Evidence for God from Science

Recent article on main board.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... hurch.html

Early (3rd Century A.D.) Christian Church at Megiddo, Israel
by Rich Deem

Introduction Dan Brown's book, and recently released movie adaptation, The Da Vinci Code, makes the claim that Christianity as we know it today was not invented until the fourth century, after the council of Nicea. Skeptics often claim that the Christian doctrine of the trinity and the worship of Jesus was not "invented" until that time. Now, the discovery of a third century church in Megiddo, Israel discredits that claim.

New evidence While digging to expand the Israeli prison at Megiddo, Israel, prisoners found a large tile floor. Further excavation revealed the remnants of the walls of the church, within a larger Roman villa. In addition to beautiful fish mosaics (the original symbol of Christianity), a number of inlaid inscriptions were found in the tile. The site was dated to the third century through pottery remnants (first half of the third century) and the style of Greek writing in the inscriptions. One inscription indicated that Gaianus, a Roman military officer, helped pay for the mosaic. A second inscription was in remembrance of four Christian women (maybe martyrs?) - three with Greek names, and the fourth with a Roman name. However, the most compelling inscription is the one that was a tribute to Jesus, "Akeptous, the God-loving, offered this table for (the) god Jesus Christ, as a remembrance." Obviously, the discovery of a third century inscription calling Jesus God discredits the idea that Jesus was not worshipped until the fourth century.

Conclusion The discovery of a 3rd century Christian church at Megiddo, Israel, along with an inscription to the "god Jesus Christ" confirms that Christians worshipped Jesus Christ as God before the council of Nicea.

______________________________________________________

See original article for footnotes and ties to sources.

Any comments?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Any comments?

Yes. Although it may be evidence that some Christians believed Jesus was God (although the inscription actually says THEOS, which does not necessarily mean 'God', and is used in the Bible of men, as Christ himself pointed out), it does not prove that they believed in the trinity.

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Any comments?

Yes. Although it may be evidence that some Christians believed Jesus was God (although the inscription actually says THEOS, which does not necessarily mean 'God', and is used in the Bible of men, as Christ himself pointed out), it does not prove that they believed in the trinity.

Please explain to me how THEOS does not mean God.

If not the Trinity, are you arguing for duality?

The Greek word, theos, is the equivalent to the Hebrew word, elohim. It is used of angels and occasionally of men who are all sons of God. All of God's chosen will become elohim or theoi in the spiritual sense at the resurrection according to Scripture, but this concept is beyond what most in this world's Christian sects are willing to accept or are able to comprehend at this time.

The point is, theos is not used exclusively of God the Father but is even used in reference to the Adversary (2 Cor. 4:4). Satan is an elohim or theos as it is written.

This is how theos does not mean God as in the Almighty who is the Father and the only true theos (John 17:3).

I know of a paper, which I have also read, that deals with this concept quite comprehensively. It can be found here.

What this archeological discovery does prove is that Messiah was understood to be an elohim or theos but not THE Theos, or the Theos of theoi, or as it is in the Hebrew, the El of Elohim (Joshua 22:22).

Those who have not studied this have great difficulty following or understanding.

BTW, the fish symbol long predates Christianity as a pagan symbol later adopted by those who would emerge as the universal or catholic church. A simple google search will provide a wealth of information on this fact. The body of Christ never, ever used symbols depicting the Messiah or God the Father. It has always been iconoclastic and remains so to this day.

R7-12

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Any comments?

Yes. Although it may be evidence that some Christians believed Jesus was God (although the inscription actually says THEOS, which does not necessarily mean 'God', and is used in the Bible of men, as Christ himself pointed out), it does not prove that they believed in the trinity.

Please explain to me how THEOS does not mean God.

I'm surprised you asked. But R7-12 has given a pretty good answer. You will note that the Father is the only true THEOS (John 17:3), and that Christ said to the Pharisees that God called men THEOS (John 10:34-35). Pick up an LXX and have a good look in it.

If not the Trinity, are you arguing for duality?

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that believing Jesus is God does not constitute the trinity (which is the belief that God consists of three persons as one being).

The Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus is God - does that make them trinitarians? No it does not.

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Any comments?

Yes. Although it may be evidence that some Christians believed Jesus was God (although the inscription actually says THEOS, which does not necessarily mean 'God', and is used in the Bible of men, as Christ himself pointed out), it does not prove that they believed in the trinity.

