All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Runningman]

You shared Dan 7:13-14 that reveals someone who is like a son of man. Jesus is like a son of man because he is first divine in the Godhead but then becomes physically as the Son of Man. These tie together in wonderful harmony that no Christian could miss.

Son of man means human in the Bible. Ezekiel was called son of man too.

​

Ezekiel 2​

1“Son of man,” He said to me, “stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.”​

Humans are also called son of God just like Jesus.

Romans 8​

14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.​

Conclusion, your ping pong game of switching positions between son of man and son of God isn't helpful to prove your point.

 

[Peterlag]

You shared Dan 7:13-14 that reveals someone who is like a son of man. Jesus is like a son of man because he is first divine in the Godhead but then becomes physically as the Son of Man. These tie together in wonderful harmony that no Christian could miss.

Then I listed...

John 8:40
Acts 2:22
Acts 17:31

That you don't mention and you denied without listing a verse.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

The apostles also taught Jesus was a man and we see this when the Apostle Peter spoke in his sermon to the crowds gathered on the Day of Pentecost making a very clear declaration that Jesus was a man approved of God: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you…” (Acts 2:22). Here Peter clearly taught that Jesus was a man and that God did miracles “by him.” Paul also taught Jesus was a man and we can see that when he was in Athens teaching a crowd of unsaved Gentiles about Jesus Christ and said that God would judge the world “by the man whom He has appointed” (Acts 17:31). Paul never said or implied that Jesus was anything but a “man.”

 

[mikesw]

Then I listed...

John 8:40
Acts 2:22
Acts 17:31

That you don't mention and you denied without listing a verse.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

The apostles also taught Jesus was a man and we see this when the Apostle Peter spoke in his sermon to the crowds gathered on the Day of Pentecost making a very clear declaration that Jesus was a man approved of God: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you…” (Acts 2:22). Here Peter clearly taught that Jesus was a man and that God did miracles “by him.” Paul also taught Jesus was a man and we can see that when he was in Athens teaching a crowd of unsaved Gentiles about Jesus Christ and said that God would judge the world “by the man whom He has appointed” (Acts 17:31). Paul never said or implied that Jesus was anything but a “man.”

oh. the numbers game or statistics is more important to you than the meaning of verses.

 

[Capbook]

I told you the same thing @Runningman just told you.

You mean the eisegesis?

I told you the same thing @Runningman just told you.

You mean the eisegesis?

 

[Capbook]

I think you're overgeneralizing what Jesus said and applying it to everyone else. See he said, "You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form." when speaking to the Jewish religious leaders at that time. He wasn't talking about all of prophets who had already seen and heard the Father.

Is seeing the Father's form just addressed to the "you"?
Or also known to the Old Testament believers?

 

[Capbook]

The last I looked, Hosea 12:4 was part of scripture ---- if you want to disregard Hosea 12:4, go ahead.
But scripture as a whole should fit together and harmonize.
In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his manhood he strove with God. He strove with the angel and prevailed;
he wept and sought his favor. [Hosea 12:3,4a] clearly says he strove with the angel and prevailed . . . God sending his angel to act as His agent - the angel fully represented God and was referenced as God - that is the only way to have the record in 1 Samuel and the record in Hosea harmonize.

I did not question the text, but the mention of "shaliah," can you give me what's the Strong number of that Hebrew word?
You just pick phrase that aligns to you preconceived belief, can't you see what I colored red above in your quoted text?
Yes, the "He strove with the angel and prevailed" do then that proves that the name "Israel" means "angel prevails?"
Just see Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon below.

Gen 32:28 Then R1he saidH559, “Your nameH8034 shall noH3808 longerH5750 be JacobH3290, but N1IsraelH3478; for you have contendedH8280 with GodH430 and with menH376, and have prevailedH3201.”

H3478
ישׂראל yiśrâ'êl
BDB Definition:
Israel = “God prevails”
the second name for Jacob given to him by God after his wrestling with the angel at Peniel.

 

[Peterlag]

You mean the eisegesis?

You mean the eisegesis?

Yes... your eisegesis.

 

[Peterlag]

oh. the numbers game or statistics is more important to you than the meaning of verses.

Yes the number of Scripture that you can't address so you pick at the pictures I include and count how many verses I use all the while addressing nothing about what those verses says. And then you say I don't post anything of substance when the truth is I do and I do so well that you can't address the substance so you pick at me personally or make fun of the photo I use. Why? Because I'm too powerful in the Scriptures for you.

