Ellderwho,
I think that now we're starting to ramble. Unless we agree on certain facts, I see no point in pursuing this topic. I've made some points and raised some questions, using bold-face type and setting them off in red, yet you keep moving on as though I never mentioned them. What gives?
You wrote:
I certainly do not want a Trinity debate for I do not understand the trinity
And yet, you keep bringing up weak arguments in support of the theory. Have you nothing to say about all those texts that powerfully prove Paul and other Bible writers did not believe in the Trinity? Do they mean nothing to you? If they did, it seems to me you would have no problem understanding Philippians 2, Micah 5, Deuteronomy 32, 1 Corinthians 10 and John 17.
What is so difficult to understand about these texts?
Philippians 2:5 states that Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." If someone already has something, would he be grasping for it? If Christ was equal with God, would he have any reason to grasp for that equality with God? Just focussing in on what the text is actually saying should remove any difficulty in understanding.
I already explained Micah 5:2, but you seem to prefer an understanding that contradicts everything else that proves Christ had a beginning. Would it help if I went back over these two pages and set them off for you again? Either Christ is from eternity past or he is not. We can't have it both ways. Now, if the majority of texts show that he had a beginning, what is the point of seeking a different point of view in another text, especially if that text is a bit vague? If you compare Micah 5:2 in several translations, you are bound to notice that translators are not in agreement on what it says. But one thing we should be able to agree on is that Christ had a beginning to his existence just as we did. If he didn't, then we have several texts in the Bible that should not be in there, and yet they are.
We can misunderstand 1 Corinthians 10:4 only if we fail to read the context. Deuteronomy 32 says that God is "The Rock," and 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that the Israelites drank from "a spiritual rock which followed them." Now, how is there any comparison? Did the Israelites drink from God or did they drink from literal rocks on the earth? Moses struck literal rocks, not God, when water was made available for the people. I have several Bibles with cross-references in the margin, and not one of them connects 1 Corinthians 10:4 with Deuteronomy 32. If scholars don't do it, why are you doing it, unless you are straining to prove something? The NIV Study Bible gives this helpful footnote that you can either accept or reject, but I think it is far more reasonable to accept it:
The rock, from which the water came, and the manna were symbolic of supernatural sustenance through Christ, the bread of life and the water of life (Jn 4:14; 6:30-35)
Just as Christ was not literally the manna that the Israelites ate, he was not literally the rock from which they drank water. But those literal substances were typical of how Christians would be sustained. It is not literal food and water that sustain them spiritually, but it is Christ the "true food" and the "true drink." (John 6:55)
John 17:5 says nothing about God sharing his glory with his Son. God gives glory to his creatures, but none are given the glory that he alone possesses. That should be clear from Isaiah 42:8. To have glory with God does not mean to have the same glory as God has. Persons who believe in the Trinity dogma try to see more in John 17:5 than is actually there.
Again I wish to emphasize that persons will have problems with texts like the ones you mentioned only if they are intent on seeing evidence for a Trinity where there really is no such evidence.
Herk