All Claims of The Son's Deity

[mikesw]

They wouldn't need to copy John 1 into every letter they write but it just seems that they would have further elaborated, expounded on such an important doctrine which since according to some, the Trinity has to be believed in order to secure salvation.
I don't believe John 1 says that Jesus is God . . . it may be a so-called doctrine of inference but as far as clear, explicit statements stating a clear concise Triune perception of God - there are none.

Why would he be called 'the Son of God' because he is/was the Son of God . . .

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” . . . . And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God......"

Why would that result in "God incarnate"? God caused Mary to conceive . . . God wasn't the one conceived . . . His Son was conceived. God is not HIS SON - God is his God and Father.

You assume that a need existed to elaborate on the basic teachings. At the same time it is unlikely that they were trying to spend too much time explaining things to deniers of Christ.
Then, do you really doubt that Christ could not the Son of God? That is in violation of the testimony of scripture. Jesus is called the Son of God because of being divine with his Father while becoming incarnate through Mary. Jesus does go not speaking of himself Son of Mary but rather as Son of God. There is no other reason I have heard for him to have that unique status and distinction.

 

[Runningman]

haha. My doctrine and faith come from scripture. That contrasts against the unitarian distortion of the message. You make points contrary to passages showing the divinity of Christ -- esp like john 1:1 and 18. you reject passage that show God in Two Powers.

My doctrines are not my own. My doctrines were created by Lord God Almighty who taught them to Jesus. Jesus taught them to the apostles, and the apostles wrote them down.

Yours on the other hand, were created centuries later. It's a well-known fact that trinitarianism developed gradually and wasn't formalized until the late 4th century.

As I said, your beliefs don't trump Scripture.

 

[Runningman]

You assume that a need existed to elaborate on the basic teachings. At the same time it is unlikely that they were trying to spend too much time explaining things to deniers of Christ.
Then, do you really doubt that Christ could not the Son of God? That is in violation of the testimony of scripture. Jesus is called the Son of God because of being divine with his Father while becoming incarnate through Mary. Jesus does go not speaking of himself Son of Mary but rather as Son of God. There is no other reason I have heard for him to have that unique status and distinction.

So you don't believe in the begotten Son, correct? Scriptures teaches this is required for salvation.

 

[mikesw]

My doctrines are not my own. My doctrines were created by Lord God Almighty who taught them to Jesus. Jesus taught them to the apostles, and the apostles wrote them down.

You have created your own novel doctrines that alter the well known details about the Triune God. You pretend the apostles did not stay the details about the pre-existence of Jesus and his divinity. Now you are just covering up the truth.

Yours on the other hand, were created centuries later. It's a well-known fact that trinitarianism developed gradually and wasn't formalized until the late 4th century.

So you wish people became stupid and ignorant of who God is rather than advancing in knowledge. That is not a good way to approach reality.

As I said, your beliefs don't trump Scripture.

Indeed they do not. I conform my understanding with scripture. Thanks for noticing that.

 

[Runningman]

You have created your own novel doctrines that alter the well known details about the Triune God. You pretend the apostles did not stay the details about the pre-existence of Jesus and his divinity. Now you are just covering up the truth.

So you wish people became stupid and ignorant of who God is rather than advancing in knowledge. That is not a good way to approach reality.

Indeed they do not. I conform my understanding with scripture. Thanks for noticing that.

It's kind of a curiosity, like a train wreck I can't stop staring at reading some of the anti-Christian things you say. How on earth is the Father not the one and only true God? The Bible explicitly says He is. That isn't a trinity Mike. Where do you see a trinity in God being a singular person?

 

[mikesw]

So you don't believe in the begotten Son, correct? Scriptures teaches this is required for salvation.

I think you are having a problem concentrating on what is being shared.
Jesus is the one and only Son of the living God. He takes on the characteristics of his Father into the flesh but also has pre-existed. Anyhow saying "begotten" of a son is just the interpretation built in the translation. The point is about being the one and only Son when we use that Greek language source. But that is beyond the comprehension of unitarians since they just want to deny who Christ Jesus is.

 

[mikesw]

It's kind of a curiosity, like a train wreck I can't stop staring at reading some of the anti-Christian things you say. How on earth is the Father not the one and only true God? The Bible explicitly says He is. That isn't a trinity Mike. Where do you see a trinity in God being a singular person?

If you feel that the Father is not himself, I'm not sure what you are thinking.
You should know by now that Jesus is of the same divinity with the Father, not a separate god. But you wish to create a strawman instead. You really do not follow truth.

 

[Runningman]

I think you are having a problem concentrating on what is being shared.
Jesus is the one and only Son of the living God. He takes on the characteristics of his Father into the flesh but also has pre-existed. Anyhow saying "begotten" of a son is just the interpretation built in the translation. The point is about being the one and only Son when we use that Greek language source. But that is beyond the comprehension of unitarians since they just want to deny who Christ Jesus is.

You've only proven yourself be a master manipulator of words, but not very effective.

Just for the record, you reject this verse?

John 3
16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[mikesw]

You've only proven yourself be a master manipulator of words, but not very effective.

Just for the record, you reject this verse?

