All Claims of The Son's Deity

[civic]

Thank you for all the scripture. But I will stick with Joel 2:32 referring to Yahweh and Romans 10:13 being the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes YHWH is Joel 2 is the exact same Person as Lord in Romans 10 which Paul uner inspiration of the Holy Spirit identifies as Christ- the One Lord a person must call upon to be saved.

and all Gods children said: AMEN !!!!!

Hallelujah, Praise the Lord !!!

 

[Runningman]

Jesus said, "all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him, do that mean excluding the Arians to follow Matthew 28:19??

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Mat 28:19 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Is there a baptism by the Spirit in the Bible?
Is there a baptism in Jesus name? As Jesus and the Father are one.
Just because the ultimate authority consolidated it in one text, why Arians makes it wrong?

Ok, but the Biblical example of water baptism in practice is not to baptize according to Matthew 28:19. Facts. Deal with it.

 

[Runningman]

Do you believe what Jesus said in John 5:37? "Neither heard the voice of the Father anytime."
If yes, then whose voice is in Deut 4:6?

Joh 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
Isa 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to idols.

Again, if you believe what Jesus said in John 5:37, whose voice was that in Exodus 3:14?

There is a timeline in the Bible. They heard the Father's voice later.

Jesus said it in John 8:58. , in reference to Ex 3:14.

These two verses are unrelated.

 

[civic]

Do you believe what Jesus said in John 5:37? "Neither heard the voice of the Father anytime."
If yes, then whose voice is in Deut 4:6?

Joh 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
Isa 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to idols.

Again, if you believe what Jesus said in John 5:37, whose voice was that in Exodus 3:14?
Jesus said it in John 8:58. , in reference to Ex 3:14.

The stumbling block for the uni camp. It makes Jesus words out to be a lie if they believe they heard the Father or saw Him in the O.T. Yet we know the prophets all said they heard and saw YHWH.

Its a stumper they refuse to deal with in an unbiased and honest fashion.

 

[mikesw]

I am not endeavoring to 'make everyone wrong except me'. People need to read what is written with a little bit of comprehension.

But you have made everyone wrong, including the Father, the Son, John, and Paul.

Whatever that means!!!

Jesus being God is what makes Jesus God. That should be simple enough for you to understand. There is no other meaning of the designation "Son of God" in the context of Jesus.
This means that nothing made Jesus God except himself being God -- or, for some distinct, of Jesus being of the Godhead. You seem to get confused because "God" can refer either to the Triune sense or more narrowly to the Father

Read them plenty of times - even to the point of understanding. Your understanding is - since God is in heaven, God comes from above that God came to earth --- which is the same concept the Romans had in their mythology - gods coming to earth.

I see. You are more interested in viewing the gospels as distorted by mythology instead of recognizing that Jesus as incarnation is note inspired by mythology but rather happens in a unique way. I've not studied mythology but know it is more an atheist argument. You at least have become a partial atheist here.

My understanding is that being from heaven, being from above, is equivalent to sent by God, came from God, etc. Jesus came from heaven - God was his source. Jesus was from above - God was his source. In the same sense as 'Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.' [James 1:17] God is the source of every good and perfect gift.

So you will use a secondary sense, probably inspired by the incarnation of Jesus, to deny the incarnation of Jesus. It seems like you read it so carefully in a unitarian bias that you overlook what it means.
Note that John 3:13 does not say Jesus was sent from heaven or is a gift from heaven. The verse says he descended from heaven. He is the only one to have done that. Not sure how to read that in a unitarian distortion.

God GAVE his Son, God SENT his Son, his CAME from ABOVE, CAME from God by a miraculous conception in the womb of Mary.

I asked you several questions ---- Why did God keep it a secret? Why would God say he gave his only Son if he didn't actually give his only son but gave himself? DID GOD LIE TO US? ---- but it seems you don't have the ability to answer and so resort to accusations of denial of scripture and preferring that God has lied --- which I did not nor have I done.

