All Claims of The Son's Deity

[amazing grace]

The divine one who is distinct from the Father is that essence that is what makes the human son also continuing with his divine Spirit. How did God do that? Well. It is not too hard since God created all things anyhow. You do not have to know the physiology or this to accept what God can do.

God created Jesus in the womb of Mary - an essence wasn't created - a human nature wasn't created - a human being, the Son of God, was created.

I am not speaking of Modalism. No, what the Trinity doctrine teaches is that God came in the flesh, God came as a human being, i.e. the incarnation. Wouldn't He have had to become flesh by way of Mary's conception which would basically be God conceiving God? or did He wait until Jesus was born then entered the child? Just exactly when did Jesus become God - at conception or birth?

You view this as creating a new god. So you are trying to envision this as polytheism.

No, I don't view it as creating a new God - I don't view it as creating any God.

Nothing about creating a new God or another God - it's about HOW God came in the flesh.

I do not see this at birth because it seems it is of Greco-Roman concepts that a soul enters at birth. It is typical that the fetus from inception is both human and the second One of the Trinity. I do not see how this diminishes what God can do.

So, you do not see God becoming flesh at the birth or the time of conception? But you are saying that the 'second one of the Trinity' became flesh at the inception? Yet God is one - so the 'second one of the Trinity' would still be God, right?

Furthermore, we learn that Jesus did not become God at some point in time. That is a big misconception if someone tries to view it in that fashion. His divine existence has always existed. It just was not in the flesh until coming as Jesus.

God has always been, has always existed. Jesus had a beginning - a starting point - when he was conceived. The book of the genealogy [generation KJV] of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, etc. etc. etc. . . . . That is the genesis - source, origin; a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated; used of birth, nativity . . . of Jesus Christ. "It" was not in the flesh until coming as Jesus - what wasn't in the flesh till coming as Jesus?

I can see that you are trying to overthink this as if trying to understand exactly where and how a miracle happened -- such as giving a blind man his sight with spittle.

No, actually it seems pretty simple to me - by a miracle God through his creative power caused Mary to conceive. She conceived and gave birth to a human son, the son was called the Son of God because God was his Father.

All I'm trying to figure out or have someone explain - Just exactly when did Jesus become God - at conception or birth? Or let me rephrase that - when did God become flesh? when did God become a human being? when did God become one of his created beings. And if God was Jesus then Jesus was God, i.e. deity.

 

[Runningman]

FYI. An "argument from silence" isn't about rejecting a specific word. This is a classic, textbook, error.

An argument from silence occurs when someone claims a conclusion is true because the text does not explicitly say the opposite. It treats the absence of a statement as if it were evidence for the claim.

For example, @mikesw said "nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus is not One within that only true God." [sic]

 

[Runningman]

Who else is like the Son?

A lot apparently.

Hebrews 2
17For this reason He had to be made like His brothers in every way, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, in order to make atonement

 

[Runningman]

Were you there?

Job 40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?

Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.

No I wasn't there. That's YHWH talking so we know automatically that that's not Jesus. In Scripture, YHWH is only ever described as a singular person, not a they or them, and sometimes called Father, but never Son, which is identical to what I believe. You believe something opposite from me, something about God being a they and three persons, which is not what the Bible says. Why not just call it done and agree with the Bible? I am really curious. What are you protecting?

 

[amazing grace]

Must you be reminded constantly that Paul would not have to say speak in this fashion if Jesus were just a sinless human? To say what you want to twist this to, Paul would write: God birthed a typical man who though who remained sinless and died somehow to condemn sin. You constantly deny who Jesus is

That is just how Paul spoke . . .the language and culture of the time needs to be considered.

That Jesus who came also is the one who speaks as Yahweh in verse 5:
Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers "

“I am coming to put you on trial” (NJB), “I shall appear before you in court” (REB); see also NIV2011, NLT). I am coming to judge you . . . Yahweh will come against the people in judgment through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, [John 5:22]
He is behind what the Son judges . . . Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. [John 8:16]

You deny that because you deny who Jesus is

Nope, I don't ----- it is actually you who denies who Jesus is.

 

[mikesw]

God created Jesus in the womb of Mary - an essence wasn't created - a human nature wasn't created - a human being, the Son of God, was created.

You do not understand Christ at all. Essence of God did not have to be created because the one noted as logos already existed. A human nature was inherent in Jesus. So you misconstrue everything and have a failed concept of Jesus not actually Son of God but only son of Mary.

No, I don't view it as creating a new God - I don't view it as creating any God.

