All Claims of The Son's Deity

[amazing grace]

I know the truth hurts but you will get over it. Jesus is God.

The bad thing about it - those same verses that get repeated do not state that Jesus is God. The concept has to be read INTO the scripture.

 

[amazing grace]

That is the problem. Things seem clear to you as you deny the options of the meaning. There indeed is scholarly argument about the verse.
The more broader scripture would say that reconciling the world by Christ as the avenue of reconciling is the focus. This passage is not emphasizing the incarnation of God in Christ, even though your proposal of that might still be worth considering.
The other alternative of God being in God would be redundant.

I am not denying any meanings. If there were truly scholarly argument about 2 Cor. 5:19 then you would quote it.
Agreed it is no where near emphasizing the incarnation of God, i.e. in the flesh.
Yes, the other alternative of God being in God would be redundant.

Why bring the Holy Spirit within the Trinity as part of your argument now? You are conflating passages that are not related. But it is okay to recognize that Christ is God such that Col 1:27 can reflect that too.

I'm not conflating passages that are not related. I thought it was self evident that the way in which God and Christ dwell in us is through the Spirit . . . I guess I was wrong. I haven't NEVER recognized Christ as God.

That is great eisegesis again. You are conflating ideas and does not make the point you are trying to force.

Thank you. Let me add this to my so called eisegesis: John 14:20 In that day, you will know that I am in my Father and you in me, and I in you.

Really? You are exalting yourself to know end. that is why your doctrine is harmful.

Criticism with no evidence . . . I see no exalting of myself but if you do, so be it.

 

[Rory Wilson]

The bad thing about it - those same verses that get repeated do not state that Jesus is God. The concept has to be read INTO the scripture.

The Persons of the Trinity are persons in the colloquial sense, and so unambiguous in maintaining that the Deity is a single personality, that there is none of the shifting about from a personal to a non-personal interpretation of the members of the Trinity which makes the reasoning of unitarians for example, so elusive.

 

[mikesw]

I am not denying any meanings. If there were truly scholarly argument about 2 Cor. 5:19 then you would quote it.
Agreed it is no where near emphasizing the incarnation of God, i.e. in the flesh.

Wow. It is not a surprise you neglect that scholars have noted three different sense of the passage. You just make sure you choose one you like with no further support of the concept you like.

Yes, the other alternative of God being in God would be redundant.

Sure. If you do not know the true God of scripture.

I'm not conflating passages that are not related. I thought it was self evident that the way in which God and Christ dwell in us is through the Spirit . . .

Jesus cannot do that unless he has always been Spirit.

I guess I was wrong. I haven't NEVER recognized Christ as God.

Then you reject God in you.

Thank you. Let me add this to my so called eisegesis: John 14:20 In that day, you will know that I am in my Father and you in me, and I in you.

Jesus is in Christians. It does not then say the Father is in Christians. You put ideas into a blender such that they no longer make sense

Criticism with no evidence . . . I see no exalting of myself but if you do, so be it.

You are blind to your own doctrine then

 

[amazing grace]

The Persons of the Trinity are persons in the colloquial sense, and so unambiguous in maintaining that the Deity is a single personality, that there is none of the shifting about from a personal to a non-personal interpretation of the members of the Trinity which makes the reasoning of unitarians for example, so elusive.

Yo . . . can you speak in the colloquial sense, i.e. language characteristic of everyday language, casual conversation?

 

[Rory Wilson]

I have sustained my desire to confine ‘Incarnation’ to the case of Jesus, as opposed to all other prophets and saints of God, by the usage rapidly becoming current among the more thoughtful Trinitarians.

 

[amazing grace]

Wow. It is not a surprise you neglect that scholars have noted three different sense of the passage. You just make sure you choose one you like with no further support of the concept you like.

Each bible translation has the same basic concept 'God was in Christ' - I even put the phrase in bold script to point it out.

ESV -- that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
KJV -- To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
NASB -- namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their wrongdoings against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
NIV -- that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

So, all in all, where is the scholarly argument? Could you perhaps point it out?

