All Claims of The Son's Deity

[amazing grace]

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.

Yea, I would think they would teach a fundamental doctrine.

I don't know why you continually say I doubt the Christ is the Son of God . . . I have never denied that the Son of God is the Messiah. Jesus is called the Son of God for exactly the reason stated in Luke 1:35:

"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......"
therefore - for that reason - 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.

 

[amazing grace]

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.

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.

The point made - Jesus was in the 'likeness of sinful flesh", a human being in the likeness or resemblance of sinful flesh.
Jesus' body was not made of 'sinful flesh' but was very similar to it. This does not mean that Jesus was not human, it just means that his flesh was not 'sinful flesh.' One can fully be human without having sinful flesh. Adam was the first human and before the fall, he did not have 'sinful flesh' yet after he sinned - he was in 'sinful flesh'. Therefore, Jesus shared our flesh - he was like all other human beings - YET WITHOUT SIN, i.e. sinless and thus only in 'the likeness of sinful flesh'.

That doesn't prove that Jesus is God. GOD GAVE/SENT HIS SON . . . . If God meant to say that HE came in the likeness of flesh WHY NOT JUST SAY WHAT HE MEANT???? WHY make up a story about a Son? Just come out and say plainly and clearly that HE CAME TO EARTH? The scriptures have no difficulty in proclaiming a human son, a descendant of David, a prophet out from among Moses brothers, a suffering servant, a Son would be born, a coming Messiah who would redeem Israel ---- out of approximately 31,102 scriptures ---- nothing about God coming to earth.

 

[Runningman]

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.


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.

Yes, John 3:16 does help the Bible's position about the Son being offspring, not an eternal being. The Son is never called eternal in the Bible. This is not really an "argument" or "my view" but rather an objective fact about what the Bible says, presented to you in its plain meaning. Agreeing with Scripture doesn't seem to be one of your strong points. Maybe you should work on that.

 

[civic]

Yes, John 3:16 does help the Bible's position about the Son being offspring, not an eternal being. The Son is never called eternal in the Bible. This is not really an "argument" or "my view" but rather an objective fact about what the Bible says, presented to you in its plain meaning. Agreeing with Scripture doesn't seem to be one of your strong points. Maybe you should work on that.

sure He is called eternal-the eternal Father in fact, take off those blinders

next fallacy

 

[Runningman]

sure He is called eternal-the eternal Father in fact, take off those blinders

next fallacy

The Word is described as a thing that is eternal life in 1 John 1:1-3, that isn't about Jesus. Jesus isn't a thing.

 

[civic]

The Word is described as a thing that is eternal life in 1 John 1:1-3, that isn't about Jesus. Jesus isn't a thing.

nope eternal in Isaiah, Zacheriah and Micah. He is also equal with the Father in creation, existing before creation and the world was made by Him, through Him making Him eternal and not created.


take off those uni blinders, they are keeping you from spiritual, biblical and salvific truth.

next fallacy

 

[Runningman]

nope eternal in Isaiah, Zacheriah and Micah. He is also equal with the Father in creation, existing before creation and the world was made by Him, through Him making Him eternal and not created.


take off those uni blinders, they are keeping you from spiritual, biblical and salvific truth.

next fallacy

Revelation 3:14 explicitly states the Son is created. John 3:16 describes the Son as having a beginning point. There's Colossians 1:15 that places the Son in the creation, not independent of it, John 1:3,14 about all things being made and the Word being made flesh, etc. Nothing close to describing an eternal being incarnating. Take those trinitarian blinders off.

 

[civic]

Revelation 3:14 explicitly states the Son is created. John 3:16 describes the Son as having a beginning point. There's Colossians 1:15 that places the Son in the creation, not independent of it, John 1:3,14 about all things being made and the Word being made flesh, etc. Nothing close to describing an eternal being incarnating. Take those trinitarian blinders off.

nope Jesus the man was created, not the Eternal Son who created all things, is before all created things and in Him all things exist.

next fallacy

 

[Runningman]

nope Jesus the man was created, not the Eternal Son who created all things, is before all created things and in Him all things exist.

next fallacy

The Son didn't create all things. The Bible never says he did. Waiting for what you're going to pull out of your bag of tricks next.

 

[mikesw]

Yea, I would think they would teach a fundamental doctrine.

I don't know why you continually say I doubt the Christ is the Son of God . . . I have never denied that the Son of God is the Messiah.

I am not sure how you think Jesus is the Son of God if he is not the son of God in your interpretation. A human being conceived has a mother and a father. That hopefully is not beyond your understanding of biology. Joseph is not the biological father. God has replaced that by miraculous intervention but still is the father here.

Jesus is called the Son of God for exactly the reason stated in Luke 1:35:

"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......"
therefore - for that reason - the child to be born will be called holy----the Son of God.