Then you created a strawman. You are just not comprehending that God sends One of his Triune self. It is okay that you do not understand the way this happens but you should not deny Christ.

Nothing about creating a new God or another God - it's about HOW God came in the flesh.

If you cannot understand the process of the logos-designated one took on flesh, it is not a problem since this is a one time miracle.

So, you do not see God becoming flesh at the birth or the time of conception? But you are saying that the 'second one of the Trinity' became flesh at the inception? Yet God is one - so the 'second one of the Trinity' would still be God, right?

Scripture can only be reconciled by realizing Jesus cannot be a separate god. He is of the same God as found in the oneness of the Shema. There is no other way to see this since no one doubts Deut 6:4.
I'm not sure how I worded things earlier. I will say humanity and divinity combined in the inception of Jesus. Maybe your failure to understand God is due to the confusion you express here.

God has always been, has always existed. Jesus had a beginning - a starting point - when he was conceived. The book of the genealogy [generation KJV] of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, etc. etc. etc. . . . . That is the genesis - source, origin; a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated; used of birth, nativity . . . of Jesus Christ. "It" was not in the flesh until coming as Jesus - what wasn't in the flesh till coming as Jesus?

You are right that Jesus had a beginning since his body had not existed eternally beforehand. But he existed without the name Jesus before his inception. John 17:5 indicates that, without including all the details of his inception. So you are right inasmuch as you talk about the body of Jesus, but you miss the critical detail of his divinity as shown in John 1.

No, actually it seems pretty simple to me - by a miracle God through his creative power caused Mary to conceive. She conceived and gave birth to a human son, the son was called the Son of God because God was his Father.

Whatever has been simple to you appears also to be very wrong. You have missed that God is his father because Jesus has divinity as the one and only Son of God (John 3:16). You deny what a son is-- go figure.

All I'm trying to figure out or have someone explain - Just exactly when did Jesus become God - at conception or birth? Or let me rephrase that - when did God become flesh? when did God become a human being? when did God become one of his created beings. And if God was Jesus then Jesus was God, i.e. deity.

Everything is answered above. You now are informed.

 

[mikesw]

That is just how Paul spoke . . .the language and culture of the time needs to be considered.

Really? You admit the culture and language element but claim this is a normal way of talking. I doubt you understand Paul's writing even on a superficial level.

“I am coming to put you on trial” (NJB), “I shall appear before you in court” (REB); see also NIV2011, NLT). I am coming to judge you . . . Yahweh will come against the people in judgment through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, [John 5:22]
He is behind what the Son judges . . . Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. [John 8:16]

You just admitted what I said. Jesus is God and thus is the judge here. Just let that sink in.

Nope, I don't ----- it is actually you who denies who Jesus is.

hahaha. get real.

 

[amazing grace]

You do not understand Christ at all. Essence of God did not have to be created because the one noted as logos already existed. A human nature was inherent in Jesus. So you misconstrue everything and have a failed concept of Jesus not actually Son of God but only son of Mary.

The 'word', the logos which already existed - an object had essence? What did the author of John have in mind when he wrote the prologue of John? How would the readers of the day have understood what was being said? They would have drawn their understanding from the OT thus having NO concept of a Triune God nor Trinity. (to which most scholars agree)
It is not I who misconstrue the scripture . . . the word, the logos is not something that has essence. It was God's word/wisdom which was in the beginning with God. It was God's word/wisdom became embodied in flesh and fully expressed who God is/was.

Then you created a strawman. You are just not comprehending that God sends One of his Triune self. It is okay that you do not understand the way this happens but you should not deny Christ.

So, the Triune God is in his dwelling place - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are discussing creation in the beginning and when it was time for the logos, God's word to become flesh - the Father sent the Son.
For this to occur the third part of His Triune self separated himself from the Father, empowered Mary to conceive then the second part of his Triune self, the Son developed in the womb of Mary and was born? . . . Just asking.
Me who denies Christ???

If you cannot understand the process of the logos-designated one took on flesh, it is not a problem since this is a one time miracle.

Scripture can only be reconciled by realizing Jesus cannot be a separate god. He is of the same God as found in the oneness of the Shema. There is no other way to see this since no one doubts Deut 6:4.

Again, I never said anything about a separate God . . . Nothing about creating a new God or another God - it's about HOW God came in the flesh.

I'm not sure how I worded things earlier. I will say humanity and divinity combined in the inception of Jesus. Maybe your failure to understand God is due to the confusion you express here.

