I seem to have run across this thread late, but a few comments come to mind that I think have not been made or sufficiently developed. I hope I can contribute a few fresh ideas.
First, it seems to me that the primary topic under discussion here is not the doctrine of the Trinity, per se, but that of the deity of Christ. The only explicit reference to the Trinity found in the words of Jesus is the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19, 20 and it is of interest to note that Jesus instructs baptism “in the name [not, “the names”] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This is a clear implication of identity among the three. Jesus is not naming three completely separate and distinct entities, but three who share something as intimate as a name. Apart from that, though, he makes no other full-blown Trinitarian statement that I am aware of.
Second, since the originator of the thread is a Jehovah’s Witness (and this might be a bit off topic), I’m wondering whether he applies the same standard of the “words of Jesus” to the concept of God working through an organization (specifically and only *their *organization), which is almost as central to the doctrine of JWs as the Trinity is to orthodox Christians. Read any Watchtower publication or attend any JW meeting and you will find many references to “God’s organization” or the “faithful and discreet slave class” (a reference to the organization’s leadership) – many observers have noted that the organization often gets more press in JW-land than Jesus does. Would our JW friend like to make a case for “God’s organization” in the same way he is asking others to make a case for the Trinity – based solely upon the words of Jesus?
Third, if we restrict the discussion to the deity of Jesus rather than the full concept of the Trinity, it seems to me that Jesus makes many statements that would be understood as claims to deity in the context of first-century Judaism. One of the flaws in JW understanding of the Bible (and certainly this is not restricted to JWs only) is that they read as if everything in the Scriptures was written for readers in the 21st century. In doing so, they overlook the cultural and historical context of the text and miss much in the way of meaning.
Here’s an example: In John 10:11, 14 Jesus makes the claim twice, “I am the good shepherd.” To a JW reading this, the text would be understood as meaning that Jesus is one who lovingly takes care of his followers (his metaphorical “sheep”), even laying down his life for them. And certainly, that is implied. But if we put the statement into historical context, it says much more. Think about it: to a first-century Jew who was reasonably conversant in the Scriptures, what would come to mind when speaking of the “good shepherd?” The answer is Psalm 23: “YHWH is my shepherd.” The JW reading Jesus’ words in John 10 makes a slight adjustment mentally as he reads them – he reads Jesus as saying, “I am A good shepherd.” But that isn’t what Jesus said. He said, “I am THE good shepherd,” and in the context of first-century Judaism, the “Good Shepherd” could be none other than YHWH.
In debating with some of the Jews in John 8:48-59, Jesus spoke of Abraham and how Abraham had rejoiced that he would see the day of Jesus. The Jews responded, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” The phrase “I AM” is translated from the Greek term ego eimi, and means, literally, “I am.” It is the same term used in Exodus 3:14, where YHWH reveals himself to Moses: “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.”
The JWs’ New World Translation attempts to mask this identification with YHWH by mistranslating both verses. Jesus is depicted in the NWT version of John 8:58 as saying, “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” And in the Exodus reference, the NWT translates it as “At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’” Neither rendering is justified by the original language. The underlying Greek in Matthew and in the Septuagint version of Exodus (the Septuagint being the prevailing Greek translation of the Old Testament in use in Jesus’ time) is identical: ego eimi, “I AM.”
Jesus seems very much in this verse to have had the intent of identifying himself with YHWH. This is borne out by the reaction of his hearers – they picked up stones to stone him to death for blasphemy. No Jew would have stoned someone for claiming to be very, very old (as the JWs would have us believe that Jesus was doing) or even for claiming to be the Messiah – there were lots of Messiahs running around Judea at that time who were allowed to go about their business. But for a man to claim to be God is a different matter; that was considered blasphemy, and people could be stoned to death under the Mosaic Law for blasphemy. If Jesus had not intended to claim deity for himself, then he was a very poor communicator, because his audience clearly misunderstood him. Also, it seems as if it would have been very easy for him to defuse the situation: “Hey, guys, put down those stones; I didn’t mean to say that I was God or anything!”
The question of John 10:30 came up earlier in the thread, but this is yet another example of Jesus making a claim to being one with the Father (“I and the Father are one”). The reaction of the Jews was the same – to pick up stones so as to execute him for blasphemy. In this case, the conversation becomes even more explicit: “Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (Note: the NWT renders the end of this citation “a god” as in John 1:1, but this really makes no sense in the context of strict first-century Judaism – the Jews who were about to stone Jesus did not believe in a multiplicity of gods).