 

[Runningman]

If the Son is divine in the same way as the Father, then we would expect to find that the authors of the Old Testament give divine names, titles, and attributes to the Son. We also expect to find that He is described as doing divine works and that He is the object of divine worship.

So, the deity of the Son will be based on exactly the same kind of evidence that demonstrates the deity of the Father. If we deny the validity of the evidence for the deity of the Son, then, we must logically denied the validity of the evidence for the deity of the Father. What is valid for the One is equally valid for the Other.

I point this out because Unitarians will accept the validity of such evidence as divine names and titles only when such things are used to prove the deity of the Father. But, when the exact same evidence is used to prove the deity of the Son, they will claim that it is not acceptable.

The inconsistency of the Unitarians on this point is indicative of a lack of willingness to let the evidence lead you where it will.

Trinitarians are inconsistent and ignore the fact that Jesus does not share all of the divine names and titles of God. God doesn't lack His own divine names and titles, but Jesus does. Jesus is never called YHWH, the God of Abraham, Lord of hosts, the I AM, God Almighty, for about a dozens names/titles all together.

Based on your argument, since titles alone make someone God, then if they lack God's titles then they are not God. You have just provided a powerful argument against the deity of Jesus.

Also, some of the titles that God has are also shared by other humans who are not Jesus.

Trinitarians use a false dichotomy, circular reasoning, and selective evidence to abide in error.

 

[Runningman]

Is seeing the Father's form just addressed to the "you"?
Or also known to the Old Testament believers?

I'm saying you don't have a point. It isn't going where you had said it was going in the first place. It doesn't help.

 

[amazing grace]

It has everything to do with the broad discussion. The Angel is Yahweh. That voids your whole perspective.

Thanks but obviously, I disagree.

I share this twice since you always miss details... The idea being "made" is about being humbled. If Jesus was just a human, he hardly would have to be humbled to be human.

You can share your idea about Psalm 8 being quoted in Hebrews 100 times and I still would disagree. Psalm 8 is about humanity, pure and simple. Being quoted in Hebrews includes Jesus in the 'kind', 'class' of humanity, i.e. little lower than the angels to 'show off', to 'declare' his exaltation --- above the angels.

Jesus indeed can be divine Son as the spirit of him while his flesh is incarnate. We see in scripture where the spirit of man is dead or empty and is made alive through Christ. Obviously Jesus is incarnate so not just spirit. As far as saying "Jesus preexisted," that is not good wording if you mean somehow that his flesh pre-existed. But yes there was the preexistence that we will call the Son in all his divinity and became incarnate. I am uncertain if we call him a Son yet, but I think that is proper.

Just to be clear ---- Did Jesus preexist as the Son or did the Son preexist as God?
God is Spirit so wouldn't his 'kind' would be spirit? . . . which is why we must be born again, i.e. born of the Spirit. Was Jesus Spirit?

Man being made alive in Christ is the new birth . . . nothing to do with "Jesus can be 'divine Son' as the spirit of him while his flesh is incarnate" ----- whatever that is supposed to mean.

With all that disputing of whether Jesus preexisted (although he is the Son) or whether we should call him 'the Son' who preexisted . . . . you didn't answer the question. So, WHOEVER preexisted was the pre-existent someone God?

The idea being "made" is about being humbled. If Jesus was just a human, he hardly would have to be humbled to be human. It is such makeshift arguments that unitarians share.

I know he was human - made a little lower than the angels - the verse is in reference to humanity and is including Jesus in that group - being made a little lower than the angels BUT now exalted at the right hand of the Majesty on high, exalted ABOVE the angels. The End of that subject!

I just believe he was fully human from his mother, a descendant of David according to his genealogy. . . . What about Jesus genealogy? Was that included in scripture to make him seem more like 'just a human being'?

You convert Thomas recognition of what Jesus said and turn it into just a false lead, a nothing meaning.

you really hate anyone testifying that Jesus is God. You convert direct acknowledgment of Jesus as God into just being a representative or agent. You have no basis except your imagination.

Nope. When you read the whole chapter together - it helps understand that Thomas is recognizing the truth of what Jesus had been teaching - If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. . . . Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Thomas knew who Jesus was My Lord - From Jesus' teaching - he knew who Jesus represented - My God - He saw what Jesus had taught - From now on you do know him and have seen him."
I hate when someone twists scripture to fit a Triune God narrative and twist to testify that Jesus is God - I hate lies.
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. [1 John 2:22] testifying that Jesus is God is a lie - Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed of God who is the Father, the only true God.