So, you do not see God becoming flesh at the birth or the time of conception? But you are saying that the 'second one of the Trinity' became flesh at the inception? Yet God is one - so the 'second one of the Trinity' would still be God, right?

How did divinity combine with humanity at the inception of Jesus? Maybe your failure to understand lies in the fact that the inception was a miracle. The regular biological process did not occur . . . Jesus was ONLY human - the offspring of the woman.

You are right that Jesus had a beginning since his body had not existed eternally beforehand. But he existed without the name Jesus before his inception. John 17:5 indicates that, without including all the details of his inception. So you are right inasmuch as you talk about the body of Jesus, but you miss the critical detail of his divinity as shown in John 1.

He existed in the foreknowledge of God as His Messiah, as the one to come redeem and reconcile fallen humanity back to Him.
There is not divinity of Jesus shown in John 1.

Whatever has been simple to you appears also to be very wrong. You have missed that God is his father because Jesus has divinity as the one and only Son of God (John 3:16). You deny what a son is-- go figure.

Everything is answered above. You now are informed.

I haven't missed that God is Jesus Father - He is Jesus Father because by his power Jesus was created in the womb of Mary the only Son of God as per John 3:16. And a Son is NOT the Father and the Father is the only true God. . . . therefore, I deny that Jesus is God.

And you are misinformed.

 

[amazing grace]

Really? You admit the culture and language element but claim this is a normal way of talking. I doubt you understand Paul's writing even on a superficial level.

You cannot honestly say how Paul would state anything . . . you were not there and you did not live in that time era. I understand what Paul MEANT perfectly well at Romans 8:3.

You just admitted what I said. Jesus is God and thus is the judge here. Just let that sink in.
hahaha. get real.

That Jesus who came also is the one who speaks as Yahweh in verse 5:
Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers "

You deny that because you deny who Jesus is.

Nope, I did not agree that Jesus is the one speaking as Yahweh in verse 5. I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers . . . do not fear me says the LORD of host.
For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, [John 5:22]

Yahweh will come near to the sinners via His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
He will draw near in judgment through his Son . . . it is Yahweh speaking concerning his Son as his agent, as his representative, as the one who comes in His name.
For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” [John 23:39]
I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. [John 5:43]
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, [John 10:25]

Nope, I don't ----- it is actually you who denies who Jesus is.

 

[mikesw]

The 'word', the logos which already existed - an object had essence? What did the author of John have in mind when he wrote the prologue of John? How would the readers of the day have understood what was being said?

I know one problem in this forum approach is that people miss important details because they have entered in the middle of the discussion instead of seeing the broad one.

The Word is used as a metonym because he had not been named in the OT. We see he gets identified in incarnation as Jesus. So indeed the Word has essence unless you deny God existed before John wrote. In saying this I have to assume you would be interested in what scripture says.

John most likely had in mind Philo's use of the logos in his writings. As such, John shows this logos to be identified with Christ. They would then understand John's approach from the culture. Also, gentiles would understand it from Greco-Roman culture which also is answered by John's approach. See what true exegesis contributes to understanding?

They would have drawn their understanding from the OT thus having NO concept of a Triune God nor Trinity. (to which most scholars agree)
It is not I who misconstrue the scripture . . . the word, the logos is not something that has essence. It was God's word/wisdom which was in the beginning with God. It was God's word/wisdom became embodied in flesh and fully expressed who God is/was.

I constantly share of the study shared in the Two Powers of Heaven by Segal. The Jews had debated how they could see the Angel of Yahweh talking to Yahweh and then later is called Yahweh. So the scholars you find speaking against Jewish beliefs lack this insight.
It is stupid to realize the one called Logos was with God and was God yet did not exist and have the essence of God. Not sure how you deny his existence and essence.

So, the Triune God is in his dwelling place - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are discussing creation in the beginning and when it was time for the logos, God's word to become flesh - the Father sent the Son.

Uh. I can see you remain in confusion thinking God is his own dwelling place. I suppose I could say Mike is the dwelling place of Mike, but that would not make those different people or different "things."
You do almost speak it right that he who became known as Jesus was discussing or interacting together in creation. The Word was not some echo box but is One distinct from the Father.

For this to occur the third part of His Triune self separated himself from the Father, empowered Mary to conceive then the second part of his Triune self, the Son developed in the womb of Mary and was born? . . . Just asking.
Me who denies Christ???