You would be making God a liar by saying that Jesus is not his Son or that Son of God means nothing. If Jesus as God did not refer to a distinction in the Godhead, then you would be have to be arguing against the modalist view. But I am not of the modalist view. So your argument is not against Trinitarian understanding

Again, your accusations are tiring . . . I never denied John 1. I just understand it.

Then convince people with a sufficient argument. Unitarians keep throwing half-concepts into the discussion but cannot give a sufficient denial of the Triune God.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

I haven't denied that Jesus is the Christ ---- I have confessed the Son. I'm pretty well covered.

You have not confessed the true Jesus and Messiah. That is the problem.

 

[Runningman]

The stumbling block for the uni camp. It makes Jesus words out to be a lie if they believe they heard the Father or saw Him in the O.T. Yet we know the prophets all said they heard and saw YHWH.

Its a stumper they refuse to deal with in an unbiased and honest fashion.

You seem to be almost piecing it together. The Father is YHWH. As I told Mike, Hebrews 1 is a great place to read about that. Acts is great too.

 

[mikesw]

The stumbling block for the uni camp. It makes Jesus words out to be a lie if they believe they heard the Father or saw Him in the O.T. Yet we know the prophets all said they heard and saw YHWH.

Its a stumper they refuse to deal with in an unbiased and honest fashion.

Runningman then said:
You seem to be almost piecing it together. The Father is YHWH. As I told Mike, Hebrews 1 is a great place to read about that. Acts is great too.

You get it half right or a third. Jesus is Yahweh. the Holy Spirit is Yahweh. Joel 2:32 is quoted and explains Rom 10:13. If not the Paul would be lying. Or Joel would have been deceived. I expect on the other hand that both were accurate in showing Jesus is Yahweh

 

[mikesw]

There are no words in the Bible that refers Jesus to a mere man. And that means I would never use them that you say I did. Your deception is as good as the dark force.

you have two choices. Jesus is the Son who is also of the Triune Yahweh or he is a mere man, of solely human existence.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman then said:
You seem to be almost piecing it together. The Father is YHWH. As I told Mike, Hebrews 1 is a great place to read about that. Acts is great too.

You get it half right or a third. Jesus is Yahweh. the Holy Spirit is Yahweh. Joel 2:32 is quoted and explains Rom 10:13. If not the Paul would be lying. Or Joel would have been deceived. I expect on the other hand that both were accurate in showing Jesus is Yahweh

Jesus is not YHWH. God is YHWH, Jesus is not God, pretty easy math here. Actually, I will prove it. Deut. 18:18-20 is a prophecy about YHWH talking about Jesus as a prophet who speaks the words of YHWH just like Moses did. I'm sure it will all go in one ear and out the other, but that is to be expected with you and it's ok. Just need to make sure you get your eyes on it so you can still have a choice to reject or accept it.

Deut. 18
18I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19And I will hold accountable anyone who does not listen to My words that the prophet speaks in My name. 20But if any prophet dares to speak a message in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or to speak in the name of other gods, that prophet must be put to death.”

 

[Runningman]

Runningman then said:
You seem to be almost piecing it together. The Father is YHWH. As I told Mike, Hebrews 1 is a great place to read about that. Acts is great too.

You get it half right or a third. Jesus is Yahweh. the Holy Spirit is Yahweh. Joel 2:32 is quoted and explains Rom 10:13. If not the Paul would be lying. Or Joel would have been deceived. I expect on the other hand that both were accurate in showing Jesus is Yahweh

Also, it isn't that Paul or Joel are wrong, you should avoid blaming the the apostles/prophets for your mistakes. Look at yourself here.

Paul said in Romans 10:11 "It is just as the Scripture says: “Anyone who believes in Him will never be put to shame.”

