The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
“… those to whom the word of God (logoj) came …”
I have been studying the development of the idea of the Trinity for a couple of years now … it is clear as to why such an idea would come about, but not clear it would develop aside from ignorance. Indeed, the one place in scripture where Jesus is likened to God is not ontological but representational; that’s John’s Gospel and his use of the Greek philosophy of Logos, the Hebrew equivalent of Memra (which likewise has ties to the personification of wisdom, Sophia, as Memra is the personification of will). It’s also clear that while the early Church fathers often thought of Jesus as divine, they themselves, like his disciples, did not equate Jesus to God hypostatically — Justin Martyr being the most prolific commenter on the divinity of Jesus.
It should be at this point that any person interested in the Trinity ought to ask themselves why the truth of it matters, and especially when it came to matter to anyone at all, because since it wasn’t from scripture, wasn’t an important idea or even an idea that existed at all until Tertullian, it is either pure ideology or serves a political function, or both.
Just a thought.