have Him die?? Jesus was comforting them and telling them He would be back! Well He is at every Mass!!!Jesus is NOT inferior to the Father because they are in Union with each other. If you say Jesus is inferior, than the Father is inferior and where is that going?? Absolutely against the First Commandment! I am the Lord thy God, worship me before all gods!

Just think about it… How could we call Jesus Lord thy God if Jesus isn’t God… God doesn’t start one day … God is eternal! No beginning or ending…

Jesus can’t be separated from the Father. So when you see the Father in the OT you see the Son… Read John 1:1…
The Word Became Flesh
1*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was **with God, and the Word was God.
**
Jesus is the Word (the Messenger of God)… With being an important word.

Okay so they didn’t understand God of the Old Testament… God became man so that we would and be saved through Him. If you read the scriptures very carefully you will see the Word… well it’s all the Word, you see? But Jesus was in Noah, and Joseph… Jesus was there but wasn’t recognized… Jesus didn’t start being God in the New Testament. Jesus always was… Jesus even drew that parallel calling himself the great I am…

John 6:51:“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;”
John 8:23: And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I AM from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 8:12: Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I AM the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 10:9: “I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.”
John 10:11: "I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
John 10:36: "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
John 11:25: Jesus said to her, "I AM the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.
John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 15:1: "I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
John 19:2: Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.”’”

Jesus got killed because of this… Don’t forget that! Jesus was not protected from death by the Pharisee because they did not believe Jesus was God. They thought Jesus was a blasphemer and they told the Romans to Crucify Him… Mark 15:13 Do you not see Jesus is God and the world had every chance to spend more time learning about God while He walked the earth but He was killed…weeps…

John 8:58-59, "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him;
John 10:30-31, “I and the Father are one.” 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

Jesus is God!

Colossians 2: Spiritual Fullness in Christ
6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ.
**9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,** 10*and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.

Who first said that Jesus was God?? St. Thomas…

John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

I am emotional about this for I love Jesus… K

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, equal in every respect, except that the Father is not begotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

All the works of the Trinity toward creation are the single indivisible work of all three persons: opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt

The below link contains a short essay by Saint Augustine that explains the Trinity in simple terms. I think you should read this and then come back to us with any questions:

standingonshoulders.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/augustine-sermon-52.pdf

Yes I read it

Thank you.

 

[Wesrock]

Nevertheless, we need to be absolutely clear and use perfectly precise language when discussing the Most Holy Trinity. And it must be adamantly stated that there is no “inferiority”, “superiority” or “subordination” in any respect between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Son and Holy Spirit have an ontological equality with the Father. They are equal in dignity and power and essence. They three are one being. I concede that I was incorrect to carelessly use “relational subordination,” inferior, and superior. I was trying to capture what John of Damascus says when he wrote:

And this also it behooves us to know, that the names Fatherhood, Sonship and Procession, were not applied to the Holy Godhead by us: on the contrary, they were communicated to us by the Godhead, as the divine apostle says, Wherefore I bow the knee to the Father, from Whom is every family in heaven and on earth. But if we say that the Father is the origin of the Son **and greater than the Son, **we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son John 14:28 (for through His agency He made the ages ), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son: just as we say in the same way not that fire proceeds from light, but rather light from fire. So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation.

newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

John if Damascus calls the Father superior only in causation (though his use of causation differs from ours, let it be known I understand that in western articulation we would not say any person of the Trinity is “caused”. The Son is begotten, the Spirit procedes. Do you take ossue with John of Damascus’ statement from the same work you quoted previously?

Furthermore, Saint Thomas is comfortable quoting Hilary with further clarification:

It is the custom with the Greeks to say that the Son and the Holy Ghost are principled. This is not, however, the custom with our Doctors; because, although we attribute to the Father something of authority by reason of His being the principle, still we do not attribute any kind of subjection or inferiority to the Son, or to the Holy Ghost, to avoid any occasion of error. In this way, Hilary says (De Trin. ix):** “By authority of the Giver, the Father is the greater; nevertheless the Son is not less to Whom oneness of nature is give.”**

newadvent.org/summa/1033.htm

Let me be clear that I think you won the argument overall, but let it be stated thay both John of Damascus and Thomas Aquinas recognized that the term greater could be applied in one sense, that of the giver to the receiver. This is no subordination, no greater dignity, no greater power. For God is one, has one essence, is three persons by nature, and has no movement within him.