God does appear able to do something in that separation of activity. No one I have heard speaks of this as three parts though. Anyhow God does not have to tell us how this differs from the Angel of the Lord speaking to Yahweh and then being called Yahweh. If we knew all that ... that would be like an ant understanding what people do.
So I hope you do not keep deny who Christ is because the mind of man cannot comprehend God at any significant depth of understanding.

Again, I never said anything about a separate God . . . Nothing about creating a new God or another God - it's about HOW God came in the flesh.

I only noted that because Jesus is God in the flesh, he cannot be a separate god but is of the One God with the Father and Spirit.
As to how God did that, it is far beyond my ability to know how God has done all of creation and how he works when doing some one time event such as incarnation. Maybe your earlier questions have led you to understand some scope of how this happens -- and removed some things that blocked you from accepting what God has done.

How did divinity combine with humanity at the inception of Jesus? Maybe your failure to understand lies in the fact that the inception was a miracle. The regular biological process did not occur . . . Jesus was ONLY human - the offspring of the woman.

How does a baby have a soul at inception? And I thoroughly admit there is a miracle here since no physical man had relations with Mary. However, since this is God who is the Father, we know Jesus's essence also is God. But you still remain confused and deny God is Jesus' Father and they have the same essence. But now that some discussion is done on this, you can start to understand in the sense of constraints of what happened even though not knowing how exactly God could interact to become flesh.
The other sense here is that Paul has noted that the spirit of man is dead without Christ. In this sense, we can speculate that Jesus's spirit is distinctly alive with that essence of God inseparable in one sense but also distinct in another sense from the Father. The aspect of humanity that normal is dead actually is the one identified as Logos.

He existed in the foreknowledge of God as His Messiah, as the one to come redeem and reconcile fallen humanity back to Him.
There is not divinity of Jesus shown in John 1.

Such a great misconstruction of what John 1 shows. Maybe that is a skill to totally mess up the meaning. You should rid yourself of that skill.

I haven't missed that God is Jesus Father - He is Jesus Father because by his power Jesus was created in the womb of Mary the only Son of God as per John 3:16. And a Son is NOT the Father and the Father is the only true God. . . . therefore, I deny that Jesus is God.

You finally are agreeing with part of the Trinity summary. the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son but they are still one God. This also means that Jesus, as God, is not a separate god. You just have to get some of these details sorted out instead of pulverizing the ideas.

 

[mikesw]

You cannot honestly say how Paul would state anything . . . you were not there and you did not live in that time era. I understand what Paul MEANT perfectly well at Romans 8:3.

Really? I think for you to say this simply indicates you do know understand anything about language, from a technical sense. There are reasonable and somewhat standard bases for expecting people to be efficient in their wording. You just wish to deny what Paul said. You do that without explaining why he would use inefficient language.

Nope, I did not agree that Jesus is the one speaking as Yahweh in verse 5. I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers . . . do not fear me says the LORD of host.
For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, [John 5:22]

who said that Jesus was speaking as Yahweh? I suppose the answer also must be addressed as if Jesus is not Yahweh -- for sake of discussion.
I said Jesus is judging because he is Yahweh. We already see Jesus is the one who was to come in Malachi 3. He is the one who is present and will judge per John 5:22. Thus Jesus is Yahweh as found in Mal 3:5

5“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts.

But the unitarian has to keep denying who Jesus is, even in the face of scriptural evidence, or the unitarian admits honestly of his inconsistency in reading scripture.

Yahweh will come near to the sinners via His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
He will draw near in judgment through his Son . . . it is Yahweh speaking concerning his Son as his agent, as his representative, as the one who comes in His name.
For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” [John 23:39]
I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. [John 5:43]
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, [John 10:25]

So you string unrelated passages together to make a false argument! Not a very good practice

 

[mikesw]

We see the divinity of Christ in the Godhead in this passage:
1 Corinthians 2:14–16 (NASB95)
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

If the mind of Christ that we are given is not Christ Jesus in the Godhead, then we cannot know the mind of Yahweh per Isa 40:13. I am concerned that the unitarians' constant error about the divinity of Christ in the Godhead offers the indication they truly do not have the mind of Christ. Too many passages testify to the divinity of Christ, which makes the unitarians' persistence all the more dangerous of their view.

I should express some appreciation for the unitarians helping to lead me to more and more testimony of scripture that shows the divinity of Christ in the Godhead.

 

[Runningman]

I know one problem in this forum approach is that people miss important details because they have entered in the middle of the discussion instead of seeing the broad one.

Let's begin with who God is first and I am sure a productive conversation can begin after that.

