Unanswered letter to a Pastor

I recently heard a very good talk on the issue of the trinity and I had some thoughts I wished to share but didn't wish to raise at the talk/church bible study because it might appear argumentative. I want to know if I'm on the right track .. and to be oriented better if I'm not .. so please, I delight in being wrong, it teaches me. My name is David Ball and I attend the JFC at Cabramatta and Pastor DD is a friend of mine.

My first blush reaction to the academic argument regarding John's Gospel is to throw up my hands and say it isn't that hard. Putting words into the writer’s mouth is not befitting of the learner, but instructor. In many ways, the gospels are only a reflection of how they are read and it is dangerous to overstate what is apparent, just as it is a delight to know my Lord by what he shows of himself with his word. I want to know more, but I don't want to try hard to know it. But I know I must persevere. Many things are discovered and only by discussing them are they remembered, and if we don't, then, we risk missing out with faulty tools.

My second thought is to do with biblical construction. It was written, but the writers were aware of earlier writings. So in Exodus we see Zipporah and Moses and the importance of circumcision. But the event, although described, is not described perfectly well for those who weren't there. I believe that later old testament writers were frustrated by the opaqueness of the text, and took steps to be more explicit. So we see Ezekiel disputing with God how he will cook his food.

New testament writers were also aware of the need for transparency, and clearly wrote as plainly as they could, not being raised in academic traditions generally, except for Paul, and a few others. I get the impression that people like John wrote his gospel as he spoke aloud, probably having discussed the issues many times and sermonised many times before writing it many years later. And so I feel that his words are both deliberate and accidental, related to customary usage mixing with unusual ideas the language had not developed to support.

I don't see the testimony as being sufficient to know all of God, but an imperfect reflection allowing us to walk with Him and learn from Him. But John knew Jesus and faithfully shared what he knew.

The distinctions drawn regarding omniscience, omnipotence, etc seem to me to be imposed constructions related to Greek learning and relevant to things like Physics, but not relevant to understanding God. The Bible, seems to me, to be much easier to read without the imposition of such terms. I have no doubt that Trinity, composed of the five points .. There is only one God. God the father. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. and that other one I forgot to note, is the case. But is it really such a stumbling block to understanding the text?