You read that passage but you are dull of hearing. It is God's action here as fathering the one born here. Since God has miraculously fathered the child. The child is of his essence and of the mother's.

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.

Oops. Maybe I used "conceived" in the wrong sense. Thanks for reminding me.

We are not talking about God coming into existence in the essence of godness. But this is a new aspect of One already distinct but in that Oneness of God taking on humanity. You keep treating this like modalism instead of the Christian insight into the deeper insight of who God is.

 

[civic]

The Son didn't create all things. The Bible never says he did. Waiting for what you're going to pull out of your bag of tricks next.

He sure did.


Col 1:16-17
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

We see above that creation of all things(panta- no exceptions and is all inclusive) were made by Him and solely for Him. They were created for His good pleasure. And without Him nothing was made that was made(see John 1:1-3).

Also since we see He is before all things created then logic and reason dictates that He is Eternal and not part of any creation. He is distinct and separate from created as the Creator.

Here we see that Paul completely exhausts the creation categories:

1)all things created
2)things in heaven
3)things in the earth
4) things visible
5)things invisible
6)thrones,dominions,rulers,authorities
7)the above mentioned things rule out any exceptions

Now we also see from the Apostle Paul that He(Christ) is BEFORE all things and that all things in Him subsist or are held together.

Now tell me Who other than the Almighty God known as YHWH is before all things, created all things and holds the very universe together?

The answer none but God. And Paul tells us in the context that Jesus is the very image of the invisible God. He made the unknown known, the invisible God became visible in the flesh. This is the Incarnation where we see in Christ God was manifest in the flesh. God became man as John's prologue so eloquently spells out in verses 1-18.

conclusion: The Son is before creation. Both Son and Father were together sharing the same Glory together with one another as per John 17:1-5 and John 17:24. This parallels John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:8-10, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and several other passages in scripture declaring His active role in Creation with the Father.

So can you like the Author of Hebrews, Paul, Thomas, Peter and John confess Jesus is your God, your Creator?

hope this helps,

 

[Runningman]

He sure did.


Col 1:16-17
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

We see above that creation of all things(panta- no exceptions and is all inclusive) were made by Him and solely for Him. They were created for His good pleasure. And without Him nothing was made that was made(see John 1:1-3).

Also since we see He is before all things created then logic and reason dictates that He is Eternal and not part of any creation. He is distinct and separate from created as the Creator.

Here we see that Paul completely exhausts the creation categories:

1)all things created
2)things in heaven
3)things in the earth
4) things visible
5)things invisible
6)thrones,dominions,rulers,authorities
7)the above mentioned things rule out any exceptions

Now we also see from the Apostle Paul that He(Christ) is BEFORE all things and that all things in Him subsist or are held together.

Now tell me Who other than the Almighty God known as YHWH is before all things, created all things and holds the very universe together?

The answer none but God. And Paul tells us in the context that Jesus is the very image of the invisible God. He made the unknown known, the invisible God became visible in the flesh. This is the Incarnation where we see in Christ God was manifest in the flesh. God became man as John's prologue so eloquently spells out in verses 1-18.

So can you like the Author of Hebrews, Paul, Thomas, Peter and John confess Jesus is your God, your Creator?

hope this helps,

You have just provided a powerful argument against the Son being Creator right off the bat.

Since Colossians 1:15 places Jesus in the creation, he can't be the Creator in Colossians 1:16. The word "by" in Colossians 1:16 refers to instrumentality, not authorship. The context of Colossians 1:15-20 is about the creation of the church, hence this creation was not completed until the Son shed his blood on the cross.

Colossians 1
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Your claims are contradicted by explicit verses about the Son being created, such as Revelation 3:14.

There is also the fact that the Son is never called the Creator in the Bible.

Hebrews 1:1,2 Acts 4:23-31, Acts 17:24,25 also prove that Jesus isn't the Creator.

 

[civic]

You have just provided a powerful argument against the Son being Creator right off the bat.

Since Colossians 1:15 places Jesus in the creation, he can't be the Creator in Colossians 1:16. The word "by" in Colossians 1:16 refers to instrumentality, not authorship. The context of Colossians 1:15-20 is about the creation of the church, hence this creation was not completed until the Son shed his blood on the cross.

Colossians 1
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Your claims are contradicted by explicit verses about the Son being created, such as Revelation 3:14.

There is also the fact that the Son is never called the Creator in the Bible.

Hebrews 1:1,2 Acts 4:23-31, Acts 17:24,25 also prove that Jesus isn't the Creator.

projecting again

 

[Runningman]

projecting again

I challenged what you said. Why is your interpretation correct? Where is the Son ever said to be the Creator?