Baby steps. Since Paul said Scripture says that, may I ask if you are aware which verse from the OT that Paul was referring to? This is a salvation issue for you. Please take it seriously.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus is not YHWH. God is YHWH, Jesus is not God, pretty easy math here. Actually, I will prove it. Deut. 18:18-20 is a prophecy about YHWH talking about Jesus as a prophet who speaks the words of YHWH just like Moses did. I'm sure it will all go in one ear and out the other, but that is to be expected with you and it's ok. Just need to make sure you get your eyes on it so you can still have a choice to reject or accept it.

Deut. 18
18I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19And I will hold accountable anyone who does not listen to My words that the prophet speaks in My name. 20But if any prophet dares to speak a message in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or to speak in the name of other gods, that prophet must be put to death.”

you really do not get it. raising Deu 18:18 is pure failure to understand anything. We already have seen that Joel 2:32 is affirming Jesus as Yahweh in Rom 10:13 or Paul would have skipped using Joel 2:32. So you deny that by using another proper attribute of Jesus, namely the Prophet who would warn Israel of its judgment. Jesus can do both. He also is Messiah over the kingdom. This is the kingdom of God -- this is Jesus' kingdom. So he can be recognized in several senses without contradiction, unless one reads it improperly as a unitarian.
You are arguing against a modalistic sense of God. Jesus reveals against that since he is the divine Son of God. If he is not divine, then he is not the Son of God. So you deny the very sense of that designation.

 

[mikesw]

Also, it isn't that Paul or Joel are wrong, you should avoid blaming the the apostles/prophets for your mistakes. Look at yourself here.

Paul said in Romans 10:11 "It is just as the Scripture says: “Anyone who believes in Him will never be put to shame.”

Baby steps. Since Paul said Scripture says that, may I ask if you are aware which verse from the OT that Paul was referring to? This is a salvation issue for you. Please take it seriously.

You are offering distortions. You are trying to deny the divinity of Christ by trying to find excuses not to accept it.

Rom 10:11 refers to Isaiah 28:16 (NASB95)
16Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

The only way you use Isa 28:16 against the divinity of Christ is your impure expectation that God is not Triune. The cornerstone is the Son of God who was sent from heaven. No mere men exist in heaven before being born on earth. So we again affirm his divinity and pre-existence. Of course you want to say "Jesus did not pre-exist." That is basically okay as long as you also acknowledge that the divine One became incarnate. But you fail to recognize that.

 

[Runningman]

You are offering distortions. You are trying to deny the divinity of Christ by trying to find excuses not to accept it.

Rom 10:11 refers to Isaiah 28:16 (NASB95)
16Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

The only way you use Isa 28:16 against the divinity of Christ is your impure expectation that God is not Triune. The cornerstone is the Son of God who was sent from heaven. No mere men exist in heaven before being born on earth. So we again affirm his divinity and pre-existence. Of course you want to say "Jesus did not pre-exist." That is basically okay as long as you also acknowledge that the divine One became incarnate. But you fail to recognize that.

You lack any evidence of the Jesus as the Son of God pre-existing in heaven, descending from heaven, or incarnating because Jesus didn't pre-exist as a person or God, but rather as a human in God's foreknowledge and pre-destination. That is why Jesus said he descended from heaven as a Son of Man. Jesus was explicitly stating that he is a human from heaven, not God from heaven.

John 3​

13No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.​

​

John 6​

62Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?​

With that being said, Jesus is the cornerstone YHWH laid and a human nevertheless. Means Jesus isn't YHWH.

So now that we know Paul didn't believe Jesus is YHWH and Jesus never taught any such things, we can understand the rest of Romans 10 pretty easy. Paul wasn't teaching to call on Jesus as YHWH to be saved. Remember, Jesus is the human who was approved by God, not God Himself.

Acts 2​

21And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’​

22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.​

 

[Runningman]

You are offering distortions. You are trying to deny the divinity of Christ by trying to find excuses not to accept it.