Please explain to me how THEOS does not mean God.

I'm surprised you asked. But R7-12 has given a pretty good answer. You will note that the Father is the only true THEOS (John 17:3), and that Christ said to the Pharisees that God called men THEOS (John 10:34-35). Pick up an LXX and have a good look in it.

If not the Trinity, are you arguing for duality?

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that believing Jesus is God does not constitute the trinity (which is the belief that God consists of three persons as one being).

The Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus is God - does that make them trinitarians? No it does not.

(Oh, brother! Here we go again.)

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Any comments?

Yes. Although it may be evidence that some Christians believed Jesus was God (although the inscription actually says THEOS, which does not necessarily mean 'God', and is used in the Bible of men, as Christ himself pointed out), it does not prove that they believed in the trinity.

Please explain to me how THEOS does not mean God.

I'm surprised you asked. But R7-12 has given a pretty good answer. You will note that the Father is the only true THEOS (John 17:3), and that Christ said to the Pharisees that God called men THEOS (John 10:34-35). Pick up an LXX and have a good look in it.

If not the Trinity, are you arguing for duality?

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that believing Jesus is God does not constitute the trinity (which is the belief that God consists of three persons as one being).

The Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus is God - does that make them trinitarians? No it does not.

There are many reasons to ask a question.

So your reply in essence calls upon the idea of elohim in Hebrew and tries to make a connection despite this being written in the 3rd century AD in greek in a context that is early Christian and obviously not Hebrew or Jewish Christians.

Further you seek to use one passage in 2 Cor 4:4 where the context is clear in its application and on that basis extend doubt.

The use of Theos in the New Testament with the definite article "ho" is a clear pattern for attributing deity to Christ.

If the intent in this inscription, which dates AFTER the writing of all the NT manuscripts as otherwise in a polytheistic context or general sense the definite article would not be used.

You'll have to be more specific than a general appeal to the LXX or what I see in the paper quoted by R7-12 as traditional modalist heresy that the Church rejected early on.

Introducing it here misses the point that the claim made by certain modalists and echoed now by the Gnostic modernists that the deity of Christ was invented and trinity not truly brought into clear presentation until the 4th century.

Here you have clear evidence to the contrary. It is not surprising that those who seek to misapply the scriptures themselves in this regard will seek to cast the same doubt on this finding. It clearly does demonstrate the existence of the understanding of Jesus as God outside of the Bible itself and reduces the impact of skeptics in their argument that follows a classic "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

Here's a good link to the passage in 2 Cor 2:4

Is this all you have or would you like to say more?

Canuckster1127 wrote:So your reply in essence calls upon the idea of elohim in Hebrew and tries to make a connection despite this being written in the 3rd century AD in greek in a context that is early Christian and obviously not Hebrew or Jewish Christians.

No, my reply is based on the demonstrable fact that THEOS has a range of meanings which is greater than simply 'God'.

We know this from the lexical data, including:

* The use of the word THEOS to translate 'elohim' in the LXX

* The use of the word THEOS to translate 'elohim' in the New Testament

Further you seek to use one passage in 2 Cor 4:4 where the context is clear in its application and on that basis extend doubt.

I didn't once refer to 2 Corinthians 4:4. I have no idea what you are talking about.

The use of Theos in the New Testament with the definite article "ho" is a clear pattern for attributing deity to Christ.

Proof please.

If the intent in this inscription, which dates AFTER the writing of all the NT manuscripts as otherwise in a polytheistic context or general sense the definite article would not be used.

Proof please.

You'll have to be more specific than a general appeal to the LXX or what I see in the paper quoted by R7-12 as traditional modalist heresy that the Church rejected early on.

I have been very explicit. I have demonstrated that the New Testament uses the word THEOS to translate the Hebrew word 'elohim', and that Christ himself points out that 'elohim' was used of men by God.

Introducing it here misses the point that the claim made by certain modalists and echoed now by the Gnostic modernists that the deity of Christ was invented and trinity not truly brought into clear presentation until the 4th century.

Well there isn't really any doubt that the trinity was a doctrinal development which was the result of various disputes over a couple of centuries, there are plenty of Christian scholars and serious historians who acknowledge that.

But the point is that finding the word THEOS applied to Christ in a Christian inscription is certainly not evidence of the trinity, nor is it even evidence that they considered him God. Even those 2nd and 3rd century Christians who believed Christ was God didn't necessarily believe in the trinity.

