In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

            —Philippians 2:5-8 (NIV)

Yes, Jesus was humble.
But there's nothing humble about "I am the lord, thy god; thou shalt have no other gods but me".
If that's how it announces itself then I sure am glad it doesn't exist.

Cheers,
Rob

Well, to be fair, it isn't unreasonable to suppose that the creator of the universe and the literal source of everything would be somewhat intimidating...

Yes, Jesus was humble.
is...And also, is (currently still), God the Son. It's hard to not be humble when you have been surrounded by suffering and poverty your whole life; then mocked incessantly, and finally tortured to death in the most humiliating and painful way - the whole time, preaching only forgiveness and love. Note that Jesus totally changed the gold rule's "love as thou would be loved" to "love as I love you". It's good advice. Suffer.

Some wider context from a well informed atheist:

The most striking difference between Christianity and Judaism & Islam is the deification of Jesus of Nazareth.°

In order to still qualify as Monotheism the concept of Trinity was born.

BUT since the Old Testament/Tanakh was kept in the Christian Bible it's a bit confusing which persona is meant with "humble god".

I doubt that "God (father)" is ever described as "humble", "God (son)" OTOH mostly is.

So, please decide which person you are talking about...

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

°) Mostly. There are various cross over sects...

Hi LanX (and apologies for the late reply),

(3==1)

The formula for the Trinity is: three Persons (Greek hypostases, “individual realities”, Latin personae) in one [Divine] Nature (Greek ousia, “being, essence”, Latin substantia, “substance”). I do understand that the names “God the Father,” “God the Son,” and “God the Holy Spirit” make it sound as if there are three Gods; but that’s just an unfortunate feature of the terminology, not of the underlying doctrine. The name “God the Father” means God, in the Person of the Father; “God the Son” means God (the same God) in the Person of the Son, and so on. (The doctrine is known as the Trinity, meaning Three, but a more accurate name would be Tri-Unity, meaning Three-in-One.)

Now to your question...

So, please decide which person you are talking about...

As a general rule, attributes of personality, when applied to God, apply not to the Persons of the Trinity individually, but to God in His nature/essence. Hence, when John says God is love (1 John 4:16), this implies that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all equally love. The distinction you are trying to draw between Father and Son is not possible in Trinitarian theology. To see that this is so, consider the opening of the Book of Hebrews:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being (Hebrews 1:3, NIV)

The Son could not be the Father’s exact representation if they had different personalities!

-----

I suspect that, lying behind your question (and if not yours, then certainly behind some of the things said in other parts of this thread), is the idea that the Father is the God of the Old Testament, the Son of the Gospels, and the Holy Spirit of the book of Acts and beyond. This is an ancient view, originating in the 3rd century, and has since been named Modalistic Monarchianism (or Sabellianism). But despite some similarities of terminology, it is not Trinitarian. In the Trinitarian view, the three Persons act together, not successively: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ... and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. ... Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...” (Genesis 1:1,2,26, NIV).

-----

By the way, your reference to the deification of Jesus of Nazareth is misleading in a Trinitarian context. In classical Greco-Roman religion, a hero such as Heracles/Hercules could be deified, meaning the man became a god. The Christian understanding of the Incarnation is the opposite: God becomes man.

Hope that helps,

Athanasius <°(((>< contra mundum

Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,

That simply means you haven't read the New Testament. Or didn't understand what you read.

A citation would be more convincing. I mean, it would invite the deluge of available rebuttals but still, it would at least be better than an anonymous “The Emperor is finely dressed, don’t you agree?”

Here's your citation: the entire New Testament.

The passage Athanasius gave is fine.

Or how about this bit, from Isaiah 53, which is often alluded to by Christians as referring to Jesus Christ:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.