Rom 10:11 refers to Isaiah 28:16 (NASB95)
16Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

The only way you use Isa 28:16 against the divinity of Christ is your impure expectation that God is not Triune. The cornerstone is the Son of God who was sent from heaven. No mere men exist in heaven before being born on earth. So we again affirm his divinity and pre-existence. Of course you want to say "Jesus did not pre-exist." That is basically okay as long as you also acknowledge that the divine One became incarnate. But you fail to recognize that.

It's not a convincing argument to say that YHWH laid down YHWH as a cornerstone, especially when the cornerstone that was laid is a human who isn't God. No one believes you except those who have been indoctrinated into your line of nonsensical thinking.

 

[mikesw]

You lack any evidence of the Jesus as the Son of God pre-existing in heaven, descending from heaven, or incarnating because Jesus didn't pre-exist as a person or God, but rather as a human in God's foreknowledge and pre-destination. That is why Jesus said he descended from heaven as a Son of Man. Jesus was explicitly stating that he is a human from heaven, not God from heaven.

John 3​

13No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.​

​

John 6​

62Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?​

With that being said, Jesus is the cornerstone YHWH laid and a human nevertheless. Means Jesus isn't YHWH.

Son of Man is a designation connecting with the divine one in Dan 7:13-14 who is "like a son of man." So Jesus is like a son of man since he is also divine. You just whitewash over everything that exposes the deception of unitarianism

So now that we know Paul didn't believe Jesus is YHWH and Jesus never taught any such things, we can understand the rest of Romans 10 pretty easy. Paul wasn't teaching to call on Jesus as YHWH to be saved. Remember, Jesus is the human who was approved by God, not God Himself.

Acts 2​

21And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’​

22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.​

you just whitewash over the previous discussions. Logical ability escapes you. Funny you quote Acts 2:21 that ties with Rom 10:13 and Joel 2:32. Jesus is Yahweh in all of those. Of course God is not going to reject the divine Son. Thus, you have no logic against the Triune God.

 

[mikesw]

It's not a convincing argument to say that YHWH laid down YHWH as a cornerstone, especially when the cornerstone that was laid is a human who isn't God. No one believes you except those who have been indoctrinated into your line of nonsensical thinking.

Certainly in the mind of a unitarian heresy this does not make sense, especially the way you treat this as modalistic instead of triune Godhead. Maybe you can try to have a convincing argument to your view at some point in time.

 

[amazing grace]

But you have made everyone wrong, including the Father, the Son, John, and Paul.

Nope, I haven't.

Jesus being God is what makes Jesus God. That should be simple enough for you to understand. There is no other meaning of the designation "Son of God" in the context of Jesus.
This means that nothing made Jesus God except himself being God -- or, for some distinct, of Jesus being of the Godhead. You seem to get confused because "God" can refer either to the Triune sense or more narrowly to the Father

The bad thing about it is - Jesus isn't nor ever has been God.
Yep, God to me IS THE FATHER ALONE.

I see. You are more interested in viewing the gospels as distorted by mythology instead of recognizing that Jesus as incarnation is note inspired by mythology but rather happens in a unique way. I've not studied mythology but know it is more an atheist argument. You at least have become a partial atheist here.

I am not looking at the Gospels as mythology at all ---- if I was I wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever with a Triune God.
Thanks for another accusation against me.

So you will use a secondary sense, probably inspired by the incarnation of Jesus, to deny the incarnation of Jesus. It seems like you read it so carefully in a unitarian bias that you overlook what it means.

No, I am not using a secondary sense. I believe the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Where you believe John 1:1c and the word was God to mean the word was THE GOD - I understand that without the definite article before 'God' - 'God' is being used in the descriptive sense, as an adjective. What God was the word was - qualitatively.

Note that John 3:13 does not say Jesus was sent from heaven or is a gift from heaven. The verse says he descended from heaven. He is the only one to have done that. Not sure how to read that in a unitarian distortion.