 

[PluniaZ]

The Son and Holy Spirit have an ontological equality with the Father. They are equal in dignity and power and essence. They three are one being. I concede that I was incorrect to carelessly use “relational subordination,” inferior, and superior. I was trying to capture what John of Damascus says when he wrote:

John if Damascus calls the Father superior only in causation (though his use of causation differs from ours, let it be known I understand that in western articulation we would not say any person of the Trinity is “caused”. The Son is begotten, the Spirit procedes. Do you take ossue with John of Damascus’ statement from the same work you quoted previously?

Furthermore, Saint Thomas is comfortable quoting Hilary with further clarification:

Let me be clear that I think you won the argument overall, but let it be stated thay both John of Damascus and Thomas Aquinas recognized that the term greater could be applied in one sense, that of the giver to the receiver. This is no subordination, no greater dignity, no greater power. For God is one, has one essence, is three persons by nature, and has no movement within him.

Thanks. Let me just say that I don’t want to treat this or any other discussion about the faith as a debate to be won or lost, but it is rather a search for the truth by all of us, sharing what we have found from our studies and bringing it to the attention of our brothers and sisters in Christ for our mutual enrichment. The only thing to be won are souls

Regarding John of Damascus, I do not think he actually says that the Father is greater than the Son, rather he says:

“But if we say that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son John 14:28 (for through His agency He made the ages ), or superiority in any other respect save causation.”

Here Saint John must be referring to John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I” - the reference is even in the quoted text from New Advent - I know Saint John didn’t use our system of numbering Bible verses, but what else could he be referring to? In any event, his language is tentative and cautious - “if we say that” - it not clear that he is actually asserting the proposition. And he says again:

“So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation.”

Here again he doesn’t assert the proposition, but appears to be responding to those who assert that the Father is greater than the Son, and teaching them that his simply means that the Son is begotten of the Father. And it is after considering these two hypothetical statements that Saint John gives us his great discourse on the equality of the three persons:

For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession.

As for Hilary:

“By authority of the Giver, the Father is the greater; nevertheless the Son is not less to Whom oneness of nature is given.”

I’m not sure what work Aquinas is citing, but from the way it is written it appears that Hilary is discussing an abstract concept in the first clause, (i.e., “In general a giver/father is greater than one who receives/son”), and then in the second clause he is declaring the specific case of the Trinity (i.e, “But in the case of the Most Holy Trinity, none is greater or less than another, because they each have oneness of nature”). This is really the only consistent reading with the rest of Aquinas’ discussion of whether the Father is greater than the Son - Aquinas is quite clear that the answer is no, and throughout that entire chapter, Aquinas says over and over again: Equal Equal Equal.

Given the horrors of Arianism and its enduring scourge upon those who would otherwise be drawn to the orthodox catholic faith, we should, as the Catholic Church has done throughout the ages in the Athanasian Creed, unequivocally assert the absolute equality of all three persons of the Most Holy Trinity:

“In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another.”

preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Quicumque.html

 

[Wesrock]

Thanks. Let me just say that I don’t want to treat this or any other discussion about the faith as a debate to be won or lost, but it is rather a search for the truth by all of us, sharing what we have found from our studies and bringing it to the attention of our brothers and sisters in Christ for our mutual enrichment. The only thing to be won are souls

I agree 100%.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I absolutely appreciate our discussion and love you, for Aquinas says to love the one who disagrees with you, for you have both labored and assisted each other in the search for truth.

:hug3:

Nevertheless, we need to be absolutely clear and use perfectly precise language when discussing the Most Holy Trinity. And it must be adamantly stated that there is no “inferiority”, “superiority” or “subordination” in any respect between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Athanasian Creed says:

"In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another."

