At reader request we here have a brief look at a presentation of a site called "Biblelogic.com" on the subject of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus. This site appears to be the province of a small home "Bible study" group, yet another of those sorts like Darwin Fish and "Pastor John's House" where we expect Kool-Aid will soon be served. No surprise of course, their material is devoid of any sense of serious scholarship, and what they say won't even touch our item on the Trinity. Indeed it would even touch lesser argumentsm because they are confused from the start:

It is now clear that we are asking more than whether Jesus is a "god." We want to know if Jesus is YAHWEH! We must determine whether Jesus and Yahweh are two beings, or only one being. That is the crux of the whole body of arguments surrounding this issue.

The problem is that the poor folks go on to cite passages that show that Jesus and the Father are (or may be) different persons, but say nothing about whether they are different beings (persons with the same source of existence). They may be granted as much as that they rightly note that "god" is not a proper name. It’s a title. But most of what follows only shows two persons. Thus the heading:

1. One is the Father and one is the Son

Trinitarians agree fully with this statement. The question really is, how did this group come to think otherwise? And little do they know that in quoting 1 Cor. 8:4-6, they are quoting Paul's "revised Shema" in which Jesus is included in the divine identity.

2. One is the Creator; the other is a Creation (a creature)

Quoted in service of this is Colossians 1 -- a passage which, as we have seen, actually identifies Jesus with eternal, hypostatic Wisdom. It is simply the same mistake made by the JWs.

3. One knows all: the other doesn’t

This, too, is hardly a problem for Trinitarians; see here.

4. One was visible; the other wasn’t

One is hard pressed to see how the property of visibility has anything to do with personal identity, but reference is made to John 1, which our article linked above likewise shows to come from the Wisdom tradition, and thus supports Trinitarianism. Th remainder of the point once again confuses "being" with "person".

5. One "exists" eternally; the other doesn’t

The Wisdom equation proves otherwise, but the direction this comes from is familiar, as it is the same arguments used by atheists: God can't die; Jesus died, so Jesus can't be God. Of course the failure is the same: the taking on of a second nature (a human body) does not negate the eternality of the original nature (which is divine). God did not die on the cross; a god-man did. The divine aspect did not die, or cease to exist.

6. One became hungry; the other doesn’t

Basically, the same mistake as the last entry.

7. One was tempted; the other cannot be tempted

The classic mistake we rebut here.

8. One slept; the other doesn’t

The same error as in two prior entries.

9. One prayed to the other

The same error confusing "beings" with "persons" -- and showing a remarkable lack of grasp of what Trinitarianism teaches.

10. One increased; the other doesn’t change

Essentially, the standard abuse of Luke 2's comment that Jesus grew in "wisdom"; it is recognized by those who know something about ancient biographical practice as a standard transition phrase. (The same sort of description is used of Moses by Josephus.) The word "wisdom" (sophia) refers to "growth in moral and intellectual life" of the sort that would also be expected from anyone like Jesus who grew older and (as firstborn of Joseph and Mary) received the most educational benefit possible -- so in essence, the same mistake as 3 above.

11. One was a man; the other wasn’t

The same mistake as has been made for three prior entries.

12. One has authority; the other has power

Why this category means two persons can't be of the same being is not explained, but again, it is perfectly compatible with Trinitarianism and with the Wisdom theology we discuss above. Indeed one suspects that this group has no idea what the difference is between ontological and functional subordination.