Original answer temporarily deleted to allow for followup resopnse.
Added
A said: “Me and my grandmother are one, in that she raised me and I have same philosophy as she does. So, if Jesus said "Me and the father are one", that does NOT necessarily mean, and most likely does not, that they are humbo jumob mambatity goopy trinity anamboogade. Jesus merely meant that he is expressing a certain philosophy!! …”
JJ replies: Not at all. Saying that they are not the “same” simply means that Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus. This says nothing about whether they share the same singular nature and attributes. In your example, you make my point. You are not your grandmother and your grandmother is not you. You are two distinct conscious “persons”. Yet, you share the same genes, and your existence is derived from hers. The relationship among the members of the trinity is similar with the exception that they share same set of “genes” and not just two sets of the same kind of “gene” as is the case with you and your grandmother.
As for your interpretation of Jesus’ statement “I and my Father are one”, it must be said that your understanding is an extreme stretch on the meaning of the passage. The word “one” here is neuter in Greek. This dictates oneness of essence, not simply oneness of philosophy or purpose. There are plenty of other words that he could have used to say what you are attempting to extract from his statement. He could have said “I and the Father are in one accord”, or “I and the Father are in complete agreement”, etc. He said none of these things. In the context (see John 10:28), Jesus paints himself as having divine attributes. For instance, he says that he can grant “eternal life” to people. He also says that no one can pluck his followers out of his hand. Rather than attempting to ascertain what Jesus meant when he said this, you are wholly occupied with trying to make him say what you think he ought to.
A said: “BTW--all the jews, except perhaps Paul who was following the Greeks, believe there is NO SUCH THING as a soul....just a body. …”
JJ replies: This assertion is both erroneous and irrelevant. It is erroneous because the orthodox Jewish understanding of man saw him as a 2 part being. There was a physical part (the body) as well as an immaterial part (the spirit / soul).
For instance:
Psalm 30:3 “O LORD, You have brought up my soul from Sheol; You have kept me alive, that I would not go down to the pit.”
Isaiah 14: "Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.”
It is true that “sheol” the place of departed spirits of the dead was a hazy subject for readers of the Old Testament and that it was mentioned in no great detail there, but such is the case with many things that were not expanded upon until the greater revelation of the New Testament was available.
And to even say Paul was “perhaps” an exception the idea that man is a “body only” being is absolutely the understatement of the year.
For instance:
Romans 8:16 “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,…”
I Corinthians 2:11 “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.”
References could be multiplied, but this should be sufficient to show all that your statement is nothing less than a gross error.
Even more, your statement is irrelevant to the discussion even if it were true. There was much in the OT that the Jewish audience of Jesus should have understood, but did not. He was constantly pointing them back to their own scriptures to learn what was there. In addition, there was much new information expanding on OT topics that was given through the mouth of Jesus himself and the writings of his followers in the NT. If we are going to use the understandings of the majority of Jesus’ Jewish audience as the yard-stick to what can and cannot be the understanding of the early church, then there would not have been nor would there be any church.
A said: “council of Nicea--meant one in the strict sense of same!!!!!!!”
JJ replies: Same essence - yes. Same person - no.
The entire purpose of the council was to answer the heresy of arianism (Jesus was not God, but the highest of his created beings) without falling into the heresy of modalism (The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same person, each was simply an ad-hoc mask used by God as a single person to accomplish a particular task at a particular place and time).
A said: “And "same" in the loose sense would make the trinity moot!!”
JJ replies: Your position is invalid here, as I mentioned earlier. Moreover, you seem to think that the concept of the trinity hangs on that one single verse. There are literally dozens of places in the NT where either Jesus or his followers acknowledge Jesus’ deity. Your fast and “loose” treatment of a single verse doesn’t even put a dent in the doctrine.
A said: “…"Equal DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN "ONE AND THE SAME...THEY are DISTINCT "PERSONS" (think of a “person” as a consciousness) who share a singular nature and that they are THEREFORE EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS regarding their abilities and attributes."
Therefore, such christians claim A=\=B and A=B at the SAME TIME!!!! Thus their dilemma and silly logic.”
JJ replies: Here your cherry picking is on blatant display. Did I really say that Jesus and the Father are “EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS”? Look again. Did you read too quickly to notice these words added on the end of the sentence? >>>> “regarding their abilities and attributes”. They are EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS REGARDING THEIR ABILITIES AND ATTRIBUTES”. However, they are NOT the same “person” or consciousness. Again, I turn to my example. 100 pennies and 1 dollar bill are equal. No? Yet I can put the pennies in my left pocket and the dollar bill in my right pocket. Yes? So they are not the “same” wad of money. They are two distinct wads. Equal, yet distinct. Its not really a very difficult concept. No dilemma, and no silly logic here.
A said: “This is why Kierkegaard argued that what it means to be a christian is to go by blind faith and not reason.”
JJ replies: If Christianity were not based on the historical fact of the resurrection, I would chuck it today. It is simply the desire of those who are not Christians to portray Christianity as devoid of reason so that they can “debunk” it. Its called a straw-man and I’m sure you are familiar with the terminology. You cannot theorize away history. What happened, happened, regardless of whether you can formulate a theory as to why it should not have. Perhaps you and Kierkegaard can come up with some nifty logic to show us George Washington was never president, or why Napoleon was not really a man, but only a dessert.
A said “As a further note, person A has a brain, and hands. All these, and the other attributes, add up to make person A. If person A has their hand cut off, we don't say that his hand=A, and that A=his hand. This is also silly....and illogical!! One attribute out of many would not =the many.”
JJ replies: Attributes are innate abilities and characteristics, not physical appendages. Your hand is not an attribute. Your body is. Likewise your ability to reason, love, interact, etc are attributes. For God, his innate abilities include omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutability, etc. You are trying to couch the argument in physical terms only (and very limited ones at that) and therefore, it is invalid.