All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Runningman]

Both the Father and the Son may be called Lord. But you deny scriptures, so what does it matter to you? In Romans 10, it favors speaking of Jesus as Lord. Oh wait. It says that too.

God and Jesus aren't the same Lord is what you should have noticed. There is God who is Jesus' Lord (1 Cor. 11:3) and there is Jesus who is Lord of the church (Eph. 1:22) but God is the Father who is Lord over a different domain than Jesus. The Father, who is the only true God, is said to be the Lord of heaven and earth (Matt 11:25) and the Lord of heaven and earth is the Creator (Acts 17:24,25) and these are divine titles Jesus is never identified wiith. The Father is the Lord over all (Ephesians 4:4-6) and God and Jesus aren't equal in power, authority, etc.

So you wish to dilute who Christ is? There are a variety of usage but we have Jesus' identity identified especially such except for those who will not hear what scripture says.

So you said Jesus is divine and human because of his titles, but when others have the same titles as Jesus you can't explain that.

 

[mikesw]

God and Jesus aren't the same Lord is what you should have noticed. There is God who is Jesus' Lord (1 Cor. 11:3) and there is Jesus who is Lord of the church (Eph. 1:22) but God is the Father who is Lord over a different domain than Jesus. The Father, who is the only true God, is said to be the Lord of heaven and earth (Matt 11:25) and the Lord of heaven and earth is the Creator (Acts 17:24,25) and these are divine titles Jesus is never identified wiith. God is the Lord overall (Ephesians 4:4-6) and God and Jesus aren't equal in power, authority, etc.

You are disregarding ambiguities here. You are denying John 1. You are denying Acts 3:15 with Jesus as the Author of Life. It is hardly worth listening to your endless denials

So you said Jesus is divine and human because of his titles, but when others have the same titles as Jesus you can't explain that.

I'm not exploring the whole bible at the moment to support your deception. You do not know about typology and some unclear terms like "sons of God" in Job. This does not deny the unique application to Jesus --at least for those who will listen.

 

[Aaron]

God ‘is by His essence a society.’ The three Persons are the three members of this society. Viewed from within, God is ‘love in eternal exercise, existing through personal distinctions, yet in community of life, … in ceaseless flow and ebb, streaming from its source in the eternal Subject, retreating from its eternal Object, moving in the unbeginning, unending cycle which is the bosom of the Infinite.’
Dr. Fairbairn

 

[Runningman]

You are disregarding ambiguities here. You are denying John 1. You are denying Acts 3:15 with Jesus as the Author of Life. It is hardly worth listening to your endless denials

I'm not exploring the whole bible at the moment to support your deception. You do not know about typology and some unclear terms like "sons of God" in Job. This does not deny the unique application to Jesus --at least for those who will listen.

Your argument requires agreeing with your opinions. May statements require just agreeing with the Bible. Big difference. Again, it must be super tough teaching a trinity with no teaching material from the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

God ‘is by His essence a society.’ The three Persons are the three members of this society. Viewed from within, God is ‘love in eternal exercise, existing through personal distinctions, yet in community of life, … in ceaseless flow and ebb, streaming from its source in the eternal Subject, retreating from its eternal Object, moving in the unbeginning, unending cycle which is the bosom of the Infinite.’
Dr. Fairbairn

Please ask Dr. Fairbairn to come here and discuss the trinity if you know him/her. I would love to to see if he/she could do any better.

 

[mikesw]

Your argument requires agreeing with your opinions. May statements require just agreeing with the Bible. Big difference. Again, it must be super tough teaching a trinity with no teaching material from the Bible.

Your view relies on a superficial understanding, like a child's, based on hyper-literalist interpretation. You expect God's to be revealed in a fully anthropomorphic sense. Plus, you disregard all the passages that reflect the divinity of Christ, which reduces the scriptures that you use to form your opinion. When it comes to those passages, you just gloss over them in too many of the situations, or you offer up an incredulous explanation -- again, your simplistic, hyper-literalist reading. Not sure how to help you get beyond that -- and hoping it is not a reflection of a rejection of Christ.
I basically looked at some of yours and others' posts if perchance there was a better explanation of the divinity of Christ and the Trinitarian understanding. Nothing has been better than the Trinitarian view yet.

 

[Runningman]

Your view relies on a superficial understanding, like a child's, based on hyper-literalist interpretation. You expect God's to be revealed in a fully anthropomorphic sense. Plus, you disregard all the passages that reflect the divinity of Christ, which reduces the scriptures that you use to form your opinion. When it comes to those passages, you just gloss over them in too many of the situations, or you offer up an incredulous explanation -- again, your simplistic, hyper-literalist reading. Not sure how to help you get beyond that -- and hoping it is not a reflection of a rejection of Christ.

My views rely on what the Bible says. Your views rely on your interpretation. Your views are neither logical, intuitive, and are riddled with contradictions. The trinity is a false doctrine and you have an idol. It's all been proven to you. It's going to be interesting watching you trying to quote a single verse or passage about the trinity from the Bible. It isn't as all convincing to reject the exclusive deity of the Father in exchange for something the Bible doesn't say. It's pitiful how stubbornly blind you people are.