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:So your reply in essence calls upon the idea of elohim in Hebrew and tries to make a connection despite this being written in the 3rd century AD in greek in a context that is early Christian and obviously not Hebrew or Jewish Christians.

No, my reply is based on the demonstrable fact that THEOS has a range of meanings which is greater than simply 'God'.

We know this from the lexical data, including:

* The use of the word THEOS to translate 'elohim' in the LXX

* The use of the word THEOS to translate 'elohim' in the New Testament

Further you seek to use one passage in 2 Cor 4:4 where the context is clear in its application and on that basis extend doubt.

I didn't once refer to 2 Corinthians 4:4. I have no idea what you are talking about.

The use of Theos in the New Testament with the definite article "ho" is a clear pattern for attributing deity to Christ.

Proof please.

If the intent in this inscription, which dates AFTER the writing of all the NT manuscripts as otherwise in a polytheistic context or general sense the definite article would not be used.

Proof please.

You'll have to be more specific than a general appeal to the LXX or what I see in the paper quoted by R7-12 as traditional modalist heresy that the Church rejected early on.

I have been very explicit. I have demonstrated that the New Testament uses the word THEOS to translate the Hebrew word 'elohim', and that Christ himself points out that 'elohim' was used of men by God.

Introducing it here misses the point that the claim made by certain modalists and echoed now by the Gnostic modernists that the deity of Christ was invented and trinity not truly brought into clear presentation until the 4th century.

Well there isn't really any doubt that the trinity was a doctrinal development which was the result of various disputes over a couple of centuries, there are plenty of Christian scholars and serious historians who acknowledge that.

But the point is that finding the word THEOS applied to Christ in a Christian inscription is certainly not evidence of the trinity, nor is it even evidence that they considered him God. Even those 2nd and 3rd century Christians who believed Christ was God didn't necessarily believe in the trinity.

R7 referred to 2 Cor 4:4 and you referenced his answer. Sorry I wasn't clear, but in endorsing his rsponse you incorporated his reference and I chose to address both at once.

Time is short for me for which I apologize.

Here's a good article and link to the use of Ho Theos for those who want to know more about this and have a response for the modalist heresy.

_____________________________________________

Ho Theos

(Part of the Hebrews 1:8-10 study & the Effective Bible Study web page group.)


The Title Ho Theos is comprised of two Greek words. ho meaning, "the" and theos meaning, "god". The use of the title is only a small part in the scriptural evidence proving that Jesus is God and that the Godhead is Triune in Nature. Obviously, these two words will appear in various places of New Testament. The Gospel writers all used the TITLE, ho theos to refer to the One, True God, as did the writers of the Epistles. There are places in the New Testament, where the word ho is followed by the word theos and they are not being used as a title. The context of where the words appear determines if it is meant to be a title, or not. This is a clearly evident fact to all, but those who attempt to deny that Jesus is God, Jehovah, and also those who attempt to deny the Triune Nature of the Godhead, Trinity. They like to point to 2 Co 4:4, as proof that ho theos does not signify Almighty God.
- - "-in whom the (ho) god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them. "
Completely ignoring the structure of the verse, they point out that in this verse ho and theos do not mean Almighty God, which is correct. However it is undeniably clear from the grammatical and sentence structure, that they are not being used as a title. The title in this case is god of this world; not, The God. Much the same as Mat 22:32,
- - "I am the (ho) God (theos) of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
where the titles are, "God of Abraham", "God of Isaac", & "God of Jacob."

That the TITLE Ho Theos, refers only to Jehovah God is proved by New Testament. There are a large number of verses, which evidence this fact, A few of them follow.
- - "And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God (ho theos)! "
John 20:28
Clearly, ho theos, is being used as a title. The verse would make no sense translated as, "My Lord and My the God!" For an in-depth look at this verse and its true meaning visit John 20:28.
Here are a few more of the many verses, which show ho theos used as the title for Almighty God. I won't belabor the point by addressing each verse for I am sure that you can grasp that the use of ho theos is to signify Almighty God.
- - "-You shall worship the Lord your God (ho theos), and Him only you shall serve."
Mat 4:10
- - "Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God (ho theos) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. "
Mat 22:37
- - "-and you shall love the Lord your God (ho theos) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment."
Mark 12:30
- - "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (which being translated is, My God, My God (ho theos), why did You forsake Me?)"
Mark 15:34
- - "And he shall turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God (ho theos)."
Luke 1:16
- - "But my God (ho theos) shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus."
Phi 4:19
- - "-for also, 'Our God (ho theos)is a consuming fire. "
(Hebrews 12:29)

