Hi Cougan, thank you for your reply.
I have carefully looked at the scriptures you cited and can see to a certain extent why you might draw the kind of conclusions that you have put forward from those verses. I did a little research, with an open mind I might add, and have come up with the following explanations that make sense to me. I hope you find them enlightening.
As to John 10: 31-36
The word God or god is commonly used regarding a superhuman object of veneration. So, in the minds of many people, god means either (1) the Supreme Being, the Almighty, or (2) a false god, such as an idol. However, the Bible allows for other usage. The word God does not have to mean Deity, it can simply mean Powerful or Mighty one. We can see this from Psalm 82:1, 2. There the Divine One is distinguished from human judges whom the psalmist terms gods. Jesus himself later referred to this passage. Because he had spoken of God as being his Father, some Jews wanted to stone him. To their accusation that he was making himself a god, Jesus responded: Is it not written in your Law, I said: You are gods? If he called [those human judges] gods . . . do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Gods Son? John 10:31-36.
To his enemies, Jesus by calling himself Gods son was making himself a god. After all, the offspring of a Cat would be a cat, the offspring of a Dog would be a dog, and therefore the offspring of God would be a god. His argument seems to be that if humans who were not Sons of God could be by called gods by God, of which you all would have to accept because it is written in your scriptures, then why do you accuse me of blaspheme for saying I am Gods Son. He had more claim to being a god than those humans did he being the offspring of God. NOTE: Jesus had the opportunity on this occasion to refer to himself as God the son but he did not, he simply referred to himself rightfully as, the son of God.
Unquestionably then there is only one Almighty God, even as the apostle Paul wrote: For even though there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many gods and many lords, there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him. (1 Corinthians 8: 5, 6).
I and the Father Are One
THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being one with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one. Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were. See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.
At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one. Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for one (hen) is neuter, literally one (thing), indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word one (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose. If it meant One as in same person one would have had to be in the Masculine Gender
I Am
At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase I AM is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you. Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] I will be what I will be.
The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:
1869: From before Abraham was, I have been. The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: I existed before Abraham was born! The BibleAn American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am. Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
1981: I was alive before Abraham was born! The Simple English Bible.
Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that Gods created firstborn, Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation
3:14.
Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to have seen Abraham although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Joh 8 Verse 57) Jesus natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he was alive before Abraham was born!The Simple English Bible.
Matt 8: 2.
The Greek pro·sky·ne'o which you have refered to as worship in Matt 8: 2. should be more properly translated Obeisance. Which can simply mean an act of respect. So yes, Jesus accepted this kind of address much as a king or other important person would
John 20:28 Thomas says my Lord my God without being corrected.
The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus death, Thomas had heard Jesus prayer in which he addressed his Father as the only true God. (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: I am ascending . . . to my God and your God. (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31, RS) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas exclamation that Jesus is himself the only true God or that Jesus is a Trinitarian God the Son, he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (John 20 vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (John 20 vs. 31). So Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God. Thomas may have addressed Jesus as my God in the sense of Christs being a god, though not the only true God. (John 1:1; 17:1-3) Or by saying my God, Thomas may have been acknowledging Jesus as Gods Spokesman and Representative, even as others addressed an angelic messenger as though he were God.Compare Genesis 18:1-5, 22-33; 31:11-13; 32:24-30; Judges 2:1-5; 6:11-15; 13:20-22.
Phil 2: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to
be equal with God:
KJ reads: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: he did not cling to his equality with God.) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: who, although he was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon'], namely, that he should be equal to God. (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)
Which thought agrees with the context? Php 2 Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it not robbery, but their right, to be equal with God? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: The Father is greater than I.John 14:28.
The Expositors Greek Testament says: We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon'] has the sense of holding in possession, retaining. It seems invariably to mean seize, snatch violently. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense grasp at into one which is totally different, hold fast.(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.