 

[mikesw]

My views rely on what the Bible says. Your views rely on your interpretation. Your views are neither logical, intuitive, and are riddled with contradictions. The trinity is a false doctrine and you have an idol. It's all been proven to you. It's going to be interesting watching you trying to quote a single verse or passage about the trinity from the Bible. It isn't as all convincing to reject the exclusive deity of the Father in exchange for something the Bible doesn't say. It's pitiful how stubbornly blind you people are.

Your point is totally ignorant. Any time you read the scriptures and decide you think you understand what you read, you have interpreted the text. So you do not even understand the concept of "interpretation." How can we trust anything you say when you fail to recognize even that concept?

 

[Runningman]

Your point is totally ignorant. Any time you read the scriptures and decide you think you understand what you read, you have interpreted the text. So you do not even understand the concept of "interpretation." How can we trust anything you say when you fail to recognize even that concept?

It's almost like you don't believe the Bible. I haven't seen you agree with a single verse I have put up here. I also have not seen you provide any Biblical evidence for any of your interpretations or commentary.

 

[mikesw]

It's almost like you don't believe the Bible. I haven't seen you agree with a single verse I have put up here. I also have not seen you provide any Biblical evidence for any of your interpretations or commentary.

Well. Enjoy life.

 

[Runningman]

Now that that one is done, I want to hear from every Trinitarian on this board.

Please show a single verse or passage that describes God as more than one person.

 

[mikesw]

Now that that one is done, I want to hear from every Trinitarian on this board.

Please show a single verse or passage that describes God as more than one person.

Maybe others will try to take on the task of teaching a unitarian, a denier of Christ, some logic. But you can continue to congratulate yourself on your ignorance.

 

[Runningman]

Maybe others will try to take on the task of teaching a unitarian, a denier of Christ, some logic. But you can continue to congratulate yourself on your ignorance.

Do you deny that the son of God was fathered?

 

[Peterlag]

Do you deny that the son of God was fathered?

I never saw a trinity person answer my one little itty bitty question. Not one out of all the debates I have seen on so many sites over the years. At best they say God did not have to tell us that. The question:

Where in the Bible does it say we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

 

[mikesw]

Do you deny that the son of God was fathered?

God was his father. That is the apparent purpose of the virgin birth. Do you deny the virgin birth along with all other pertinent scripture?

 

[Runningman]

I never saw a trinity person answer my one little itty bitty question. Not one out of all the debates I have seen on so many sites over the years. At best they say God did not have to tell us that. The question:

Where in the Bible does it say we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

Right and that is what doctrines are, which are the very same things that are heavily condemned by the Bible. They take a little bit here, take a little bit there, put it all together and thus abuse the very sacred Scriptures they think they are preserving. The Pharisees were heavily rebuked for such things. Apparently, it was such a big problem that even Peter of all people was saying it would get people destroyed. John said that altering his writings in Revelation would make someone lose their salvation.

This thing is is that the Scriptures already are the revelation from God and there is no invitation to add to them or take away from them. There is no invitation to take something Jesus, Paul, and anyone else said in what was recorded and mix it all together and form a conclusion other than the conclusion that was already presented.

As you said, there are no statements about the trinity in the Bible. With as something as important as who God is and the written testimony that Jesus revealed who God is then one would think that would be in the Bible, but of course it's not. Jesus was a strict monotheist and what we would call a Unitarian by today's standards. He plainly taught to worship, pray to, fast for, and serve the Father who he called the only true God. He lead by example and practiced what he preached.

For some reason, Jesus' teachings were offensive to a lot of people. It may not be readily apparent as to why, but when you love the truth it's difficult to assume the rationale of those who hate it. There is a major spiritual component to what God taught Jesus to teach about and it ultimately boils down to a matter a light versus darkness, not only in a figurative sense, but in a literal good versus evil sense. That's why they simply reject the matter of the Father being the only true God. The people are of this world are usually easier to reach than them as they have not been corrupted by their false doctrines.

 

[Runningman]

God was his father. That is the apparent purpose of the virgin birth. Do you deny the virgin birth along with all other pertinent scripture?

The virgin birth is true and Mary was the "mother of the Lord" but not the mother of God right? Why did you say "was" and why did you lowercase Father? Who is the "father" of Jesus in your belief?

 

[mikesw]

The virgin birth is true and Mary was the "mother of the Lord" but not the mother of God right? Why did you say "was" and why did you lowercase Father? Who is the "father" of Jesus in your belief?

Some like to say mother of God but she does not contribute the divinity. That divinity comes from God the Father. I think you have a hard time comprehending things. I say "was" since that incarnation just was initiated in the past -- not a constant process. Also, in English (if I can assist you with this), the role of father is designated with a lowercase. Learning is a daily process and I'm glad I could assist you in this.

 

[Runningman]

Some like to say mother of God but she does not contribute the divinity. That divinity comes from God the Father. I think you have a hard time comprehending things. I say "was" since that incarnation just was initiated in the past -- not a constant process. Also, in English (if I can assist you with this), the role of father is designated with a lowercase. Learning is a daily process and I'm glad I could assist you in this.

So Jesus isn't literally God's begotten son, as Scripture explcitly says, to you?

 

[mikesw]

So Jesus isn't literally God's begotten son, as Scripture explcitly says, to you?

I'm not sure what you issue is. There are various implications of begotten Son. It can refer to having the Kingship through resurrection or reflecting back on Jesus' birth for his incarnation.
Are you denying the virgin birth where God initiated the birth?
You just seem to prefer to deny Christ.