As I said at the beginning, the application of the title, ho theos forms only a very small part of the biblical evidence that Jesus is Jehovah God and that the Godhead is Triune in Nature. The word "the" followed immediately by the word "God(god)" appears only 40 times in Literal Translations of the New Testament. 39 of which refer to the One True God. The only exception is 2Co 4:4. The Greek word " ho " followed immediately by the word " theos " appears upwards of 950 times in the original manuscripts, with the exception of 2Co 4:4, they are used to indicate Jehovah God. The intent & teachings of the God-inspired authors is quite clear. Those who cite 2Co 4:4 as proof that the title does not mean Almighty God are grasping at straws and ignoring the message of Holy Scripture.

________

http://acharlie.tripod.com/bible_study/ho_theos.html

Canuckster1127 wrote: The Title Ho Theos is comprised of two Greek words. ho meaning, "the" and theos meaning, "god". The use of the title is only a small part in the scriptural evidence proving that Jesus is God and that the Godhead is Triune in Nature. Obviously, these two words will appear in various places of New Testament. The Gospel writers all used the TITLE, ho theos to refer to the One, True God, as did the writers of the Epistles.

The problem with this is that it necessarily leads to Oneness theology, the doctrine that there is one God, and that one God is Jesus. The moment you say that HO THEOS refers exclusively to Jesus, you've pushed the Father and the Holy Spirit out of the trinity.

That the TITLE Ho Theos, refers only to Jehovah God is proved by New Testament. There are a large number of verses, which evidence this fact, A few of them follow.

In the verses which follow, you presented only one instance in the entire New Testament of HO THEOS being used to refer to Christ. I certainly agree with you that Thomas' words were both titles, but a title is not an ontological description.

Thomas was speaking Aramaic, and John translates his Aramaic into Greek. Thomas would have said 'My Adonai and my Elohim', which certainly does not mean that he was calling Jesus God, still less saying 'My Lord and the second member of the Holy Trinity'.

All your quotes did was demonstrate that time and time again the New Testament distinguishes between the one true God (who is described exclusively as one person, the Father), and Christ (who is described as the son of God).

You also missed the use of HO THEOS in the LXX, where it is applied to men (in Psalm 45:6 it is applied to David).

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: The Title Ho Theos is comprised of two Greek words. ho meaning, "the" and theos meaning, "god". The use of the title is only a small part in the scriptural evidence proving that Jesus is God and that the Godhead is Triune in Nature. Obviously, these two words will appear in various places of New Testament. The Gospel writers all used the TITLE, ho theos to refer to the One, True God, as did the writers of the Epistles.

The problem with this is that it necessarily leads to Oneness theology, the doctrine that there is one God, and that one God is Jesus. The moment you say that HO THEOS refers exclusively to Jesus, you've pushed the Father and the Holy Spirit out of the trinity.

That the TITLE Ho Theos, refers only to Jehovah God is proved by New Testament. There are a large number of verses, which evidence this fact, A few of them follow.

In the verses which follow, you presented only one instance in the entire New Testament of HO THEOS being used to refer to Christ. I certainly agree with you that Thomas' words were both titles, but a title is not an ontological description.

Thomas was speaking Aramaic, and John translates his Aramaic into Greek. Thomas would have said 'My Adonai and my Elohim', which certainly does not mean that he was calling Jesus God, still less saying 'My Lord and the second member of the Holy Trinity'.

All your quotes did was demonstrate that time and time again the New Testament distinguishes between the one true God (who is described exclusively as one person, the Father), and Christ (who is described as the son of God).

You also missed the use of HO THEOS in the LXX, where it is applied to men (in Psalm 45:6 it is applied to David).

THe LXX is a translation, and while certainly helpful for understanding how the meaning of words were understood at the time of the LXX's translation it does not rise to inspiration and it is an incredible stretch to attempt to read more than that into it and utilize it in the manner you are. The original language trumps the LXX in this regard and I suspect you know this.

The Trinity recognizes the distinctions you reference and are not inconsistent in any way.

Obviously, as a Christadelphian who rejects the Trinity, you are not going to concede this point.

I am not going to either.

All this demonstrates is that in the case of this archaeological find, people will cast it in the light of their already preconceived beliefs and conclusions.