And, speaking of the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ, it says:

"He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity."

And it needs to be clearly stated that there is no distinction in the Divine Persons apart from their manner of existence, as Saint John of Damascus says:

"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference."

newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

And you cannot say that there is subordination in the relationships of the Divine Persons, for Aquinas says:

"But in God the relations themselves are the persons subsisting in one nature. So, neither on the part of the nature, nor on the part the relations, can one person be prior to another, not even in the order of nature and reason." And also: **“As, therefore, the same essence, which in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation, so the same dignity which, in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation.” **

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm#article4>I:42:4 and <a href=

In fact, we cannot even distinguish between essence and relation in God, for Aquinas says they are one and the same:

"Thus it is clear that in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same."

newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm#article2

As for Jimmy Akin, I think his article is wrong and he needs to read the above cited passages from Aquinas.

St. Thomas Aquinas holds to the simplicity of God and that it is through our manner of thinking. Summa Theologica Q39, A1.

Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (I:29:4, signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.

newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm

 

[eddie_too]

I know a lot of you will not like this thinking, but I am no trying to start a debate, simply learn.

In my study of the bible over the past several months I have come to seriously question the trinity. The bible seems to be overflowing with evidence contrary to the conclusion that the trinity exists. Jesus is always referring to the father as a seperate God, and being. He treats the father like he is the old testament God, and treats him with the same way old testament prophets treated God. He constantly prays to the father for guidance, questions the father on the cross, and seems to be inferior to the father?

So I came to the conclusion that the father is the old testament God, and Jesus was his son. While Jesus is still God and all knowing and eternal he is still inferior to God the God of the old testament and the jews.

Where did I go wrong?

i think the distinction you have not made is that Jesus had two natures despite being only One Person. Jesus’ human nature was exactly the same human nature each of us has except that it never experienced sin. the human nature of Jesus grew in wisdom and understanding as well as growing physically in His body. Jesus Divine Nature, while never separated from His human nature, remained Perfect and of One Essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

the Oneness of the Three Divine Persons (the Trinity) and the Union of Jesus’ Divine and human natures (the Incarnation, also called the Hypostatic Unior) are the two fundamental MYSTERIES revealed to us by Jesus.

in everything Jesus did while on earth, He did it to draw sinners to faith in Him and to repentance (the desire to obey Jesus’ teachings) so that sinners might have Eternal Life with Him. words are creations and words can never adequately express these two Divine Mysteries. through our faith in Jesus, we trust that the way He described and taught the Divine Mysteries is the best way for His teaching to achieve its goal of Eternal Life for sinful creatures.

while there is nothing wrong (and it is in fact desirable and beneficial to do so, after all Jesus teachings are intended to cause such meditations) with meditating on the Divine Mysteries so as to grow in our understanding of them, even as Jesus’ human nature grew in its understanding of them, we can be certain that when our meditations turn to questioning the teachings of Jesus or His Church, our meditations have taken an erroneous course which we should immediately discontinue. there is nothing to be gained from questioning whether or not the Church is teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ correctly.

in addition, interpreting the written word, which is what biblical study does, is much more difficult, in so far as comprehending the fullness of the meanings of the written word, than being able to engage in oral exchanges with Jesus, which the Twelve Apostles were able to do.

whatever reasoning has led you to conclude that the Father is greater than the Son is erroneous. They are One. however, the Divine Nature of the Father is greater than the human nature of the Son just as the Divine Nature of the Son, which is the same One Divine Nature of the Father, is greater than the human nature of the Son.

let me make a final distinction, questioning how the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are and can be, is different from questioning whether They are true and real. that may be a fine distinction but it is a real distinction. in the first instance, we are hoping to grow in understanding and grace. in the second instance, we are acting in a manner void of faith and hope. that is why it can be spiritually fruitful for a believer in Jesus to meditate on the Divine Mysteries, but to also become wary if those meditations or studies lead to doubts about the truth of the Church’s teachings.

if your study of sacred scripture is leading to your doubting the teachings of the Church, take a break from those studies.