Again, Jesus is either making a claim of deity in John 10:30, or else he is a very poor communicator, because he couldn’t get his message across clearly to the people who were standing right in front of him listening. This is not an insignificant point – reading words on paper 2000 years later is one thing, but if anyone should have been in a position to understand what Jesus was saying, it would have been the people who were standing there listening to him, observing his expressions and tone of voice, etc. Also, again, it would have been easy to defuse the situation by a denial that he was claiming any such thing as being God. But rather than deny their understanding that he was claiming to be God, he reinforced it only a few verses later: “the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
Now, on being confronted with John 10:30-38, the normal response from a JW is to skip over to John 17:21 and compare the language of Jesus’ followers being “one” with Jesus and the Father. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work. While the language is similar, the meaning of language is determined by the context, and the two contexts are completely different. In John 10, what is under discussion is ontology – who Jesus really is. He is the one who does miraculous works, who gives his sheep eternal life and whose “hand” is apparently the same as the Father’s “hand,” since he speaks of no one being able to snatch his “sheep” out of his/the Father’s hand (verses 28, 29). In John 17, the context is clearly that of the spiritual unity that comes by faith. In the preceding verses, Jesus speaks of sanctification through faith. This is an acquired condition and is non-ontological. Jesus’ followers become one with Jesus and the Father in a spiritual union; they are not by nature one with the Father as Jesus asserts he is in John 10. If the JW wants to assert that the two expressions (in John 10 and 17) are equivalent, I would want to ask, “Mr. JW, are you and the Father one in the sense of which Jesus spoke in John 10:30?” I don’t think most JWs would be willing to answer that in the affirmative, but that is the clear implication of their position on these texts.
Another way in which Jesus claimed deity was that he offered forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-11; Luke 5:20-24). It was clearly understood by the Jews that only God had the power to forgive sins, in fact, both Gospels are explicit in saying so: “Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:6,7). Jesus is said in verse 8 to know these thoughts, and, rather than disabuse them of the notion that he is claiming deity, he reinforces it by healing the paralytic, saying specifically, “Why do you question these things in your hearts?” Apparently the “question” was as to who he was – was he, in fact, God – since that is what the teachers of the Law were said to be thinking.
I suppose a JW would at this point in the discussion turn to John 20:19-23 to demonstrate that the disciples were also given the power to forgive sins, but that really doesn’t work either. Jesus clearly gives the power to forgive sins to his disciples; his own power to do so seems to be inherent. In imparting the power to forgive sins, Jesus engages in acts reminiscent of what YHWH does in the OT. He breathes on the disciples, and imparts the Holy Spirit to them. One wonders how a mere created being (as the JWs teach) would have the power to impart the Holy Spirit. Also, the act of breathing on the disciples calls to mind Genesis 2:7: “then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” I’d go so far as to say that, rather than refuting the idea that Jesus is God, this passage from John serves as yet another example of Jesus behaving in a manner appropriate only to one who claims deity.
Later on in verse 28 of the same chapter of John, the disciple Thomas gives the ultimate recognition of who Jesus is; he addresses Jesus as “my Lord and my God,” using the Greek phrase ho theos, which JWs insist in their discussions of John 1:1 must refer only to the almighty God. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for addressing him in such a way, rather he affirms what Thomas has said: “Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (verse 29). There can be no question as to Jesus’ acceptance of Thomas’ expression.
Nonetheless, I have found that JWs will attempt to reinterpret what Jesus and Thomas said in these verses. For example, I have known JWs to argue that Jesus was a god, and that Thomas must have meant the expression in that sense, not in the sense of Jesus’ being Almighty God. But Thomas did not say, “My Lord and A god,” he said “My Lord and My God” (literally, the God of me – ho theos). I’ve never known a JW who would refer to Jesus as “my God.”
Another JW response to this test is to assert that Thomas said the part about “my Lord” to Jesus, but in saying “my God,” he was addressing Jehovah. However, the context makes it clear that Jesus and Thomas were the ones having the conversation. The text says, “Thomas said to him…” So, clearly, the entire remark was addressed to Jesus and both titles apply to him.
There are other examples I could bring up, quite a few of them, actually, but I have probably gone on too long anyway for one post. I will mention that, at this point in the conversation, many JWs will bring up texts such as John 14:28 that demonstrate a subordination of the Son to the Father. However, such texts don’t impact the doctrine of Christ’s deity or the Trinity. Trinitarians understand that the So n is subordinate to the Father functionally, but assert that the two are equal ontologically (i.e., as to their nature). The Son is subordinate because he willingly submits to the Father, not because he is by nature inferior. If you are employed in a job, you are normally subordinate to your boss, but that doesn’t mean that you are less human than he is. Ontologically, you are equals, but one of you is subordinate to the other by functional arrangement.
Enough for now; hope this posts correctly.