I maintain, as does the article on the main board, that this is more favorable a find in terms of demonstrating belief regarding Jesus Christ as God which is consistent with the Trinity.

Heresies were present in that day, just as they are today. Your point is noted. Rehashing heretical modalism with Chistian Orthodoxy is really not going to add to this thread further.

If you'ld like to discuss it further perhaps we could start a thread in aberrant Christianity.

I honestly am not going to participate in depth in another thread at this time in depth as I'm not doing the ones I'm participating in now justice due to time constraints.

Canuckster1127 wrote:THe LXX is a translation, and while certainly helpful for understanding how the meaning of words were understood at the time of the LXX's translation it does not rise to inspiration and it is an incredible stretch to attempt to read more than that into it and utilize it in the manner you are. The original language trumps the LXX in this regard and I suspect you know this.

A few points:

* The LXX (and the other Greek translations), is a translation which was the Greek translation in the 1st century, and is quoted by the New Testament writers

* Christ quotes the Greek rendering of 'elohim' as THEOS to refer to men, showing that the usage was still current, and that Christ himself understood THEOS to refer to more than simply 'the one true God'

* The LXX and the other Greek translations do not need to be inspired in order to tell us how the Jews translated Hebrew into Greek

* Pick up a standard lexicon such as Liddell, Scott, and Jones and you'll find plenty of lexical evidence demonstrating that the use of the word THEOS was understood in this way

The Trinity recognizes the distinctions you reference and are not inconsistent in any way.

I know the trinity recognizes those distinctions. The point I was making is that these distinctions are not made in the passages you quoted.

Obviously, as a Christadelphian who rejects the Trinity, you are not going to concede this point.

I am not going to either.

All you have to do is provide the relevant historical and lexical data for your case.

All this demonstrates is that in the case of this archaeological find, people will cast it in the light of their already preconceived beliefs and conclusions.

Well it has shown that in your case, but I haven't been appealing to my 'already preconceived beliefs and conclusions', I have appealed to verifiable lexical and historical evidence:

* It is verifiable fact that THEOS was used of men, not only God, by both the Jews and the Greeks

* It is a verifiable fact that HO THEOS was used of men, not only God, by the Jews

* It is verifiable fact that Christ quotes the Greek translation of Psalm 45:6 using THEOS to refer to men, demonstrating that this meaning was still current among the Jews in the 1st century, and that Christ himself understood THEOS in this way

* It is a verifiable fact that you could only find a single passage in the entire New Testament which uses HO THEOS of Christ

I maintain, as does the article on the main board, that this is more favorable a find in terms of demonstrating belief regarding Jesus Christ as God which is consistent with the Trinity.

Yes it can certainly be read as demonstrative of a believe that Jesus Christ is God, and certainly there were some Christians prior to the 4th century who believed that Jesus is God. But it does not prove the trinity. The overwhelming evidence is that the trinity did not exist in the 3rd century.

That is precisely why Christians were still arguing about the relationship of God and Christ up until the 5th century, and the Holy Spirit was the last one to be thrown in, right at the end.

For those who wish to read about the history of the Trinity both within Scripture and in Church History, here is a link that goes into it in great detail. Much of what is claimed in this thread is countered there very effectively tracing the Trinity's understanding and practise both in scripture and in outside writings by early Patristic Fathers and outside writings. The decisions of the early Church were not new. They were a maturing and codification of that which the Church had taught and understood from the very beginnings of the faith.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-history.htm

It specifically addresses the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses but it is applicable within this thread.

You need to be aware, that there are many people and movements, such as the Christadelphians, of which Fortigurn is an advocate, which promote teachings that were long ago rejected by the orthodox Church as heresy.

The purpose of this board is to encourage truth and understanding both in the examination of Scripture and Nature.

There are plenty of additional sites and material available on the web to better understand these types of issues for those who want to delve deeper in them.

Fortigurn,

I've not been following this thread . . . I suppose I'll take the time to read through it in the next day or so. But, am I right that a major part of your case is that theos' use with reference to men mitigates against theos being a technical term for Yahweh?

I noticed that you cited Jesus' quotation of Ps. 45:6 as the primary (?) evidence for your argument. However, you then go on to argue that the usage was a current usage in Jesus' day based on the passage. If this is so, then why did the Jews react so strongly to Jesus' claims in the passage under discussion?