 

[civic]

I challenged what you said. Why is your interpretation correct? Where is the Son ever said to be the Creator?

the same place the Father in 1 Cor 8:6

 

[mikesw]

The point made - Jesus was in the 'likeness of sinful flesh", a human being in the likeness or resemblance of sinful flesh.
Jesus' body was not made of 'sinful flesh' but was very similar to it. This does not mean that Jesus was not human, it just means that his flesh was not 'sinful flesh.' One can fully be human without having sinful flesh. Adam was the first human and before the fall, he did not have 'sinful flesh' yet after he sinned - he was in 'sinful flesh'. Therefore, Jesus shared our flesh - he was like all other human beings - YET WITHOUT SIN, i.e. sinless and thus only in 'the likeness of sinful flesh'.

Wow. weaseling around the meaning. very clever.
No one said Jesus is not human. You attempt a strawman here or just are confused. "he did not have 'sinful flesh' yet'" but then was "sinless and thus only in the 'likeness of sinful flesh.'"
None of this explanation by Paul would be needed if Jesus was merely human.

That doesn't prove that Jesus is God. GOD GAVE/SENT HIS SON . . . . If God meant to say that HE came in the likeness of flesh WHY NOT JUST SAY WHAT HE MEANT???? WHY make up a story about a Son? Just come out and say plainly and clearly that HE CAME TO EARTH? The scriptures have no difficulty in proclaiming a human son, a descendant of David, a prophet out from among Moses brothers, a suffering servant, a Son would be born, a coming Messiah who would redeem Israel ---- out of approximately 31,102 scriptures ---- nothing about God coming to earth.

Why not put the whole of John 1 into a letter to Christians who already knew Christ?
Oh and what undoubtedly can be shown to be wrong when you say "nothing about God coming to earth."

Mal 3:1-6 (ebible.org WEB)
1 “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me! The Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple. Behold, the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, is coming!” says Yahweh of Armies. 2 “But who can endure the day of his coming? And who will stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like launderers’ soap; 3 and he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and silver; and they shall offer to Yahweh offerings in righteousness. 4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to Yahweh as in the days of old and as in ancient years.
5 I will come near to you to judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against the perjurers, and against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and who deprive the foreigner of justice, and don’t fear me,” says Yahweh of Armies.
6 “For I, Yahweh, don’t change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed. 7 From the days of your fathers you have turned away from my ordinances and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says Yahweh of Armies. “But you say, ‘How shall we return?

Jesus comes as the messenger of the covenant and comes in judgment. Then we see he comes near them in judgment as Yahweh of Armies.

 

[mikesw]

Yes, John 3:16 does help the Bible's position about the Son being offspring, not an eternal being. The Son is never called eternal in the Bible. This is not really an "argument" or "my view" but rather an objective fact about what the Bible says, presented to you in its plain meaning. Agreeing with Scripture doesn't seem to be one of your strong points. Maybe you should work on that.

The only reason you find an argument for your view in John 3:16 is that you begin by denying God is the father of his Son. You argument is based on the premise that "begotten" of God cannot include the Son having essence of his father in that process. You then are denying all common details about having a child and who that child is. I cannot reduce myself to such ignorance -- or simple ignoring of facts.

 

[civic]

The only reason you find an argument for your view in John 3:16 is that you begin by denying God is the father of his Son. You argument is based on the premise that "begotten" of God cannot include the Son having essence of his father in that process. You then are denying all common details about having a child and who that child is. I cannot reduce myself to such ignorance -- or simple ignoring of facts.

ditto

 

[mikesw]

ditto

Oops. Not much to quote from you.
Scholars on Paul's writings do some of the same thing I see here. They pursue a line of study of his letters such as proposing that Paul remained dedicated to practicing Judaism. They then start interpreting everything with that presupposition. It can be helpful to a point, namely seeing if an alternative reading works. But after it has failed, it should be disregarded.

 

[civic]

Oops. Not much to quote from you.
Scholars on Paul's writings do some of the same thing I see here. They pursue a line of study of his letters such as proposing that Paul remained dedicated to practicing Judaism. They then start interpreting everything with that presupposition. It can be helpful to a point, namely seeing if an alternative reading works. But after it has failed, it should be disregarded.

One thing I have learned over the years which is not an easy discipline is to read any passage as if its the first time you have read the passage with fresh eyes and no presuppositions. You would be surprised to see the ways God will reveal His truth. You will discover things you have not seen or known before. There are so many facets to scripture like looking at a beautiful diamond seeing its many facets from the light shining through it.

For example I was a calvinist for over 4 decades and once I began to question those beliefs God opened up His word in new ways to me. Once I abandoned those calvinist presuppositions I saw God in a much more glorious way and the floodgates opened up and scripture came "alive" again, new and fresh on a daily basis. I was discovering things about God in new ways. I saw the Trinity differently than I had before but in a much better, harmonious way.