Sure. If you do not know the true God of scripture.

I was agreeing with what you said:

That is the problem. Things seem clear to you as you deny the options of the meaning. There indeed is scholarly argument about the verse.
The more broader scripture would say that reconciling the world by Christ as the avenue of reconciling is the focus. This passage is not emphasizing the incarnation of God in Christ, even though your proposal of that might still be worth considering.
The other alternative of God being in God would be redundant.

Jesus cannot do that unless he has always been Spirit.

HUH????

Then you reject God in you.

I believe that God in Christ dwells in me via being born again of the Spirit, i.e. the new birth.
Nope. I reject the Trinity - that Jesus is God.

Jesus is in Christians. It does not then say the Father is in Christians. You put ideas into a blender such that they no longer make sense

Jesus is in Christians and Christians are in Jesus hence the name Christians (Christ in).
The Father does dwell in us . . . just as John 17 says and John 14:20 says.

You are blind to your own doctrine then

See, that's the problem - Believing that Jesus is God - reading "I and the Father are one" to mean "Jesus is God" - you cannot believe what is plainly written in other parts of scripture. Jesus and his Father are one in purpose and mission - keeping the 'sheep' for the coming Kingdom. We are to be one in purpose and mission with Jesus and his Father - bringing people into the Kingdom, reconciling people to God in Christ's stead (gathering the sheep). The harvest is plenty . . .

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:18-20

Exactly how am I exalting myself to no end?

 

[Runningman]

Do we just have to say you are unqualified to properly interpret scripture?

You have no consistency with your theology and it gives the impression you use a secret decoder ring from a box of Cracker Jacks to explain everything with.

 

[mikesw]

Each bible translation has the same basic concept 'God was in Christ' - I even put the phrase in bold script to point it out.

ESV -- that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. . . .

Here is a summary of options without some technical language details

(1) “It was God who in Christ was reconciling the world to himself” (Barrett), or “God was near at hand, to reconcile the world to himself in Christ.”109 ...​

(2) “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself,” or “God, through Christ, was reconciling the world to Himself.” . . .
(3) “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself,” or “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”(RSV). Here there is no periphrastic construction, ἐνΧριστῷ is an adverbial predicate, and καταλλάσσωνis temporally undefined, being less verbal than adjectival in import(almost = “as a reconciler”).

Nothing in the immediate context, it would appear,demands that any of the renderings under (2) and (3) be excluded as inappropriate, and each embodies a typically Pauline sentiment, thatis, either that it was in or through Christ that God effected reconciliation (Rom. 5:10–11; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:19–20, 22) or that God was present in Christ (e.g., Col. 1:19; 2:9) and reconciled humans or the universe (e.g., Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20). Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 440–441​

It becomes evident that scholarship does not seem to be important to unitarians.

I was agreeing with what you said:

If you were agreeing with me then you know God does not need to be again in Christ since Christ is of the Godhead.

HUH????

You somehow expect Christ, as a mere man, to be inside you. I'm saying he must be Spirit so, just as God is Spirit, they can be inside you. Your confusion is why deeper doctrines so often go beyond the general person's ability to sort out the ideas.

I believe that God in Christ dwells in me via being born again of the Spirit, i.e. the new birth.
Nope. I reject the Trinity - that Jesus is God.

Yes. You have shared your disbelief.

Jesus is in Christians and Christians are in Jesus hence the name Christians (Christ in).
The Father does dwell in us . . . just as John 17 says and John 14:20 says.

"Christian" is not a technical theological term in the sense you portray. Then we already have seen yours and runningman's abuse of those passages. Repetition of that abuse fails to make a convincing argument

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:18-20

Exactly how am I exalting myself to no end?

You deny the divinity of Christ and exalt yourself to his level. You make yourself out to be God.

 

[mikesw]

You have no consistency with your theology and it gives the impression you use a secret decoder ring from a box of Cracker Jacks to explain everything with.

To the ignorance of unitarianism, the truth about God does not make sense.