In fact, if you would like to be technical, theos is not the word used to transalted elohim, but rather the plural form, theoi. And further, in that same passage, it is the Jews themselves who accuse Jesus of claiming to be "Theos" . . . can you agree that they had Yahweh in mind when they said that?

Like I said, I've not been following this, so I hope this hasn't already been brought up. I kind of am a bit confused by the entire line of thought, because if you agree that Jesus is God, then it would actually work in your favor if theos referred only to Yahweh. As it stands, if you believe in a divine Christ (as I am pretty sure you do), then the issue is not with Jesus' divinity, but with the question of whether or not Jesus and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of God or if they are, in fact, separate persons. A sample proof for the Trinity might go as follows:

1. There is only one God,
2. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all each declared to be God
3. Therefore, God is one being made up of three persons.

The only point left out is a proof for the individuality of each person in the Trinity . . . you would argue that each person is, in fact, a mode, right?

Have a good one,

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Fortigurn,

I've not been following this thread . . . I suppose I'll take the time to read through it in the next day or so. But, am I right that a major part of your case is that theos' use with reference to men mitigates against theos being a technical term for Yahweh?

No. There is no doubt that THEOS is used of Yahweh. My point is that THEOS is not used exclusively of Yahweh, as people here have attempted to argue.

I noticed that you cited Jesus' quotation of Ps. 45:6 as the primary (?) evidence for your argument. However, you then go on to argue that the usage was a current usage in Jesus' day based on the passage.

I do indeed, and you can't deny it, because Jesus explicitly quotes the passage to defend himself against the charge that he was calling himself God. This is how it went:

Jesus: I am the son of God.

Jews: Blasephemy! You make yourself equal to God!

Jesus: Haven't you read in the Scriptures that God Himself referred to the judges of Israel as THEOI? And you want to stone me for saying I am the son of God?

Jews: Shut up, we're not listening.

It's pretty simple. They claimed he was making himself equal with God, he replied he was claiming to be the son of God, and that God Himself had called the judges of Israel THEOI, whereas Christ had not even called himself THEOS.

If this is so, then why did the Jews react so strongly to Jesus' claims in the passage under discussion?

Precisely because they confused Christ's claim to be son of God, as a claim to being equal with God. He pointed out explicitly that he was not claiming to be God, but the son of God.

In fact, if you would like to be technical, theos is not the word used to transalted elohim, but rather the plural form, theoi.

Yes, but this doesn't really matter, as Christ points out. Each individual Israelite referred to in that Psalm is still being called THEOS. Not only that, but in Psalm 45:6 David is referred to as HO THEOS.

And further, in that same passage, it is the Jews themselves who accuse Jesus of claiming to be "Theos" . . . can you agree that they had Yahweh in mind when they said that?

Certainly I can, but the point is that Jesus nowhere claimed to be THEOS. Have a look yourself, and give me a list of all the passages where Christ claimed to be THEOS. Then put it next to the list of passages where Christ claimed to be the son of THEOS.

Like I said, I've not been following this, so I hope this hasn't already been brought up. I kind of am a bit confused by the entire line of thought, because if you agree that Jesus is God, then it would actually work in your favor if theos referred only to Yahweh.

I don't believe that Jesus is God, and if THEOS only referred to Yahweh then the Oneness Pentecostals are correct, because it would mean that there is one God, who is one person, Jesus. But Scripture says the Father is the only true THEOS.

As it stands, if you believe in a divine Christ (as I am pretty sure you do), then the issue is not with Jesus' divinity, but with the question of whether or not Jesus and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of God or if they are, in fact, separate persons.

No I do not believe in 'a divine Christ'. I believe he was mortal, and the fact that he was born of a woman and died on a cross proves this.

A sample proof for the Trinity might go as follows:

1. There is only one God,
2. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all each declared to be God
3. Therefore, God is one being made up of three persons.

Yes, I am well aware of the traditional syllogism. It's useful because it demonstrates that people are well aware that the doctrine of the trinity is not revealed in the Scriptures, but inferred from the Scriptures, like the doctrine of transubstantiation. Once you reveal that the second premise is flawed, the entire house of cards comes down.

The only point left out is a proof for the individuality of each person in the Trinity . . . you would argue that each person is, in fact, a mode, right?

No I wouldn't. I'm not a Modalist. I argue that there is one God, who is one person, the Father (who is the only true God), and that Jesus Christ is a man, who is the one mediator between God and men.