John 14
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe in Me as well.

 

[mikesw]

Let's begin with who God is first and I am sure a productive conversation can begin after that.

John 14
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe in Me as well.

I'm not sure why this would become productive when you have denied everything about God so far.

God is the all powerful creator of the world and exists apart from false gods that have been promoted by certain cultures.

God appears not only in a singular sense but also in a collaborative sense as seen in Genesis 1 and John 1. This bespeaks of God as relational and personal rather than limited in a singular impersonal sense.

God gets distinguished from fake Gods by proving to be powerful and then identified through interaction over the Israel people in the OT.

 

[amazing grace]

I know one problem in this forum approach is that people miss important details because they have entered in the middle of the discussion instead of seeing the broad one.

The Word is used as a metonym because he had not been named in the OT. We see he gets identified in incarnation as Jesus. So indeed the Word has essence unless you deny God existed before John wrote. In saying this I have to assume you would be interested in what scripture says.

So, are you saying that 'word', 'logos' is used as a substitute for 'God' in the OT which would have been the Hebrew equivalent 'dabar'? God's word is what God speaks . . . how God expresses himself. Jesus was the divine self-expression and wisdom of God that became a physical human being NOT God himself. There is no 'essence' in God's spoken word nor in his wisdom.
Of course God existed before John wrote.

After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” [Gen. 15:1] God spoke to Abraham - What God spoke to Abraham had essence?
Balaam said to Balak, “Behold, I have come to you! Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.” [Numbers 22:30] So the word that God put in Balaam's mouth had essence?
I don't think so. God didn't become flesh - the word became flesh - God's self expression became flesh.

John most likely had in mind Philo's use of the logos in his writings. As such, John shows this logos to be identified with Christ. They would then understand John's approach from the culture. Also, gentiles would understand it from Greco-Roman culture which also is answered by John's approach. See what true exegesis contributes to understanding?

The logos is identified with Jesus because it was the word that became flesh and dwelt among us and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son (aka Jesus) from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Nothing you have said is from scripture but from philosophies outside scripture - How is that proper exegesis of scripture?

I constantly share of the study shared in the Two Powers of Heaven by Segal. The Jews had debated how they could see the Angel of Yahweh talking to Yahweh and then later is called Yahweh. So the scholars you find speaking against Jewish beliefs lack this insight.
It is stupid to realize the one called Logos was with God and was God yet did not exist and have the essence of God. Not sure how you deny his existence and essence.

I only see one person in heaven namely Yahweh, Almighty God, our Heavenly Father. The logos is NOT a person.
The logos was embodied in Jesus later than in the beginning - In the beginning was God's word and God's word was with him in what he said, what he spoke, commandments he gave, etc. . . and that word was the full expression of God - God's word fully expressed who he was ------ that full self expression of God became flesh - embodied in the Son from the Father, Jesus.

Uh. I can see you remain in confusion thinking God is his own dwelling place. I suppose I could say Mike is the dwelling place of Mike, but that would not make those different people or different "things."
You do almost speak it right that he who became known as Jesus was discussing or interacting together in creation. The Word was not some echo box but is One distinct from the Father.

Who is 'Our Father who art in heaven', isn't that referring to God in heaven?
I was being facetious ---- the us, our, in Genesis were the angels the only other created beings.

I do not see this at birth because it seems it is of Greco-Roman concepts that a soul enters at birth. It is typical that the fetus from inception is both human and the second One of the Trinity. I do not see how this diminishes what God can do.

So, you do not see God becoming flesh at the birth or the time of conception? But you are saying that the 'second one of the Trinity' became flesh at the inception? Yet God is one - so the 'second one of the Trinity' would still be God, right?
All I'm trying to figure out or have someone explain - Just exactly when did Jesus become God - at conception or birth? Or let me rephrase that - when did God become flesh? when did God become a human being? when did God become one of his created beings. And if God was Jesus then Jesus was God, i.e. deity.

God does appear able to do something in that separation of activity. No one I have heard speaks of this as three parts though. Anyhow God does not have to tell us how this differs from the Angel of the Lord speaking to Yahweh and then being called Yahweh. If we knew all that ... that would be like an ant understanding what people do. So I hope you do not keep deny who Christ is because the mind of man cannot comprehend God at any significant depth of understanding.