John 3
16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Wow. you quoted a verse. Not sure what you think you are arguing here. Maybe you want to prove you do not understand the error you have in your points.

 

[Runningman]

If you feel that the Father is not himself, I'm not sure what you are thinking.
You should know by now that Jesus is of the same divinity with the Father, not a separate god. But you wish to create a strawman instead. You really do not follow truth.

Um, Unitarians believe the Father is the one and only true God but you don't. Scripture defines God as the Father, not as a trinity.

 

[Runningman]

Wow. you quoted a verse. Not sure what you think you are arguing here.

So you believe the Son is begotten? You seem to be waking up. The Son of God is a human, begotten offspring, conceived of the Holy Spirit. So Jesus isn't God. Easy to understand.

 

[mikesw]

So you believe the Son is begotten? You seem to be waking up. The Son of God is a human, begotten offspring, conceived of the Holy Spirit. So Jesus isn't God. Easy to understand.

Are you trying to contrast a son who is not begotten in making your argument? You are relying on a translation choice instead of the true scripture.
Maybe you have a passage that says the one and only Son of God is not the one and only Son of God.

 

[Runningman]

Are you trying to contrast a son who is not begotten in making your argument? You are relying on a translation choice instead of the true scripture.
Maybe you have a passage that says the one and only Son of God is not the one and only Son of God.

The one you call "The Son" in your trinity is described as being a human and begotten, not an eternal member of a "triune godhead" in Scripture. Remember John 3:16.

 

[mikesw]

The one you call "The Son" in your trinity is described as being a human and begotten, not an eternal member of a "triune godhead" in Scripture. Remember John 3:16.

You do not pay attention since you add that word "begotten" in here as if that aids your mistaken view.

Anyhow no one says Jesus was not born. However John 1 shows the one who came known as Jesus was with God and he was God and now became flesh. No one I know denies that. So who knows what you are arguing against.

Did you have a reason to think Jesus was not born?

 

[Runningman]

You do not pay attention since you add that word "begotten" in here as if that aids your mistaken view.

Anyhow no one says Jesus was not born. However John 1 shows the one who came known as Jesus was with God and he was God and now became flesh. No one I know denies that. So who knows what you are arguing against.

Did you have a reason to think Jesus was not born?

It says begotten in John 3:16 and many other verses. The Son is not God. God sent His Son like God sent so many others before him. You don't get it.

John 3
16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[mikesw]

It says begotten in John 3:16 and many other verses. The Son is not God. God sent His Son like God sent so many others before him. You don't get it.

John 3
16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

so you like to deny that Jesus is the one and only Son that we see in John 3:16. Not a very good argument. But a typical type of mistake by unitarians.

 

[Runningman]

so you like to deny that Jesus is the one and only Son that we see in John 3:16. Not a very good argument. But a typical type of mistake by unitarians.

John 3:16 is a prooftext against Jesus being God. Anywhere he's called begotten it means he can't be God. It rules him out. The Son is not an eternal being in Christianity.

 

[mikesw]

John 3:16 is a prooftext against Jesus being God. Anywhere he's called begotten it means he can't be God. It rules him out. The Son is not an eternal being in Christianity.

did you not pay attention? "Begotten" is a ghost word that is not translated from any Greek text.

God can create a human in any way and can have the Word who fully existed as God be born among humanity. Hmm. I think I read that in scripture.

 

[Runningman]

did you not pay attention? "Begotten" is a ghost word that is not translated from any Greek text.

God can create a human in any way and can have the Word who fully existed as God be born among humanity. Hmm. I think I read that in scripture.

Nonsense.

μονογενῆ monogenē (only begotten) is in the original Greek manuscripts of John 3:16. Nice try. You think just saying "it's not there" as if I would believe a single word out of your mouth is going to convince me?

 

[mikesw]

Nonsense.

μονογενῆ monogenē (only begotten) is in the original Greek manuscripts of John 3:16. Nice try. You think just saying "it's not there" as if I would believe a single word out of your mouth is going to convince me?

oh wow. you try the Greek word to defend your view. Not a sufficient attempt though. Your explanation is sort of the weaker one now but some people still accept it. I can give you that much. But it does not make for an argument against Jesus's divinity with the Father before his birth. So you have falsely treated this as an a basis to deny the Triune God.

This sense of monogene is more reasoned.

The word monogenēs, rendered ‘the One and Only’ in 1:14 by the NIV, is in some other translations rendered ‘only begotten’. That the word should be translated as ‘the One and Only’ is confirmed by its usage elsewhere in the NT, where it is found a total of nine times. It is found three times in the Gospel of Luke: once to describe the ‘one and only son’ of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:12), once to describe the ‘one and only daughter’ of Jairus (Luke 8:42), and once to describe the ‘one and only son’ of the man who sought Jesus’ help for his demon-possessed boy (Luke 9:38). It is found once in Hebrews, where Isaac, whom Abraham was about to sacrifice, is described as his ‘one and only’ son (Heb. 11:17)—in Abraham’s case his one and only son by Sarah
Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries , 71.

Also, we see the divinity of Christ expressed in this way in Rom 8:3
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

He Jesus had only been flesh and human, this point would not make sense. To a unitarian though, it is noted that nothing that clearly proves Christ as God makes sense to them.