YOU are mixing James 1:17 with John 3:13 - I did not say that 'Jesus was sent from heaven or is a gift from heaven' . . . I only used James 1:17 as an example of something coming from heaven NOT BEING GOD.

Read them plenty of times - even to the point of understanding. Your understanding is - since God is in heaven, God comes from above that God came to earth --- which is the same concept the Romans had in their mythology - gods coming to earth.
My understanding is that being from heaven, being from above, is equivalent to sent by God, came from God, etc. Jesus came from heaven - God was his source. Jesus was from above - God was his source. In the same sense as 'Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.' [James 1:17] God is the source of every good and perfect gift.

God GAVE his Son, God SENT his Son, his CAME from ABOVE, CAME from God by a miraculous conception in the womb of Mary.

If you read carefully I did not specify anything about John 3:13 but leaned more into 3:31,32.
. . . no one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man . . . Yep, Jesus is the only one who has ascended into heaven being the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. He descended from heaven, came from heaven, came from God, God was the source of Jesus, His Son via a miraculous conception in the womb of Mary.

Yep, if people would read with a little more reading comprehension skills there would be less repetition.

You would be making God a liar by saying that Jesus is not his Son or that Son of God means nothing. If Jesus as God did not refer to a distinction in the Godhead, then you would be have to be arguing against the modalist view. But I am not of the modalist view. So your argument is not against Trinitarian understanding

What does a Modalist view have to do with my questions? Absolutely nothing . . . so still no answers.

I asked you several questions ---- Why did God keep it a secret? Why would God say he gave his only Son if he didn't actually give his only son but gave himself? DID GOD LIE TO US? ---- but it seems you don't have the ability to answer and so resort to accusations of denial of scripture and preferring that God has lied --- which I did not nor have I done.

No, I don't deny that Jesus is the only Son of God ----- still doesn't make him God. No God did not come down to earth - where is the scriptural reference?

Why did God keep it a secret? Why would God say he gave his only Son if he didn't actually give his only son but gave himself?
DID GOD LIE TO US?

Then convince people with a sufficient argument. Unitarians keep throwing half-concepts into the discussion but cannot give a sufficient denial of the Triune God.

There's NOTHING I can say that would convince anyone on this forum.

You have not confessed the true Jesus and Messiah. That is the problem.

1 Cor. 2:11a For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?
2 Timothy 1:12 . . . But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me.

 

[Runningman]

Certainly in the mind of a unitarian heresy this does not make sense, especially the way you treat this as modalistic instead of triune Godhead. Maybe you can try to have a convincing argument to your view at some point in time.

Scripture states the cornerstone is Jesus, a man, not God. Jesus isn't YHWH. So Jesus didn't resurrect himself. No one in the Bible ever said he did.

Acts 4
10then let this be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
11This Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’

 

[Runningman]

Son of Man is a designation connecting with the divine one in Dan 7:13-14 who is "like a son of man." So Jesus is like a son of man since he is also divine. You just whitewash over everything that exposes the deception of unitarianism

you just whitewash over the previous discussions. Logical ability escapes you. Funny you quote Acts 2:21 that ties with Rom 10:13 and Joel 2:32. Jesus is Yahweh in all of those. Of course God is not going to reject the divine Son. Thus, you have no logic against the Triune God.

Son of Man is a designation used repeatedly throughout the Bible to refer to humans. Has absolutely no connection to deity. The Son of Man in Daniel 7 isn't sitting on the throne of God, didn't inherently have power/authority until God gave it to him, and the others he was with share the same exact sovereignty and dominion over the kingdom as him. So that route doesn't help you at all.

Once again, you have nothing about a "Son of God" or "God the Son" pre-existing in heaven, descending from heaven, or incarnating. Give it up already. Arguing for the sake of arguing isn't helpful if your arguments have no Scriptural support.