You suggested that 'the second one of the Trinity became flesh at the inception which would mean that he is no longer a part of the Triune God. Yes, God is a single, simple, and undivided being without parts or compositions. . . .
It's not what is written in the word of God or what scripture declares about God that I cannot comprehend . . . . I cannot comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity - it makes no sense whatsoever. I

I only noted that because Jesus is God in the flesh, he cannot be a separate god but is of the One God with the Father and Spirit.
As to how God did that, it is far beyond my ability to know how God has done all of creation and how he works when doing some one time event such as incarnation. Maybe your earlier questions have led you to understand some scope of how this happens -- and removed some things that blocked you from accepting what God has done.

God tells us exactly how Jesus came to be - how he was conceived in Matthew and in Luke

All I'm trying to figure out or have someone explain - Just exactly when did Jesus become God - at conception or birth? Or let me rephrase that - when did God become flesh? when did God become a human being? when did God become one of his created beings. And if God was Jesus then Jesus was God, i.e. deity.

And if you don't know then just say you don't know!

How does a baby have a soul at inception? And I thoroughly admit there is a miracle here since no physical man had relations with Mary. However, since this is God who is the Father, we know Jesus's essence also is God. But you still remain confused and deny God is Jesus' Father and they have the same essence. But now that some discussion is done on this, you can start to understand in the sense of constraints of what happened even though not knowing how exactly God could interact to become flesh.

That's what I am trying to get you to explain - how is Jesus' 'essence' God? Because it makes no sense is why I am still confused. Again if you don't know just say I don't know.

I deny that Jesus is God - - - I do NOT deny that God is his Father.

Jesus was 'the seed of the woman' the offspring of the woman. No physical matter combined with hers for her to conceive - It was a miracle act of creation within the womb of Mary.

The other sense here is that Paul has noted that the spirit of man is dead without Christ. In this sense, we can speculate that Jesus's spirit is distinctly alive with that essence of God inseparable in one sense but also distinct in another sense from the Father. The aspect of humanity that normal is dead actually is the one identified as Logos.

No - what you noted above is not physical birth but it is the spiritual new birth, the new creation. We are dead in sins but made alive in Christ - even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved . . .

Such a great misconstruction of what John 1 shows. Maybe that is a skill to totally mess up the meaning. You should rid yourself of that skill.

thanks but no thanks - knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

You finally are agreeing with part of the Trinity summary. the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son but they are still one God. This also means that Jesus, as God, is not a separate god. You just have to get some of these details sorted out instead of pulverizing the ideas.

How do you understand John 14:1? “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me." . . . We are to believe in God and in addition we are to believe in Jesus. . . if Jesus is God IMO this would be two gods.
In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” . . . testimony of two people - if Jesus, being one witness, is God and the Father, who is the other witness, is God . . . Again IMO two people who are both God - two gods.

 

[amazing grace]

Really? I think for you to say this simply indicates you do know understand anything about language, from a technical sense. There are reasonable and somewhat standard bases for expecting people to be efficient in their wording. You just wish to deny what Paul said. You do that without explaining why he would use inefficient language.

I have no desire to deny what Paul said - I understand exactly what he said and the manner in which he said it.

who said that Jesus was speaking as Yahweh?

You did.

That Jesus who came also is the one who speaks as Yahweh in verse 5:
Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers "

I suppose the answer also must be addressed as if Jesus is not Yahweh -- for sake of discussion.
I said Jesus is judging because he is Yahweh. We already see Jesus is the one who was to come in Malachi 3. He is the one who is present and will judge per John 5:22. Thus Jesus is Yahweh as found in Mal 3:5
5“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts.

Yahweh will come near to the sinners via His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

So you string unrelated passages together to make a false argument! Not a very good practice

He will draw near in judgment through his Son . . . it is Yahweh speaking concerning his Son as his agent, as his representative, as the one who comes in His name.
For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” [John 23:39]
I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. [John 5:43]
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, [John 10:25]

These passages are related - they relate to the fact that Jesus came in his Father's name and as his agent, the one sent by God to accomplish the things God wanted done ---- he had authority to use his Father's name.

The Law of Agency deals with the status of a person (known as the agent) acting by direction of another (the principal), and thereby legally binding the principal in his connection with a third person. The person who binds a principal in this manner is his agent, known in Jewish law as sheluaḥ or sheliaḥ (one that is sent): the relation of the former to the latter is known as agency (sheliḥut). The general principle is enunciated thus: A man's agent is like himself (Ḳid. 41b).

But the unitarian has to keep denying who Jesus is, even in the face of scriptural evidence, or the unitarian admits honestly of his inconsistency in reading scripture.

Whatever . . . . there's nothing more to say here because you just keep repeating yourself.

 

[mikesw]

So, are you saying that 'word', 'logos' is used as a substitute for 'God' in the OT which would have been the Hebrew equivalent 'dabar'?

I'm sorry you get more confused about who God is despite all the help I have given.
It is helpful that you have indicated metonymy is not the best description of the figure of speech here. Instead John has used metalepsis -- where attributes of logos reflect who Jesus is in pre-existence since the incarnation is the only time we get a name ascribed to this One of the Godhead. It does act as a substitute for this One who is shown as being with God being God. Of course, as we have figured out earlier, the concept of God applies both to unity and completeness but also to individuality within the Godhead. That is what trips up people who fall for unitarianism.

God's word is what God speaks . . . how God expresses himself. Jesus was the divine self-expression and wisdom of God that became a physical human being NOT God himself. There is no 'essence' in God's spoken word nor in his wisdom.
Of course God existed before John wrote.

I see how you get confused with the use of figures of speech here. Hopefully you can examine John 1 in view of language concepts. It would be a serious mistake to say words became flesh or that words were with God. I think you are starting to recognize the problems of such misconceptions though.

After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” [Gen. 15:1] God spoke to Abraham - What God spoke to Abraham had essence?
Balaam said to Balak, “Behold, I have come to you! Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.” [Numbers 22:30] So the word that God put in Balaam's mouth had essence?
I don't think so. God didn't become flesh - the word became flesh - God's self expression became flesh.

Saying that words became flesh is becoming obviously nonsensical as you learn the use of figures of speech. The other exegetical lesson is that ... well... words like "word" have different meanings in different texts. We know that with the word "read" which can be like reading a book or past tense "I read a book" or even of a person well read. These exercises can help you study the scriptures better.

The logos is identified with Jesus because it was the word that became flesh and dwelt among us and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son (aka Jesus) from the Father, full of grace and truth.

It is obvious you will recognize how ignorance propels the idea of words becoming flesh. That is like saying cups become flesh. But we are getting past that type of error I'm sure.

Nothing you have said is from scripture but from philosophies outside scripture - How is that proper exegesis of scripture?

Like in real estate the three guidelines are location, location, location. In scripture, the guideline is context, context, context. This is another important lesson as you seek to read scripture. The context includes those envisioned as readers in John's era.

I only see one person in heaven namely Yahweh, Almighty God, our Heavenly Father. The logos is NOT a person.

You are learning that logos is not a person. Logos is used in a metaleptic sense. I'm glad we have had another moment to clarify the use of figures of speech.
We can help you learn that "person" in common Greek and English is not applicable here. We can help you see that logos provides a placeholder for Jesus's divine existence.

The logos was embodied in Jesus later than in the beginning - In the beginning was God's word and God's word was with him in what he said, what he spoke, commandments he gave, etc. . . and that word was the full expression of God - God's word fully expressed who he was ------ that full self expression of God became flesh - embodied in the Son from the Father, Jesus.

Sure. you are misinterpreting the passage as we have shown in the abuse of "word" as being something spoken by God in this passage. Now that you have seen that error, you should be able to avoid it in future posts.

Who is 'Our Father who art in heaven', isn't that referring to God in heaven?
I was being facetious ---- the us, our, in Genesis were the angels the only other created beings.

I suppose you have an authoritative source to confirm your conjecture that humanity is made in the image of angels. Misinterpretation of scripture can land you in really messy situations.

You suggested that 'the second one of the Trinity became flesh at the inception which would mean that he is no longer a part of the Triune God. Yes, God is a single, simple, and undivided being without parts or compositions. . . .
It's not what is written in the word of God or what scripture declares about God that I cannot comprehend . . . . I cannot comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity - it makes no sense whatsoever. I

That is bad speculation on your part. You do not have to "make sense" of it. You are only part of creation and not part of the Triune God. But you have some ideas how to comprehend the Triune God if you will accept the testimony of scripture.
It is too speculative to think Jesus in his divinity was no longer one with the Father. That is something you have to sort out though. When you create novel doctrine, it is something you should be able to test with others. When errors are shown in your interpretation, you need to fall back on orthodox Christianity.

God tells us exactly how Jesus came to be - how he was conceived in Matthew and in Luke

Exactly. There was no incarnation until Jesus was conceived. That is a basic observation that combines with receiving his divinity in continuity from pre-existence with the Father.

All I'm trying to figure out or have someone explain - Just exactly when did Jesus become God - at conception or birth? Or let me rephrase that - when did God become flesh? when did God become a human being? when did God become one of his created beings. And if God was Jesus then Jesus was God, i.e. deity.

Your confusion is in terminology. Sure we talk about incarnation. But this did not mean that the Word gave up being of what we call God and somehow became only flesh. Nowhere does John share that giving up of being One within the Shema declaration. The essential recognition is that Jesus is 100% of his essence of God and 100% of humanity. Neither one is given up. That is the only concept that keeps the testimony of scripture consistent.

And if you don't know then just say you don't know!

I'm simply helping to give you some ways to move from your misconceptions into some training wheels to gain confidence in God's ability to send his Son incarnate among humanity. You get tripped up in with the concepts behind the words you use -- and try to define reality from your application of the words instead of the context.

That's what I am trying to get you to explain - how is Jesus' 'essence' God? Because it makes no sense is why I am still confused. Again if you don't know just say I don't know.

I deny that Jesus is God - - - I do NOT deny that God is his Father.

Sure we want to get you freed from such denial of Jesus. I have tried to help you from the limitations of words and concepts you have had into a sense of what John 1 reveals.

Jesus was 'the seed of the woman' the offspring of the woman. No physical matter combined with hers for her to conceive - It was a miracle act of creation within the womb of Mary.

No - what you noted above is not physical birth but it is the spiritual new birth, the new creation. We are dead in sins but made alive in Christ - even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved . . .

I'm just helping you see ways how Jesus is both human and God. This seems to be that aspect about Jesus that confuses you the most. This long post will give you more tools and details to guide you to understand the incarnation.

thanks but no thanks - knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Time can fix you up as long as you will accept reasoned instruction from people like people who have graciously answered your issues.

How do you understand John 14:1? “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me." . . . We are to believe in God and in addition we are to believe in Jesus. . . if Jesus is God IMO this would be two gods.
In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” . . . testimony of two people - if Jesus, being one witness, is God and the Father, who is the other witness, is God . . . Again IMO two people who are both God - two gods.

It definitely shows the importance not to deny who Jesus is. I hope you take that critical guidance.
Jesus is speaking to men as a man. He is confirming the word of God. Now if Jesus were simply the words of God and not God, your misunderstanding would have some context.

It is really helpful how you have let me prepare to share more concepts of Jesus that others have failed to recognize.

 

[mikesw]

I wanted to describe the concept of metalepsis.
Metalepsis takes a word (or expression) that has meaning one context so that attributes of its context are carried into a description of something else.

If we say that that woman is a walking encyclopedia. This carries for the sense encyclopedias containing wide knowledge on many topics. The woman is not a physical book and would not normally be thought to be so. She instead has knowledge of many facts and details in the way encyclopedias contain broad knowledge.

A situation of metalepsis could carry forth one prominent idea or many details of the original word or expression. Of course, the use of encyclopedia has been of common usage in the past that people still recognize its use when speaking of such a woman here. The useless details, such as paper, books, color picture and other features do not carry forth to attributes of that woman.

Scholars sometimes use this concept where a NT writer quotes an OT text. So the idea behind Rom 9:27-29 with a quote of Isa 10:20-22 can be the transfer of the broader text of Isaiah 10 into Romans. But, it may be simpler to say that Paul has shown the fulfillment of Isaiah 10 happening in that era. Perhaps some people would instead say that Rom 9:27-29 is not fulfillment but carries for the same type of warning and events found in Isaiah 10-- which then could be described as metalepsis.

Note from the study of the Triune God that metalepsis can be a crucial concept to keep in mind when reading scripture. If it is not understood technically, it still might be recognized intuitively.

 

[Runningman]

I'm not sure why this would become productive when you have denied everything about God so far.

God is the all powerful creator of the world and exists apart from false gods that have been promoted by certain cultures.

Amen.

God appears not only in a singular sense but also in a collaborative sense as seen in Genesis 1 and John 1. This bespeaks of God as relational and personal rather than limited in a singular impersonal sense.

No, you misunderstand the grammar. God is was using an idiom for the divine court, not referring to Himself as plural. The grammar or context doesn't suggest God is plural and the very next verse proves it:

Genesis 1:27
“So God created man in His own image;
in the image of Him He created him;
male and female He created them.”

Isaiah 44
24Thus says the LORD,
your Redeemer who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by Myself spread out the earth,

God gets distinguished from fake Gods by proving to be powerful and then identified through interaction over the Israel people in the OT.

Right, exactly. So God is just one person. Scripture proves it.